Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: My next camera...  (Read 6402 times)

Craig Arnold

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 219
    • Craig Arnold's Photography
My next camera...
« on: December 22, 2006, 05:28:05 am »

Lately I have found myself mostly using a single lens with my 20D; my 28mm f1.8. This attachment to a wide-normal fast aperture lens made me wonder about what my next camera should be.

I have enough in my photography fund now to consider "upgrading" from my 20D.

The 5D seems like the obvious choice, but I've been very interested in the Leica M8 too. So I went to the shops yesterday to try both of them out.

From extensive internet comparisons we know image quality is more or less a draw, and excellent in both cases. The 5D is superior at ISO800 and higher. Below that the extra sharpness of the Leica lenses and lack of low-pass filter gives exceptional image quality. We know about the weak IR filter and associated colour problems. To me this is not a deal breaker on the M8; as MR has pointed out it's probably actually better for BW shots and not insurmountable for colour. The dynamic range seems very similar, probably the edge goes to the 5D. So if image quality is six-of-one and half-a-dozen of the other and both are superb, the decision can't be about that.

Here are my thoughts after handling them.

The Leica was clearly an incredible piece of equipment. I've never used a rangefinder, so it felt very strange, and of course I know that there would be a learning curve, so I have allowed for that.

The first disappointment was the viewfinder. Although the viewfinder was very large and bright the actual eyepiece was tiny and I had to really mash my face up against it to see well. I wear spectacles and it felt very awkward. The issue of seeing more than you can capture would require some adjustment; realising that you only get what is in the framing lines is very different to the wysiwyg nature of the SLR. But I'm sure I'd adjust to that fairly easily, and I can understand (in theory) how one might come to find it very useful.

The focus ring was incredibly smooth and the lenses were amazingly small. I did find though that the lack of a focus "ring" was weird. The lenses have protruberance that your finger sort of rests on to change the focus; I'm sure once you get used to it it works very well, but my immediate reaction was that it was much less ergonomically friendly than the focus rings on SLR lenses. For whatever reason I don't like holding my left hand underneath the camera with the palm up. I know that's how you are taught to hold an SLR too, but it has always felt awkward to me. So I don't. My right hand carries most of the weight, and my left hand is often used on the lens, but with my palm facing towards the right, not upwards. Unless you have very long spidery fingers that it is impossible to hold the M8 this way. You simply have to hold it with your left palm underneath the body to reach the focus knob/lever. The other issue with focus is how easy it is to focus through the viewfinder, the focus screen is different to the old "split screen" style that I was used to on an SLR, though perhaps it operates on the same principle. In practice I guess you get used to setting the focus to hyperfocal by default, when you take your eye from the viewfinder in preparation for the next shot, so you minimise the travel required on the focus adjustment. In terms of ease of seeing what was in focus I found it depended very much on the subject matter and contrast; the human brain has the same problems as AF algorithms I guess. After 5 minutes I felt that there would always be certain types of subject matter that would be very difficult to get correct focus on, but for normal shooting and certainly people shots it would not take too long to adjust.

One hears so much about how quiet the Leica is compared to the an SLR. Well from what I saw yesterday the differences are greatly exaggerated. Now it is certainly true perhaps that the M8 is not as quiet as the other M cameras because it has a different (metal) shutter, but the noise overall was certainly as intrusive as the 5D. It is a slightly softer but much longer sound.

After an SLR though it felt odd in my hands, very unbalanced. All the weight is in the body, the lenses are tiny. Also it is a very square boxy item with a tiny button for the shutter. The button is placed on top of the camera, and so falls less easily to the finger than the buttons on SLR grips which are angled at 45 degrees away from the vertical.

So the basic ergonomics were a big surprise, I felt like my wrists were twisted at awkward angles and I found it very hard to see into the viewfinder with my specs on.

The build quality was exceptional, it was clearly a step above everything else I've ever held in terms of the materials and engineering.

The screen and menus were very nice.

