Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: RedRebel on August 02, 2006, 03:55:17 pm
-
Some advice needed....
Currently I own a 350D + 17-85 IS lens. I mainly use this camera for city, landscape and occasional indoor (museum) shooting during holidays.
I don't have any problems with the image quality of the 350D, but I don't like the ergonomics. It's small, and much settings are hidden in menu's, also the view finder is small. The lens is not bad (I like the IS), but it's CA and lack of contrast in more difficult light situations annoise me.
So I am thinking to upgrade to either a 30D or a 5D. The image quality from the 30D will do for me, but I am a bit reserved to stick with a 1.6 crop or switch to FF. Spending to much money on lenses based on 1.6 crop sensors is not such a good idea I think.
But I wonder which camera you would shose and which two zoom lenses you would add to it. I think about it to travel with no more than 2 zooms (walk around and a longer zoom )and maybe add one prime to it.
So which camera would you shoose and which 2 main lenses would you add. I don't wan't to travel with a half a dozen of lenses.
Regards
-
Some comments on the 17-85.
It is CA prone but that does clear up by about 24mm. RAW Shooter did an excellent job of automatically removing CA. Hopefully that will end up in lightroom.
As to contrast, lookup "local contrast adjustment" in the articles on this site. That should take care of any contrast issues. I'm also curious about the difficult light reference. Did you get the lens hood for the 17-85? If not you'll want to buy one. That reduces flare which helps contrast.
My biggest problem with the 17-85 is the f google to f google-plex f stop range. It is one dark lens.
If you stick with the crop cameras the 30D is a nice choice. A canon 55-200 USM II (get the II version. The older version was pretty sad.) is a nice complement. It is a nice sharp lens. It is a bit lacking in contrast but the local contrast adjustment takes care of that nicely.
If you want to ditch the 17-85 the combination of 17-55 f2.8 IS and 55-200 USM II would be a nice 2 lens combo. The 17-55 would also give you a much brighter lens and faster focusing.
Add a 35f2 or 50f1.8 to whatever you get.
I don't have a 5D so I won't comment on that.
Some advice needed....
Currently I own a 350D + 17-85 IS lens. I mainly use this camera for city, landscape and occasional indoor (museum) shooting during holidays.
I don't have any problems with the image quality of the 350D, but I don't like the ergonomics. It's small, and much settings are hidden in menu's, also the view finder is small. The lens is not bad (I like the IS), but it's CA and lack of contrast in more difficult light situations annoise me.
So I am thinking to upgrade to either a 30D or a 5D. The image quality from the 30D will do for me, but I am a bit reserved to stick with a 1.6 crop or switch to FF. Spending to much money on lenses based on 1.6 crop sensors is not such a good idea I think.
But I wonder which camera you would shose and which two zoom lenses you would add to it. I think about it to travel with no more than 2 zooms (walk around and a longer zoom )and maybe add one prime to it.
So which camera would you shoose and which 2 main lenses would you add. I don't wan't to travel with a half a dozen of lenses.
Regards
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72416\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Remember, you usually get what you pay for.
Get as much camera as your budget permits. Buy one good zoom lens. It doesn't cost any more to go first class, you just can't go as far......
-
I like compact, comprehensive cost-effective solutions that deliver high quality. When I decided to "go digital" in Fall 2004, the choices I considered acceptable (re pixel count and image quality for my print size range up to A3) were a second-hand Canon 1Ds, a new Canon 1Ds Mk 2, or a Canon 20D. The 5D did not exist yet. I bought the second-hand 1Ds because it produces very high quality captures, full frame at 11MP, and it was half the cost of the newer Mk2 (for 25% more resolution and other up-graded features). If I were making the same choice today, I would buy a 5D. I know people who own them, seen the results, and they are stunning. Cleaner images than my 1Ds, and people I know who own both the 1Ds Mk2 and the 5D say the 5D has the cleanest image. The 5D is a well-built camera (not a bullet-proof tank like the 1 series, but still really well-made) and much lighter. It is larger enough compared with the Rebel 350 that you won't have those ergonmic problems. It also has GREAT viewing screen compared with other Canons.
I like full-frame: large, bright viewfinders, larger pixels for the same pixel count, better for wide-angle, therefore more flex with lenses. For lenses I use the new 24~105 L zoom and the less new 70-300 DO. Both of them are image-stabilized, both are very compact, both deliver high quality images (the 24~105 L being better than the 70~300 DO), and with these two relatively small, light-weight high quality lenses I cover the whole gamut from 24mm to 300mm. These lenses aren't cheap (about USD 1250 each) but well worth it. Their one drawback is aperture (f4 or f5.6). So I also bought a 50mm f1.4 for those very low light situations where tripod etc. just doesn't cut it. This is very manageable kit to travel with. I've done two intensive overseas workshops with it and it performed well and conveniently for me.
