william_bray1
-
Posts
131 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by william_bray1
-
-
<p>here are two photos of the 7d and the 5dMKII, they are 100% crops both taken with the same lens. Nothing has been done to them!<br>
I don't know of another way to upload the images<br>
both were shot at 6400 <em>ISO</em> I promise the softer photo is the 5d.</p>
-
<p>Oh and I think I'm going to take your advice Stephen and get a 5d MKI, and may be a 7d later on when the prices might drop a bit more. I don't think the MK II is going to convince me at the curant price.</p>
-
<p>Stephen Asprey, you're right I'm used to buying equipment and getting many years of use out of it' like my lenses. But with camera body's it's a throw away mentality now, the manufactures now what they are doing. And I think it's Canon that are playing the games here G Dan Mitchell.</p>
-
<p>My reasons for posting this question was originaly in my mind the 5d was a dream camera until I tested it.When everyone is raving about how good something is and I can't see it I want to know why. Someone said here that the 5d has to be treated like a medium format camera with a shallow depth of field, I agree, hence accurate AF is a must. Something that I and some people who bought a 5d feel, is that the body's AF system struggles with. So why are Canon making a camera with such an amazing sensor and putting in a body that can't cope with the demand of the sensor.<br>
For looking at noise at ISO 6400 and comparing it, am I missing something or isn't this one of the big things about the 5d. So why wouldn,t anyone test this out? I don't care what photographers had to do 10 years ago I,m buying a camera in the 21st century as I don't care about the pros and cons of horse riding when now I drive a car.<br>
As for soft images from the 5d at high ISO I,m only saying what I,m seeing some one recommended this site <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM">http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM</a><br>
And at high ISO that is what I'm seeing.<br>
I,m sorry to upset anyone here because it seems I,ve touched a few nerve's here and I understand how some people may want to justify their purchase of a 5D MKII they bought the best camera there was, and still is regarding IQ at large prints, I would have bought it to if I had the money when it came out.<br>
But you must understand £2000 is a lot of money to find, I haven't got the option of being able to say in 2 months time " Oh the 5d is better then the 7d( or vice versa) I'll just pop down the shop and pick one up while I get my newspaper " I appreciate some of you might be able to do that, but not me. I just want to know where the extra money is going too on a 5d because I don't think canon can claim it costs £1000 just for a larger sensor. And I don't want to end up having a camera that I have to wear a sign around my neck saying " I can print really big". Believe it or not I'm happy to spend the money on a 5d that was the camera I've been saving for not the 7d. But I found it disappointing when I had it in my hands and part of me wants the 5d to be the camera I wanted.<br>
I just wanted other peoples opinions.<br>
Thanks to every ones replies<br>
just in case anyone who missed it you've got to see this<br>
<a href="
-
<p>In response to Dan Mitchell, I stand by what I said. If Canon,Nikon,Sony,etc, are going to charge £2000 for a camera put a little effort in it. Don't put a 21mp sensor in a body that is 4 years old, because that is what they have done. They added a better screen, the micro adjuster and..... oh yeah thats about it. Apart from that its the 20d or 5d mark I body.<br>
I went to the shop again to day when I picked up the 5d mark II, everything that I didn't like about the 20d is practically still there. The shop owner went on a canon course about the two cameras (7d & 5d). The Canon rep said .The market for the 5D MKII is small and has got smaller with the launch of the 7d, the people who are buying 5d is studio photographers, for advertising, or landscape photographers who want to print very big.<br>
Today I shot the 5d against the 7d with my 70-200 2.8 is,at iso 6400 I was hard pressed to tell the difference in noise,and defiantly the 5d produces softer images at high iso I,m convinced there is some kind of old noise reduction software going on in that camera.<br>
I would by angry with canon if I bought the 5d MKII, then they released the 7d.<br>
Check this out this video out I think it sums everything up beautifully<br>
<a href="
-
