calvin_vickery

<p>Rather than appearing closed-minded and individualistic, Ariel I thought I'd better respond ;) . Of course, I realize that there are a number of different ways to compare the two sensor sizes, and there is no simple and 'correct' way, there's just too many other factors. What I was trying to say (apparently ineffectively) is that the sensor size alone isn't sufficient to account for the discrepancy in performance between the two sensors sizes, say in the E-PL1 and the D7000 (both 2010 releases). You've mentioned this in your response. The numbers I've seen quoted (but with out support) indicate that for a comparable level of sensor, FF bests APS-C by about 1 2/3 stops, and APS-C bests m43 by about 2/3 stop. While I can't vouch for the exact numbers this seems about right to me. Size wise, m43 is much closer to APS-C than APS-C is to FF and all other things equal, size is the important factor. Someone suggested that Oly would need to come up with a 'magic' sensor to match or beat the D7000. These numbers would suggest that this isn't so. The trouble that m43 has had to date is that the m43 sensors have been lagging behind technologically, as you would see by comparing the two 2010 bodies I mentioned. However, if this time Oly manages to match the technology in the D7000 sensor (2 years later), it would only miss the D7000 mark by about 2/3 stop. If Oly has managed to source a 'state-of-the-art' sensor for the E-M5 it's conceivable that the gap could be narrowed or bettered. I do suspect that this isn't the case, since much of what we are hearing now is marketing hype, not facts. However, if the E-M5 manages to pull up to a 2/3 stop disadvantage to the D7000, will this be visible in the majority of shots? Yes, the E-M5 shot would fall apart at smaller print sizes (but not much smaller) and quicker as the ISO is raised (but not much quicker). I suspect that at the sizes I can print (~13x19) and the ISO levels I tend to use, I would have a difficult time seeing a 2/3 stop advantage. Naturally YMMV. </p>

<p>Wrong camera Leslie, but if you navigate back to the top of his website there is some E-M5 info.<br /> Some of the responses here seem to verge on hysterical. The Oly E-M5 is a new camera and only preliminary reviews are out there now, so there is a lot of speculation mixed with marketing hype and a bit of actual data. There are some things that can be reasonably infer from past cameras and the current data on the E-M5.<br /> 1) the m43 sensor is not tiny, once one extracts the differences caused by the 4:3 ratio vs 3:2 (ie crop the 3:2 to 4:3) it's about 30% smaller in surface area. Not an insignificant difference but much closer to APS-C than a P&S. The biggest issue that m43 has had is that the Pansonic sensors were weaker at higher ISO's than the APS-C competition. Oly won't say who makes the sensor in the E-M5 and there is at least the possibility that significant progress has been made in the sensor and image processing. Preliminary results are encouraging. Will the IQ beat the D7000? My sense is probably not, but it may give it a run for the money. At reasonable print sizes they may be indistinguishable for practical purposes.<br /> 2)the m43 camera have dramatically improved their AF systems in the past few iterations and the E-M5 has promised additional inprovements. Reviewers have commented on the speed. For single AF function it may equal or beat the D7000 for speed and accuracy (the sensor based AF is inherently more accurate) . The weakness of the m43 AF is it's single AF speed doesn't translate into the same improvement in continuous/tracking AF. For tracking moving targets the D7000 probably is still noticably better.<br /> All in all, the E-M5 is promising camera, but with the OP's list of requirements the D7000 is still the better option.</p>

<p>Old thread but just in case someone is still interested. I have 2 EF bodies:<br>

#385815 - Split Image - Oct 1976<br>

#253511 - Microprism - Dec 1974<br>

Thinking of selling the newer body for parts since the spring that returns the mirror is broken...but maybe I should keep it in case the other one has an issue since it seems that parts are becoming a concern.</p>

<p>S.D....you joined just to post that??? Wish this site had an ignore button.<br>

I hope they are up soon, I'm having a bit of an issue with a purchase from there and it would be nice to refer to the original listing. (Yes..I know I should have printed it out)</p>

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=152&modelid=14259

 

If money is no object. :)

Tripods and monopods are a great idea but can be a problem to use in a church. Don't forget the cheaper solution...Brace your camera against something that isn't moving such as the pew or railing in front of you. If there is any subject movement though you do need to use an adequate shutter speed.