-
Yep, what he said: 5D + 24-105L & 70-300DO if you can afford it.
-
That's a huge money jump from a 350D that he likes other than the ergonomics.
-
You're right, but the 5D is on Red Rebel's radar, so I didn't hesitate.
-
it depends on what kind of travel you're doing
if it's people, architectuure, and landscapes, the 5D and 24-105 + 70-300DO is the way to go, but if these lenses are too pricey, then it's not worth having the 5D
i use a pair of 20Ds for travel which also includes wildlife and shots from dive and cruise boats. given the high ISO noise performance of the 20D, i really don't have complaints about the 17-85. i bought a 70-300DO before the new 70-300 was available and love the compact size for inconspicuous travel shooting even though the images may not be significantly better. these 2 lenses will deal with 80-90 percent of travel situations. if wildlife is anticipated i take the 100-400 and keep the 70-300 as a backup (which saved me once). i sometimes take a Sigma 12-24 which very rairly gets used.
i did some tests with the 5D and decided it didn't make a significant difference for what i do -- if you're biased toward short, the 5D is the way to go (with adequate lenses), if you're on the longer side, i'm very happy with what i get from the 20D -- if i do things right, 13x19 prints are no problem.
-
I have a 350D and a 5D. I bought the 350D as my transition into digital and then sold all my film cameras as soon as I'd used it. I then invested in a 5D with the proceeds. I'm happy with both.
With the 5D I use a 28-70L most of the time and get great results. It is my camera of choice and I have a lot of primes to use with it when I can carry them. However, there are places it either can't go or I won't take it.
With the 350D I mainly use the 10-22mm and the 35/2 or 85/1.8. I can fit this into a Lowepro 60AW pouch that either velcro's to my belt or bag, or hangs over my shoulder. I'm happy to go pretty much anywhere with this (and have).
I'm happy printing files from both to A3+. On uncropped images I don't see a huge difference in the prints unless there is lots of detail there. Even then sharpening can do a lot to make the print impress.
Where the 5D does win is ability to crop, viewfinder, and noise at higher ISOs. I also like using the grid screen as with the EOS3 and 1V (though it seems more of a fiddle to fit).
After years in photography, and a few expensive mistakes, my advice is now very simple: what you want is nice, but what you're prepared to carry around is what gets used.
-
i had the 20d, with the 17-85is. it was a great combo, although somewhat limiting. after upgrading to the 5d, i invested heavily in lenses, 24-70, 70-200, 100-400. the 70-200 is actually an incredibly versatile lens, unfortunately it isnt the easiest to travel with. i would strongly recommend going with the 5d, it really was a "step up" from the 20d. as for lenses, it all depends on budget. if you are willing to spend, the choices are quite clear. a 5d with a 24-70 is a great all-round combo for street/travel photography (a bit heavy though).
amnon
-
You say the 5D has a cleaner image than the 1DsII. Do you mean that the 5D has less noise at high ISO's? Or, do you mean that it has higher resolution?
I routinely make 30" x 40" prints from RAW files with my 1DsII. Will the 5D actually give me a better print?
-
You say the 5D has a cleaner image than the 1DsII. Do you mean that the 5D has less noise at high ISO's? Or, do you mean that it has higher resolution?
I routinely make 30" x 40" prints from RAW files with my 1DsII. Will the 5D actually give me a better print?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72466\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
To be precise, I said that owners of both have told me they find the 5D produces less noisy images than the 1Ds2. Not that the latter makes noisy images. I believe the statement must apply to the higher ISO levels, because below say ISO 640 it would surprise me if anyone could actually see DIFFERENCES in noise between these cameras under most usual shooting conditions. The 5D cannot have higher resolution than a 1Ds Mk2 because the former is 12MP and the latter 16 MP and both have the same sensor size; recall resolution is measured in PPI.
-
The 5D and the 24-105mm IS is a perfect travel combo IMHO. Remember the 24mm on the 5D is wider! than the 17mm on the 350d/20d/30d.
-
I own or have owned most of them. First, the 5D is an excellent camera and would make a great choice. However, depending on location(s), I sometimes prefer to have two bodies, one with a wide zoom and another with a mid-range zoom, so I do not have to stop and swap lenses. Swapping lenses for a specific shot is not something I regularly do when traveling and rather make do with what is on the camera. I also like a pop-up flash on my travel camera -- helps a lot in those dark rooms or for a face fill in bright outdoor light.
While the 5D and 20D or 30D would make an ideal pair of bodies, the interchangeability of lenses becomes problematic if you need to go wide often. However the 10-22 on a 20D and a 24-105 on a 5D would be pretty ideal -- though then the body I want the flash on when I need it is the 5D...
So, at least for me, a pair of 20/30D's and three lenses is ideal -- 10-22EFS, 17-85 EFS IS (but I am looking into the 17-55 f2.8 EFS IS) and then the 70-300IS, DO or regular, your choice.