<p>I,m quite suprised how little difference there is in noise between the 7d and 5d at 6400 iso. the 5d only just beats it and the 5d is slightly softer. comparing what the 7d can do with a small sensor, I think when canon bring out a 5d MK III, and if they put as much thought in to it as they obviously have with the 7d, the 5dMK III would be awsome. But that won't happen for another 2 years and you'll have to wait 1 more year for the prices to go down. 7d is looking good. Thanks for recomending that web site</p>
-
<p>I just took a look at the Imaging resourse site, and it comfirmed what I thought the images are softer from the 5d mkII</p>
-
<p>Hi I have been shooting with a 20d for some years now and have been happy with it I can print A3 without any problems. Now I want to up grade my body,since I started I always wanted to eventually go full frame, In fact this was the major deciding factor for choosing Canon over Nikon when I bought the 20d. I have been looking at the 5d mkII, When I first saw the specifications on paper it made feel that I could order it without even trying it.<br>
Now I have the money to upgrade I tried it out the other day. I was not impressed. I felt that if you took away the 21 MP full frame sensor, what was left was rubbish. I have a 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 is, 100 macro, and some other lenses.I have found when shooting wide open, which I do a lot , I can only trust the center AF point on my 20d, so AF on a camera is important to me. The AF points on the 5d looked lost to me, cramped in the center of the frame. Canon might as well just put one AF point in the center.<br>
The images looked soft on the 5d at high ISO, as if it was applying some in camera noise reduction. When I compared the 7d, the images were sharper with a little bit more noise. So if I used Noise Ninja on the 7d images I don't think there would be much difference with ISO performance.<br>
Another disappointment was weather sealing. The 7d has it 5d doesn't. Not impressive for a £2000 camera.<br>
I don't know much about the video recording side of things but from what I've read the 7d beats the 5d here as well<br>
I been starting shooting weddings and commercial and selling some of my own work in art exhibitions over the last couple of years and it's been going well. Eventually I would like to have more income from this so I need a better body.<br>
Please can you give me your opinions over the 7d and the 5d.I have always had it in my mind to go full frame and now I feel I'm going backwards. But my heart is telling me there's more to a camera then megapixels and sensorsize.</p>
-
-
<p >I don’t believe the results in that review, maybe the own shares in sigma. If Canon made lenses of that quality at that price no body would buy them, I have got better results from far cheaper consumer lenses then the 24-70 if I went by that test. I have a Canon 24 70 and it is nothing like that. It’s slightly softer wide open but all lenses are. Edge sharpness if great. What I can gather is that the Nikon 24 70 is only a little bit better than the canon and you would only notice it if they were side by side, and the Nikon is at least £250 more expensive then the Canon.</p>
<p > </p>
<p >Take a look at this test of the sigma 24 70 hsm this is on full frame and crop sensor </p>
-
-
<p>Thank you very much this realy has helped me out</p>
-
<p>Thanks Jeff so just to clarify this diffraction is not an issue with sensorsize beacuse you have to stop the lens down on full frame to achevie the same depth of field as a crop sensor, thus making diffraction worse.</p>
-
<p>Thanks for all ypur responses to be honest some of this went over my head.In simple terms I always thought sensor size was like apature the bigger it is the less depth of field you have. I found it hard to get my head around this in theory because a 100mm lens on 1.6 crop would be 160mm as oposed to 100mm on full frame. Normaly when you increase the focal lengh on a subject you automaticaly get less DOF. This doesn't seem to be the case when comparing sensor size.<br>
One point that interested me but I didn't quite understand it was Bob King's point about "larger sensor sizes allow a greater range of useable apertures before diffraction starts to upset things". Could anyone explain this please Thanks.</p>
-
<p> Hi I was considering geting a canon 5d MK2 in the future. I have been thinking about how much it would improve my photography and I can only come up with one negative ( I think it's a negative ) about going full frame. It's the depth of field difference, I know the bokeh is better on the 5d and it can isolate your subject better. But when you have to shoot in low light and have to use a wide apature, like weddings, focusing, I would think must be critical. I have shot a few weddings and on a small sensor I only use 2.8 on a 70 200 lens when I have to, due to low light and not beacuse of the effect, I try to shoot about f4 normaly. Has any one come across this problem when switching to full frame.<br>
