 |
 | 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 / Digital Photo / September 2006To 5D, or not to be?
Hypothetically, which of these two "build paths" would be better for the foreseeable future: -FULL FRAME SET- Canon 5D with EF 24-105 f/4L IS EF 70-200 f/4L or -CROPPED SENSOR SET- Canon 30D (or 400D) with EF-S 10-22mm EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS EF-L 70-200mm f/2.8 IS Either build path will cost roughly the same. Gut reaction of most people will be the 5D, of course. Full Frame superiority and all that. But this full frame versus cropped sensor argument is only half the battle. The other half is between the lenses. People are constantly talking and talking about the importance of lens over body. So this may be time to walk the walk: The lens set for the cropped sensor has Image Stabilization for 90% of its focal range, instead of only 47% in the 5D lens set. It has a significantly more versatile focal range (16-320mm versus 24-200mm) *and* it's one full stop faster (f/2.8 vs f/4). All these things would render the 5D at a disadvantage in many situations: low light, handheld, stopping action, ultra wide angle, telephoto, or any combination of these five things. Having no weather sealing on two EF-S lenses seems trivial in this instance, considering none of these camera bodies (including the 5D) are sealed against the elements to begin with. Although both build paths cost the same, gut reaction says it's not smart to plunk down $2700 on a cropped sensor body with 2 EF-S lenses. You'll be sorry when full frame bodies become the norm. But would spending the same $2700 on the 5D be any smarter? By the time EF-S lenses are obsolete, the 5D body would also be outdated. It'll probably be at least three generations behind at that point. The 5D will be about as exciting to photographers then as the D60 is right now. I just don't see the appeal of a 5D right now, especially for hobbyists without unlimited budgets. It's nice to show off a full frame to your friends, but it's not practical. I think that camera would only make sense for professionals, and for people who already possess an extensive array of canon "L" lenses from their film days. Otherwise, bleh... > Hypothetically, which of these two "build paths" would be better for > the foreseeable future: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > extensive array of canon "L" lenses from their film days. Otherwise, > bleh... In your last paragraph you seem to answer your own question: invest in as much quality L-glass as you can afford, and worry about the camera later: ANY digital body will be outdated in more or less 2 years time, the quality glass keeps its value, as well in applicabilty, as moneywise. If you ever want to upgrade to full frame, EF-S will become obsolete, so forget those. You know that an 70-200 f4 L with IS is to be released this month? I will have a look at Cologne (Photokina) end of the month. The reasons why I went for the 5D: very low noise (even at high ISO) real wide at 17 mm feels really chunky in my paws, though I needed the BG-4 to do this job properly. I own: 5D, 17-40 f4 L, 24-105 f4 L IS, 100-400 IS. A couple of G6-es with Ikelite UW-housing and my dear old (film) EOS 100 (Rebel in US?) with an 28-135 IS. And I am really happy with this setup. Good luck, Lucas >I just don't see the appeal of a 5D right now, especially for hobbyists >without unlimited budgets. You're quite right about the "without limited budgets" part. The 5D is very intolerant of lesser-quality lenses. I was co-judge of a photo contest earlier this year and noticed that all the 5D shots (in this particular contest) looked very poor. The other judge and I were easily able to tell the 5D shots without looking at the EXIF. Now I've seen spectacular work done with the 5d so I know the camera wasn't at fault. It was just someone who made the mistake of blowing their budget on the camera body and economizing on their lens or lenses.  SignatureMark Roberts Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 > The 5D will be about as exciting to photographers then as the D60 is right > now. That's the Totally Digital D60 to you, pal! > I just don't see the appeal of a 5D right now, especially for hobbyists > without unlimited budgets. It's nice to show off a full frame to your > friends, but it's not practical. I think that camera would only make > sense for professionals, and for people who already possess an > extensive array of canon "L" lenses from their film days. Otherwise, > bleh... It all depends on what you shoot. If you do sports go with the 400D. If you shoot landscapes, portraits or indoor events, go with the 5D. Don't worry about losing that extra stop down to f/2.8 because the 5D will gain that back with better high ISO performance. You can always add the Fast 50mm f/1.8 for next to nothing. You might even work your way up to the setup that I saw being carried around the other day by a guy at the St. Louis Zoo: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/66500550 > You might even work your way up to the setup that I saw being carried > around the other day by a guy at the St. Louis Zoo: > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/66500550 Holy Cow! That thing is huge. It may be that this guy is compensating for... something. >> You might even work your way up to the setup that I saw being carried >> around the other day by a guy at the St. Louis Zoo: >> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/66500550 >Holy Cow! That thing is huge. It may be that this guy is compensating >for... something. Just be glad it was an f/4. Imagine what a 500mm f/2.8 IS L would look like... --- Paul J. Gans > You might even work your way up to the setup that I saw being carried > around the other day by a guy at the St. Louis Zoo: > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/66500550 At the zoo? Why would anyone need such a monstrosity when you're only maybe a hundred or so feet away from the subjects? Or is this just a case of "my lens is bigger than yours" syndrome run amok? -dms > > You might even work your way up to the setup that I saw being carried > > around the other day by a guy at the St. Louis Zoo: > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/66500550 > > At the zoo? Why would anyone need such a monstrosity when you're only > maybe a hundred or so feet away from the subjects? Maybe he wanted "The Eye of the Tiger?" I'm not too thrilled with shooting animals in cages as I get more of a thrill finding them in the wild. However, it was nice to get up close and personal with a bald eagle. Whenever I'm lucky enough to see one of these creatures around here, they are usually between 200 and 2000 yards away. Of course, the zoo is the only place I'm ever gonna see a penguin or a giraffe. Not to mention the Somali Wild a.s. I think I knew her sister. >> You might even work your way up to the setup that I saw being >> carried [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > run > amok? Regardless of what the big-lens guy's motivations are, it's pretty clear he struck an envy nerve ... Pardon me while I check my equipment bag. SignatureFrank ess >>> You might even work your way up to the setup that I saw being >>> carried [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Pardon me while I check my equipment bag. Or is that... "Check your baggy equipment??" :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> You might even work your way up to the setup that I saw being carried >> around the other day by a guy at the St. Louis Zoo: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -dms I used to shoot at the zoo in the film days. Sometimes 400mm isn't enough and he has a full frame sensor. The 300 f/4L on the APS sensor cameras gives about the same FL. John >> You might even work your way up to the setup that I saw being carried >> around the other day by a guy at the St. Louis Zoo: >> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/66500550 > > At the zoo? Why would anyone need such a monstrosity when you're only > maybe a hundred or so feet away from the subjects? Clearly you're not accustomed to wildlife photography. 500mm on a full-frame body will NOT get you ALL that tight a frame...especially for anything smallish... > Or is this just a case of "my lens is bigger than yours" syndrome run > amok? No. Try shooting birds with anything less than 400mm and you're in trouble most of the time. More likely, you'd wish for 600 or an extender. Remember also that this isn't with a 1.6 crop body. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> At the zoo? Why would anyone need such a monstrosity when you're only >> maybe a hundred or so feet away from the subjects? > > Clearly you're not accustomed to wildlife photography. > 500mm on a full-frame body will NOT get you ALL that tight a > frame...especially for anything smallish... Please don't embarrass yourself by giving advice you haven't a clue on. You are assuming that he doesn't know how to use his equipment. You still haven't proven to yourself that you can take a useable image without IS. >> Or is this just a case of "my lens is bigger than yours" syndrome run >> amok? > > No. Try shooting birds with anything less than 400mm and you're in > trouble most of the time. BULLSHIT! It all depends on how close you can get to the subject. Your statement is on par with "I'm such a shitty photographer that doesn't have the skills so I have to use IS all the time as a Band-Aid to mask my poor techniques." > More likely, you'd wish for 600 or an extender. Remember also that > this isn't with a 1.6 crop body. Still trying to compensate for that little something missing between your legs? Rita >>> At the zoo? Why would anyone need such a monstrosity when you're >>> only maybe a hundred or so feet away from the subjects? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > BULLSHIT! It all depends on how close you can get to the subject. Can you read? He said "100 feet or so", chump. > Your statement is on par with "I'm such a shitty photographer that > doesn't have the skills so I have to use IS all the time as a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Still trying to compensate for that little something missing between > your legs? I'm not referring to shots like your cute little ducky shot. Have you always been a stalker? SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>> No. Try shooting birds with anything less than 400mm and you're in >>> trouble most of the time. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Can you read? > He said "100 feet or so", chump. LOL! Again, what's the size of the subject? The term "wildlife" encompasses many things. Is he shooting an elephant or a chipmunk at 100'? Is it a big bird or a small bird? >> Your statement is on par with "I'm such a shitty photographer that >> doesn't have the skills so I have to use IS all the time as a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I'm not referring to shots like your cute little ducky shot. Taken with the world famous 70-200mm f/2.8 VR at 70mm. > Have you always been a stalker? LOL! Don't flatter yourself. I'm just trying to eradicate the spread of misinformation and stupidity on the internet. A team of 25 can be busy keeping up with you for this task. Rita >>>> No. Try shooting birds with anything less than 400mm and you're in >>>> trouble most of the time. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Can you read? >> He said "100 feet or so", chump. Again. Can you read the little word "birds"? > LOL! Again, what's the size of the subject? The term "wildlife" > encompasses many things. Is he shooting an elephant or a chipmunk at > 100'? Is it a big bird or a small bird? You really felt you needed to post this clarification? You silly man. >>> Your statement is on par with "I'm such a shitty photographer that >>> doesn't have the skills so I have to use IS all the time as a [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > spread of misinformation and stupidity on the internet. A team of 25 > can be busy keeping up with you for this task. Oh? Please list my wrongs. Let's see... I've identified that I get improved results with very slow shutter shots with IS...even at wide angle. And... ? :) It's amazing how important I've become to your existence here. I suggest you try a new hobby that pulls you out of your "Little World of