There is also rumor of a 50-150 f2.8 EFS IS from Canon this fall -- if so, that would be the ideal tele-zoom for my travel
The final consideration for me is value -- a decent 20D is pretty inexpensive relative to a 5D and as such almost "disposable" by comparison, so I worry not about where or in what conditions I use them.
SIDEBAR NOTE: I have traveled with the 1Ds2. While it produces great images, IMO one must use a tripod and critical focus to realize its full potential. Since travel for me means mostly hand-held shooting with zooms, the resolution gain over the 5D is likely not present in most images and does not warrant the extra weight. In fact, for the same reason, I feel that the image quality gains of the 5D over the 20/30D are minimal at best when shooting zooms hand-held. (And as Ray has pointed in other threads, the smaller pixel-pitch of the 20/30D can be advantageous in certain situations -- like when your longest lens isn't long enough.) Ergonomics, build-quality, viewfinder, menus and features are certainly other valid considerations for using the bigger bodies.
Hope this helps,
-
Well thanks for the usefull comments..
For me -just like most of us- a 5D is an expensive tool, but making wrong choices and buying stuff that stays at home or doesn't perform as I wan't or expect is also waist of money.
For me the range from wide angle to medium zoom, such as a 17-85 IS or a 24-105 IS is almost ideal. Ofcourse there are situations I would like a longer zoom, or situations in which I would like a real fast lens like the 50f1.4. But I think that 70% of my shots are made with a 17-85/24-105 type of lens with IS.
I agree that often changing lenses during the day is problematic when on holiday. I dont see my self changing my 17-85 for a 10-22 in the middle of a busy city, because the 17-22 range from the 10-22 lens is superior compared to the same range of the 17-85. Replacing the zoom for a fast prime when entering a museum is a different story.
I have also considered to buy 24-105 for my Rebel or future 30D, but that would be very unpractical since I use the range of 17-35mm very much.
I wonder (in a postive way) to hear that some of you recommend the 70-300 DO IS, I like that lens but some reviews are not so postive. But I will not take a 70-200 f2.8 IS with me for a city trip holiday, although I like the optics vey much. It's a bit like buying a Ferrari for shopping, nice and fast, but highly unpractical.
So for me the choice is...
- accept the quality of the 17-85IS, buy a 30D and add a zoom eg 70-300 DO IS
or..
- get rid of the rebel with 17-85 IS and buy a 5D with a 24-105IS and add a 70-300 DO IS later...(to save money now) adding a 50 f1.4 prime is also a good idea for indoor shooting
Well I have to sleep on this...
-
Well thanks for the usefull comments..
I wonder (in a postive way) to hear that some of you recommend the 70-300 DO IS, I like that lens but some reviews are not so postive. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72493\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There is no need to wonder about these things. The quality of the same lens can vary from sample to sample. The one I received works well for me, so I am happy with it. Perhaps others have been less fortunate. As long as you buy your lenses from a reputable dealer who gives you a reasonable time period to test and exchange it (even several times with different copies) for any reason you are not satisfied with it, you should not run into un-fixable problems. The one thing I would strongly recommend is NOT to buy lenses from dealers who do not offer this option.
-
a lot of the 70-300DO problems were early production - i'm happy with mine (have tested it against the 100-400 -- it's not as good, but performance is as expected) which is about a year old. it's probably not much better than the 70-300, but the short length really does make it a great travel lens
my advice is to get the 30D and 300DO now, keeping the 350 as a second body (carrying two bodies doesn't take up much more space -- i've been in a number of situations where swithcing lenses would have lost a lot of shots)
unless you're into making prints bigger than 13x19, you won't miss the 5D
-
I think both Mark and Steve have given you good advice dierctly above.
But you did ask this:
or..
- get rid of the rebel with 17-85 IS and buy a 5D with a 24-105IS [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72493\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
IMO (and I own both) you really don't gain much with the 24-105 on full-frame compared to the 17-85IS you already own on a good 1.6x crop camera.
Since you already own the Rebel and 17-85, I'd simply add a 30D and longer zoom for now and go with it. If you find in 6 months you just have to have more megapixels or full-frame, then upgrade to the 5D.
My .02,
-
Yep, what he said: 5D + 24-105L & 70-300DO if you can afford it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72433\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Exactly my new system (from the Rebel XT with 17-85). Now the damn body hasn't arrived yet so I can't comment but I'm really looking forward to the 5D. I liked the Rebel but I suspect there's going to be a big difference in the newer body. I like the 70-300 very much due to size and capability. I have an OLD (circa 1994) 20-35 F2.8 and 80-200 F2.8 but don't think I'll use them that much (heavy, old but in good shape). Everyone I respect and asked told me the same thing about the 24-105 (get it, its great). Some of my buddies that shoot big time stuff seem to actually prefer the 5D over the 1DS and better.