The other real issue is which lens to use. With the M7 it would be a very easy selection. 35mm f1.4. But which lens to choose with the 1.33 crop factor? 35/1.3 => 26mm. So a 28mm would be close enough. They do have a Summicron 28mm f2.0 which would have to be sufficient. It's a pity to have to swallow the loss of one stop with the relatively poor high-ISO performance though.

Price in the UK: Body (£2500), Summicron 28mm f2 (£1900) = £4400.

Availability is very limited, if I put in an order today I could have one in April sometime.

It comes in two versions, silver and black. I would go for black I think, the silver looks too much like it's a piece of jewellery, though it really is quite beautiful.

So then I wondered off to have a look at the 5D.

Things seemed slightly odd when I first looked through the viewfinder, but once I had adjusted the diopter back to centre everything looked fantastic! Beware demo model settings. The viewfinder was excellent, big and bright. Certainly I felt it did not suffer at all in comparison to the Leica. And it was MUCH easier to use with my spectacles on.

Of course I had nothing really to adjust to, it was just like a 20D, just a bit better in every way. The balance with the 24-105L felt fantastic, I know it's heavier and slightly larger than the 20D but it felt perfect, better than the 20D in fact. This makes sense, because I absolutely hate the way the small rebels feel in my hands. I hadn't realised that I would prefer to keep on going past the 20D feel though. But I did. It felt great and very balanced.

With my slightly eccentric way of using my left hand when I hold the camera the extra room and weight work very well.

The AF was noticably better than my 20D + 17-85. Faster and more sure. The extra brightness and size of the viewfinder also makes MF much better, and in fact helps with giving a sense of sureness about the accuracy of the AF.

The 3-colour histogram was great, the LCD was better than the 20D, but perhaps not as good as the Leica.

It felt RIGHT.

Price in the UK: 5D + 24-105L = £2250.
35mm f1.4L = £900
Total = £3150

Cameras and lenses are freely available in stores. So it's pretty clear where the value-for-money lies. And of course I have a bunch of Canon and Sigma lenses already that will be compatible as well as my Sigma flashgun.

So it seems that the Leica's main appeal is its romantic value, or snob value perhaps; for practicality and value for money the Canon is miles ahead. If I had fallen in love with the Leica after handling it, it would have been a different story. But the 5D has won my heart.

Having said that however I think I am going to wait until early next year; if they bring out a 5D MkII with anti-dust and Digic III that will do me fine. If not then hopefully the new year will bring a price reduction, or return of the EU rebates.

It does make me rather sick that the UK price is basically double the US price, it would actually be cheaper to fly to NY and buy the camera than buy it locally. But of course one is then without a warrantee and can still get slapped with VAT on entry if unlucky.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2006, 02:55:09 pm by peripatetic »
Logged

francois

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13794
My next camera...
« Reply #1 on: December 22, 2006, 06:34:40 am »

Quote
...One hears so much about how quiet the Leica is compared to the an SLR. Well from what I saw yesterday the differences are greatly exaggerated. Now it is certainly true perhaps that the M8 is not as quiet as the other M cameras because it has a different (metal) shutter, but the noise overall was certainly as intrusive as the 5D. It is a slightly softer but much longer sound...
French mag Chasseur d'image has an article about shutter noise of digital camera. I don't have the issue here at the office but the Leica M8 was far from being the most silent of current cameras. You can read a recap of that article here - scroll down to Le Leica M8, battu par... le Canon EOS 400D.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2006, 06:35:25 am by francois »
Logged
Francois

aum

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
My next camera...
« Reply #2 on: December 24, 2006, 08:02:03 am »

 if it where me id go with the 5d, for the following reasons. 1 the canon is most likely better sealed from moisture, dust etc. 2 the best canon lenses are 2nd only to zeiss , so i wouldnt get hung up on the lens thing unless your a fan of a particular brand. 3rd i suspect although i cant say for sure that the 5d will give better over all results. keep in mind though this advice comes from one still using film, what im relaying comes from memories of reviews etc, although i am certain about the lens aspect from my own use. aum
Logged

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2171
My next camera...
« Reply #3 on: December 24, 2006, 11:07:28 am »

Given your attitude toward the cameras, you'd be crazy not to get the 5D. Nothing you said suggested that you'd be a happy M8 owner. One of the key questions for potential M8 owners is, "What do you shoot?" and you never even mentioned that. If "What do you shoot" is not a key question for you, then you should go for the flexibility of a DSLR or a handly little P&S like the G7. When people say that the Leica is not for everybody, that's not just a smug cliche, that's the literal truth.