You would probably get the best results by using a faster lens. The 50/1.8 is inexpensive and at f2.0-2.8 will give far better results than any of your current lenses. Other relatively inexpensive lenses to consider, Sigma 20/1.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Canon 35/2, Canon 50/1.4, Canon 85/1.8, Canon 100/2. If money is no object Canon 24/1.4L Canon 35/1.4L, Canon 135/2L. You should review your shots and see what focal length you are tending to use from your position. Don't be afraid to crop a bit to get the right framing. (i.e. if you tend to take shots at ~60mm the 50/1.8 would be fine, just crop away the excess)

 

I wouldn't use a lens slower than f2.8 and would bump your ISO to 800, 1600 or maybe even 3200 if you can use NeatImage or NoiseNinja.

 

I also suggest that if you are shooting available light like this I find that RAW is much easier to work with. Try PSE (free) or DPP for processing the RAW files.<div></div>

Be cautious with the cheap adapters. I picked up a used cheap adapter and my CZ 35/2.8 won't focus to infinity. Turns out the adapter is too thick. This may be a case where you get what you pay for.

I have the Sigma EX 1.4 , not the DG version and I've been very satisfied. Yes it works on the 70-200/4 L and it works very well. The impact of a 1.4 on image quality is minimal if you are starting with a good lens.

 

I also had a Sigma EX 2x and a Canon 2x MkII. The Sigma was not as good as the Canon is good light, it tended to add CA to high contrast edges. The Canon had the same issue but not to the same extent. The Canon was sharper at the edges. Interestingly the Sigma beat the Canon when shooting in lower light with a low contrast subject. The Canon was better, but for the money the Sigma was a good deal. I suspect the differences would be less with the 1.4 TC's. I have a hard time telling the shots taken with the 1.4x Sigma from the bare lens so it's hard to imagine that the Canon would be noticably better. I have some shots on my pbase site with the 1.4, primarily with the Canon 200/2.8. ( www.pbase.com/vickery ).

 

I haven't noticed in any degradation in AF performance. It may be worse in poor light but in good light it's not an issue.

 

I haven't seen any comparisons between the DG and non-DG versions of any Sigma product. It's possible that the DG is more a marketing change than a significant change in the product.

 

For me, I wouldn't pay the extra for a DG version (90% more) or the Canon (178% more), at least not for the 1.4x TC. The sole consideration that might make me change my mind would be the likelihood that I would be reselling the TC at any point. The Canon holds it's value better and sells quickly, The Sigma DG will likely sell faster than the non-DG version.

 

Good luck,

 

Cal Vickery

I have a monopod and it does help, but I'd be guessing how many stops I gain. The problem most people seem to have is that they use the monopod to strictly carry the weight of the lens. While this probably saves your strength I doubt you gain much of an advantage exposure wise. The way to use the monopod that gives the most advantage is to use the monopod, in combination with your two legs to form a tripod as is shown here: http://www.outdooreyes.com/photo5.php3

I doubt this will help much if you have a 1200mm monster, but with a 200-300mm it should make a significant difference.

Cal

I had the 18-50mm f3.5-5.6 DC for my D30 and 10d. The lens is in my opinion roughly comparable to the Canon from the pics I've seen. Both lenses need to be stopped down for the best results (f8-11 seems optimal). The Sigma may be a bit softer, but I think the colour is a bit better. Be aware that these are both low end wide angles and there could be a significant variance in quality between different copies of the lenses. You should buy the lens from a retailer that accepts returns, or buy a used copy that you can see pics from. Used copies are often available for these lenses and at significant savings. I sold my like new 18-50 for about $100 Cdn when I upgraded to the Sigma 15-30.

 

Be aware that some Sigma lenses have focusing issues on the 20d and could have the same issue with the XT.

 

Cal

I've also heard that the lens requires that the clear filter is always installed. However, with the filter on the lens will not work on my EOS 650 as it interferes with the mirror. I've not noticed a problem on the 650 without the filter, and when I use it on my 10D there is no noticeable difference whether the filter is installed or not. Why would it make such a difference in this case?