can anyone advise plz?

<p>Hi i havent asked you guys n girls anything for a while, but since i did, ive shot 3 weddings and got another 3 booked. Now that ive done them ive realised i do need to change just a few bits of equipment, so i need ur advise please.<br>

At the moment im using a 50d as main camera and a back up of a 40d......lenses i use at the moment is 70-200 2.8 IS, tamron 17.55 2.8, canon 50.1.8..<br>

I now know that both the 50d and 40d are not to clever in low light with higher iso levels (with noise), now im thinking of getting the 5d mark2 which ive heard is good at higher iso, IS THIS CORRECT?<br>

Also will i be able to use my lenses i currently have with the 5d mark2 as it is a full framed camera, this confuses me?<br>

so questions id like you to help me with is the mark 2 5d with low noise and lense conpatability.<br>

that was a little long winded sorry , i do tent to blab on a bit.....but thank you if you could help me.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>17-55 is no use with 5d mkii as it is a crop format lens, your others are fine.<br>

With a 5d mk2 you might want to shift to a 24-70 for equivalent lengths to the 17-55. This would give you full cover 24-200 with your other lens. The 50 as an extra stop for low light back up. For portraiture on your 1.8 a 85mm 1.8 would be better on a full frame, but the 50mm is still a great wee lens.<br>

The 5d mk II has been reviewed as giving good performance at higher ISO, but you'll always get some degree of noise when things get dark. Sometimes a better flash is the better answer. Not every shot has to be without flash, and sometimes a little flash goes a long way. Low light /high ISO is good for churches where flash isn't allowed or if you want to sneak lots of candid shots without folk getting self conscious.<br>

If you wanted to keep your lenses, then the 7D might be an option, it also handles low light better than your existing cameras, and is quite a bit cheaper than the 5d MkII. This is a crop frame sensor too, like your 50D, so if you do eventually upgrade to full frame, might give you a hiccough or too.</p>

I agree with what Duncan said. I would also suggest you keep the 40D/50D as a backup to either a 5D2 or 7D. If you don't want to invest in more glass, then 7D is your horse. However, full frame like the 5D2 also has some inherent advantages, but you will need to buy EF lenses only. It won't work with EF-S (crop sensor) lenses as the camera mount is different. Incidentally, your Tamron is a 17-50 not 17-55 :)

<p>I recently switched from the 40d to the 5d Mark 2. The difference in low light is incredible! I use the 40D as a backup now and cringe at the thought of using it in low light ever again. I did have to buy some new lenses that work with the full frame of the 5d Mark 2. I know a lot of people are choosing the 7d vs. the 5d M2 due to cost. If low light situations and high ISO capability is what you are looking for, the 5d mark 2 is definitely in the lead in the ISO department. I just shot a wedding in extreme low light for an African American couple in a church. I shot the whole ceremony at 6400 ISO with the 5d Mark 2. The pictures turned out great without the use of flash during the ceremony. I will say though, at 6400 ISO there is some noise. I use the Topaz de-noise 4 to correct that problem and the results are staggering. </p>

 

<p>Before you look elsewhere, be sure you aren't underexposing and pulling up exposures in post, which makes noise look worse, and being too critical about noise. Noise does not look so bad when the image is printed, and low light ceremony images almost never get printed very big anyway. If one is, make the noise part of the image aesthetic. It seems to me that 3 weddings is a bit too soon to be buying gear again when tightening up technique can help.</p>

<p>Just an observation: the OP has tamron 17-55 which works on FF.<br>

A.</p>

<p>Another observation. Tamron doesn't make a 17-55.</p>

<p>There is no Tamron 17-55, there is only the Tamron 17-50 and it does not work on FF.<br>

There is a Canon 17-55 but that too is not for FF.</p>

 

<p>The Tamron is probably a 17-50mm f2.8, not a 17-55mm f2.8. the 17-55mm is a Canon lens, and while some lenses made for cropped sensor cameras can 'work' on full frame cameras without damaging anything, they don't work optimally, not to mention the zoom range is different.</p>

<p>Geraint--rent a 5D or 5D II and figure out for yourself if full frame is all that, for you. I like my 5D, but I wouldn't have any problem if I were restricted to my 40D, which is why I continue to use it as a second camera and back up.</p>

<p>This is a question that many people struggle with and I think that it really comes down to budget more than anything else.</p>

<p>I also covet the 5dmkII (me wants it, my precious) but I can't justify the increased cost. I currently shoot with two Canon 40d's and I wear them both during the ceremony and frequently at other times as well since I am often shooting on the beach and you really don't want to remove a lens on the beach if you can avoid it.</p>

<p>So, to make the switch I need two 5dmkII's since I can't imagine switching between two cameras during a ceremony when one has such better low-light capability. Then there's the increased memory cost sonce the 5dmkII writes much bigger files. My $800 10-22mm EF-S lens would have to go, plus I'd lose 50% of the reach from my 70-200mm which I would miss during the ring exchange and in most Catholic weddings where they want you to stay in the back or, preferably, across the street at the Gas-n-Sip.</p>