JC
Logged

stever

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1250
My next camera...
« Reply #4 on: December 24, 2006, 11:26:21 am »

aren't there any end-of-year rebates in the UK? in the US there's a $700 rebate if you buy a 5D and 24-105 together - may finally push me over the edge

i'll still use the 20D with long lenses, but the big viewfinder (along with other advantages) is very appealing
Logged

Craig Arnold

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 219
    • Craig Arnold's Photography
My next camera...
« Reply #5 on: December 24, 2006, 06:09:15 pm »

Quote
aren't there any end-of-year rebates in the UK? in the US there's a $700 rebate if you buy a 5D and 24-105 together - may finally push me over the edge

i'll still use the 20D with long lenses, but the big viewfinder (along with other advantages) is very appealing
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92168\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nope they had a £200 rebate that expired on 31 Oct, and they have not renewed it.

I guess they are selling enough 5Ds so that they don't need the rebates.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2006, 06:10:07 pm by peripatetic »
Logged

graphicjoe

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
My next camera...
« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2006, 08:15:13 pm »

I have considered more or less the same question. My choice is the M8. I will share some of my reasons for the choice; they may or may not apply to you. First, a bit of background.

I currently have a Fuji with a Nikon 17-35 lens. I have used it a lot and it has done well by me. However, I’ve never really liked it. It’s too big and too heavy for my taste, and it has far too many bells and whistles. It fairly bristles with switches and buttons, and it is very eager to jump into the image gathering process. It is generally slow, and the shutter lag time is excessive. Many images that could have been good were lost because the shutter did not open soon enough. I won’t go on with gripes; sufficient to say that I don’t much like SLR cameras despite having used them since the OM1 came out.

My father-in-law gave me an M3 many years ago, and it was love from the first quiet click of the crisp shutter release button. I have since added an M6 to the Leica department. I have two Summicron lenses, a 35 and a 50. At the time I got the M6 I promised myself that if Leica ever produced a digital M camera, I would buy it. I also have a Mamiya 7II for medium format.  

People—as you did—often talk about the “learning curve” of a RF camera. But to me, that is wrong way round. I find a RF camera to be natural and easy to use. I find that for much more than 90% of my picture taking a RF is the natural choice. I only use an SLR for close up work, or when it is necessary to use longer focal length lenses, something I seldom find necessary.

Now for a few points that favor an M8.

It is lighter and less conspicuous in use. I hate the “gas mask” look of my Fuji and of most DSLR’s. I find that potential portrait subjects are intimidated by having the massive Fuji/Nikon camera pointed at them. Size and weight are very important for me. I have a serious back problem and one bad knee and one metal knee. I also find that I am aging. It’s an ugly truth, but my power of denial is often too weak to keep the sad reality from breaking through.  
I already have two Leica lenses, an important point given the quality and cost of Leica glass. The two lenses I have may be enough, or I might need to add a 21 mm, or possibly that slick 16-18-21 that is just on the market. I know that some will disagree, but I do see a difference in images made with Leica lenses. It may not be revealed when taking pictures of charts, but in real-world picture taking, it is usually evident, sometimes strikingly so.
It may be different with digital cameras, but if their film cameras are a guide, the M8 should be rugged and reliable.
You mention the need for a faster lens than the 28 mm f2. It depends on what kind of work you do, but I've found that f2 lenses are fast enough for everything I have ever needed to do. Having a range finder obviates the need for a fast lens to aid focusing and seeing the area in the view finder. I would also note that Leica lenses are better than most when used at maximum aperture.
I love the way Leica M cameras look. I suppose that’s a silly reason, but it matters to me. And, I am not a gadget snob; a Timex is preferable to a Rolex in my book, and a Honda Civic is my kind of car.
I love the simplicity of M cameras. The “brain” of any camera should be placed just behind the camera, between the ears of the user.
These are the reasons that come to mind just now. I’m sure there are others, but, these will give you some food for thought. Take comfort in the fact that whichever choice you make will be a good one; both of the cameras you are considering are excellent and either will do well for you.

