Throwing in towel and replacing Mamiya RZ with Canon 5D Mark II but..

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by levante, Jul 15, 2011.

  1. Hi,
    I am a fine art photography, but have been doing more landscape shots out in the wilderness.... I have used a Canon 20d for my "sketch" camera and then came back to a location with my RZ outfit (about 35 lbs in it's special backpack including lens, backs, tripod etc). While I love the transparencies I shot, eventually they have to be scanned, and so much is lost in resolution and dynamic range unless I pay $20 for a drum scan. And the film is $5 a roll and then $5 to develop and if I shot a measly 20 rolls that can alone cost $200 ! (despite all that I still love that camera somehow). But now that a 21mexapixel camera is afforable (barely) I may sell my RZ outfit and spend that toward the Canon 5d Mark II. So is there rumor that I should hold off a few months because a newer version is on the way? How is it in lowlight situations, like night sky shots, is there much noise ( I never shot my 20d above 200 iso prefering a tripod, but the noise for lowlight was horrible). Perhaps I should send this to medium format also to see who tries to convince me that the RZ and film is still the best quality.
    Have a great weekend
    Michelle
     
  2. The only solution is to rent one and try it. At the unaffordable end, you could look at the Pentax 645D.
    NB. There always will be newer models of electronic cameras for the forseeable future.
     
  3. I wouldn't hold your breath for the 5DIII to arrive, Michelle, given the recent events in Japan. People are still awaiting the arrival of EF lenses that were announced last fall.
    As far as the 5DII's low light performance goes, it is outstanding. When the 5DII came out in late 2008, it was said to provide the best overall combination of resolution, image quality, high ISO performance, and dynamic range of any DSLR on the market. (The Sony may have had slightly higher resolution, and the Nikon slightly better high ISO performance, but neither combined these parameters like the 5DII did). And I believe that this is still true.
    For fine art photography, landscapes, and portraiture, there is no better DSLR for the money, at least IMHO.
     
  4. have you tried renting a digital back for your rz? i used the rz system in the early nineties, loved it, but stopped imaging, then came back to imaging using digital but still have regret i am not using the rz gear. owned the 5d ii, great camera for image quality but less than satisfying to use; moved to 1Ds III and that was better, but for the money have 'just' gone to the 40D now and use live-view the majority of the time and put the "surplus" money in to lenses and stitching software. i would really like to go back to the rz system with one of the phase one backs, so maybe look at some of the older [three years?] units on the market as they seem to be nearing the parity level with the 5D II for similar pixel count.
     
  5. Learn to "stitch" images (easy to do, even hand-held) in digital - this will give you resolution and detail equivalent to MF. The 5Dii with even an ordinary 17-40mm lens (use from apprx. 28mm and up) will provide great images. Try PTGUI or AutoPano Pro as software to do stitching (either can be learned in an hour.) For Panos, even an average lens in the 28-50mm range will provide fine image quality...
    Look to get the 5Dii as a refurb from Canon (about $1700) or buy used - many available these days. 7D is too noisy and does not have the same DR of the 5Dii - just a function of the larger sensor of the 5Dii.
    Landscapes are the forte' of the 5Dii - you don't need the weight/expense of the 1Ds3 (I have owned both) - and the image quality of the 5Dii is exactly as good as the 1Ds3 - and better if shooting at night. (Both cameras use the same sensor - but some tweaking by Canon makes the 5Dii a better night camera.)
     
  6. I did "stitch" images on my 20d but with the 5dII it should be really phenomenal. I am a bit scared of buying used digital cameras... or refurbished.. perhaps if it was a store with a warranty of some kind. The digital backs are a great idea, anyone have $15,000 lying around ! Actually the Leaf has a 75 megapixel for around 25,000... if only my art sold ! But I hear you about how the RZ feels... I will really regret getting rid of it. But they keep depreciating in used sale value, if I sell I should do it soon. Glad to hear it has great low light quality.
     
