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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 13, 2009, 12:24 PM   #31
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Oneguy,

I'm going to be blunt. As anyone who has been on this forum and seen my posts before - this won't come as a surprise. Jim, Tcav, Peripatetic, Mark all have established reputations. Of the group, me included, Mark & Peripatetic are the only ones shooting full frame in any system. And, having viewed their work, I can say they're top notch.

The issue I have with your argumentative stance in this thread is - nothing is based on personal experience. As already discussed, opinions of inexperienced sources are dangerous - especially when you get into semi-pro and pro level equipment.

Do you honestly believe we couldn't do a forum search and find other users who claimed the 5Dii was better or the D700 was better? ESPECIALLY when you get into color. Different manufacturers treat color rendering differently. I'd be very careful about statements that one system DOES IT BETTER than another. Sony, Pentax, Canon, Nikon etc all do it a bit different. Color is very often a matter of taste. The gist of the post you referred to is a photographer prefering the color rendition of one system over another. That's always been an issue. Much like ergonomics.

Again, this is the danger with basing all your argument points on what you read on the internet vs what you know from personal experience.

All the above participants have been kind enough over time to share their photos. So readers can look over their posts and judge for themselves the skill level of the photographer providing advice. In all of your 13 posts, I don't think I've seen a photo from you. I don't see any reference to what DSLR experience you have - much less full frame.

And before you misunderstand - this isn't about Sony vs. Canon. I stand by my advice that the OP seek out first-hand feedback and galleries. It may be Sony is the best fit. And I am perfectly OK with that. As long as the OP bases their decision on first hand accounts - not hearsay.
Now, as for myself, I shoot Canon and currently shoot with a 1dmkIII. While not the best photographer I do have hands-on experience with professional level gear. My photos are put on display in my threads or you can look at my sportsshooter page for some of my sports shots since I haven't posted any in a while.

You'll see Mark's work in sports and people - he does wedding photography. With one of the cameras under discussion. He also shoots with a 1dmkIII so he can speak first hand on how the 5dII compares to a pro body.

If you search Peripatetic's and TCAVs posts you'll see some of their photos. I'm sure they'll be glad to share with you more. I'm sure Jim will as well.

What's missing from this discussion is your pedegree. You're arguing pro body buying and have yet to demonstrate you have any relevant experience.

So, to be blunt - why should the OP listen to what you have to say on which professional full body camera and which DSLR system to buy into? What is your experience that makes you a credible source for him to make his decision upon?
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2009, 1:37 PM   #32
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 77
Default

>What's missing from this discussion is your pedegree. You're arguing pro body buying
>and have yet to demonstrate you have any relevant experience

Earlier you said the experience of amateur posters on forums is irrelevant to the discussion. If that is the case, why should my experience matter anyway? In any case, as I said, that was not my opinion. It was the opinion of a pro who owns several FF bodies, including 1DMarkIII. According to him, 5DMarkII is not the best choice for low light due to focusing accuracy in low light.
oneguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2009, 1:55 PM   #33
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oneguy View Post
Earlier you said the experience of amateur posters on forums is irrelevant to the discussion.
Actually, what I said was - if I were buying a pro camera I wanted people with a good frame of reference - i.e. pros - who have used other pro cameras.

If you buy your first DSLR and have never used another one - it's tough for you to make a compelling argument for how much better or worse it is than other DSLRs - you have no frame of reference. If I'm spending the money for professional gear I want opinions from people that have used multiple pieces of pro gear. Otherwise what they think is great maybe isn't - it's great compared to the consumer camera or lens they used but it's sub-par compared to the other pro cameras or lenses. That's just me though.

Quote:
If that is the case, why should my experience matter anyway?
It matters because you're voicing an opinion here on how someone else should spend their hard earned money. When two different people give conflicting advice - it is helpful for a reader to have some notion of how credible each source is. If you don't have any established credibility, why should someone listen to you? This isn't an issue when someone is buying a $200 digicam. But the OP is looking to invest $5,000 in a camera system. With that kind of investment it's difficult to recover from a bad decision. And the best decisions come from information gathered from credible sources. A "credible source" for a semi-pro camera body and $5,000 DSLR systm investment is a pretty high standard.