Cheers,

Joe Stephenson
Logged

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
My next camera...
« Reply #7 on: December 30, 2006, 08:43:43 pm »

I'm curious, why do you feel the need to upgrade from 20D? Is there something it doesn't do for you that justifies buying a camera which is the price of a lens or two, a set of lighting or a vacation in Thailand? My point is that 20D is an excellent - even though aging - piece of photographic equipment and I really can't imagine why anyone would need a better "35mm" SLR than that, unless there's something very specific in 5Ds specs you can't live without.

The only reasons you cite for 5D being better is bigger viewfinder, marginally better handling and faster AF. If you shoot at 28mm I presume you don't need fast AF anyway so it should be a non-issue. Marginally better handling isn't worth the upgrade price, IMO. So the only point you have left is the bigger viewfinder. But is it worth the price?

20D doesn't have 3-color histogram? My 30D has, is it a new addition? That's definitely worth some money, though.

In the end, judging from your post I couldn't justify investing so much on a marginal upgrade even if I had that kind of money in my budget. There's so much more you can do with that money to improve your photography. And as implied above, it doesn't have to be equipment.

Craig Arnold

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 219
    • Craig Arnold's Photography
My next camera...
« Reply #8 on: December 31, 2006, 04:28:38 am »

Why upgrade?

Well - the 20D doesn't have a 3-colour histogram.

The viewfinder is a lot better.

The balance (now that I have felt it) feels better.

Fast AF is very important to me. I mostly use the 28mm f1.8 USM which is by far the fastest focusing lens I have. (28*1.6=>45mm equivalent angle of view).

Resolution - not important at all for about 50% of my (non-snapshot) photos, but for the other 50% more resolution would be nice; I find I am interpolating and then running image restoration algorithms and sharpening to try to keep the detail and sharpness at A3 or bigger.

Even better noise profile than 20D. Most of my photography is done on family outings, and there just isn't really time to use the tripod on those occasions. Sure using a tripod and mirror lock-up would help with that extra sharpness, but it's not practical at the moment. I am a family man with a day-job, my photography is just a hobby.

Also my 20D is beginning to feel a bit long-in-the-tooth, either it or my 17-85 lens has developed an odd focus issue where it hunts badly around infinity, where it used to just snap into sharp focus. I'm not sure whether it's worth sending them in for repair or not now. The market value of the camera is probably similar to the cost of repairs.

Also I believe that it is reasonable to depreciate (even notionally) all consumer electronic equipment over 3 years. After 3 years one should not be surprised if it fails. To my knowledge there is very little prospect of being able to replace the innards of either the M8 or a DSLR at an economic price. If any item containing a computer gives me 5 years I would regard that as a very good run. My 20D is now 3 years old, so it is well worth contemplating a replacement. And indeed, not liking the cost of credit I tend to set aside some money every month into a fund which now has more than sufficient to purchase the 5D, though not quite enough for the Leica.

There is a hint of "Are you sure you are a good enough photographer to warrant better equipment?" in your reply. Well, there are undoubtedly more talented photographers using cheaper equipment than I, but I have been on a couple of courses at Central St Martins, and the tutors have said that I do have at least modest talents and should consider starting to exhibit some of my work. Also when people see my photographs I do get a fair bit of "Great pictures, you must have a really good camera." And I have certainly seen a great deal of work on the internet by people with much better equipment who are really awful.