<p>Now, I could jump to the 7D but I have a friend who has a 7D and I did some noise comparisons. While it is better than my 40D I'm not sure that It's $3000 better, which is what it would cost me to buy two of them. (I figure that the 7D gets me about 2 stops more light with the same noise so a 7D at ISO 6400 equals a 40D at 1600. I'm guessing the 5DmkII is even better.) In a year, would I make $3000 more money because of the extra stops the new camera gives me? I don't think so</p>

<p>Whenever I find myself starting to think too much about a big upgrade, I just remind myself that 20 years ago there was nothing anywhere near as advanced as the 40D and yet there were some incredible photographers. Sometimes I have to remind myself that it's a business and I can't just buy the latest and greatest because I want to play with it.</p>

<p>However, if someone wants to <em>give me one</em>.... that's another story! :)</p>

<p><strong>Nadine needs to be listened to here</strong>. Far too many costly expenditures are based on bad exposure technique and/or poor white balance practices verses real need. She is also correct in that prints exhibit far less noise than does a computer screen. </p>

<p>Even when there is noise present in some shots, upgrading to the latest version of Lightroom (LR3) with it's phenomenally improved noise control, and/or adding a Nik Define2 plug-in for Photoshop, is a LOT less costly than new cameras. These newer post programs are very sophisticated, and do NOT squash detail like in the past.</p>

<p>Some high ISO cameras do the noise control in camera and you have no choice in how much. With good post programs, you are in control as to how much, and even have the ability to isolate the noise suppression only to the areas where it is needed, leaving the brighter detail areas untouched. </p>

<p>BTW, shooting RAW and trying to fix the White Balance in post is a common error, and can cause unintentional under-exposures. Warm tungsten tinted scenes on your LCD may look properly exposed, but actually are not when you correct it later in post. </p>

<p><em><strong>"shooting RAW and trying to fix the White Balance in post . . . can cause unintentional under-exposures . . . Warm tungsten tinted scenes . . ."</strong></em></p>

<p>Yes. . . . Oh <em><strong>YES</strong></em>!</p>

<p>(that's all . . . I am not going to rant about white balance technique; opening up an extra stop; colour correction filters; grey card reading; the heavy red end of the spectrum; nor CT meters . . . nor nothing else) </p>

<p>Just "thank you" - that someone else knows this also . . . back to cooking dinner . . . I am happier now.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>Marc--would you please explain the tungsten/underexposure issue? I tried to find some previous threads about it, and I remember one in particular, but couldn't find it or any others. Particularly how one can apply a workable method to shooting weddings.</p>

<p>In any case, I should also point out that besides not underexposing and being overly critical of noise on monitors, one can also take the time to learn how to use a tripod for low light ceremonies, thereby allowing one to use lower ISOs to begin with. It takes organizational skills and pre-planning, besides technical skills, because you need to know where to be and when, so you aren't caught on the tripod when you need to be off it. Contrary to popular belief, a tripod does not mean one is tied to one spot. In other words, there are things one can do that don't cost anything, to improve noise levels with the gear one already has.</p>

<p>This doesn't mean that you won't ever have a real need or desire to go full frame--just be sure you have really good reasons--not just to use the fudge factor re noise that full frame allows.</p>

<p>MANY THKS ONCE AGAIN FOR ALL YOUR FEEDBACK, and yes my mistake it is the Tamron 17-50 2.8...<br>

ok ill have a good think about upgrading to the 5d mark2, its just i heard so many good reviews about it.<br>

many thx<br>

Geraint</p>

<p>Geraint, look at your lenses that are canon and see if they say EF or EF-S. You can also tell this if they have a red circle at the mount to line it up or a white box. EF-S ones are made for crop sensors only. EF lenses can be used on either. I don't know if Tamron uses the same convention or not.</p>

<p><em><strong>"EF-S ones are made for crop sensors only"</strong></em></p>

<p>This statement might lead to confusion. An EF-S lens CANNOT mount on a 10D for example. Nor can and EF-S lens mount on a Canon APS-H Camera.</p>

<p>EF-S refers to the MOUNT - not the sensor size. An EF-S lens can only mount on cameras which accept that mount, and these (correctly mentioned) are designated by the White Square on the body of the camera.</p>

<p>ALL EOS cameras which accept and EF-S lens Mount are (at the time of writing) APS-C format: but NOT all EOS APS-C format cameras have an EF-S mount. And NIL APS-H format cameras have an EF-S mount.</p>

<p>***<br /><br /><strong><em>“</em></strong><strong><em>I don't know if Tamron uses the same convention or not.”</em></strong><br /><br />Tamron make lenses specifically for EOS APS-C cameras – but they are NOT mount specific</p>

<p>i.e. these Tamron lenses WILL mount on APS-H and 135 formats (“Full Frame”) Cameras.</p>

<p>However the Tamron lenses made specifically for APS-C Cameras will vignette if used on cameras with larger sensors.</p>

<p>Tamron use “Di” and “Di II” in their lens’s nomenclature:<br />Di = “Digitally Integrated” and can be used on all three Canon DSLR formats (and Canon Film SLR)<br />Di II has a smaller image circle and is intended for use on APS-C formats only.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>can you provide me basic steps of wedding photography? or tell me major point of wedding photography?</p>