Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 11, 2009, 4:38 PM   #11
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Having seen your sample pictures I would strongly recommend that you rush out and buy yourself the 5DMkII with 24-105 L kit. Hold off on the long lens for a while, there are a lot of different options. Give yourself a chance to get used to the big sensor and DSLR first.

For a long time Canon had the lead in both cameras and lenses, so choosing was easy. Now Nikon have excellent cameras and Sony are in the game too. But when it comes to lenses the Nikon ones are fantastic, but expensive and they do not have the same range as Canon. Zeiss make a few very nice lenses for the Sony but the choice is very limited and expensive and the camera is great in some ways but deficient in others.

The 5D2 has hit the sweet spot again, much as it did with the 5D the first time around. Canon can't make them fast enough. D700s and A900s are easy to find.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2009, 4:51 PM   #12
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peripatetic View Post
D700s and A900s are easy to find.
Actually, the Sony A900 is sold out at most dealers now. Hmmmmm
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2009, 7:01 PM   #13
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

As Peripatetic indicated, I think the 5dII with 24-105 would be a great fit for your style of photography. I would add a flash (580exII) to the kit. Down the road, after you've used the kit you could decide on your next lens.

The D700 is better for action but that's a small part of what you're doing so I think the dynamic range, megapixel advantage and kit lens quality of the Canon offering make it a better fit.

Sony is making strides and after a 2nd or 3rd generation it may be a very viable option - but I think it lags behind the 5dII - combined with the lower selection of new, AF lenses at this time give Canon & then Nikon the advantage.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2009, 2:55 AM   #14
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Quote:
Actually, the Sony A900 is sold out at most dealers now. Hmmmmm
:-) Not in London.

Anyway - we often say it's hard to buy a bad DSLR, the same is true for FF DSLRs but even more so.

Canon make 2, Nikon make 3, Sony make 1. All are exceptionally good. With this kind of camera though you are likely buying into a whole system. Think about all the lenses and flash system before jumping in.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2009, 3:37 AM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 20
Default

i want the hight iso to shoot photos like this in a good quality i cant use tripod and still catching movment at low light environment








i mean fast moving like birds in action

the main question of me is when the 5d2 focus system will fail (if you could post an example)

Last edited by LightHunter; Aug 12, 2009 at 3:39 AM.
LightHunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2009, 4:01 AM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 77
Default

Yes, 5d2 focus system will fail in low light. Choose a better camera than 5d2. A900 focuses better than 5d2 but it has worse high ISO performance. A900 is superior than 5d2 in every way (build quality, focusing accuracy, speed (5 fps), In-body image stabilizatio, 100% viewfinder) except high ISO performance.

What's left then? D700?

Last edited by oneguy; Aug 12, 2009 at 4:12 AM.
oneguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2009, 4:04 AM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Italy
Posts: 23
Default

Nikon.
Nikon Obiettivo AF-S Nikkor 24-70 mm f/2.8G ED - 1.660 euro
+
Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D - 796.49 (GBP)
+
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300MM F/4 IF-ED (1435 euro)
+
Nikon NIKON TC 14E II (1.4x) - 275 euro
+
tripod and good head (250-300 dollars for example manfrotto)

Canon.
Canon EF 24-70 mm f/2.8L USM 1.471,04

Canon 70-200 f/2.8 - 1223 euro
+
Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM - $1300
+
Canon EF 1.4x II Extender - $300

(or a solution more cheap:
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM 1.290)

+

tripod and good head (250-300 dollars for example manfrotto)


Unfortunately seems the zoom L glasses aren't really good with a teleconverter:
Canon EF70-200/2.8L IS USM with Canon Extender EF 2x II and EF 1.4x II
The same is true even for Nikon even if with a teleconverter 1.4x the performance of their zoom aren't so bad.

In summary i think FF have sense only for who shoot a lot in worst light situation (example event indoor or night event without the possibilities of using the flash).
Also i think should be better cover the range 24-200 and using a prime 300 mm + teleconvert 1.4x rather than good zoom with a teleconverter.
alexfoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2009, 4:08 AM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Italy
Posts: 23
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LightHunter View Post
i want the hight iso to shoot photos like this in a good quality i cant use tripod and still catching movment at low light environment
...
For these type of shoot is sufficient a wide zoom f/2.8 but for telephoto shoot the tripod is necessary because this type of len are heavy.

In general, in the end, if you want stay within your budget perhaps in the first moment i think could be better cover "only" the range 24-200 mm.

Last edited by alexfoto; Aug 12, 2009 at 4:11 AM.
alexfoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2009, 4:32 AM   #19
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oneguy View Post
Yes, 5d2 focus system will fail in low light. Choose a better camera than 5d2.
Based on??

As someone who actually has a 5D mkII and also a 1D mkIII (one of the highest end AF systems in the market place) I can say that when using good glass in low light church situations will still give an accurate focus. Yes is is a little slower than the mkIII and also not as advanced as the D700 just just wanted to point out that the above is a completely unfounded statement.

I'm still not sure that you wouldn't be better off spending on a D300 as not only will you save on the body but also on the need for such long glass so you can get some shorter options that will cover the same field of view.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2009, 4:52 AM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Italy
Posts: 23
Default

Sorry but i confirmed the opinion express by
oneguy
about the AF of the Canon 5d Mark II.
It's a well known problem despite in general is hide by many people probably because the cost of this model is 2000 euro and there aren't present better alternative (except 1mark ...).
Some time ago I read a user very unhappy about this aspect in his case him want only take a picture of a model when she walk in the street during the night without flash.
Even other user are unhappy of this aspect despite are told in a low voice ...
alexfoto is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:58 PM.