Hope the guys I got the body from (CCI Camera City) are legit as I got it for $1640 which seems a bit too good to be true. But they had a lot of good reviews from customers. Gray market?
-
Hope the guys I got the body from (CCI Camera City) are legit as I got it for $1640 which seems a bit too good to be true. But they had a lot of good reviews from customers. Gray market?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72562\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Andrew, I hope this works for you, because often, as Jonathen Wienke once remarked in another threead: "If it's too good to be true, it is."
Anyhow, it would be great if you keep us informed about your success, because if it's indeed good, at that price even with my Canon 1Ds I'd be tempted.................
Mark
-
Andrew, I hope this works for you, because often, as Jonathen Wienke once remarked in another threead: "If it's too good to be true, it is."
Anyhow, it would be great if you keep us informed about your success, because if it's indeed good, at that price even with my Canon 1Ds I'd be tempted.................
Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72566\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm on hold with them now trying to find out when it's coming. I'm cool spending a bit more if necessary. I can't imagine how they do this at this.
OK, it IS gray market! For the US version, they want $2599. Canceled order (not that its a bad price but I feel like bait and switch here). I'll spend the correct amount and buy from a reputable company.
-
Andrew, makes sense - correct me if I'm wrong, but I think "grey market" in this context means that the camera is not imported by Canon USA and therefore does not come with a warranty valid in the USA. And if that is the case, it does raise the question about where the camera was imported from, whether it is brand new and has a warrany valid in some other part of the world, or whether it is second-hand refurbished, etc.
-
Indeed, upgrading to a 5D with a 24-105 is very expensive and much more costly then buying a 30D, with or without the 70-300DO. But buying a 30D as an inbetween step would be very costly.
But I wonder what you say about the comparisson between the 17-85 and the 24-105.... do these two lenses have similar optical qualities? If that is true, than the only serious advantage of the 5D over the 30D would be (for me) its large view finder, which is litle on my 350D.
To be honest I haven't compared the viewfinders from the 350D with the 30D, I only see that the view finder of the 5D is just as large and bright as my old canon EOS 300 film camera.
I think both Mark and Steve have given you good advice dierctly above.
But you did ask this:
IMO (and I own both) you really don't gain much with the 24-105 on full-frame compared to the 17-85IS you already own on a good 1.6x crop camera.
Since you already own the Rebel and 17-85, I'd simply add a 30D and longer zoom for now and go with it. If you find in 6 months you just have to have more megapixels or full-frame, then upgrade to the 5D.
My .02,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72525\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
In my opinion the 24-105 and 17-85 lenses are essentially of equal performance.
The 20/30D viewfinder is significantly better than the 350D, though still not as large as the 5D
-
In my opinion the 24-105 and 17-85 lenses are essentially of equal performance.
The 20/30D viewfinder is significantly better than the 350D, though still not as large as the 5D
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72597\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's an interesting opinion, because for me the CA in the very wide end (17-24) of the 17-85 is it's weakest point. The lens has a nice range, is quite sharp and has a very good IS. I will never buy a lens without IS as my primairy lens.
-
In response to the 30D viewfinder, it's quite good compared to my Rebel/300D. It's larger, and brighter.
-
That's an interesting opinion, because for me the CA in the very wide end (17-24) of the 17-85 is it's weakest point. The lens has a nice range, is quite sharp and has a very good IS. I will never buy a lens without IS as my primairy lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72599\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I use the 20D and 17-85 + 70-300 DO.
I find DXO optics to be a brilliant complement to this combination. I suspect I may have got a bit lucky with my 17-85 because I've hardly ever had any CA from it.
At any rate DXO does a great job of correcting the flaws of those two lenses.
I do have a 5D + 24-105 in mind as a possible upgrade, but perhaps I'm being silly. I don't print a lot of photos bigger than A4, and very few bigger than A3.
It might be better to spend the money on the EF-S 17-55 f2.8, and a if there is a 50-150 f2.8 coming that sounds very interesting too.
-
I guess I'll file a minority opinion & say a smaller DSLR is probably a better choice for travel than a 5D.
First, be sure you need it. Whether for travel or other uses, I don't recommend a 5D to anyone who doesn't also run a large-format printer. If you make small prints (up to 13x19) & aren't addicted to cropping, then you won't gain that much advantage over an 8MP 1.6 DSLR.
Second, a 5D with a 24-105 (let alone a 24-70) isn't a delight to carry. I was talking with another 5D user about this recently as we both planned trips to Europe, & neither of us was delighted at the prospect of shlepping our 5D/24-105 for days on end (in my case, the British coast-to-coast hike).
Finally, the 5D takes time to get used to, so don't buy one for travel without allowing for a retraining cycle beforehand. If you've been shooting with a 1.6 sensor for very long, you're programmed to previsualize the greater DOF of shorter focal-length lenses. Allow time to re-program the internal computer to work with smaller apertures &/or shallower DOF.