  7. Michelle, I've been shooting landscape - and often on the trail while backpacking - using DSLRs for a half dozen or so years now, the past five using a 5D and now a 5D2. At this point, there is little to recommend MF film over the best full frame DSLRs for the kind of work you describe. In most ways - though no quite all - digital formats can match the performance of the next larger film format. Friends of mine who used to shoot 4x5 LF have now largely moved to MF digital. If MF film was fine for you, then full frame DSLRs should be able to produce equivalent results.
    Let me start with the noise concern. Whatever noise you'll get from full frame DSLRs, it will be less than what you are used to with MF film. Shooting at ISO 100 or ISO 200, in the vast majority of situations there will be no visible noise even in quite large prints. You will be able to find some noise if you inspect at 100%, for sure, but that would be equivalent to making a 72 inch print or so.
    If you follow the web forums, you'll find impassioned discussions of so-called noise banding on the 5D2. The story goes that in very dark areas of the frame with uniform of smoothly graduated tones, that you may see some banding in the noise if you push the shadows or increase curve steepness, etc in the darkest tones, especially if you underexposed. On some of my images, if I look very closely at 100% magnification, I can occasionally detect (or think I detect) some banding in the noise. However, this has never been an issue in a print. (If it were to be an issue, there are several ways to deal with it.)
    Speaking of prints, in my view it is reasonable to expect to reliably produce very high quality 24" x 36" prints from 5D2 originals, assuming good shooting technique, good equipment, and good post-processing skills. At this size the print quality can be very, very good indeed. How much larger than this is possible? That depends on a variety of factors, including the your expectations and those of your clients and various shooting and processing and printing factors.
    I also do a great deal of night photography with my 5D2. For my sorts of night photography it is a fine tool. In addition, you don't have to deal with the reciprocity failure issues that you are familiar with from your work with film. For very long exposures, you might want to use the long exposure noise reduction feature on the camera, which uses a second "dark frame" exposure to identify and subtract noise data from the image.
    In addition to the ability to make as many photographs as you want without worrying about schlepping film around, the DSLR will lighten your wilderness load considerably. I carry between 12-15 pounds, which seems to be about half of what MF film folks seem to end up carrying. (I ran into John Sexton and Anne Larsen in the Yosemite backcountry during a recent season, and they were each carrying nearly 30 pounds of photo gear. I felt silly complaining about my load! You may know, but they shoot MF black and white film on the trail.)
    Good luck,
    Dan
     
  8. Aside from a large format camera set up there probably isn't a heavier bulkier camera than the RZ to take on the trail. And unless someone else is going along with you, there isn't much room in your bag for even snacks or a water. I love my film when it comes back from the lab, but I either do a rough scan at home on an Epson 4990 which honestly sometimes looks worse than the images off of my 20D ! But to get a a drum scan can cost upwards of 20-40 $$$ per image. I will be heading to B & H photo here in NYC to play around with the 5d soon, and will look a the noise reduction feature you spoke about. The issue of noise on long exposures had me a bit jittery, but it sounds like that isn't so much an issue with this camera.
    Thanks
    -Michelle
     
  9. How long are your long exposures, Michelle?
    Dan
     
  10. sometime in a early morning in the woods you can have several second exposures, or longer if it is deep shade.. i almost always tried to shot at f16 or smaller for maximum depth of field. but I am interested in night time shots also, star trails, the woods under moonlight and such... so it could be really long exposures... depends
     
  11. Hi Michelle,
    You might want to consider not going for the Canon upgrade and instead trudging along for a while with a low priced DSLR. At the same time saving like fiend and then go for a Pentax 645D.
    I am still shooting with a Canon 300d, and 10d converted to IR. For an upgrade I bypassed full frame and went to the 645D. The resolution is staggering compared to a 6.3 megapixel model from the 2004 period.
    CHEERS...Mathew
     