Honestly I'm really not sure that there is any way I could reasonably spend the money that would improve my photography more. I read a lot, take a lot of books from the library, go to gallery exhibitions, try to think hard about my pictures and have been on some courses led by moderately well-known photographers who have been complimentary where they had no real need to be.

Why don't I turn pro? Well, I know some very good fine art photographers who don't make anything like as good a living as I do by being a software engineer working in finance. I am planning on entering some landscape and portrait competitions next year. Except for those of stratospheric talent being a professional photographer is foremost about being a decent businessman and secondly about being a very good photographer.

But in the end all that one really needs to buy some expensive equipment is a bit of money. There is no requirement that one meet a certain standard. Actually I think this benefits the better photographers too, by increasing the market size the unit cost of equipment is lowered.  

I was prepared to fall in love with the Leica, hoping for it actually. But contrary to the experience of Joe and many many others, when I picked up the Leica it immediately felt horribly wrong. As I mentioned before I found it very difficult to see into the eyepiece with my glasses on, and my wrists felt horribly twisted. It was a very nasty surprise and contrary to all my expectations - I had heard so much about the superior viewfinder and fantastic ergonomics. I guess after 15 years of using a film SLR and 3 of a DSLR I am now so accustomed to it that any change might be difficult.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2006, 07:47:30 am by peripatetic »
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22813
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
My next camera...
« Reply #9 on: December 31, 2006, 09:28:25 am »

Quote
Also I believe that it is reasonable to depreciate (even notionally) all consumer electronic equipment over 3 years. After 3 years one should not be surprised if it fails. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93004\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
About six or seven years ago, when I was unable to get one of my seven cameras repaired, I came to the sudden realization that not a single one of them had been in manufacture for at least 20 years! And all but two of them I had bought new.    

But now that I've gone digital, of course I've gotten into the "3-year" cycle: Started with 10D, skipped both 20D and 30D, now on the 5D . . .  
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
My next camera...
« Reply #10 on: December 31, 2006, 09:43:43 am »

Sounds perfectly reasonable. I didn't mean to imply the question about your skills. I was merely pointing out that there are a lot of gearwhores in this hobby who think a new camera will make their photography x times better - regardless of their current skill level. But if you feel constrained by your current system there's really no reason not to upgrade.

The main reason I asked was because I moved from a EOS 50E to 30D a few months back and can't justify spending the extra money on 5D even if I could afford it. My - admittedly limited - understanding of optics states that 8MP is enough resolution with 35mm lenses and in real life situations. Sure, if one shoots in a perfectly controlled environment on a tripod I'm sure one can gain from using higher megapixels, but for the vast majority of my shooting 12, 16 or 22 megapixels wouldn't introduce any meaningful detail. I shoot outside in available light and only use a tripod with low-light photography - which I do a lot of, though -, so 30D is perfect for my uses.

Good point about depreciating photographic equipment. This was the main reason why I waited for so long to move to digital. I have a Mamiya C220 which is probably from the early 70s which still works beautifully and produces "better" pictures than any 35mm system, digital or not. There is no way anyone will be buying a used 30D or 5D in 30 years to actually photograph with. This of course is a good thing as marginal improvements to digital tech mean better and cheaper cameras for us.

[economics addendum: the above is one of the main reasons why real income has been stagnant since the 70s: as people require a better [gadget] although their current [gadget] is working just fine, no wonder people don't feel they get more bang for their buck although Moore's Law and prices would suggest so.

I hope you're investing those funds you set aside. If you just let them sit on your savings account inflation will eat it away and you would be better served by taking credit.]
« Last Edit: December 31, 2006, 09:46:56 am by feppe »
Logged

stever

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1250
My next camera...
« Reply #11 on: January 01, 2007, 12:33:31 am »

this has gotten kind of philosophical, so i'll add mine

buy the best tools (or better) you can afford -- life is short and time wasted on inferior results is an unnecessary stress factor