-
When entering the digital arena, I went straight for the 30D. My wife had the 350D and, like you, I liked the image quality but found the ergonomics irritating: I preferred the larger LCD of the 30D, along with the brighter viewfinder and the simpler-to-access functions.
Personally, I wouldn't get hung up on the cropped sensor/FF debate. If the 350D is sufficient for your cityscapes that is all you need to know - it doesn't seem to have limited you so far (from what you say)! Remember: the term 'Full Frame' is only a point of reference for those who are adapting from film to digital. It is not intended to denote superiority.
Lenses: if you get the 5D, you will probably have to upgrade your lenses anyway to get full benefit of the higher spec. camera - so why not upgrade those first and carry on using the 350D as long as you can bear it. Then you can decide if you need the full functionality of the 5D.
If you want to see what the 350D can do with good lenses then this website will help (personally I think the quality is impressive for what is considered an 'entry level' DSLR)
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/galleries/nyc...eron.htm#photo1 (http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/galleries/nycticorax_nycticorax-night_heron.htm#photo1)
The 30D will better this performance. Do you need more than this?
Then there is the gambler's view: buying the 30D and selling after a 2 years because you really wanted teh 5D after all will lose you $500 (by which time you can buy a second-hand 5D). But buying a 5D and realising you don't use all the functions (or, worse, hate the weight of it and stop taking pictures!) can be even more expensive. (I like that argument )
-
Threads like this naturally generate alot of contradictory advice, pointing to the real difficulty of giving people advice about what to buy. I think the most useful kind of advice would be about knowing how to decide what you really want. There is no one camera that will meet all of your criteria - always there will be trade-offs - model Z will be better than X for feature A but worse than Y for feature B, etc.
So I would start by asking myself what are the most important things to me: for example, and without pretending to be exhaustive:
- budget (what's my range including all the implications down the road - e.g. lenses - and these will depend on what you shoot, what body you buy and how particular you are about optical quality);
- pixel count (i.e. how big to print, what's my minimum PPI quality standard and will I crop the images0
- size and weight of the camera (what range works for me);
- size and brightness of viewfinder (is a big bright viewfinder important to me or not);
- settings and features and their accessibility (how much of what do I need, and how easily accessible do I want them to be under shooting conditions), etc.
As I say, you can conjure up more such questions depending on what matters to you, and think about your preliminary answers. Then go to a shop where they will have the patience to let you handle and toy with every model that fits somewhere within the range of your priorities so determined, and decide based on your own impressions from handling them what gives you the most comfort and confidence.
-
If travel is your prime use for the camera and size/weight is a major consideration think about this.
I was at my local camera shop buying a battery for my first generation Spotmatic and asked to see the then new 20D. Just looking at it, it appeared quite large to my eyes. Since I thought my Spotmatic was relatively small, I put both cameras side by side on the counter. They were practically the same size much to my surprise and seemed to weigh almost the same. The height, width and depth as I recall were very close. What a shock, all that technology in a package not that much different from a camera purchased new in 1968.
Now as to the viewfinder, the Spotmatic seemed to have a brighter viewfinder, but I was enchanted with the 20D. No I didn't buy one, still saving my lunch money and my only complaint about the Spotmatic is that the batteries we have to use today just don't last that long. And the only electrical device in the camera is the thru the lens meter!
-
If travel is your prime use for the camera and size/weight is a major consideration think about this.
I was at my local camera shop buying a battery for my first generation Spotmatic and asked to see the then new 20D. Just looking at it, it appeared quite large to my eyes. Since I thought my Spotmatic was relatively small, I put both cameras side by side on the counter. They were practically the same size much to my surprise and seemed to weigh almost the same. The height, width and depth as I recall were very close. What a shock, all that technology in a package not that much different from a camera purchased new in 1968.
Now as to the viewfinder, the Spotmatic seemed to have a brighter viewfinder, but I was enchanted with the 20D. No I didn't buy one, still saving my lunch money and my only complaint about the Spotmatic is that the batteries we have to use today just don't last that long. And the only electrical device in the camera is the thru the lens meter!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72775\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I loved (and miss) my Spotmatics. But now I've gone over to the Dark Side and have a 5D, which has a very nice viewfinder (unlike the tiny tunnel on the 10D it replaces).
Eric
-
I think topics like this are very intersting for the marketing department from Canon....
Well I made a decision and I went for the 5D with 24-105 and 70-300DO.
I must admit that I have had some *sleepless* nights about this subject...
>Full frame or not
When I have a look at my computer stuff, I see a lot of things that are still working but simply can not be used anymore because it's outdated and incompatible with newer stuf. I dont wan't this to happen with my lenses, although I must admit that it seems that Canon is serious about EF-S.