  12. There's a big difference between a 20D and a 5DII. That said, you'll to need some good lenses in order to appreciate that difference fully.
    Even if the "newer version" is announced tomorrow, it would probably be SEVERAL months before you'd be able to get your hands on one (unless you're very cozy with a dealer). How much money do you want to spend on film between now and 'someday'?
    Noise. Yes, it's very good and in many cases it means the difference between getting a handheld shot and missing it. That said, I always have to do some noise reduction in post-processing when I shoot at ISO values of 800 or more. The internal noise reduction helps, but it doesn't work miracles.
    Shadow noise can a bigger annoyance, and it can cause problems even at low ISO values. This varies greatly with subject matter. IMO, it seems most problematic with high-contrast shots of people.
    Here are a few other advantages that the Canon has over your MF system.
    • Telephoto lenses - Canon excels here - wildlife and distant objects are now within reach.
    • Image Stabilization (IS) - It works very well when you have to hand hold shots.
    • Live View - a great tool for ensuring accuracy when focusing manually.
    • HD Video - video pros love this camera. Great for capturing audio/video notes on location.
    Do you have a computer? I recommend downloading a trial version of Lightroom. And install the copy of DPP that comes with the camera. It's useful for viewing images with the camera's settings intact and for evaluating sharpness before opening files for Raw processing.
    By the way, here's a shot that I handheld at ISO 1600 at a location where tripod usage is both expressly forbidden and aggressively discouraged. I added a touch of NR in Lightroom. This shot would not have been possible with film.
    00Z2tf-380021584.jpg
     
  13. In addition to what has already been said:
    I upgraded to the 5D2 from the 350D (same sensor as your 20D). Just like you I rarely shot above ISO 200 with my 350D. Noise started to appear at ISO 400 and above that it was unpleasant. With the 5D2 I don't even begin to consider the effect of noise until I shoot above ISO 1600. Even then, the noise on a 5D2 is vastly different to the noise on the older DSLRs. It is actually quite pleasant when handled correctly, more like film grain. I would happily shoot at ISO 3200 for most things. I have had useable results at ISO 12800. My tripod has been covered in dust since I got this camera. With IS and this sort of low light performance the good days are here to stay.
    The other important factor you'll need to bear in mind is the greater depth of field compared to your MF kit. If you shot your landscapes at f16 on your RZ then you can probably shoot the same landscape at f8 on the 5D2. That'll gain you another stop of ISO performance.
    It's pointless waiting for the 5D3. The 5D2 will do far and above what you need. It's a landscapers dream DSLR. Just buy it, you will NOT regret it.
     
  14. You don't get better pictures (than film) with a digital like the 5D. You get different capabilities, which leads to more "good" pictures. Sensor-size, and resolution, are the same as 35mm film. The big difference is that you need to use a low speed film like Velvia to get max resolution with film, while the 5D does any ISO you basically want.
     
  15. Digital has a long way to go before it reaches the quality you can achieve with your RZ. At the end of the day it all comes down to your needs, I still shoot a lot of film but also have a d700 as I'm a wedding photographer.
    Landscapes is IMO one of the few areas of photography that can still justify shooting film over digital.
     
  16. Several seconds isn't even an issue. I do a lot of night photography that focuses on urban and abandoned industrial sites, and typical exposures range from a minute or two up to about 15 minutes. Here I can get very clean exposures using long exposure noise reduction. (I have done exposures into the low 20 minute range this way, including a shot of Mounts Ritter and Banner in the eastern Sierra from Thousand Island Lake that was lit by a rising full moon behind me.)
    Though I don't do it myself, it is possible to do much longer exposures by combining a series of many shorter exposures. There is software that automates this process. This method is favored by many who do the images with very long star trails.
    Dan
     
