Which camera should I upgrade to?

[christie_o]

<p>another one</p>

<div></div>

[christie_o]

<p>another</p><div></div>

[christie_o]

<p>another</p>

<div></div>

[christie_o]

<p>another</p>

<div></div>

[christie_o]

<p>pretty colors</p><div></div>

[christie_o]

<p>last one</p><div></div>

[christie_o]

<p>So as you can see these pics seem pretty nice to me, but not good enough, I want them to look a lot better. They just aren't quite clear enough, I guess because I'm not using a tripod, but even when I do, they still don't seem just right...</p>

[elliot1]

<p>"... he's OK with whatever I do" </p>

<p>Since he is OK with whatever you want to do, 'Unpromise' him your 5D MKII, and he will be OK with it. I would guess that if you are together a lot, you can share the camera.</p>

<p>Perhaps you can explain what you don't like about your photos... if you are referring to the out of focus areas, do some research on depth-of-field and you will understand why this is the case. Images from Nikon gear will not look any different to those taken with Canon equipment.</p>

<p>Which lens are you using?</p>

[christie_o]

<p>We live together lol, so we do share. Most of these are with my 50mm compact macro, I think the lizard was with my new lens which is a 100mm is macro, which was quite a shock when it came because I expected a lens the size of my compact when I ordered it lol. It's not the out of focus areas that bother me, it's that the in-focus areas aren't really sharply in focus. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Yes, I think that you had better rent some Nikon equipment and see if you really can do anything better -- I can't imagine, to put it bluntly, that you will do better with Nikon than you already have with the Canon.</p>

<p>You need to learn, but it's not new equipment you need, but rather how to <em>use</em> the equipment. Like Elliot, I have a suspicion that you are complaining about things that are the result of the physical character of lenses, etc. and those will be the same with Nikon as with Canon.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Christie, first let me apologize for considering you a troll. I also apologize in advance for assuming that you are fairly new to photography - am I correct?<br /> Now, seeing your images, I strongly suggest you hold on to your equipment - there is no reason to change systems as the 5DMKII with the 100mm macro is about as good as it gets. There are equivalents in the Nikon system and we can possibly quibble over some details, but you will not see a major improvement from changing systems. <br /> As JDM von Weinberg suggested, you need to learn how to <em>use </em>the equipment. With macro, your depth of field (DOF) is generally paper thin - only a small part of your subject will be in focus. If you use AF, things get even more complicated if you can't control exactly which point the camera focuses on. Case in point is the image "bug in my yard". The camera picked the body of the bug to focus on - and because of the very thin DOF, the head is already out of focus. It would generally be preferable to have the head in focus - in which case, the body would be out of focus. Unless you stop down enough - working at small apertures to maximize the DOF is the name of the game in macro. The other is composition. There will always be only a very thin plane in focus - it is up to you to decide were that plane is on the subject and which parts it covers. You can see that in-focus plane in your "detail" image - focus seems to be more on the body than the eye and the plane then includes part of the dragonfly's right wing. It's too bad that the EXIF data don't show the camera parameters; would be interesting to see what your f-stop and shutter speed were for each image. There is no way to get that dragonfly image sharp from head to tail with one macro shot - the only way to achieve this would be focus stacking (several images taken with moving the focal point by a very small amount from image to image; those images then will be combined in post-processing).</p>

<p>You say you want your image to look better - it is totally in your hands to do that - it is not the equipment that is holding you back. You can try to teach yourself, get books or take a course. Money much better spent than on changing the camera system.</p>

<p>I just had a quick look at the Top Rated Photos Macro - there is no reason why your equipment can't get you shots like this one: http://www.photo.net/photo/10810790<br>

It's not the camera or the lens that took that shot - it was the photographer. Think of your camera and lens as the artist's brush - they are the tools and they do nothing by themselves.</p>

[christie_o]

<p>Wow, that's exactly what I mean! That picture quality is what I hope to achieve! I'll definitely try to get educated on what I'm doing before I change the equipment, hopefully I can learn to use the AF right, since my manual focusing is pure guesswork. Many thanks to all of you who gave me such great helpful advice!</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Though I try to use AF for macro work, you will soon find that most will recommend using manual focusing for better accuracy. As I mentioned, DOF is incredibly small and any small camera movement will throw your focus way off (as will any movement of the subject). This is often easier to catch with manual focusing than with autofocus - most systems tend to start hunting. While doing macro hand held is certainly possible - some of the best macro shots I have seen have been hand held - it isn't easy trying to hold a camera steady enough. If you can't hand hold a shutter speed of 1/8 or better 1/4 s rock steady every time, you can't expect to be able to hand hold macro shots and achieve critical focus. I mentioned before that macro generally means stopping the lens down, and that means that shutter speeds will increase since there is so little light reaching the sensor - the additional extension of the lens at close range costs light too. So, a lot of macro work will require the use of extra light sources, usually flash.</p>

[quazar46]

<p>Christie;<br>

Your images look very good to me. the only improvement you should look for is control of your depth of field. I am sure that you canon 5d MkII has focus lock so you can focus and hold it to change composition if you want to. my suggestion would be to take a photo course from NYIP. to learn about depth of field. Your Canon 5D MkII is top of the line. The only Nikon that might be a little bit better Is the Nikon D3x and it has a rediculus price tag of $8000 for the camera body alone then you have to add lenses and flash. The D90 you mentioned would be a step or two down from your 5D. You would do better to get and use a good tripod, and let your boyfriend get his own camera. I bet he gets a Canon 5D MkII.<br>

Martin</p>

[elliot1]

<p>The 5D MKII has really good manual focus ability when using live view where you can magnify the image greatly to insure accurate focus. But, to use it effectively, it is best to use a solid tripod. Same goes for AF when doing macro work as the slightest movement forward or back after AF has locked in will affect overall focus.</p>