However if you want to have the full bennefit of Canons (L) lens line up, then full frame is the way to go. a 24-105, 16-35 f2.8 or a 24-70 f2.8 are simply not made for cropped sensors. a 16-35 or 17-40 f4.0 are very wide lenses on a FF sensor, but just normal on a cropped sensor. a 85/f1.2 prime is a nice portraid lens on FF but becomes a bit long on a 1.6 crop body....just some examples.
So when you are more orientated on wide angle -like me- then FF is a good idea is my opinion...but who am I
>Weight
Yes a 5D with 24-105 is larger and heavier then a 350D + 17-85 IS. But the weight difference between a 30D and a 5D is very small and a 17-55 f/2.8 is about as heavy as a 24-105 L.
If you wan't a more professional camera, the weight of your gear will increase quite a bit.
I personaly like the beefy feel of a 5D or 30D. Both camera's have about the same size and weight and you realy have to look twice to see the difference between the 5D and 30D. When I am on a day trip, I always cary a small back pack, so 1 kg more or less is not an issue. BUt I admit I will not add those white L lenses to my gear, because it's to expensive and heavy.
>Viewfinder
Never look through a 5D view finder if you do not intend to buy a new body. The difference compared to a 350D or even 30D is huge. Using the 350D it's almost impossible to use manual focussing because everything is so dark and small. The 5D however is bright and large, so it alows you to see what you are doing when playing with the DOF for example.
>Sensor
I have the 5D only a few days so I can not say much about it. The amount of detail on you screen is huge. The ISO performance is very good it seems. I did some tests, shooting images from my beige coloured computer housing, especialy the shades (standard colour for computer cases). This colour makes noise easy visable. At ISO 50 there is no noise at all even when viewed at 200%. Even the levels at ISO 1600 are very low and depending on your demands and how large you print still very usable. ISO 3200 can save your day, but with a quality penalty.
>Focusing
I am to unexperienced to judge about this, but my 35 f/2.0 prime was a dog on my 350D. 75% of my images were soft because of inconsistent focussing. I had to stop down to at least f2.8 and for safety even to f4.0 to get a bit realiable results. When using this lens on the 5D, each image is sharp, time after time..... If this a full frame issue or a better AF control, I don't know... you may tell it. These FF lenses were made for FF film cameras, not for 1.6 crop bodies.
>Computer power
I am running a 3.2ghz P4 system with only 1 GB memory and I don't have any problems with the larger files. Ok it's somewhat slower but not significant. The jpegs are around 6mb while raw files are about 12-15MB. Only my Epson P2000 photo viewer is having a hard time with these files. The P2000 works ok, but scrolling through the images takes much more time.
>Functionality
The 5D lacks shooting modes like landscape or portraid, but I use Av or or M mode more and more. I like to know what I am doing, but the 5D more or less forces you, more than a 350D or 30D.
Just like the 30D it has spot metering, which is helpfull I think.
>Money
...uh other subject please...
I sold my 350D + 17-85 for E900,-. The 5D with 24-105 IS costs E3599 and I get E300 back from canon. Currently there is also a E100,- cashback for the 70-300 IS DO.
It's still a lot of money, but considering this is a full frame profesional camera makes things a bit less painfull.
The prices over here (Netherlands) are; 350D (E659,-) 30D (E1199,-) 5D (E2675,- excl E300,- cashback)
>Lenses
Both lenses are very well built, both seem very sharp. The IS on the 70-300 IS DO is extreme good, but as expected this lens seems prone to flare, much more then the 24-105. Using the 5D this will already show up when looking through it's view finder, so you will not be surprised when you arive at home. Until now I couldn't detect any weird things about the DO. It's center sharpnes and contrast is good, but it is softer in the corner. The 24-105 shows some vignetting at the wide end when used wide open. The DO doesn't show any vignetting.
But for the rest I can not give more comments about these lenses since I have to take them into the field first.
During my holiday within a few weeks I will defenately have a lot of fun with this system, and hopefully also the years to come.
....by the way I find Micheal Reichmann reviews and opinions about photo gear very usufull. It's not so much about pixel peeping, but more about reallity...
-
RedRebel, congratulations and use it well. You went through exactly the right kind of thought processes and I wish you every success with this excellent, state-of-the-art combination.
-
...
>Viewfinder
Never look through a 5D view finder if you do not intend to buy a new body.
...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72901\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So true! The main reason I just upgraded my 10D to a 5D was the viewfinder. The full-frame sensor was secondary. I already have 17-40 L and 70-200 L glass, and I'm now saving my pennies for the 24-105 (I don't have any IS lens yet).
I agree with Mark that your reasoning was superb. I hope your combo gives you great satisfaction.
Eric
-
I agree with Mark that your reasoning was superb. I hope your combo gives you great satisfaction.
Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72921\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks...
The more images I see from this combo, the more convinced I am about the quality of both the 5D and these lenses.