  17. I think if I had unlimited money and really wanted the true digital version of 6x7 film I would need to upgrade to a medium format digital outfit such as mentioned like a Pentax or Hasselblad and go for 50 megapixal or up ! But the lowest price version is the Mamiya 645 outfit at 10,000 and it is 22 megapixels.... I think that is something to shot for after I have the 5dII and with the versatility it has I can see doing more stock photography (most stock companies won't even consider the 20d photos at this point and film is too expensive for mass amounts of stock images). I am really glad to hear about being able to use a higher ISO... I still probably will drag around the tripod for landscapes though... and may "stitich" some photos together if I think I will be needing to print large. But the video feature is also a big draw for me as well... so I am sold... but it is funny as a fine artist, I feel like I am somehow "cheating" with shooting DSLR... something like you have to suffer for your art ! Time to let that go as well..
     
  18. I would most certainly use a tripod for the landscape work - it is pretty much a necessity, especially if you want to take advantage of live view.
    As an artist, let me say that there is nothing "cheating" about any format choice. Each has its advantages and disadvantages and those are what determine what is the best tool. For example, I do a lot of landscape work with long focal lengths and I also frequently work with subjects that change quickly - for both of these elements the full frame DSLR format makes the most sense, even though I might be able to produce a bit higher resolution with MF. For some of my work there would be advantages in shooting MF digital - and when the time is right I will expand in that direction - but for other important aspects of my work, MF digital would not be the right choice.
    Also keep in mind that among those doing the switch from film to digital, a great many of them have moved to the next smaller format. While certain things like the effect of aperture on DOF and so forth don't translate perfectly to the smaller formats, other things like resolution and color and dynamic range do.
    Dan
     
  19. Michelle, I too love to work with my RZ and for a while was torn between the cost of film and scanning, good scans I
    mean. The kind of scanning needed for selling your work requires a healthy wallet! I decided way back that I would
    keep the RZ due to my longtime investment in lens and accessories. I use the RZ for specific work with both film back
    and digital back as well. Not a very big digital back only 16 megapixel square format but it works very well for my food
    photography because of the cropping and macro capabilities. There is something about the look and feel of an image
    taken with a great camera system like the RZ that cannot be duplicated by DSLRs. For that reason alone I think is
    why I haven't changed course. I do have to say that most of my work is done with a rental Hasselblad HD system due
    to the ease of use and very large file not to mention great IQ too.

    I love my RZ and use it as much as I can for both personal and business. I think the only thing I would do is maybe
    someday soon get the new RZ system with it's integrated digital back and 31 megapixel and I'll be a happy camper.
    Most of the images I now produce with the Hasselblad HD 31 megapixel are more than enough for what I do and I find
    myself resizing them anyways.

    Good luck!

    Ed
     
  20. but it is funny as a fine artist, I feel like I am somehow "cheating" with shooting DSLR... something like you have to suffer for your art !​
    Oh, don't worry. There's plenty of suffering to be had in the digital world. What until you blow the highlights in a shot that you can't re-stage.
     
  21. .Aren't true artists supposed to "suffer" ?
     
  22. Dear Michelle, apologies for making it complicated but I have a slightly different point of view.I have been using a 5DmkII for a couple of years now and have found that the images don't really have the look I'm after and so have returned,partly, to MF film.
    If you're used to MF film I would definitely consider renting a 5D, just over a weekend maybe, before spending your cash just to make sure.
    As regards weight etc, I go to some fairly remote places and so this is an issue for me also. I use a Mamyia 7II as opposed to the heavier outfits and find this suits very well.
     
  23. Yes, I have a pretty extensive outfit for my RZ also...but I think that sellling it is what I have to do to get the $$ for the 5dII... and I live in NYC so there is Adorama, Fotocare that have rental depts you can get a film MF, such as my RZ and it's soooo much cheaper to rent than digital. So if that shot comes up that I feel I really want to shot 6x7 format film I can always rent. But I do love the macro on the RZ too... I have the extension tube and shoot like f22 or so. Though the depth of field is still pretty shallow.. it works sometimes but can be a bit frustrating when photographing textures in nature... they never seem to be on a flat plane.
     
