| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/17/2008 08:27:36 PM · #26 |
I'll see what works out on CL. Either way I'll want a 17-40. Deep down I know it's better to invest in glass, and I'd rather not be in on the "latest and greatest" craze. But when it comes down to it, I might just go big or go home. =)
Either way it'll be an awesome upgrade. We'll see what happens. You all have been most helpful.
Message edited by author 2008-09-17 20:29:57. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 09:07:08 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My next lens, however, is likely to be the 17-40, |
I thought you had a 17-40 and got rid of it.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm thinking about a 1.4x teleconverter which may make it interesting. |
the extra 120mm helps alot. IQ is still really good too.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2008 09:37:41 AM · #28 |
if i were in your position (and i've really been thinking about taking that step myself lately) i'd skip all that crap and go medium format (film).
i.e. the mamiya 645AFD is really decently priced right now, you can get the kit for about 1500US$ 740US$ (including all accesoires to start with plus 80 f2.8 "kit" lens). with the rest you can get another 2 lenses plus ttl flash.
and if you feel like shooting digital again you can "easily" (ok that'd be another 8k or so) purchase or rent the 22mp digital back. ^^
Message edited by author 2008-09-18 11:21:14.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2008 11:14:50 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My next lens, however, is likely to be the 17-40, |
I thought you had a 17-40 and got rid of it.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm thinking about a 1.4x teleconverter which may make it interesting. |
the extra 120mm helps alot. IQ is still really good too. |
I did. :) At the time I used the funds to help pay for the 5D since my 24-105 was now going to cover the range I had on the 17-40 at the 1.6 crop. Still, if I'm looking for where I should expand my lens selection, it is still likely at the wide range compared to telephoto for what I typically do. I thought the 17-40 was a great lens, and I'm possibly going to revisit it.
Message edited by author 2008-09-18 11:15:37. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 11:32:29 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Mephisto:
if i were in your position (and i've really been thinking about taking that step myself lately) i'd skip all that crap and go medium format (film). |
Ahh, see but you're a photographer. I'm a tech geek who enjoy photography. =) I've got a long way to go to be an artist. But I'm happy with where I am - I've got pleanty of room to grow.
Besides, the new price is somewhat different. =) |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 12:14:37 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by smurfguy:
Originally posted by Mephisto:
if i were in your position (and i've really been thinking about taking that step myself lately) i'd skip all that crap and go medium format (film). |
Ahh, see but you're a photographer. I'm a tech geek who enjoy photography. =) I've got a long way to go to be an artist. But I'm happy with where I am - I've got pleanty of room to grow.
Besides, the new price is somewhat different. =) |
hehe but it's still within your price specs isn't it? ;)
seriously though i can see your point and i think i'll also have to grow a lil more (especially all kinds of things around dark room) to finally make that big step up.
btw i would go for the Nikon D700, as i'm quite sure it'll be superior to the 5dII concerning noise handling. remember the d700 has the SAME sensor as the D3.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2008 01:08:46 PM · #32 |
I have no complaints at all about the Nikon lenses, both zooms focus fast and smooth. I tried to get fast 2.8 for low light. Commander is okay in preset indoor shots, but Wireless-triggering gives more reliability, distance, and work with different camera brands.
The only thing that Really appeals is Cannons rotating preview button and battery power, some have better viewfinder and FX.
The only downside to Nikon D200 is it is a Battery-Hog and can't find a decent remote ML-L2. Since I have good Nikon lenses I'm waiting for decent/affordable Full frame, on eequivalent to the top Canon.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2008 02:06:22 PM · #33 |
Hehehe, nice to see some Nikon defense. While I like Nikon I must admit Nikon users are some of the slowest to respond to these kind of threads giving Canon an unfair lead. :P
D700 great low light performance, little noise even at ISO3200, fast 6-8FPS shooting, built like a tank. As far as focusing I honestly believe that is a thing of the past. Nikon lens used to focus from the body, and Canons inside the lens. Big speed difference but now a lot /most of Nikon glass focuses inside also. In good light my 18-200mm focuses in under one second, in shade, 1-2 seconds tops. I don't know about Canons speedlights but if you mount a SB-600/800/900 on the D700 it will project a focusing grid on your subject for even faster low light focusing. Also can use any Nikon lens from 1970 onwards.
5D obviously has megapixels out the rear, I would say day time shots will far exceed the D700 for quality, when using $1600+ lenses of course. Much slower FPS. As for noise in low light, it will have more noise than a 12mp sensor, that is a matter of how sensors work. It will also have less dynamic range (shadow and highlight coverage).