Mark²." >> LOL! Again, what's the size of the subject? The term "wildlife" >> encompasses many things. Is he shooting an elephant or a chipmunk at >> 100'? Is it a big bird or a small bird? > > You really felt you needed to post this clarification? > You silly man. It would only seem fair and logical that one would assume that wildlife come in many various sizes and 600mm, 1.5 or 1.6 crop factor, and a TC is *NOT* needed to get the shot in every case. >>>> Your statement is on par with "I'm such a shitty photographer that >>>> doesn't have the skills so I have to use IS all the time as a [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > shots with IS...even at wide angle. > And... ? A Google search result in just about every one of your posts would indicate your lack of factual real world knowledge and experience. > It's amazing how important I've become to your existence here. > I suggest you try a new hobby that pulls you out of your "Little > World of Mark²." Sometimes I get lucky and I get a fool to see the errors of their ways and sometimes I don't. The ones I don't are purely for entertainment and it's fun watching them dance on command. Rita >>> LOL! Again, what's the size of the subject? The term "wildlife" >>> encompasses many things. Is he shooting an elephant or a chipmunk [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > A Google search result in just about every one of your posts would > indicate your lack of factual real world knowledge and experience. As I thought... You couldn't come up with squat. Now go back to shooting your ducks and light-bulbs... Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>> No. Try shooting birds with anything less than 400mm and you're in >>>> trouble most of the time. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > spread of misinformation and stupidity on the internet. A team of 25 > can be busy keeping up with you for this task. This boring little guy would have been more interesting (to me) if I could have framed a tight shot of hit face: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/60953123/original I was as close as opportunity allowed...which was a LOT closer than 100 feet...AND...I was shooting on a 1.6 crop-factor 10D. That's 200mm + the crop factor. Can you (in all your self-appointed-genius) guess how much more extension it would have taken to get that shot given the fact that it was not possible to get closer? :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> LOL! Don't flatter yourself. I'm just trying to eradicate the >> spread of misinformation and stupidity on the internet. A team of 25 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 100 feet...AND...I was shooting on a 1.6 crop-factor 10D. That's > 200mm + the crop factor. Good job, but why would you want to cut out so much of the other wonderful background detail that makes this shot so much more interesting? > Can you (in all your self-appointed-genius) guess how much more > extension it would have taken to get that shot given the fact that it > was not possible to get closer? Easy! I would have duct taped a 5D to the end of a 20' bamboo stick and set the lens to 24mm and turn IS on to compensate for pole shake. Seriously, I guess it depends on what *YOU* call a tight shot of his face, and if subject matter you are trying to convey would have really benefited from it. You can select whatever focal length you deem fit to get the job done. Personally, I think it's a very nice shot as it is and I wouldn't bother worrying about it. I'm assuming you have *NOT* done any cropping to the original? My opinion, at 400mm you would risk losing some of the background environment that is so important to this shot. At 500mm or 600mm you would have a very boring facial shot of a Marmot. You got a great shot and if it really bothers you can always crop in post since you have a lot to work with. Here's a nice image and theme that would have been totally destroyed if you had the misfortune of having a 600mm on at this very moment in time. http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47306241 Rita >>> LOL! Don't flatter yourself. I'm just trying to eradicate the >>> spread of misinformation and stupidity on the internet. A team of [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > shot as it is and I wouldn't bother worrying about it. I'm assuming > you have *NOT* done any cropping to the original? No cropping. >My opinion, at > 400mm you would risk losing some of the background environment that > is so important to this shot. At 500mm or 600mm you would have a > very boring facial shot of a Marmot. To each their own... If I had 500-600mm available, I'd have shot a tighter frame...but also the shot you see here at 200. I like this image well enough, but would have also liked the opportunity to add closely framed shots to the series. To me, this marmot image is rather dull, though still a pleasing shot. I have seens a lot of marmot pictures, but not very many that really lets you study the face closely. I mainly posted it because it is is a perfect example of why the advice to "zoom with your feet" is often little more than a cute NG cliche'. You can't zoom with your feet when there's a chasm between you and the subject (as was the case with this particular marmot). >You got a great shot and if it > really bothers you can always crop in post since you have a lot to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > time. > http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47306241 That was shot with the 100-400 IS L at 130+1.6crop. Zooms come in handy sometimes... But that was at the zoo... -Fish in a barrel, and all that... SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> My opinion, at >> 400mm you would risk losing some of the background environment that >> is so important to this shot. At 500mm or 600mm you would have a >> very boring facial shot of a Marmot. > > To each their own... Yep, that's what photography is all about. > If I had 500-600mm available, I'd have shot a tighter frame...but > also the shot you see here at 200. I like this image well enough, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > zoom with your feet when there's a chasm between