  24. Michelle,
    I understand completely about MF film. I had a complete Hasselblad kit and the day I sold it for a 5DmkII was the best day of my photographic life. Scanning and dealing with poor processing, expense/poor availability of film, X-rays, scratches and dust not least the improved post-processing ability when dealing with native RAW files makes me wish I has switched earlier. The only reason to shoot film MF, in my opinion is if you shoot black and white and have access to a darkroom with top class equipment.
     
  25. Robin, that top class darkroom equipment can be had for less than the cost of three 100 sheet boxes of paper for it these days. There is no reason not to have it.
     
  26. I got rid of my Mamiya 645 film outfit (I know it's only 6x4.5 and not 6x7 like your RZ), when I got my Canon 1DS MKIII a fews years ago. The results with the Canon were better, but more importantly images were easier and cheaper to get. I originally had doubts about getting rid of the film outfit but looking back I don't miss it at all.
     
  27. I understand both sides... wish I could have best of both worlds and I think there are reasons to stick to film (if your aesthetic fits with film) but also have ther versatility and ease of digital. But the cost of used MF camera equipment keeps going down (expect for the Mamiya 7II for some reason) so if I feel some deep need to go back, hopefully I have made some money via stock or assignment using the 5DmarkII to invest in another MF system in the future. Any feelings on used Canon 5DmarkII ? I probably will just buy new, since I have terrible luck with used, even from big stores with 90 warranty. But thought I would ask. Thanks for all the suggestions... As an aside I was at the Metropolitian Museum to McQueen show and stopped by their show of recent photo aquisitions. 3 mural size color ink jet prints were on display, probably 6 feet by 4 feet or so. They were lushious, rich, exceptional detail and unless I was looking under a powerful loupe, flawless. I think the age of digital has caught up to MF or even large format.
     
  28. Dan South wrote: "There's plenty of suffering to be had in the digital world. What until you blow the highlights in a shot that you can't re-stage."
    Ha! That's for sure. It seems to me that each medium brings its own modes of suffering. And if those aren't enough and the previous suffering due to carrying pounds of MF film gear on the trail is no longer available, there is always good old fashioned artistic suffering. ;-)
    You might think of the attitudes of film shooters towards digital as being in several categories:
    • "I really ought to try it some time."
    • "It is new. It can't possibly be as good as what is old." (Always good to offer a reminder that photography was considered the "new" in relation to painting at one time not that long ago. And that cameras with interchangeable lenses and roll film were regarded by some in the same way.)
    • "I'd switch, but I would have to learn a whole new workflow." This is a serious issue. I know of a number of photographers who have determined to make the switch, but then were too frustrated by having to become beginners again and not be able to rely on their hard-earned intuitive skills. It is good to prepare for this.
    • "Digital is fine, but I'm fine with film." I can think of at least one excellent photographer, and I know there are others, who seem to have adopted almost exactly this perspective. I can understand. If you are well-regarded for the work you do with film, and you have spent an entire career working that way, and your results are successful...
    • "I'll just shoot digital the way I shot film and it will be even better." Caution. Digital is not film and film is not digital. While ones visual intelligence can be roughly the same with both media, there are technical differences that must be understood and mastered. (What happens to highlights is a wonderful example.)
    • "That worked with film but digital can't do it." This is related to the previous point. Thinking of film as home base, means that all comparisons go back to film. For example. people will critique prints because they don't look the same as, say, silver gelatin. But you could equally critique silver gelatin prints because they don't look like great inkjet prints! When two things are different, one is not always better - sometimes they are just different.
    • "I mastered digital capture, post, and printing. I produced really outstanding work, and the process became intuitive. Now I want to go back to film." Somewhere out there, a photographer with that point of view probably exists. So far I have not met her or him.
    Dan
     