that said, i agonize over purchases not because of the cost, but when there's stuff sitting around that doesn't get used i feel stupid - this is the "capital equipment syndrome" individuals and company's waste incredible amounts of money on expenses that are written off and forgotten, but the equipment stares back at you every day causing guilt outwieghing it's value

my justification for the new 5D is large prints - there's real satisfaction in a large print that invites close inspection then reveals unexpected details

the 20D will still be the long lens camera of choice (i'm just not going to carry a 500)

the M8 - i've been waiting years for a compact, high resolution wide or medium-wide angle camera, but the M8 isn't it, and i better understand why what i want isn't practical with present technology rather than just a marketing decision by Canon and Nikon - don't think many SLR users will buy M8's, although i'm counting on Canon to raise it's short focal length game

my new year's resolution is to sell off the unused stuff in the closet
Logged

John Sheehy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 838
My next camera...
« Reply #12 on: January 01, 2007, 02:04:16 am »

Quote
Even better noise profile than 20D.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93004\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is generally true in a practical sense, but the 5D really has no significant noise advantage over the 20D electronically, at the pixel level.  The fact that the 5D has more pixels means that the noise effect of each pixel is less in the whole image, and the fact that the pixels are further apart means that the 5D is less demanding of the lens, and therefore its pixel pitch is less likely to be a bottleneck to system MTF.  This means that the contrast of subject detail at the pixel level is higher, relative to the contrast of noise, requiring less sharpening which means less sharpened noise.  In the bokeh areas, however, there is less advantage (only the "more pixels" part applies to the bokeh).

Conversely, if you have a problem with reach, say you are using your longest lens for a distant subject, and shoot the same subject from the same distance with the same lens at ISO 1600 with both the 20D and 5D, your "1.6x crop" from the 5D is going to be nosier (and less detailed) than the full frame from the 20D, both viewed at the same size (same subject magnification).
« Last Edit: January 01, 2007, 02:07:44 am by John Sheehy »
Logged

aaykay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 359
My next camera...
« Reply #13 on: January 04, 2007, 08:35:44 pm »

Quote
Fast AF is very important to me. I mostly use the 28mm f1.8 USM which is by far the fastest focusing lens I have. (28*1.6=>45mm equivalent angle of view).

If fast AF is "very important" for you, then the Canon 5D is your choice.  The M8, being a rangefinder, is completely manually focused.  Absolutely no AF in any way, shape or form.
Logged

Craig Arnold

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 219
    • Craig Arnold's Photography
My next camera...
« Reply #14 on: January 05, 2007, 02:52:45 am »

Quote
If fast AF is "very important" for you, then the Canon 5D is your choice.  The M8, being a rangefinder, is completely manually focused.  Absolutely no AF in any way, shape or form.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93777\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes I know that. The comment was in response to a 20D v 5D point made by another poster. That's the problem with long threads.
Logged

Davidlu

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
    • http://www.fotoalbum.lu
My next camera...
« Reply #15 on: January 06, 2007, 11:24:48 am »

As the Canon 5D has a full frame sensor you are wrong when you mention that this camera has "1,6xcrop"  ;-)

Quote
Conversely, if you have a problem with reach, say you are using your longest lens for a distant subject, and shoot the same subject from the same distance with the same lens at ISO 1600 with both the 20D and 5D, your "1.6x crop" from the 5D is going to be nosier (and less detailed) than the full frame from the 20D, both viewed at the same size (same subject magnification).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93100\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

John Sheehy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 838
My next camera...
« Reply #16 on: January 06, 2007, 11:33:56 am »

Quote
As the Canon 5D has a full frame sensor you are wrong when you mention that this camera has "1,6xcrop"  ;-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94119\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Read it again.
Logged

aaykay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 359
My next camera...
« Reply #17 on: January 06, 2007, 11:48:35 am »

Quote
As the Canon 5D has a full frame sensor you are wrong when you mention that this camera has "1,6xcrop"  ;-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94119\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think what he meant was that *if* one were to use only the 1.6xcropped portion of the 5D full-frame sensor and compare it to the 20D's image (which by default is a 1.6x crop).....etc.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up