you and the subject > (as was the case with this particular marmot). You are assuming you are able to get several ideal shots of the same subject at different focal lengths, hopefully with different bodies ready for action. Some wildlife shots are pretty much once in a lifetime opportunities that don't allow for fumbling with several lens/boy combinations. Some you don't even get a split second to get the ideal composure. Since you can't "zoom with your feet" you still can "zoom" in post. I think your marmot shot has plenty of room to crop as you desire since the 10D is a very respectable camera. Though ideally we both would have loved to have the exact composition we want to fill the frame the shorter focal length worked to your advantage in this shot. Sometimes it's not meant to be. >> You got a great shot and if it >> really bothers you can always crop in post since you have a lot to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Zooms come in handy sometimes... But that was at the zoo... -Fish > in a barrel, and all that... True, but if you had your 600mm in your hand right after you just got done shooting that little 4" lizard that was crawling up a tree you would have missed this shot. The point being is the "big" lens doesn't always work in every situation. You got the great shot because you had the right lens on your camera in that very split second in time when it was needed. Rita >>> My opinion, at >>> 400mm you would risk losing some of the background environment that [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > subject at different focal lengths, hopefully with different bodies > ready for action. And you are amazingly assuming you know the scenario for this shot better than I...which is rather strange, considering only one of us was there, and it wasn't you. :) >Some wildlife shots are pretty much once in a > lifetime opportunities that don't allow for fumbling with several > lens/boy combinations. Some you don't even get a split second to get > the ideal composure. Since you can't "zoom with your feet" you still > can "zoom" in post. I don't shoot to post. I shoot to print. :) >I think your marmot shot has plenty of room to > crop as you desire since the 10D is a very respectable camera. Though [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > would have missed this shot. The point being is the "big" lens > doesn't always work in every situation. That's why it's nice to have a second body. But I do think it's funny that you write these things, apparently feeling you need to inform me of this. :) Again... You pretend to know things about me, but you're just way off the mark (no pun intended). >You got the great shot > because you had the right lens on your camera in that very split > second in time when it was needed. If you're talking about the monkey shot, then ya...but that's because I had a 400mm zoom lens. The shot directly before that one was shot at 400mm. -Zooms aren't all bad, ya know... SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> You are assuming you are able to get several ideal shots of the same >> subject at different focal lengths, hopefully with different bodies [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > better than I...which is rather strange, considering only one of us > was there, and it wasn't you. :) You mean that you don't carry at least two bodies ready for action? The shame! >> Some wildlife shots are pretty much once in a >> lifetime opportunities that don't allow for fumbling with several [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I don't shoot to post. > I shoot to print. These sounds like you have little faith in your equipment? Minor cropping is totally insignificant, assuming you have decent equipment. >> True, but if you had your 600mm in your hand right after you just got >> done shooting that little 4" lizard that was crawling up a tree you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But I do think it's funny that you write these things, apparently > feeling you need to inform me of this. LOL! Just trying to help. > Again... You pretend to know things about me, but you're just way off > the mark (no pun intended). Not me. >> You got the great shot >> because you had the right lens on your camera in that very split [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The shot directly before that one was shot at 400mm. > -Zooms aren't all bad, ya know... Yep, zooms can be very nice. Rita >>> You are assuming you are able to get several ideal shots of the same >>> subject at different focal lengths, hopefully with different bodies [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > These sounds like you have little faith in your equipment? Minor > cropping is totally insignificant, assuming you have decent equipment. A tight crop on the face of that marmot would be ANYTHING BUT a minor crop. Think, Rita. Think...THEN speak/type. >>> True, but if you had your 600mm in your hand right after you just >>> got done shooting that little 4" lizard that was crawling up a tree [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > LOL! Just trying to help. No...you're not. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> These sounds like you have little faith in your equipment? Minor >> cropping is totally insignificant, assuming you have decent >> equipment. > > A tight crop on the face of that marmot would be ANYTHING BUT a minor > crop. Think, Rita. Think...THEN speak/type. Just as I said, you've reached the limitations of your equipment. Don't blame me for this. Rita >>> These sounds like you have little faith in your equipment? Minor >>> cropping is totally insignificant, assuming you have decent [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Just as I said, you've reached the limitations of your equipment. Ha! You've just reached the limitations of your ability to rebut the obvious...that you keep sticking your foot in your fool mouth. You suggested that I take about 5% of a 6MP image as an acceptable crop!! You're unworthy of further consideration here. Now go shoot some birds with that 70mm lens of yours, you boob. > Don't blame me for this. You give yourself far too much credit. I wouldn't think