  29. I have been using a 5DmkII for a couple of years now and have found that the images don't really have the look I'm after and so have returned,partly, to MF film.
    If you're used to MF film I would definitely consider renting a 5D, just over a weekend maybe, before spending your cash just to make sure.​
    While this sounds like a conservative, cautious approach, it's really a BAD idea UNLESS during your evaluation weekend you spend some quality time with someone who UNDERSTANDS DIGITAL POST-PROCESSING. If you shoot for a couple of days, load the images on your computer and don't process them correctly, you'll probably come to the same conclusion as the poster I've quoted above. ("They don't have the look I'm after.")
    Digital files can be transformed into all manner of "looks" if you know what you're doing. High-contrast, low-contrast, saturated, desaturated, B&W from color, etc. But there's the rub - you have to KNOW what you're DOING. If, like me, you enter into digital photography believing that your film experience taught you all you need to know, you'll waste a lot of time and you'll wonder why people get so excited about digital cameras. You might even conclude that "film is better" given that you don't get the results that you want from your digital files.
    Learning post-processing isn't difficult if you take your time and have access to some decent training and tutorials or some patient friends and mentors. But if you think that you can evaluate a digital camera in a weekend without any post-processing experience, you're setting yourself up for a big disappointment.
     
  30. The irony is that i do have experience with digital because of my 20d which I used extensively, it just no longer can cut it, even when I was doing some stock back in 2005. I got the RZ because I was frustrated at the time by not being able to afford a digital system that was in the 21 megapixel range or up... so I thought, hmmm I'll shot 6x7 transparencies and get that beautiful resolution I am looking for, full of detail, color saturation, no noise (or grain) etc. The problem was you can't display a transparency ! It's a lovely object in itself, but not the final result (much like a Raw file is not the final result). I had to scan using an affordable Epson and the loss of information, resolution, refinement from the transparency is heartbreaking. But since the 5dMarkII a decent digital camera is within financial reach I have got an Apple cinema screen, mac computer, several 1Terrabyte external harddrives, and the Canon lens from the D20... ready to make the switch !
     
  31. Michelle, I'll add a plug for Lightroom 3 if you don't use it already. It will help you get the most out of the raw (CR2) files. Also,
    update the firmware when you receive your camera. Typically, they don't ship with the latest version.
     
  32. Michelle, my apologies for forgetting that you have used digital in the 20D. You were pretty clear about that.
    I think you're set to go with a 5D2 or equivalent at this point, and I believe you'll be very happy with the results, the increased flexibility, and the lighter weight.
    Dan
     
  33. @Dan South
    An unnecessarily charmless response there Dan to what was meant to be a genuinely helpful post. Particuarly so since I had chosen my words carefully so as to not inflame any tedious digital vs film 'debate'.Alas though, not carefully enough obviously for some sensitive souls.
     
  34. Andrew:
    Dan's post may (or may not) have lacked charm either in presentation or perception, but I think he does make a good point and one that is not unrelated to a couple of bullets in my list.
    A good number of people who come from a film background and who might be trying to decide if digital can produce comparable (notice that I did not write "identical") quality to film can easily be led astray by comparing a thing with which they have great familiarity, namely film, to the thing that they barely know at all, namely digital. (By the way, it doesn't appear than Michelle is among this group, and I'm not forming a judgment about whether or not you are either.)
    For reasons that I completely understand, these Film Photographers Testing The Digital Waters (FPTTDW) can make some unfortunate initial judgments about what digital can and cannot do. I've heard them say things like "a digital print cannot rival a darkroom print," or "you can't make a great black and white print from digital" or "the images from my camera a too soft with digital" and many other things.
    Digital can do all of these things and more - and this is not meant to deprecate film photography at all, by the way - but they are not automatic, they are not done in the same ways they are done with film, and digital work requires the acquisition and development of a new and sophisticated set of skills that the film photographer does not automatically possess.
    As I like to say, the FPTTDW often needs to be willing to become a beginner all over again in many ways. I truly do appreciate the difficulty of this and the frustration that it brings - but it cannot be avoided.
    Take care,
    Dan
     
  35. My post was directed to the OP and others who might be in a similar position. It was meant as a cautionary note to avoid the mistakes that I myself made when crossing into
    the DSLR realm after years of dedication to color reversal film. If she plans to make a big decision based on a couple
    of days of evaluation, information is probably more salient than charm.