The problem with your approach is you are selectively cherry picking single antecdotes to make your case. The truth is - that approach could be used to justify buying any camera over any other camera. It's a poor way to make a $5,000 buying decision. Just like finding one person that says "lens X is the best lens I've ever owned" would be a poor reason for buying that lens.

It's also completely unwise to focus on one particular attribute. For example, the OP shouldn't buy the A900 solely because it has better low light focusing any more than they should buy the 5dII solely because it handles noise better at high ISOs. You're buying the whole camera not one feature. And, more importantly you're buying the SYSTEM. There are aspects of the discussion that people with hands-on experience can give a person.

Again to the OP - seek out people that actually use these cameras. Take advice from anyone (me included) that doesn't use these cameras with a grain of salt. Take advice from people with no history (one way or the other) of credibility on professional / semi pro gear and photography with a boulder of salt.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2009, 4:00 PM   #34
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

Lighthunter as John as covered other points admirably I will bring this back to focusing more on you and your specific needs.

I know you desire high ISO to get the low light, another way to get low light is obviously using fast glass (wide aperture) the downside is that this will give a narrow depth of field which is the short of shot you've posted is not going to be too helpful. The advantage of going with something like the D300 is that you need to use wide lenses to get the same field of view so you will get a wider DOF if using the same aperture for the same scene. This could be appealing and as mentioned you can get a lot for your money when not needing glass for full frame and especially when we look at covering your long end an APS-C camera really can help.

What are your thoughts about this as an option? I know there can be a lot of kudos in having a top end camera, and for that I love using my 1D mkIII as it looks sweet, but a FF might not be the best tool for your needs. I just wanted you to be aware of differences in shooting with FF of APS-C etc.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2009, 3:14 AM   #35
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 20
Default

Thanks all to your attention and relplys
The main reason to get FF is that of low noise and to shoot sharp and high dynamic range images and to get focal lenght as it is 24mm=24mm (85% of my shoots <200 mm)
what i was thinking is to buy 5d2 kit (24-105 L) + (100-400 L) and this as start and
in the future i will buy more glass
The images i posted is what i could shoot with sx1 and get at least acceptable IQ,and i cant shoot every thing with it (for example fast moving objects and low light shoots)
I like the 5d2 and the only reason i posted this thread is for foucsing system!
i read alot of reviews for the 5d2 and no one tested realy the focus system of it in real life situations .
so if you want to test the overall performance of d700 vs 5d2 in general parpose photography including
1)IQ
2)reslution
3)other features (HD vedio etc)
4)avaluable lens system (Quality/price)
5)and focusing system
What you advice?
In the place i live its not easy to buy every day a camera if i decide now i will wait at least 2 monthes to get it (duo to closer)
So i want to be so careful before choosing

another stuppied Qustion (;->
if we have vey low noise 20mp camera with 200mm lens and we 100% crop some of the image (half of it). IS it nearly equal to 10mp camera with 400mm lens image

Last edited by LightHunter; Aug 14, 2009 at 3:16 AM.
LightHunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2009, 11:11 AM   #36
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 77
Default

We already gave you more than enough "advice". I am sticking with everything I said above. Now you are repeating the same thing again. Just buy the camera that you like.
oneguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2009, 11:16 AM   #37
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LightHunter View Post
another stuppied Qustion (;->
if we have vey low noise 20mp camera with 200mm lens and we 100% crop some of the image (half of it). IS it nearly equal to 10mp camera with 400mm lens image
I was planning to give a practical example of this but didn't get enough time today. One of the other members might get a chance before I do but I do aim to get it so you can see it in real terms.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2009, 11:25 AM   #38
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Lighthunter,
One aspect of your question I can speak to re: 400mm vs. 200mm

You can't discount focus ability / accuracy and distance. Sensor size and MP doesn't allow a lens / camera to focus accurately from further away. A 400mm lens is designed for accurate focus from further away than a 200mm lens. So, the point being - you can't focus on objects further away. For example, Mark has both a 20+ mp 5dII and a 10mp 1dIII. Put a 400mm lens on the 1dIII and a 200mm lens on the 5dII and the 1dIII outfit will have accurate focus further from the subject than the 5dII will.