of attributing anything of substance to you--save for your success in wasting a bit of my time at the keyboard. I've yet to see anything from you other than that you're an over-confident buffoon who is arguably the most blindly assumptive person I've yet encountered on use-net. With that...I'll bid you good day, as I borrow a friend's beach condo. I'll leave you to the "reward" of your most-pleasant self...something which I'm sure happens to you a lot. :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > LOL! Don't flatter yourself. I'm just trying to eradicate the spread of > misinformation and stupidity on the internet. Snort! Double snort! By setting backfires? Signaturelsmft >>>> No. Try shooting birds with anything less than 400mm and you're >>>> in [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > LOL! Don't flatter yourself. I'm just trying to eradicate the > spread of misinformation and stupidity on the internet. "Shut UP", he explained. SignatureFrank ess > > Rita wrote something... > > "Shut UP", he explained. ess a perfect reply! Jeff R>>>>>> BULLSHIT! It all depends on how close you can get M²>>>>> Have you always been a stalker? R>>>> LOL! Don't flatter yourself. I'm just trying to eradicate Fe>>> "Shut UP", he explained. ½>> ess a perfect reply! A>> . . . the duty to spread as much BS . . . ½> Girls! Please stop biching! :-() But Marky Mark² says that Rita is *not* a girl. Are you trying to imply that he could ever possibly be less than 100% truthful? How catty. And ess no perfection here. Mayhaps 'twould be if yonder essman had said "he exclaimed!" instead of "he explained." Sometimes this is worse than raising kids... Jeff > Sometimes this is worse than raising kids... And some might think that adults acting like kids is worse, as is outsiders choosing sides to cheer and jeer, as we have here. > > No. Try shooting birds with anything less than 400mm and you're in > > trouble most of the time. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the skills so I have to use IS all the time as a Band-Aid to mask my poor > techniques." I can't wait to see your collection of images of hummingbirds, eagles, and cardinals taken with your 70mm. Good luck on filling the frame. Thank goodness for that 1.5x crop factor, huh? Look at the works of any great bird photographer. Chances are they are shooting a Canon 600 f/4 or a 500 f/4. Are those guys shitty photographers with no skills and poor techniques? Trust me, I shoot with my 400 f/5.6L almost every day and at times I find it very limiting. >> BULLSHIT! It all depends on how close you can get to the subject. >> Your statement is on par with "I'm such a shitty photographer that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > with my 400 f/5.6L almost every day and at times I find it very > limiting. Oh, absolutely, I agree with you! I'm not the one claiming that I need a large lens for *EVERY* situation when we all know that different situations present different challenges. Rita >>> BULLSHIT! It all depends on how close you can get to the subject. >>> Your statement is on par with "I'm such a shitty photographer that [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Oh, absolutely, I agree with you! I'm not the one claiming that I > need a large lens for *EVERY* situation Quote me. Oops! You can't. -You've an active immagination, chum. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> Trust me, I shoot > > with my 400 f/5.6L almost every day and at times I find it very [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > large lens for *EVERY* situation when we all know that different situations > present different challenges. How can you agree with my statement and call BULLSHIT! on Mark's? Mark said: >>>> No. Try shooting birds with anything less than 400mm and you're in >>>> trouble most of the time. You said: >>> BULLSHIT! It all depends on how close you can get to the subject. Mark's statement is 100% factual. And that's with a 1.6x crop factor on my 20D. I can't imagine shooting birds smaller than a heron with a full frame sensor and anything less than 400mm. . >> Oh, absolutely, I agree with you! I'm not the one claiming that I need a >> large lens for *EVERY* situation when we all know that different situations >> present different challenges. > > How can you agree with my statement and call BULLSHIT! on Mark's? So you think that Rita's statement is BS? Well, then you'd be right. But as a card carrying member of the RPD Manure Spreader's Association, you should have recognized that two of its other members, Rita and Mark², have the right, nay - some may say, the duty to spread as much BS as they can at every opportunity. Girls! Please stop biching! :-() ô¿ô >> Oh, absolutely, I agree with you! I'm not the one claiming that I >> need a large lens for *EVERY* situation when we all know that >> different situations present different challenges. > > How can you agree with my statement and call BULLSHIT! on Mark's? Because I think you are infinitely more competent to select the right tool for the job. Rita >>> Oh, absolutely, I agree with you! I'm not the one claiming that I >>> need a large lens for *EVERY* situation when we all know that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Because I think you are infinitely more competent to select the right > tool for the job. And all because I note some benefits to wide-shot IS. You're an embarrassment to yourself, chum. Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > And all because I note some benefits to wide-shot IS. You're an > embarrassment to yourself, chum. LOL! If you really got some "benefits" from IS on that wide shot it would be a different story. But, we both know that you didn't. Rita >> And all because I note some benefits to wide-shot IS. You're an >> embarrassment to yourself, chum. > > LOL! If you really got some "benefits" from IS on that wide shot it > would be a different story. But, we both know that you didn't. As Sundance said to Butch, "The tonnage of what you don't know..." You'll just have to remain in disagreement on that one. I can live with that. Can you? SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>> And all because I note some benefits to wide-shot IS. You're an >>> embarrassment to yourself, chum. