| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/21/2005 07:39:27 AM · #26 |
I am saying that ad agency is crap!!!
:-)
Well, we're the biggest in our country and have branches worldwide...
We handle the coke account in the states amongst many others.
So are you now implying my country is crap?
:) |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 08:04:23 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Guyver:
I am saying that ad agency is crap!!!
:-)
Well, we're the biggest in our country and have branches worldwide...
We handle the coke account in the states amongst many others.
So are you now implying my country is crap?
:) |
Don't get him started on that one... :-) |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 08:13:14 AM · #28 |
| He he he... i'll tkae your word for it! |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 08:24:54 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by alexsaberi:
The 5D is overall a superior camera to the 20D. If you are working for a magazine or ad agency, a 20D just wont cut it. |
If the magazine your shooting for is Sports Illustrated the 5D won't cut it.
Originally posted by hokie:
... anybody that thinks 3fps is enough for most sports doesn't shoot sports very much ... |
True, and I'm beginning to think that the 20D's 5 fps is barely adequate. Lots of my bursts leave me thinking that the best view of the action occured between exposures. I am repeatedly amazed at how much action can take place in a fifth of a second.
Originally posted by shaver:
2. The 5D has 6 additional invisible Assist AF points located inside the spot-metering circle that are very useful for taking action shots - great for sports even with 3 FPS. The 20D can shoot faster but the 5D will get more shots in focus thus making it better for sports. |
My 20D misses the focus too often. Anything that improves focus will help for sports action but I wouldn't compromise on the burst rate.
Has anyone mentioned that cameras with a crop factor, when using lenses designed for full-frame cameras, are only using the best (center) part of a lens by eliminating the edges of it's image? I think that may be the reason why some of us feel we can get quality shots from lenses that others say are of low quality, like my "much maligned kit lens" - the EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6.
Message edited by author 2005-11-21 08:37:25.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2005 10:13:23 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Has anyone mentioned that cameras with a crop factor, when using lenses designed for full-frame cameras, are only using the best (center) part of a lens by eliminating the edges of it's image? I think that may be the reason why some of us feel we can get quality shots from lenses that others say are of low quality, like my "much maligned kit lens" - the EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6. |
True, but a bad example - the EF-S lenses only work on 1.6 crop factor cameras because they eliminate much of the wasted edge areas. A better example would be, say, the much maligned EF 75-300.
Message edited by author 2005-11-21 10:14:11.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2005 10:50:33 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Has anyone mentioned that cameras with a crop factor, when using lenses designed for full-frame cameras, are only using the best (center) part of a lens by eliminating the edges of it's image? I think that may be the reason why some of us feel we can get quality shots from lenses that others say are of low quality, like my "much maligned kit lens" - the EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6. |
True, but a bad example - the EF-S lenses only work on 1.6 crop factor cameras because they eliminate much of the wasted edge areas. A better example would be, say, the much maligned EF 75-300. |
Good point about the EF-S lenses. The kit was a bad example to use.
I have no experience with the 75-300 but what I've read in these forums would support your position. How about the 28-200? A lot of people consider it a poor quality lens but I've had success with it. I think stopping down to the middle of a lens's aperture range, say about f8, helps to accentuate the "middle of the lens" benefit.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2005 11:44:56 AM · #32 |
For a camera with a 35mm FF sensor you're going to have to use the very best glass around (L-lenses) as lesser quality lenses will produce soft corners and edges and possibly vignetting. This is due to legacy 35mm film lenses projecting light on to the edges and corners of the frame at an oblique angle.
Another issue to consider is that of DOF. It will be much easier to get very narrow DOF and more difficult to get deep DOF. As a result, the auto focusing needs to be very accurate. Same true if you're using manual focusing.
There is also supposed to be better dynamic range, color and sensitivity due to the larger pixel pitch, but I"m not sure this is really observable to the naked eye, unless you're pixel peeping and the 20Ds performance shows excellent high ISO results.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2005 11:51:58 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by alexsaberi:
The 5D is overall a superior camera to the 20D. If you are working for a magazine or ad agency, a 20D just wont cut it. |
If the magazine your shooting for is Sports Illustrated the 5D won't cut it.
|
Unless you were doing the Swimsuit edition. Actually I doubt most SI staff photographers use a 20D. Probably more in the nature of the 1D Mk II.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2005 11:54:34 AM · #34 |
True, I shoot for regional and local magazine layouts with my Nikon CoolPix 8700 all the time. Hell, I had photos in magazines when I was shooting with the Coolpix 950.
I like a new toy as much as the next guy, but we shouldn't encourage people to waste money on top-of-the-line equipment and possibly discourage them from trying because they can't afford it.
Originally posted by bear_music:
And your statement that the 20D "won't cut it" working for "a magazine or an ad agency" isn't true. LOTS of professional work gets done with 20D cameras. Not all magazines are "Vogue" and not all agencies are Doyle, Dane, Bernbach (or whatever they are called now). At the high end of the professional scale, cost is no object and you are correct. But very few people live there, and there's a lot of lower-level cameras being used by people who earn good money with them.
Robt. |
|
|
|
|
11/21/2005 12:07:47 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by shaver:
Ok, the full frame is only one of the improvements to the 20D. You guys have not considered a couple of others.
