Canon 5D Mk II

[FISHiEE]

I guess it depends how picky you are. I can clearly see a loss in quality upsizing an 8mpix image to print A3. It's gotta be a really good shot for me to be happy to print that big. A4 from 8MPIX is ok though.

I shoot macro 95% of the time and so I am always looking at things up close

[FISHiEE]

Really Gruidditch? I thought it would be quieter than my 30d. I have read there is a totally silent mode available in live view mode though don't know how practical live view really is for most shooting.

Thought canons were getting quieter after complaints of older ones getting loud compared to the 10d (RIP)

[Gruditch]

I used a 30D a while back, and I would say the 5D MK 2 is louder than that. The live view in my opinion is a waste of time, I hate it. The silent shooting proses is a bit long winded to say the least, not too fussed on that either.

Gruditch

[FISHiEE]

live view would be great for static tripod shooting but not much else I agree.

I think I am leaning more to 50D rather than 5DII but will see what news comes out in March. I am presuming from your comments that the 50D is quieter than the 30d? I know the 30D was noticeably louder than my 10d. didn't make muvh difference for butterflies but for some things it was annoying. Lizards and owls staring at you doesn't look to natural in a photo... especially an owl in flight head turned 90 degrees at you!

[Gruditch]

The 50D is defiantly quieter than the 30D.

I must admit that holding the 50D, and the 5D MK 2, the 5D feels just soooo right, it may of helped having that 24-105 lovely balanced lens attached. But when you look through the view finder, you realise the drawbacks of a full frame camera for macro / wildlife use. Stuff sure is a long way off. But for landscape wow, I just hope my 10-22 does the business when I get it, or I will have to just dig deep, and get the MK 2.

Gruditch

[FISHiEE]

Just keep going back to iq comparisons in this review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revi ... eview.aspx

IQ of the 5dII does appear to kick the ass of the 50D and make me consider it as better for macro. As I say, moving up from a 30D I'm not losing anything by going full frame as I can crop down to the 30D res (if I had to) and still get the same image size with probably a bit better detail and I'd get way more ISO flexibility. And on the occasions I could fill the frame (which in reality would be most of the time I think for me) I'd get stacks and stacks more detail so long as I can still get the DOF I need that close. In a tripod situation (which isn't often for me) it's be amazing.

on balance... have you held a 1 series with the 100-400? Boy that feels good. I reckon it's be mighty stable with the 150 macro also. Weight adds stability

[eccles]

I guess it depends how picky you are.

Or how sharp the sensor and lenses are.
I am very picky. People really do seem to forget that despite their reputation for having noisy sensors, Sony DSLRs can resolve an awful lot of detail. And the recent firmware upgrade for the A700 has largely put the noise thing to bed, being easily as good as the Canon alternatives, and close to the more expensive Nikons as well. Rumour has it that there is a software upgrade to the A900 planned for next month. Hopefully that will address the noise limitations with that model too.

Of course if you're locked into a particular system because of an established lens collection then you have to accept what your favoured manufacturer throws at you, and for what it does, I'm sure that the 5DII does it well, but I really wish people would sometimes overcome brand inertia and just pick up a Sony A700 or A900 and play with it. The menu system is so intuitive, and the balance and ergonomics are just right. They are photographic tools designed to take still pictures, without unnecessary encumbrances such as live view or, even worse, movies. And although it is easy to knock by people who aren't used to it, in-body image stabilisation is worth its weight in gold.

[FISHiEE]

I wasn't talking sharpness. I was talking pixellation in large prints which is quite noticeable to me.

I might be tempted to switch brands if I thought I could gain something. I did read reviews of the Sony 900 but there's not much of a lens range really and I've also read the sensor IS isn't as good as it could be (Only one review I saw mentioned it admittedly). Something a bit dodgy about the flash mount also.

[Gruditch]

Oh God, now you've done it Fishiee, you have just just slagged down Mr I Hate Canon's, beloved Sony. Your on your own, I'm sooooooo bored with this brand stuff.

Gruditch

[FISHiEE]

Hehe I think it was a review in Practical Photography... same issue that they reviewed the 50D I think which didn't seem to excite them too much either from memory.

What do reviewers know eh? I seem to recall reading one recently where they stated the 5D was never renwoned for it's performance at high ISO's despite it being the leader by a country for 2-3 years!