    On the other hand, Andrew, perhaps I characterized the subtext your choice to return to film unfairly. I am by no means
    an expert at post processing, and it's very likely that your own Photoshop skills would put mine to shame. I realize that
    my post may have implied the contrary and for that I apologize. Again, I was thinking of the well-being of the OP who
    is on the verge of making an important decision, not someone who has already chosen their path. I don't know your
    reasons for preferring film. I still shoot film on occasion for the pure joy and look of it, so I appreciate your dedication
    to the medium.

    G Dan: As I like to say, the FPTTDW often needs to be willing to become a beginner all over again in many ways. I truly do appreciate the difficulty of this and the frustration that it brings - but it cannot be avoided.

    That's a very good way to look at it, particularly because experienced film photographers often have no idea how demanding that transition will be.
     
  36. Michelle, buy a Canon 5DMkII body and keep the excellent RZ-glasses and save money, and use them with an brand new special adapter mount for Canon. www.hartblei.de
     
  37. I think you have answered your own question Michelle. Get the 5 D MkII. Yes, in a year or two you might want to upgrade to the replacement, when it comes out. But you can decide then. Now though, you will save hundreds of dollars on film and scanning, and you can go back to shooting film (drum scanning just a couple of your very best shots each month), if you're not satisfied with the performance of the new camera. The 5 D is WAY better than the 20 D. I have both. The 5 D Mk II is a nice step up from the 5 D. It does 14 bit RAW, instead of 12 bit, and it catches significantly more detail.
    -
    If you do it, you will not miss the heavy kit you use now. With one spare memory card and one spare battery, you can walk around with your DSLR and a 24-70mm f2.8 L all day, and it will be like you're just out for a stroll. You can keep a 16-35mm f2.8 L in your pocket or on your belt, so you can get those wide landscape shots, and you'll be a happy camper!
    -
    By the computer equipment you have, I think you really will be happy with the 5 D Mk II. Eventually, you can get a 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS for shooting animals and longer stuff. (You'll shoot at f8 or f11 most of the time with that baby. I found myself doing that with my 70-200mm f2.8 L IS.)
    -
    Good luck!
    -
    P.S. I get 20x30 prints made at Costco for $9 each. Many people never print larger than this. Try it with one of your best shots from your 20 D, if you haven't already printed at that size. Then, if you do get the 5 D Mk II, try it with that camera, after you've been shooting for a couple of days, just to see the difference. My guess is you won't see much difference, because the difference won't show up much until you print larger than about 24x36. Also don't forget that L glass is pretty much all you should use, so DEFINITELY get a 24-70mm f2.8 L or a 24-105mm f4 L, and shoot them at f8 and f11, when you are testing. I'm sure you'll use mirror lock-up mode on a tripod too. If you plan to buy mostly fixed lenses, the 14mm f2.8 L, 24mm f1.4 L, and 135mm f2 L are all great, and the 85mm f1.2 L is absolutely amazing, but the 50mm f1.4 is not so good (mine shoots pretty clear images at f2.8 and above, but with no getting wet or dropping or other abuse it stopped working - firs the auto-focus stopped, and then the aperture stopped, so I can only shoot at f1.4 now - and this after only using it a few times in a few years - low quality! I suggest the Sigma 50mm f1.4, because it's better and has aspherical elements, so you can shoot at night, with points of light, at f1.4, without ending up with scallops instead of points of light).
     
  38. I have a 5D MkII and I love it. But I miss the experience of shooting film, so I just bought a used Mamiya RZ67 and can't wait to play with it and learn it. I'm very happy having both.
     

Share This Page