Thanks Bill</p>
-
<p>Hi I just bought a 24-70 the other day I read a lot of forums before I made the purchase. The way a lot of people talk about the weight of it that you can't carry it all day, I was shocked when I picked it up the weight is nothing to worry about. I tried 3 lenses in the shop using my laptop and lightroom to compare the images and trying it against my 70 - 200 2.8 IS. I was in the shop for 2 hours. At 70mm 2.8 the 70 200 was better but not anything to worry about in sharpness I was zoomng 100%. The 24 70 showed more CA's then the 70 200 at 2.8, again nothing to worry about. Edge sharpenss excellent (on a 5d MK 2).The 3 lenses were constant I picked the one I thought to be better. The 24 105 is a jack of all trades and master of none. If your only ever going to have one lens proberly the 24 105 is for you but if your going to get serious and shoot for money I'd go with the 24 70. People who talk about IS on a 24 70 look at the canon's 70 200 range, IS on a 24 70 is going to cost you £500 more. I wouldn't pay that for IS on a 24 70 focal range, if your shooting people you need to start at a 80th. any way everything else use a tripod or monopod for travel and at 24mm ypu can handhold at a 20th-30th of a second anyway.</p>
-
<p>Hi I just bought a 24-70 the other day I read a lot of forums before I made the purchase. The way a lot of people talk about the weight of it that you can't carry it all day, I was shocked when I picked it up the weight is nothing to worry about. I tried 3 lenses in the shop using my laptop and lightroom to compare the images and trying it against my 70 - 200 2.8 IS. I was in the shop for 2 hours. At 70mm 2.8 the 70 200 was better but not anything to worry about in sharpness I was zoomng 100%. The 24 70 showed more CA's then the 70 200 at 2.8, again nothing to worry about. Edge sharpenss excellent (on a 5d MK 2).The 3 lenses were constant I picked the one I thought to be better. The 24 105 is a jack of all trades and master of none. If your only ever going to have one lens proberly the 24 105 is for you but if your going to get serious and shoot for money I'd go with the 24 70. People who talk about IS on a 24 70 look at the canon's 70 200 range, IS on a 24 70 is going to cost you £500 more. I wouldn't pay that for IS on a 24 70 focal range, if your shooting people you need to start at a 80th. any way everything else use a tripod or monopod for travel and at 24mm ypu can handhold at a 20th-30th of a second anyway.</p>
-
<p>That is a good point about the pc screens and hdtv I never thought of that.I think John Bellenis has given me some good advice to chew on. What I said earlier about looking at the camera model of a photo taken is only one of the things I look at. I look at composition, lighting, emotion, impact, timing, originality, and that inspires me to try different ideas. It actually pleases me to see a great photo taken with a low end camera because it makes me stop and look at myself and not my kit. As for buying the 5DMK2, for me I decided it's not worth it. I don't think there is a mile difference between a 50D and a 5DMK2 taken with the same lens. If I decided to go pro that may make me look at things different,at the moment I'll stick with my 20D if I need another body I'll proberly go for the 40D I think that it is a very good price at the moment.<br>
Thank you all for taking the time to write your answers</p>
-
<p>
<p >Hi I know the obvious answer is the 5d mark 2 is the better camera I’m not trying to convince myself that I can save myself £1000, buy the 50d and end up with the same camera. It is just that I have seen photos from both with good lenses and I don’t see a night and day difference, it’s not like shooting with a kit lens and then comparing it with a top end lens, anyone who’s not into photography can see the difference. When I have looked at the flicker website and through magazines at stunning photos even on a double page spread I have thought “Wow that must have been taken with a 5d” and more then often it’s been a 30D, or a 400D. The movie mode on the 5DMK2 doesn’t interest me, the 21 mp is great, but I shoot with a 20D and I easily print A4 and A3, A2 is too much. The ISO control is good but not enough for me to up grade. If I were a pro I wouldn’t think twice about buying the 5DMK2.Camera bodies loose so much money over time unlike good lenses, so you have to have the money for that not to bother you or you’re a pro and can earn more money by using it When I say pro I mean all your income is from using your camera not just selling the odd photo. I have held a few exhibitions and sold a few photos but I would never consider myself a pro.I buy good lenses they hold their money and the IQ difference between them and a bad lens is obvious on any camera body. Sometimes I think you can have something that is more then capable, but you keep reading reviews of a product or adverts and listening to salesmen you end up not feeling uncomfortable with your kit. Does anyone else feel the same or am I way off here.</p>