<p><em>"That picture quality is what I hope to achieve" </em>Its mainly about technique and less about the body - a really good lens (not necessarily expensive but good in quality) obviously helps as well. You would probably be much happier with Canon's 100mm macro lens for the type of macro work you want to do. While the lens you have seems to be pretty sharp, it appears you can't get close enough to your subjects to get the detail you are looking for. If you look at your photos and the linked photo, your main subject is much farther away in your photos. Great lighting also helps a lot. While I agree the D90 may be to some extent a bit of a step down from the MKII, overall image quality will be pretty much the same between the two under a lot of shooting conditions. It is much smaller and lighter than the MKII too.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Christie, I hope you don't mind me giving you a very direct answer. The several images you posted to this thread are very typical for starting photographers. I think it is fair to say that there is plenty of room for improvement. As usual, what matters is behind the camera; you can change equipment for all you want: more lenses, different formats, different brands ... and it will not affect the most fundamental factor.</p>

<p>Canon makes fine cameras and lenses and so does Nikon. There are some relatively small differences among brands. For very advanced photographers, the availability of a certain camera body and/or lens can make a difference. For most beginners and intermediate photographers, it is a complete waste of time to even think about those differences. If your boyfriend also uses Canon, it make a lot of sense for the two of you to use compatible equipment so that you can interchange components.</p>

<p>If you are not yet using a tripod, get a good tripod with a ballhead for macro, unless you are chasing flying insects. Another issues a lot of beginning photographers do not pay attention to is the background. A chaotic background is distracting, so are bright areas in the background that overpower the subject.</p>

<p>P.S. The original question looked very much like a "troll" to me. As soon as I saw the post, I immediately check with Lex Jenkins and Jeff Spirer and see what they think, and they told me that it is more like from a young photographer.</p>

[christie_o]

<p>Thank you, any and all advice is appreciated greatly! </p>

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

<p>"Hi, I am a Canon user who is going to switch to Nikon."</p>

<p>Question: Why?</p>

<p>Both systems are great. Hair splitting difference, my opinion. <br /> I bought Nikon in the olden days of the 1970's when I was inolved in Viet Nam. I recently replaced the gaskets, mirror bumper on a Nikkormat from a kit I bought from Jon Goodman. The camera I bought either in Hong Kong or Japan. Or maybe it was Subic.<br /> When I decided to go digital, way back in 2003-2004 I went with Canon as, my opinion only, they were further along with digital. <br /> My Nikon lenses are superb. So are Canons.<br /> Just to help, a suggestion, have you considered medium format? I've bought several used Hasselblads pretty cheap from both KEH & B&H. Must of lucked out because I bought a 500C made in 1969 that looks to be brand new. And it works like a charm.</p>

<p>At any rate, my opinion, could you tell the difference between Nikon & Canon negatives?</p>

<p> </p>

[john_tran14]

<p>If you can afford a Nikon camera, go ahead. Since your 5D is still there, you can check and see for yourself if there is any improvement (instead of taking anybody's words on it).</p>

[dennis_d._hardenburger]

<p>I might be wrong but I think part of Chiistie's problem is poor eye sight. Which would effect manual focusing.</p>

 

[vince-p]

<p>What's a troll? I feel most ignoranto.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>If one's objective is to show off all sorts of (high-end) equipment, do get more Canon, Nikon cameras and lenses. Also buy more Zeiss and Leica lenses as well as Hasselblad medium-format equipment if you can afford them.</p>

<p>If the OP's objective is to improve her photography, I would highly recommend some classes. Her images are typical for beginning photographers; all of us have been there. In particular, it sounds like she has not been using a tripod to capture macro. Therefore, having focusing problem is very much expected. Depth of field is shallow and vibration from hand holding will continuously affect your focus point. There is no reason to believe that there is anything wrong with her eyesight.</p>

<p>Finally, check out this description of an internet troll: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet</a>)</p>

[christie_o]

<p>I've enrolled in an online class and am learning a lot. Hopefully I'll overcome my limitations lol. I'm nearsighted which means I see perfectly close-up on the computer for instance, but somehow when I'm focusing I can't quite make out the perfect focal point... also I'm so clutzy with a tripod, but I think I need the better type of head. As Shun mentioned though, I do chase flying insects a lot, so I guess I'll be practicing everything!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If you are interested in macro photography, one book that is still good to get is John Shaw's <a href="http://www.johnshawphoto.com/books.html"><em>Closeup in Nature</em></a>. It was published over 20 years ago and is possibly older than some of the members here, but while the equipment has improved, e.g. flash technology is far superior today, the techniques concerning lighting and composition have not changed much.</p>

<p>I hope you can get some honest feedback on your photography and info on how to improve. The overly generous praises people tend to dish out to everybody in fourms such as this one may make you feel good, but they are not going to help you improve as a photographer. In that sense an instructer-led, face-to-face class with image critique from everybody in the class has its advantages. Hopefully your on-line class also lets you submit images for review.</p>

<p>Finally, the Canon 5D Mark II is not known for its AF speed. If you need to shoot a lot of flying insects, consider adding a Canon 7D and make sure you have some dedicated macro lenses. Nikon makes fine cameras and lenses, but if you already have some Canon equipemnt, I would stay with Canon.</p>

[christie_o]

<p>I think I will get good feedback from the instructors, this one has good reviews for that.</p>

<p>Thinking about it, I just realized one of the problems I have with the tripod is changing the heights. Especially when I'm laying on the ground taking to get a shot, it's hard to get it that low quickly. I'm kinda lucky with all the bugs around my house, they don't really seem threatened by me, and especially the dragonflies will stay still on a twig while I get several shots. </p>