 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 2005True or false?
Investing in better lenses and a Canon 20D will result in better photos than spending the extra money on a 5D and buying modest glass? I've seen shots taken with both cameras and I just don't see a huge difference, even with 100% crops. Certainly not as much as between the best versus more modest lenses. -Rich > Investing in better lenses and a Canon 20D will result in better > photos than spending the extra money on a 5D and buying modest glass? > I've seen shots taken with both cameras and I just don't see a huge > difference, even with 100% crops. Certainly not as much as between > the best versus more modest lenses. > -Rich Generally speaking, that is true with most any camera/lens combination. That being said, you have to define "modest glass." I just did some head shots with a 100mm f2 that are out of the park, as good as the same ones with the 70-200 f2.8L. So, a $400 fixed focal length short tele or a $1600 short to mid large aperture zoom? Which is modest? Both cameras will point out the shortcomings in glass, in different ways, in very short order.  SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> Investing in better lenses and a Canon 20D will result in better >> photos than spending the extra money on a 5D and buying modest glass? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Both cameras will point out the shortcomings in glass, in different ways, in >very short order. Very few prime lenses from name brand mfgs (Canon, Nikon) have ever been poor in quality. Same with "most" expensive name brand zooms. I'd describe "modest" as most entry-level zoom lenses and perhaps cheap aftermarket lenses from companies like Tokina and Sigma. -Rich > Investing in better lenses and a Canon 20D will result in better > photos than spending the extra money on a 5D and buying modest glass? False, of course. Why do you persist in thinking it's all about the camera? Because you don't have one yet? > I've seen shots taken with both cameras and I just don't see a huge > difference, even with 100% crops. Certainly not as much as between > the best versus more modest lenses. Or between the best versus more modest photographers? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > Investing in better lenses and a Canon 20D will result in better > photos than spending the extra money on a 5D and buying modest glass? > I've seen shots taken with both cameras and I just don't see a huge > difference, even with 100% crops. Certainly not as much as between > the best versus more modest lenses. > -Rich As always a commercial balance, and it depends heavily on what you are trying to photograph.. True if you don't need super wide angle or larger prints. When comparing full pixel crops, enlarge the 20D pixels 128% to get a fair comparison just given pixel count. Or think of that as about 3 inch wider prints at 300dpi. And of course the full frame means it's a whole different format as far as wide angle & telephoto. > Investing in better lenses and a Canon 20D will result in better > photos than spending the extra money on a 5D and buying modest glass? > I've seen shots taken with both cameras and I just don't see a huge > difference, even with 100% crops. Certainly not as much as between > the best versus more modest lenses. > -Rich > Investing in better lenses and a Canon 20D will result in better > photos than spending the extra money on a 5D and buying modest glass? > I've seen shots taken with both cameras and I just don't see a huge > difference, even with 100% crops. Certainly not as much as between > the best versus more modest lenses. Why don't you let us know when you actually own a camera? > In article <s9bcp1tvpbkkt59pq9pbk1ui137hk8t...@4ax.com>, Rich > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Why don't you let us know when you actually own a camera? That and I'd love to see what a 100% crop looks like. By my figuring, there would be no pixels left once cropped 100%. Austin > That and I'd love to see what a 100% crop looks like. By my figuring, > there would be no pixels left once cropped 100%. > > Austin Ha ha ha. (lol) I was thinking that too. >>In article <s9bcp1tvpbkkt59pq9pbk1ui137hk8t...@4ax.com>, Rich >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Austin SignatureXeke Canon S1 IS & EOS 300d/Digital Rebel -- Home page http://xekes.com Photo gallery http://xekes.com/gallery Flickr http://flickr.com/photos/xekes > Investing in better lenses and a Canon 20D will result in better > photos than spending the extra money on a 5D and buying modest glass? > I've seen shots taken with both cameras and I just don't see a huge > difference, even with 100% crops. Certainly not as much as between > the best versus more modest lenses. Almost certainly, yes. The full-frame sensor in the 5D gives you more value out of existing full-frame wideangle lenses, but that's not a *quality* difference. If you can take the picture with both cameras, there won't be much of any visible difference in the results. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > I've seen shots taken with both cameras 'Seen' being the operative word here, since you've never actually used a camera. Why don't you try getting one, and taking some pics, and then you may begin to understand what the hell you're talking about. >> I've seen shots taken with both cameras > >'Seen' being the operative word here, since you've never actually used a >camera. >Why don't you try getting one, and taking some pics, and then you may begin >to understand what the hell you're talking about. Since so many people post images on the web (except for paranoid nutcases who for some reason think doing that will "hurt" them in some way) it's pretty easy to ascertain camera and lens quality without having to buy each of them. Time change, don't they? -Rich > Investing in better lenses and a Canon 20D will result in better > photos than spending the extra money on a 5D and buying modest glass? > I've seen shots taken with both cameras and I just don't see a huge > difference, even with 100% crops. Certainly not as much as between > the best versus more modest lenses. > -Rich It is said that the 5D will show up the inadequacies of your glass simply by being full frame whereas the '20D crops to the sweet spot'. Its mainly if edge to edge sharpness is a concern. The same was said of the 1d mkII. You really need to be using L lenses to justify the camera or else the improved size and resolution is merely recording the lenses inadequacies. >It is said that the 5D will show up the inadequacies of your glass simply by >being full frame whereas the '20D crops to the sweet spot'. Its mainly if >edge to edge sharpness is a concern. This idea can be kind of misleading, though. If you are using both a FF and a 1.6x-crop camera with the same lens, and printing the images at the same size, you are magnifying the cropped area of the focal plane of the 1.6x camera, so you are reducing resolution at a given contrast to 62.5%. Therefore, unless the resolution of the lens is less than 62.5% in the cropped-away outer rectangle of what it is in the center, the cropped camera image will still be softer at the edges. The center itself will always be sharper with the FF (again, in terms of a same-size print). Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>It is said that the 5D will show up the inadequacies of your glass simply >>by [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > camera image will still be softer at the edges. The center itself will > always be sharper with the FF (again, in terms of a same-size print). Then there is CA, pin cushion, barrel distortion, vignetting. Also there is the problem of awkward angles of light as oposed to straight down onto the sensor. How much of an issue is this in reality? I should think only skip can answer that at the moment. All in all the point that FF will reveal every inadequacy of your lense is still correct. Great sensor crap glass applies to most cameras now with the supplied kit lens. It is really a waste of time to put anything less than the best you can afford in front of a 5D. Up to a point you can get away with it with the cropped sensors. >>>It is said that the 5D will show up the inadequacies of your glass simply >>>by [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the sensor. How much of an issue is this in reality? I should think only > skip can answer that at the moment. In real world terms, it isn't that much of an issue. If I were shooting architecture on a regular basis for clients, distortion might be an issue with the 16-35, which could be a bit ironic, since the FF sensor is the raison d'etre for the 5D, if the lens doesn't do the job, why buy the camera. I haven't used any of the T/S lenses with the 5D, one of the guys at Calumet San Diego was going to do just that this weekend, I'm interested to see his results. but shooting weddings and protraits, all the issues you mention don't really have an effect. > All in all the point that FF will reveal every inadequacy of your lense is > still correct. Great sensor crap glass applies to most cameras now with > the supplied kit lens. It is really a waste of time to put anything less > than the best you can afford in front of a 5D. Up to a point you can get > away with it with the cropped sensors. Very true. Putting the Canon 28-90 on the 5D would make as much sense as putting $30 tires on a Porsche Turbo. It'll accomplish the basic mission, but the nuances will go up in a cloud of metaphorical smoke. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.