</p>
<p >Here is a link, scroll down to the BW photos, I don't know if it's me but I'm hard pressed to tell the diference<br>
-
the f/4 IS is a lighter lens and you'll have no problem using it all day. .If it was just £200 difference between the two lenses(70-200 2.8 IS ) no one would buy the f/4 IS.With the money you save you can get the 85mm 1.8 and you'll have a lens when the 70-200 2.8 won't be fast enough
-
If you need to shoot at a 80th you will still need a tripod for the 2.8 non IS, I think on a 24-70 lens you can get away hand holding it by pushing up the ISO.With new cameras on the way that will handle high ISO very well I would go with the f/4 IS than the 2.8 non IS, depending on your body.I have had no problems with the f/4 IS focusing in low light
-
Has any one got a rough guide of what to do when you are inside and there is nothing to bounce from. I'm doing a wedding where the building where the ceramony is going to be held has a tall celling clad in pine boarding and the walls are red brick. I was going to do some test shots before anyone arrives,but my first choice would be the demb jumbo flip it with the diffuser attached,if that was no good I was going to use the stofen pointed direct at the couple or just slightly tilted up not all the way to 45 degrees. I have tried the lightsphere in the past and I didn't think much of it, and I'm quite sure that with it's 360 degree spred of light my canon 580 won't be powerfull enough.
Has anyone got any sugestions?
-
I just found the whole experiance with the LS to be clumsy, if I wanted the flash head to be at a angle instaed of sraight up the weight of the LS would make it drop forward.As for taking it off it's difficult to find any where to put it (except the floor) while I used direct flash. Example, I was shooting a wedding,It was the time of the speaches indoors. The best man was on a stage giving his speach and i was near the guests so he was the furthest away. The LS was wasting so much light it was under exposed, so I used direct flash with off camera and exposure compensation. When I wanted to get the guests reaction to the speach I wanted to diffuse the light as I was that much closer to them. By the time I fitted the LS I was loosing the moment. The stofen is fast it goes in my pocket and takes no tme to fit. I can understand where the LS would be usefull and if I had the time I would use it but I carry enough gear at a wedding as it is.The LS is not that great for me to risk loosing a shot while I fiddle about with it.
-
I have to say there seem to be a lot of knowledgeable people here who could run circles around me of how to use a flash. So I'm talking from a pratical perspective, and the LS is not practical in a fast moving environment like a wedding. For me the number one priority is to get the shot and LS is a pain and slows me down, on one occasion if it wasn't for looking unprofessional I would have thrown it into the road.The LS might be fine to take shots of your pets or your baby, but in real life God knows how any one can shoot a wedding with the LS strapped on all day long or they must shout for everyone to stop what they are doing while they take it off so they can use direct flash. Up untill now I have used a stofen indoors using ETTL and the camera in manual mode. Outside I still use the stofen if I'm close enough to the subject, or direct flash if I'm further away with a 70-200 lens and underexpose the flash by 1 stop or more if I need to. I sometimes bounce flash behind me to achive the look I want but with the LS the light goes everywhere and theres no control. I'm now going to try the Demb diffuser because I can see how that can work and how fast it is to use.
Is the 5D markII worth the extra money then the 7D ?
in Canon EOS Mount
Posted
<p>I suggest you look at this Zack if you're wondering how your camera will hold up<br>
<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/antarctica-2009-worked.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/antarctica-2009-worked.shtml</a></p>