I'm sure there'll be a Nikon d400 coming allong soon we can throw into this thread... now that one might tempt me to switch brands:)

[eccles]

I'm sooooooo bored with this brand stuff.

You're only bored if it's not Canon, since when newbies get a Canon you're very appreciative. But at least you seem to be finally acknowledging that there are others if only boringly.

@Fishiee, ah yes, the flash mount is a gripe of mine too. It's proprietory Minolta/Sony and not standard. the plus point is that it has ADI which means that distance information from the lens AF is used to calculate the flash output, and make no mistake it is superior to the usual TTL flash metering. The minus point is that you can't use flashes with the standard hot shoe fitting with it. You can get an adapter for a few pounds but then if you use a standard flash then it's manual only, calculating guide numbers and stuff. I stick to the onboard flash on my A700 which is adequate, but you have a very valid point. You get a better flash system but it'll cost you.
As for the lens range, it depends on what you want. At the long end, currently Sony is definitely lacking, so you have to hunt out Minolta 'G' glass which can be an expensive and time consuming task. At the shorter end and medium telephoto is a lot better. The newer Sony G glass, and especially the Zeiss lenses are as good as it gets.

On pixellation in large prints the trick here is to upsize your image before printing from it. Photoshop is good enough to handle pixel doubling although there are other software solutions that can do better interpolation.

BTW, there's a Sony A800 rumoured...

[eccles]

For what it's worth:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/revie ... mkii.shtml

The reviewer is highly respected apparently.

[FISHiEE]

I would need telephoto zoom for distant wildlife (Currently have 100-400 - think the only option for sony is sigma?) macro (Currently have sigma 150 which is available in sony fit I guess) and for landscape I have 17-40. Think Sony cover that type of range but those zeiss lenses aren't cheap I recall.

I also have a 28-135 which is a bit crap. Would be looking to replace that with a 70-200 range lens. The canon F4 IS version is super sharp, 4 stop IS and generally a better range for what I'd want it for. Generally motorsport, captive birds of prey and big game type subjects abroad. Wild eagles in Norway too as the 100mm end of my canon 100-400 is too long when I lure them in close with fish Didn't notice if sony has similar there.

As for printing I upres in photoshop CS2 using bicubic profile but start getting wary once I get around 130%-150% it really isn't nice to my eye having seen how the original 100% size pic prints. I guess it's fine and tbh a lot of big prints look bad up close. It'd look crap in a double page magazine print though for example and I'd like to aspire to that kind of quality. Not really messed about with other upsizing software for a long time. Rather have a good start image than make a big not so good image image from something smaller.

[FISHiEE]

Hehe I have read that and many other reviews. I think at the end of the day the only real way to tell is to play with the cameras and see what suits best.

I think at the start of this thread it was a 50D v 5DII comparison. Or more generally cropped sensor with more tightly packed pixels v full frame less packed sensor. That is the bigest decision for me at the moment as to what will be the best for macro. I think the full frame (Discounting D700/D3/5D as pixel density is too low) would win if the loss in DOF is not too much. I'd need to play with them to test though. I want pixels, the full frame has the most and arguably the best IQ (whichever brand) just depends how much depth I loose. Maybe a shorter macro lens would compensate if needed.

A new 1D series might be a perfect compromise and give me kick ass af for action Nobody else makes an equivalent camera to that.

[eccles]

Sony's 70-400 G is almost ready to ship this month. It's going to be around £1K which is similar in price to the Canon 100-400 IS. There is a Minolta 400 F4.5 design that Sony really should resurrect to fill the medium aperture telephoto slot. Canon's 400mm f5.6 L is well respected in this area and Sony's lack of a comparable lens is a big stumbling block. The only solution currently is to get the 300mm f2.8 and stick a Sony teleconverter on it, and FWIW, Sony's TCs are the best there are. Still, there's always Sigma's offerings.
Apart from that, Sony's 500mm reflex is pretty good. It is the only production autofocus reflex made. I have one and it's a lot of fun to use because it is light, compact and quite sharp too. With a bit of care it can produce some nice pictures. But it's fixed at f8, the bokeh can be poor, and bright OOF highlights give those weird donut shapes.

Getting back on topic, full frame vs cropped for macro.