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I can live with that. > Can you? LOL! Of course I can live with that. Your loss is definitely nothing to me. Just trying to help, ya know. Rita >>>> And all because I note some benefits to wide-shot IS. You're an >>>> embarrassment to yourself, chum. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > LOL! Of course I can live with that. Your loss is definitely > nothing to me. Just trying to help, ya know. Nothing? Then why have you spent the last couple days trailing my every post? You seem to need to post to me... Post to your heart's content. As for me...I'm leaving for the beach until tomorrow. Enjoy your weekend...if that's possible for you, without me... SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> LOL! Of course I can live with that. Your loss is definitely >> nothing to me. Just trying to help, ya know. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > As for me...I'm leaving for the beach until tomorrow. > Enjoy your weekend...if that's possible for you, without me... LOL! I've been there today. Hell, I just have to walk there to get the good old sand between my toes. I'll miss you, but nevertheless have a great time and take a few IS lenses to practice with. Rita >>> No. Try shooting birds with anything less than 400mm and you're in >>> trouble most of the time. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > with my 400 f/5.6L almost every day and at times I find it very > limiting. Don't bother Rita with experience and fact. He's a boob... SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: >Mark? wrote: >>> At the zoo? Why would anyone need such a monstrosity when you're only >>> maybe a hundred or so feet away from the subjects? >> >> Clearly you're not accustomed to wildlife photography. >> 500mm on a full-frame body will NOT get you ALL that tight a >> frame...especially for anything smallish... >Please don't embarrass yourself by giving advice you haven't a clue on. You >are assuming that he doesn't know how to use his equipment. You still >haven't proven to yourself that you can take a useable image without IS. >>> Or is this just a case of "my lens is bigger than yours" syndrome run >>> amok? >> >> No. Try shooting birds with anything less than 400mm and you're in >> trouble most of the time. >BULLSHIT! It all depends on how close you can get to the subject. Your >statement is on par with "I'm such a shitty photographer that doesn't have >the skills so I have to use IS all the time as a Band-Aid to mask my poor >techniques." >> More likely, you'd wish for 600 or an extender. Remember also that >> this isn't with a 1.6 crop body. >Still trying to compensate for that little something missing between your >legs? Come on. There are times when you CAN NOT get close to the animal. >Rita "Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: >>> You might even work your way up to the setup that I saw being carried >>> around the other day by a guy at the St. Louis Zoo: >>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/66500550 >> >> At the zoo? Why would anyone need such a monstrosity when you're only >> maybe a hundred or so feet away from the subjects? >Clearly you're not accustomed to wildlife photography. >500mm on a full-frame body will NOT get you ALL that tight a >frame...especially for anything smallish... >> Or is this just a case of "my lens is bigger than yours" syndrome run >> amok? >No. Try shooting birds with anything less than 400mm and you're in trouble >most of the time. >More likely, you'd wish for 600 or an extender. Remember also that this >isn't with a 1.6 crop body. Hmmm. Even with a 1.6 crop body shooting birds at 200mm and 1.4x telextender isn't for the faint of heart. If you are shooting against the sky, which I was part of the time, you need to rely on the autofocus and given that birds on the wing are rather unpredictable in flight pattern, luck is a good part of it. I doubt I'd have even been able to get them into the frame with a 500mm, but that, in fact, is the sort of thing you need for great shots. ---- Paul J. Gans >> I just don't see the appeal of a 5D right now, especially for hobbyists >> without unlimited budgets. It's nice to show off a full frame to your [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It all depends on what you shoot. If you do sports go with the 400D. I think that you are calling this one wrong. I expect ISO 1600 performance to take a nasty hit on the 400D. If you do sports, the 30D is the second best camera (first would be the 1Dmk2(n)) and a very good choice. > If you shoot landscapes, portraits or indoor events, go with the 5D. Exactly. > Don't worry about losing that extra stop down to f/2.8 because the 5D > will gain that back with better high ISO performance. You can always > add the Fast 50mm f/1.8 for next to nothing. Exactly again. Truth in advertising time, though: the 50/1.4 is brilliant on the 300D, but (ignoring the seriously ridiculous (in price and weight) 85/1.2) on the 5D, you find yourself shooting with an 85/1.8 or 100/2.0, and only being ahead by the pixel count, not any sensitivity. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan David Any idea why the 85mm 1.2L is so overpriced? I can't understand it myself and to be honest, I think that Canon are loosing a huge amount of sales because of the astronomical price (especially with the 5D now launched). Yet the 135mm F2 is so cheap in comparison? Their pricing is all over the place. > Exactly again. Truth in advertising time, though: the 50/1.4 is brilliant > on the 300D, but (ignoring the seriously ridiculous (in price and weight) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan > David > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yet the 135mm F2 is so cheap in comparison? Their pricing is all over the > place. To me, it doesn't look overpriced for what you get, it only looks overpriced for my budget. Canon's faster-than-f/1.4-lenses are all expensive. It would be nice, though, if they also had an 85/1.4 for a more reasonable price. But that would be a lot of 85mm lenses. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >Any idea why the 85mm 1.2L is so overpriced? I can't understand it myself >and to be honest, I think that Canon are loosing a huge amount of sales >because of the astronomical price (especially with the 5D now launched). How can you say it is overpriced? Compared to what? The Canon 85mm f/1.2L is probably the finest piece of glass out there. You want the best, you pays the price. I had one for a week and it was SWEEEEEET!!!! > > It all depends on what you shoot. If you do sports go with the 400D. > > I think that you are calling this one wrong. I expect ISO 1600 performance > to take a nasty hit on the 400D. You may be right, we'll just have to see. I was thinking more in terms of the crop factor. Also, while the 30D might be a better choice, it might blow the budget up since it costs almost twice what the 400D will sell for. If I was starting out, I'd go for the 400D with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. That would give you a great lens to build around. Buy the best first and you don't have to upgrade later. Then I'd talk Mark Morgan out of his 24-70 f/2.8L and I'd be all set. That comes in at less than $3K and you'd be hard pressed to beat the optics of that combo at any price. >>> It all depends on what you shoot. If you do sports go with the >>> 400D. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > That would give you a great lens to build around. Buy the best first > and you don't have to upgrade later. > Then I'd talk Mark Morgan out of his 24-70 f/2.8L and I'd be all set. Start talking with cash, bub... It's for sale. :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> Then I'd talk Mark Morgan out of his 24-70 f/2.8L and I'd be all set. > > Start talking with cash, bub... > It's for sale. Jeez, Mark, do you really think you can use that lens since it doesn't have any training wheels on it? This lens doesn't have IS. Rita >>> Then I'd talk Mark Morgan out of his 24-70 f/2.8L and I'd be all >>> set. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Jeez, Mark, do you really think you can use that lens since it > doesn't have any training wheels on it? This lens doesn't have IS. The lens is optically fantastic. I bought it when I was shooting with the 1.6 crop 10D as my normal lens. On the 5D, however, I find that 70mm is limiting. What do you use as your walk-around lens? SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> Jeez, Mark, do you really think you can use that lens since it >> doesn't have any training wheels on it? This lens doesn't have IS. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > On the 5D, however, I find that 70mm is limiting. > What do you use as your walk-around lens? The 28-70mm f/2.8 stays on my camera the most. It's a great walk around lens for me. How is 70mm limiting? Learn how to get closer with your feet. I think it time we wean you off of zooms and put you on a strict diet of primes. Rita >>> Jeez, Mark, do you really think you can use that lens since it >>> doesn't have any training wheels on it? This lens doesn't have IS. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The 28-70mm f/2.8 stays on my camera the most. It's a great walk > around lens for me. Right. And you shoot with cropped sensors. You claim to shoot with a D2x and a 200D. Those are very similar in cropping effect to my 10D. So...I don't doubt that you find it a great walk-around lens. I did too when it was on my 10D. On a full frame, it's quite different. -But you wouldn't know this, since your camera crops your field of view. >How is 70mm limiting? Learn how to get closer > with your feet. How do you get closer from the edge of a boat? We're talking about similarly framing, and field-of-view lenses, here, chump. Your 70mm on your 1.5 crop sensor frames simlarly to my 105 on my full-frame. Has it occurred to your pea-brain that your 70mm on your 1.5 crop sensor gives the EXACT field of view of my 105m on my 5D? :) LOL, Rita! What a boob. >I think it time we wean you off of zooms and put you > on a strict diet of primes. See above, chump. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>> Jeez, Mark, do you really think you can use that lens since it >>>> doesn't have any training wheels on it? This lens doesn't have IS. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > sensor gives the EXACT field of view of my 105m on my 5D? :) LOL, > Rita! What a boob. Since you're clearly a little SLOW... Here's a little help: Take out a calculator.. ...Now press the "On" button. Next...punch in "7"...and "0". Now press that little "X" you use for your signature... Finally...press "1" and "." and "5" followed by those two little parallel line thingies that look like this: "=" Guess what you'll see now? "105" There ya go, chum! SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> The 28-70mm f/2.8 stays on my camera the most. It's a great walk >> around lens for me. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > was on my 10D. On a full frame, it's quite different. -But you > wouldn't know this, since your camera crops your field of view. Like millions of other APS-C sensor sized dSLR users we have learned how to properly use our equipment. >> How is 70mm limiting? Learn how to get closer >> with your feet. > > How do you get closer from the edge of a boat? You go for a swim. A good photographer works with the tools they got. In your example, the 1.5x crop factor on a Nikon yielding 105mm surely isn't going to be a shot breaker with a 70mm lens. For Christ's sake if you can't get a usable image at 70mm on an FF and crop it to what you need you are not going to get it with a 105mm lens either and you're truely sadder than I thought. Keep on demonstrating your inexperience. > We're talking about similarly framing, and field-of-view lenses, here, > chump. > Your 70mm on your 1.5 crop sensor frames simlarly to my 105 on my > full-frame. And....? > Has it occurred to your pea-brain that your 70mm on your 1.5 crop > sensor gives the EXACT field of view of my 105m on my 5D? :) LOL, > Rita! What a boob. If you don't have the skills to get a useable shot at 70mm what makes you think 105mm is going to be any better for you? >> I think it time we wean you off of zooms and put you >> on a strict diet of primes. > > See above, chump. I did and you're digging yourself even deeper. Take only two of your favorite primes out with you for one day and start learning how to compose your shots. Rita >>> The 28-70mm f/2.8 stays on my camera the most. It's a great walk >>> around lens for me. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > If you don't have the skills to get a useable shot at 70mm what makes > you think 105mm is going to be any better for you? Ever hear of a little thing called proportion and perspective, chum? You love to make logical leaps to ignorantly accuse... Here's an example: I take a lot of people pictures, and don't care for head-shots or even head-and-shoulder shots at 70. I prefer closer to the 100mm range. While it's true you can simply "zoom with your feet," it's also true that getting that close can screw up more tightly-framed facial proportions in ways that are often less than pleasing or flattering. 70mm is a bit wide for my taste when it comes to tighter people shots. If you choose to disregard the significance of perspective and framing, that's your choice/problem, chum. >> If you don't have the skills to get a useable shot at 70mm what makes >> you think 105mm is going to be any better for you? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > shots. If you choose to disregard the significance of perspective > and framing, that's your choice/problem, chum. Personally, I don't think that *YOU* can tell the difference in a double-blind test. Rita >>> If you don't have the skills to get a useable shot at 70mm what >>> makes you think 105mm is going to be any better for you? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Personally, I don't think that *YOU* can tell the difference in a > double-blind test. More assumptive BS. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson "Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: >Rita ? Berkowitz wrote: >> Mark? wrote: >Right. And you shoot with cropped sensors. >You claim to shoot with a D2x and a 200D. >Those are very similar in cropping effect to my 10D. So...I don't doubt >that you find it a great walk-around lens. I did too when it was on my 10D. >On a full frame, it's quite different. -But you wouldn't know this, since >your camera crops your field of view. >>How is 70mm limiting? Learn how to get closer >> with your feet. >How do you get closer from the edge of a boat? BINGO! My situation exactly. Try polar bears at nearly a mile. I could barely see them with my naked eyes. ---- Paul J. Gans Sorry Annika, I have to disagree. For sports I would go for the 20D or 30D over the 400D. > It all depends on what you shoot. If you do sports go with the 400D. > If you shoot landscapes, portraits or indoor events, go with the 5D. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > around the other day by a guy at the St. Louis Zoo: > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/66500550 > Sorry Annika, I have to disagree. For sports I would go for the 20D or 30D > over the 400D. Why? > > Sorry Annika, I have to disagree. For sports I would go for the 20D or 30D > > over the 400D. > > Why? 5 fps versus 3 fps in burst mode, I think. You have obviously done your research and I agree with you 100%. Both excellent set-ups. However, I would choose neither. I would go for: A second hand 20D 24-105 f4IS 70-200 2.8IS And if you really need wide angle in some of the shots you take, either a 10-22 (if you want all Canon), or alternatively you could go for a Sigma wide angle zoom that will probably still be useable on a full frame body in the future to give a very wide angle lens. (BTW, I rarely shoot wide angle shots, so not something I have really looked into in great detail). I love prime lenses, but at the moment I don't want to spend money on prime lenses that I won't use when I go to full frame. At the moment I use the 50mm 1.4, which I love on the 20D, however on a full frame it will be a bit short for me. I have thought about a 24L prime as well, but it will be no use to me if I go full frame, so I don't think I will buy this lens. IMO, full frame bodies are too expensive at the moment to justify, given what else they have to offer except full frame (unless you are pro), however with the above setup, you will be setup with lenses that will be ideal for when full frame bodies come down in price and have more features (such as faster frame rate). Then, you can keep the 20D for those shots where you want a greater focal length, until the full frame bodies produce 20MP+ images. I would also like to see the 85mm 1.2L prime come down from outer space prices to a reasonable price in the future. At the moment Canon are losing a lot of sales due to the ridiculous pricing. > Hypothetically, which of these two "build paths" would be better for > the foreseeable future: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > extensive array of canon "L" lenses from their film days. Otherwise, > bleh... > Hypothetically, which of these two "build paths" would be better for > the foreseeable future: > I just don't see the appeal of a 5D right now, especially for > hobbyists without unlimited budgets. It's nice to show off a full > frame to your friends, but it's not practical. I think that camera > would only make sense for professionals, and for people who already > possess an extensive array of canon "L" lenses from their film days. > Otherwise, bleh... I frankly don't see how you can write this last paragraph and still seriously consider the 5D at this point. For me, the 5D made sense. I already had an array of L glass...print 17"x24-44" regularly...appreciate low-noise...and longed for my long-lost wide angles in my lenses. For anyone else in your position, I think you're better off getting the best glass you can (i.e. the 70-200 2.8 IS over the f4 non-IS, etc.) and starting with a very solid 30D that will fetch you incredible images. I'm personally not a fan of EF-S, but that's because I've always planned to move to full-frame. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson |
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
|
©2010 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.