So, more MP doesn't necessarily get you more reach. BUT, it is definitely beneficial as anone who shoots small birds will tell you. Here the distances are often very short - well within the focusing capabilities of the lens being used. So focus accuracy is not so much an issue. So having more pixels on the subject allows for more cropping.

I can't honestly say if your math holds up. I've seen it discussed in other threads but not payed much attention. I just wanted to explain why the answer isn't black-and-white. In other words, more MP does not always "give you more reach"
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2009, 11:36 AM   #39
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LightHunter View Post
if we have vey low noise 20mp camera with 200mm lens and we 100% crop some of the image (half of it). IS it nearly equal to 10mp camera with 400mm lens image
Because resolution is computed by multiplying width x height (like area), If you crop a photo so that it looks like you used twice as much optical zoom, you end up with only 1/4 the original pixels.

That's one reason that the image generated by a 24 Megapixel camera like the Nikon D3x or Sony A700 has less than 11MP left if you let the camera crop an image so that it looks like you were using an APS-C sensor size (where you'd have the same angle of view with a 100mm lens that you would with a 150mm lens without cropping).

But, that doesn't take other variables into consideration (loss of detail due to higher noise levels, etc.).
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2009, 4:54 AM   #40
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LightHunter View Post
Thanks all to your attention and relplys
The main reason to get FF is that of low noise and to shoot sharp and high dynamic range images and to get focal lenght as it is 24mm=24mm (85% of my shoots <200 mm)
what i was thinking is to buy 5d2 kit (24-105 L) + (100-400 L) and this as start and
in the future i will buy more glass
The images i posted is what i could shoot with sx1 and get at least acceptable IQ,and i cant shoot every thing with it (for example fast moving objects and low light shoots)
I like the 5d2 and the only reason i posted this thread is for foucsing system!
i read alot of reviews for the 5d2 and no one tested realy the focus system of it in real life situations .
so if you want to test the overall performance of d700 vs 5d2 in general parpose photography including
1)IQ
2)reslution
3)other features (HD vedio etc)
4)avaluable lens system (Quality/price)
5)and focusing system
What you advice?
In the place i live its not easy to buy every day a camera if i decide now i will wait at least 2 monthes to get it (duo to closer)
So i want to be so careful before choosing

another stuppied Qustion (;->
if we have vey low noise 20mp camera with 200mm lens and we 100% crop some of the image (half of it). IS it nearly equal to 10mp camera with 400mm lens image
Okay - so. If you crop the centre APS-C portion of the frame out of the 22Mp you are left with about 8Mp - like my old 20D. :-) Which is still enough for good 18x12 prints.

But if 90% of your photos are at less than 200mm then I would suggest you reconsider the 100-400L. Possibly looking at one of the 70-200's with a TC or the 70-300 IS. The 100-400 is a fairly large lens and you may prefer to have something a little smaller if you won't be using the very long end much.

When it comes to low-light AF don't forget that if you are using an external flashgun then it comes with built-in IR AF assist that literally allows you to focus in complete darkness. If you just want the IR assist then you can use the ST-E2 remote flash trigger. This is why in practice the low-light abilities of the 5D2 are perfectly good - if the light gets too low then you use a flash and get the extra boost.

In the real world therefore the main place that the D700 has an AF advantage is in sports/action/wildlife photography - tracking moving objects. The 5D2 is okay, but not as good as the D700.

I also think you may be suffering a bit from thinking you need to cover exactly the same range of focal lengths as you have on your SX1. You may find you don't.

And if you are really into low-light photography you may find that using one of the wonderful Canon prime lenses will suit you better.

Why not just start out with the 5D2 and 24-105L. Give yourself a few weeks before you settle on some other lenses.
peripatetic 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 12:14 AM.