2. The 5D has 6 additional invisible Assist AF points located inside the spot-metering circle that are very useful for taking action shots - great for sports even with 3 FPS. The 20D can shoot faster but the 5D will get more shots in focus thus making it better for sports.
|
3fps for sports won't cut it man. I mean you can make do if you have to, but it really really sucks for sports, and I am speaking from experience. 5 fps may not sound like much more, but for sports photography it can make a world of difference. Obviously 8fps is even better. |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 01:50:09 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by alexsaberi:
sounds bloody excellent! May buy one b4 xmas. In fact I am going to buy it now! oh YEAH!!!!!! |
Online music sheet business must be gooood !!! :p
Message edited by author 2005-11-21 13:50:45. |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 02:34:16 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by petrakka:
Originally posted by shaver:
Ok, the full frame is only one of the improvements to the 20D. You guys have not considered a couple of others.
2. The 5D has 6 additional invisible Assist AF points located inside the spot-metering circle that are very useful for taking action shots - great for sports even with 3 FPS. The 20D can shoot faster but the 5D will get more shots in focus thus making it better for sports.
|
3fps for sports won't cut it man. I mean you can make do if you have to, but it really really sucks for sports, and I am speaking from experience. 5 fps may not sound like much more, but for sports photography it can make a world of difference. Obviously 8fps is even better. |
And 8.5 is even better then that. If you are doing serious sports and have the money to be considering between the 20D and the 5D you probably need to widen your choices and look at the 1D Mk II.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2005 04:20:02 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by shaver:
Ok, the full frame is only one of the improvements to the 20D. You guys have not considered a couple of others.
1. The 5D is capable of ISO 50 (fifty).
2. The 5D has 6 additional invisible Assist AF points located inside the spot-metering circle that are very useful for taking action shots - great for sports even with 3 FPS. The 20D can shoot faster but the 5D will get more shots in focus thus making it better for sports.
3. The preview screen is so much larger. |
Yes, but if I had the money for a 5D, and wanted the extra AF points and higher FPS, I'd buy a 1D Mark IIn, its about the same price as the 5D |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 04:31:45 PM · #39 |
| I have the 5D, I havn't tried it in sports, but just shooting my kids running around works great, much better than my 20D did, now most of my shots have spot on focus, while 50% of the actionshots from my 20D were out of focus or focused on the wrong subject. so it's worth the price to upgrade :) |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 04:31:48 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Has anyone mentioned that cameras with a crop factor, when using lenses designed for full-frame cameras, are only using the best (center) part of a lens by eliminating the edges of it's image? I think that may be the reason why some of us feel we can get quality shots from lenses that others say are of low quality, like my "much maligned kit lens" - the EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6. |
True, but a bad example - the EF-S lenses only work on 1.6 crop factor cameras because they eliminate much of the wasted edge areas. A better example would be, say, the much maligned EF 75-300. |
I think coolhar meant that the smaller sensors use the "sweet spot" of the lens. While math is a poor way to describe a lens, check out the MTF charts of many "full frame" 35mm lenses. You'll find that often the MTF line drops off at about 15mm (the corner of an APS-C sensor) Even the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS drops off after about 17.5mm. |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 04:32:01 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
There is also supposed to be better dynamic range, color and sensitivity due to the larger pixel pitch, but I"m not sure this is really observable to the naked eye, unless you're pixel peeping and the 20Ds performance shows excellent high ISO results. |
When I read the review of the 5D on DPReview, it sounded like the dynamic range on the 5D isn't a whole lot better than the 20D. Sounded like noise levels were pretty similar as well (at least at low ISO). |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 04:44:37 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by wgoodey:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
There is also supposed to be better dynamic range, color and sensitivity due to the larger pixel pitch, but I"m not sure this is really observable to the naked eye, unless you're pixel peeping and the 20Ds performance shows excellent high ISO results. |
When I read the review of the 5D on DPReview, it sounded like the dynamic range on the 5D isn't a whole lot better than the 20D. Sounded like noise levels were pretty similar as well (at least at low ISO). |
While Phil's review does show only subtle improvement in noise for the 5D over the 20D "by the numbers", when you look at the level of detail maintained at high ISO, there is a significant difference. It gets even better if you shoot RAW and process with minimal smoothing to get a 5D result that looks more like the 1DsMkII than the 20D. That's where the 5D really shines. The "look" of the noise is more pleasant, finer-grained and less blotchy.
The resolution of the 5D is closer to the 1DsMkII than it is to the 20D, and though it is using the corners of the lens, and thus incurring a "penalty", it also has a larger pixel pitch, thus it does not tax the lens as much in the central area, say within 15mm of the optical axis. That means that over the majority of the frame, your current lenses are likely to look slightly BETTER than they will with the 20D.
Bottom line, the 5D is a great stride forward, but only for those who see the value in full-frame. Full frame is not for everyone, but if it's for you, you know why. I'm very satisfied with the 5D, and could not imagine myself going back to APS-C. They're two different formats, each with their strengths, it just happens that some of us like what the larger format has to offer.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/21/2025 02:21:35 AM EDT.