This camera handles easy, all controls and indicators you need, are at your finger tips and the ISO performance is stunning. When I look at the images at my 17inch monitor full screen (about 29%) I have a hard time to discover if the image was shot using ISO 400 or ISO 1600. I even have to look twice to see the difference between ISO 1600 or 3200... Only when viewing at 100%, you see that the increase in noise is very moderate up to ISO 1600, but becomes apparent at 3200.
Red
-
Glad you are pleased with it. Keep enjoying.
-
I have just returned from a two week holiday to Tuscany Italy.
The 5D is a very fine camera. After upgrading from a 350D the following improvements are significant:
- The very large viewfinder makes framing an image so easy. It is easy to see if your subject is in focus and the allignment of images is a breeze
- The ISO performance is very good. I didn't hasitate to use ISO 800 or ISO 1600 inside very dark churches in Siena and Florance. Viewed on my 17 inch monitor there seems to be virtual no noise. Only when viewing at 100% some noise becomes appearant. I also went to the Ferarri Galeria in Maranello, and made lots of images from typically Ferarri red cars... Also then the high ISO levels can be used, but if you want postersize and clean images, you should limit the ISO level to about ISO 400. You won't actualy see real noise in the range of 400-800, but the intens red (or black) colours simply become a litle less intense at these higher ISO levels. It should be said that I shot everything using jpeg and I didn't do any further processing in Photoshop (yet).
- Compared to the 350D, the camera is more comfortable in use. When walking in and out churches, musea, narow city streets and arriving in a bright Italian sun, makes it necesarry to change ISO levels etc.. frequently. But al these controls are availble with a single button and a dial, I only had to dive into the 5D's menu system to format my memory card.
The 24-105 Lens is great. Compared to my (sold) 17-85 it shows almost no chromatic abborations and barrel distortions. The amount of detail and sharpnes is great. The only downside I discoverred, is the vignetting in the range of 24..35mm.
The 70-300 DO IS, wasn't used that much. But the optical performance and IS seems great. What was less pleasant is the the zoom was often very sticky at higher temperatures (25-30Grc). That's why I have sent it back for a check up.
After being using this camera for several weeks now, my shooting style seems to change also. I become more aware from what I am doing and I some times even tend to use the full manual shooting program instead of Av, Tv or even P mode.
-
Rene, glad to hear that equipment continues to serve you well. With what you have, the next step is to advance into depending more on RAW capture and image processing using Lightroom Beta or Photoshop. It will give you much more control over image quality, allowing you to maximize the real quality that camera and lenses are capable of delivering.
-
Your right, I have Photoshop CS2 but until know I am not very familiar with RAW image shooting and image processing. The same is true for using Adobe RGB or sRGB. I don't have a Photo printer yet, so I depend on a store that basically only processes sRGB.
...by the way, does RAW shooting increase the dynamic range (a little) ? During daytime, I continously have to pay attention, not to get blown out highlights.
-
Your right, I have Photoshop CS2 but until know I am not very familiar with RAW image shooting and image processing. The same is true for using Adobe RGB or sRGB. I don't have a Photo printer yet, so I depend on a store that basically only processes sRGB.
...by the way, does RAW shooting increase the dynamic range (a little) ? During daytime, I continously have to pay attention, not to get blown out highlights.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76298\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Even though you do not yet have a photo printer, if you think that sometime later you will buy one, and if you intend to print some of the images you are now making, it would be advantageous to keep them in a format that will give you the potential for maximum quality at that time. As well, it is not clear that the service where you get your pictures printed is using a technology whose colour space mimics the size and shape of sRGB, therefore it is likely preferable to use RGB. Your camera can make both RAW and JPEG files simultaneously, so even if you do nothing with the RAW captures yet, you can save them.
One of the areas where a RAW capture can be advantageous is for exposure correction. To some extent the RAW converter in Photoshop CS2 can "correct" blown highlights by reducing exposure in the converter before converting the RAW file to a normal TIFF or PSD file. The best however is to try to avoid blown highlights by making your exposures with the histogram values pushed up as close to the right-side end of the scale without clipping. You can see whether you've succeeded with this immediately after the image is processed by examining the histogram. If you have blown highlights or the exposure is positioned further down the scale than it can be without clipping, you can make exposure compensation adjustments and retake the picture. There is a considerable amount of material on this website about optimizing digital exposure (essays and tutorials). Bruce Fraser has written a very good, compact book on using Adobe Camera Raw which would be worthwhile reading.
-
Even though you do not yet have a photo printer, if you think that sometime later you will buy one, and if you intend to print some of the images you are now making, it would be advantageous to keep them in a format that will give you the potential for maximum quality at that time. As well, it is not clear that the service where you get your pictures printed is using a technology whose colour space mimics the size and shape of sRGB, therefore it is likely preferable to use RGB. Your camera can make both RAW and JPEG files simultaneously, so even if you do nothing with the RAW captures yet, you can save them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76313\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In the three years that I have been shooting digital, I have now on numerous occasions gone back to an earlier raw file to reconvert it, just because my skill at using these (*&^$#) converters has improved a lot since I first tried it. I'm just pleased that some of my earlier pictures are worth redoing (in my humble opinion .)