Message edited by author 2008-09-18 14:07:48. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 03:24:57 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by togtog:
As for noise in low light, it will have more noise than a 12mp sensor, that is a matter of how sensors work. It will also have less dynamic range (shadow and highlight coverage). |
This is true in theory, but I think there are too many other things going into that equation to simply say a 12MP sensor will always be less noisy than a 21MP sensor. There is no way, for example, I would believe the mark II is noisier than the 5D.
Message edited by author 2008-09-18 15:28:45. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 03:29:54 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by togtog:
As for noise in low light, it will have more noise than a 12mp sensor, that is a matter of how sensors work. It will also have less dynamic range (shadow and highlight coverage). |
This is true in theory, but I think there are too many other things going into that equation to simply say a 12MP sensor will always be less noisy than a 21MP sensor. |
Indeed, plus you have to option of reducing the image size which will reduce the noise. You also have the option of cropping.
I'm sure the D700 is an awesome camera, but I've decided to stick with Canon. At least that's the current plan. =) |
|
|
|
10/22/2008 04:19:58 PM · #36 |
| I, too, am now stuck trying to decide between the 50D and the 5D MkII. My 30D is with my wife in the States and I find myself in Africa without a camera. (Although not near any game parks). I'm torn because I'm not really that talented - so it's hard to justify a 5D Mark II - and I guess I don't really like the idea of losing all those millimeters on my lenses if I switch to FF. On the other hand, I have seen the photos you guys with 5Ds have posted and I drool at the possibility that maybe, if I had one, I could have significantly better results than I currently do. I could order the 50D today or wait for the 5D Mark II. Oh, yeah, and I'll still have the 30D if losing those MM really matters. Damn. I can't decide. |
|
|
|
10/22/2008 04:25:07 PM · #37 |
| Oh, by the way, I was under the impression that, when using EF-S lenses, the stated MM is what you really get despite the 1.6 crop factor - i.e., an EF-S 17-55 on a 1.6 crop camera (which is all it can go on to begin with) really does give you 17-55 (i.e., you don't multiply by 1.6), and that it is only when using EF lenses (not EF-S) on a 1.6 crop camera that you have to multiply by 1.6 to get the true focal length. What say you? |
|
|
|
10/22/2008 04:42:11 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Oh, by the way, I was under the impression that, when using EF-S lenses, the stated MM is what you really get despite the 1.6 crop factor - i.e., an EF-S 17-55 on a 1.6 crop camera (which is all it can go on to begin with) really does give you 17-55 (i.e., you don't multiply by 1.6), and that it is only when using EF lenses (not EF-S) on a 1.6 crop camera that you have to multiply by 1.6 to get the true focal length. What say you? |
No. You have Field of View confused with Focal Length.
The focal length is what it is for a lens, regardless of sensor size. It's the FOV that changes with sensor size.
When they say a EF-S lens is a 17-55mm lens, that's exactly what it means. The lens is a 17-55 mm lens no matter what size the sensor.
Field of View is how wide the camera "sees" with a particular lens.
In discussions about DSLR's, the "standard reference" field of view is that of a 35mm film SLR and what they mean when they say a 17mm lens is a "28mm equivalent" is that on the camera in question, it has the same FOV as a 28mm lens on a 35mm SLR. So a 17-55mm lens on a 30D is a "28-88mm equivalent"
|
|
|
|
10/22/2008 05:51:39 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Oh, by the way, I was under the impression that, when using EF-S lenses, the stated MM is what you really get despite the 1.6 crop factor - i.e., an EF-S 17-55 on a 1.6 crop camera (which is all it can go on to begin with) really does give you 17-55 (i.e., you don't multiply by 1.6), and that it is only when using EF lenses (not EF-S) on a 1.6 crop camera that you have to multiply by 1.6 to get the true focal length. What say you? |
No. You have Field of View confused with Focal Length.
The focal length is what it is for a lens, regardless of sensor size. It's the FOV that changes with sensor size.
When they say a EF-S lens is a 17-55mm lens, that's exactly what it means. The lens is a 17-55 mm lens no matter what size the sensor.
Field of View is how wide the camera "sees" with a particular lens.
In discussions about DSLR's, the "standard reference" field of view is that of a 35mm film SLR and what they mean when they say a 17mm lens is a "28mm equivalent" is that on the camera in question, it has the same FOV as a 28mm lens on a 35mm SLR. So a 17-55mm lens on a 30D is a "28-88mm equivalent" |
Ok, thanks! That's good to know!
Message edited by author 2008-10-22 17:55:15. |
|
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: 07/27/2025 02:53:57 PM EDT.