With a cropped sensor you shoot from further away for the same apparent magnification. This gives you more apparent depth of field for the same aperture. The perceived loss of sharpness due to diffraction is greater with a cropped sensor simply because it is magnifying the centre of the image.

A full frame sensor will require you to get closer to fill the frame to the same degree, thereby reducing apparent DOF, but as you can stop down further before diffraction becomes troublesome you can recover some of that DOF. Doing that needs more light such as from flash, or higher iso.

With all these different variables I cannot see there is much if anything to be gained for macro work by going to full frame.

[Gruditch]

If I owned the 50D and the 5D MK 2, I'm pretty sure that after a couple of test runs, I would end up sticking with the 50D. Not because of IQ, but because the loss working distance I would get using the full frame model.

About time they stuck a decent screen on it, but face detection and movie mode? Good grief, they must be getting desperate.

You could always get her a Sony A900. Advantages: Class leading dynamic range, fast AF, faster continuous shooting, higher resolution, brighter fullsize viewfinder, image stabilised, weather sealed, dual memory card slots, and less expensive because there's no sop to the compact brigade with silly movie mode or live view. You can put the difference towards some class leading Zeiss glass.
Disadvantage at iso1600 and higher the Sony loses about a stop due to noise.

Of course if you're locked into a particular system because of an established lens collection then you have to accept what your favoured manufacturer throws at you, and for what it does, I'm sure that the 5DII does it well, but I really wish people would sometimes overcome brand inertia and just pick up a Sony A700 or A900 and play with it. The menu system is so intuitive, and the balance and ergonomics are just right. They are photographic tools designed to take still pictures, without unnecessary encumbrances such as live view or, even worse, movies. And although it is easy to knock by people who aren't used to it, in-body image stabilisation is worth its weight in gold.

You're only bored if it's not Canon, since when newbies get a Canon you're very appreciative. But at least you seem to be finally acknowledging that there are others if only boringly.

All in one thread eccles,

Gruditch

[eccles]

I think I'm being reasonably consistent, Gruditch. The A900 is a fine camera with some very desireable attributes. Some may consider it worthy of changing systems, and indeed I've heard of Nikon pros doing just that so that they can get their hands on the first class, albeit expensive, Zeiss glass.
But at amateur levels, if you've already invested in Canon glass then you would probaby be ill advised to sacrifice it in order to change systems.

What I object to is that so many Canon owners can be so myopic when looking at other brands, dismissing them out of hand. Canon is still the market leader, more due to user inertia than a superior product. OK, they DO make good cameras but are they the best? Not necessarily. The dividing line is blurred and getting more so with every new model. And the idea that Sony is only good enough to make TVs is long dead.

[Pete Eeles]

I have to say - I think brand affiliation is only of real importance when you're choosing your first DSLR. The reality is that, unless you have a lot of spare dosh, nobody is going to change brand - because of their existing investment in lenses and other equipment. For me - it's Canon

What I have found interesting is the discussion of full-frame versus cropped sensors. Some insightful discussion there ...

Cheers,

- Pete

[eccles]

OK Pete, I'll shut up about brands now, and I'm sure Gary will be pleased at that.

Getting back to the upsizing thing, if you shoot raw you can upres the raw image within ACR by clicking on the image data line at the bottom of the ACR screen. This will open another panel where you can up the resolution, increase the pixel density, and change from 8 bit to 16 bit colour depth as well. All of this will limit the need to upsize the real image, which, incidently shouldn't be jpeg if you're printing posters or heavily cropped images. My printer can handle tiffs so that's what I use.

[Gruditch]

I'm not quite finished Eccles.

I used to be surprised when I bumped into a Nikon or other brand user in the field, and leaned they had no idea where my Canon was in the production range, or if it was even a current model.
Now I realise like myself, a lot of photographers, as they are locked into their chosen brands, couldn't give a monkeys what the opposition is up to. Don't confuse a lack of respect, with a lack of interest, I have no idea of what the current Nikon models are either.

BTW Fishiee,I liked that 24-105mm L IS USM lens on the 5D MK 2 I tested so much, that I bought it.

I note Eccles that you call me Gary when your being nice, and Gruditch when your not, if you call me Gruditch at the Workshop in April, I'll know to headlock you.

Gruditch