-Eric
-
Rene, I forgot to mention in my previous reply that with RAW images, when you convert them in 16 bit mode and into ProPhoto Color Space (which Adobe Camera Raw supports) you will have the widest gamut colour working space and bit depth (i.e. capable of accommodating very highly saturated hues accross the visible colour spectrum) that most of our current computers can comfortably process. While the gamut considerably exceeds that of all our current photoprinters, it does have the benefit of INSURING (providing you expose properly) that you have for any image the maximum amount of image data your printer can possibly handle - plus most likely what the next several generations of printers will probably handle. You cannot have this file quality and assurance with JPGs.
Eric - I just plugged into your website - what wonderful imagery - and it provided me an excellent reference source for creating the web content - I've downloaded the program you are using and will give it a try. I've been looking for exactly such an animal (effective, cheap and easy) as both my wife and I need to create web sites with image files.
-
My choice would be 5D + 24-105 IS USM. Although the 24-105 also suffers from fairly bad CA it's a good lens otherwise, and if you're shooting RAW then it's correctable.
Choose the other lens based on your preferred activities. Say the 100-400 IS USM if you're into wildlife and/or headed to Africa.
-
Rene, I forgot to mention in my previous reply that with RAW images, when you convert them in 16 bit mode and into ProPhoto Color Space (which Adobe Camera Raw supports) you will have the widest gamut colour working space and bit depth (i.e. capable of accommodating very highly saturated hues accross the visible colour spectrum) that most of our current computers can comfortably process. While the gamut considerably exceeds that of all our current photoprinters, it does have the benefit of INSURING (providing you expose properly) that you have for any image the maximum amount of image data your printer can possibly handle - plus most likely what the next several generations of printers will probably handle. You cannot have this file quality and assurance with JPGs.
Eric - I just plugged into your website - what wonderful imagery - and it provided me an excellent reference source for creating the web content - I've downloaded the program you are using and will give it a try. I've been looking for exactly such an animal (effective, cheap and easy) as both my wife and I need to create web sites with image files.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76336\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark,
Thanks for the nice comments. I had been hoping to design my own website, but I had an exhibit opening that I was eager to get a site up for, so looking for (cheap!) gallery software seemed the best way to go.
Please let us all know when you and your wife have your websites up.
-Eric
-
Mark,
Please let us all know when you and your wife have your websites up.
-Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76381\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Will do! I appreciate the interest.
-
Thanks for the usefull comments...
Mark,
The way you describe to use the histogram is a bit diferrent then the way I have used it until now. I checked the image if it indicated blownout highlights (black blinking area's) and stopped down if needed.
Indeed the 24-105 shows some CA, but it is neglectible compared to the EF-S 17-85 I have owned. But I will have a closser look to RAW processing to improve image quality further.
Another thing to pay attention to (for me although ) is the vignetting of the 24-105 in the 24-35mm range. On occasions that the sky is over exposed, the vignetting causes the sky to turn into blue... During daytime I didn't notice it, because the LCD monitor is often hard to view in bright sunlight, but back in my appartment I saw it on my Epson P2000. In these narrow Italy citties (Siena, Florance etc..) you often have to strugle between blownout skies and shadows in the streets.
...but that makes life fun, otherwise it would be to easy offcourse...
-
Rene, you can either stop down without changing the shutter speed (means you are off automatic) or you can do negatve exposure compensation. When lenses are stopped-down too much they may deliver inferior image quality. As a rule of thumb one hears that the optimal optical performance of a lens is about two stops above its maximum aperture - but that's a general guide.
My 24~105 f4 L has extremely little CA and very little vignetting. Both are correctible in Photoshop - the CA more successfully than the vignetting in my opinion. It may be a good idea to verify that the lens hood is on correctly - an incorrect placement of the lens hood could cause excessive vignetting. It may also be useful to have Canon check your lens to make sure it is performing within their quality assurance standards.
Regarding the exposure dilemma - this is where working with RAW files in a good image editing program can be very advantageous. By "exposing to the right" as I discussed several posts ago, and making sure there is no or minimal clipped data at the ends of the histogram, in post-processing you can create two separate versions of the same raw file, one adjusted for the brighter areas and another adjusted for bringing out the detail in the darker areas, then blend the two using layers and layer masks in Photoshop. There is much more information in those shadow areas than you will see on your Epson P2000 once you start bringing-out the data in Photoshop using Levels or better still Curves. There are articles about this on this website. As well, if you send me your email address in a private email I'll send you an article (unpublished) I drafted on the same topic.