| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
kawi_200
Member
Joined: 13 Nov 2014
Posts: 236 | TRs | Pics
Location: Everett, WA |
|
kawi_200
Member
|
 Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:10 pm |
|
|
| Bedivere wrote: | | Canon has come out with exactly the camera I want in the 5D mk II. I think I may rent one from Glazers and give it a workout. If it handles shadows & high ISO noise as well or better than my D7000 then I'll be seriously considering jumping ship from Nikon. |
You might want to consider the 6D rather than the 5D2. Unless you really need a shutter speed faster than 1/4000th, or a little faster flash sync speed. The 6D overall is a better camera, but just a little. I bought the 5D2 new back in 2010, I think, but I don't think the 6D offers enough for me to make the switch. I am plenty happy with the 5D2. HOWEVER!! If I was to purchase today, I would probably buy the 6D.
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 7464 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Hermitage |
|
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
|
Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:53 pm |
|
|
My bad. it's the 7D ii, which was just released.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChuckM
Member
Joined: 18 Nov 2011
Posts: 93 | TRs | Pics
Location: Skagit Valley |
|
ChuckM
Member
|
Tue Dec 02, 2014 10:25 pm |
|
|
I did make the jump from my D7000 to the D750 bundled with the 24-120mm lens offer. I am amazed with its performance shooting wildlife, birds in flight, my 5 year old granddaughter, family gatherings, performances and whatever else comes along. I'm still reading all I can get a hold of to understand all the new capabilities.
While the buffer size isn't as large as I'd hoped this camera has the ability to write data to faster cards, Sandisk Extreme Pro 95/mbs, clearing the buffer faster and extending continuous bursts or clearing buffer faster for intermittent bursts. I find for the 12-bit RAW files I normally shoot the buffer has not been a limitation yet. I only go to 14-bit in extreme dynamic range.
I have a very nice 17-55mm f/2.8 DX that can work on this body as well. It just automatically crops the Full Frame sensor down to DX size. Or ... I can change the image size from full frame to 1.2 or 1.5 crop mode any time.
The Auto Focus system is what really impresses me. The new Group Area AF is amazing with birds in flight.
 Short-eared Owl  Short-eared Owl  Short-eared Owl
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 7464 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Hermitage |
|
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
|
Tue Dec 02, 2014 10:53 pm |
|
|
Nice, Chuck!
So you have the new AF-S version of the 80-400...
What do you think of it? Most reviews say it's much better than the old one, but still not what it should be for what it costs. I've always thought that was a great focal range.
Good to hear the AF system on that camera does the job. That and the highlight metering are two features that have it up there on my list.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChuckM
Member
Joined: 18 Nov 2011
Posts: 93 | TRs | Pics
Location: Skagit Valley |
|
ChuckM
Member
|
Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:59 am |
|
|
Thanks Will ...
I am very impressed with the new AF-S 80-400mm. You're right about the price but a while ago this lens was on a special $400 savings when I purchased it.
The IQ is very clean and sharp on both bodies under ideal conditions for my "enthusiast" requirements. The auto focus seems to be more responsive on the D750 than the D7000. When I add the TC 1.4 the auto focus really struggles on the D7000 and is noticeably slower on the D750 which is considered f/8 capable.
Interesting that my 300mm with the TC 1.4 does not AF at all on the D750 but the 300mm works fine alone. Remind you of an earlier problem? Learned that there needs to be a chip upgrade installed on older af-s 300mm to work with newer bodies. That issue started right around the D7000 release.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7721 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle |
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
|
Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:48 am |
|
|
| Bedivere wrote: | | With the AF set to AF-C (continuous autofocus) the camera is continuously checking the focus and refocusing if necessary as long as AF is active. This would obviously make readjusting the focus with the ring on the lens pointless. |
I just always have my camera in what you'd call "AF-C" mode. If I want one shot focus, I'll tap the * button (which does AF) and take the picture; if I want continuous focus tracking I'll hold the * button down and take the picture(s). And if for some reason I want MF, I'll turn the lens ring instead of pressing the * button and take the picture.
It's the quickest and most natural way I've found to always get what I want.  To each his/her own, that just works really well for me. (That's why it didn't even occur to me that people are using one-shot AF.)
Mostly I shoot from a tripod, but if I'm doing a close up like of an insect or a flower, and hand-holding the shot, continuous autofocus will deal with any movement, whether it's the wind moving the subject, or me taking a deep breath and swaying a little backwards.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gb
Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6308 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:49 am |
|
|
[quote="ChuckM"]
Nice shots of your cat and dog.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7721 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle |
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
|
Wed Dec 03, 2014 10:14 am |
|
|
| kawi_200 wrote: | | You might want to consider the 6D rather than the 5D2. Unless you really need a shutter speed faster than 1/4000th, or a little faster flash sync speed. The 6D overall is a better camera, but just a little. I bought the 5D2 new back in 2010, I think, but I don't think the 6D offers enough for me to make the switch. I am plenty happy with the 5D2. HOWEVER!! If I was to purchase today, I would probably buy the 6D. |
For the record, I had a really hard time choosing between a 5D v3 and a 6D. Most of what I shoot is landscape and these are both full frame cameras. The 6D has slightly better high ISO performance and I do a lot of star shots.
Putting both cameras to my eye sold me on the 5D v3, even with the price difference. The viewfinder is noticeably bigger and brighter. Much more a pleasure to use.
For Bedivere's purposes, it's also worth pointing out that the 5D is a faster camera, better for sports and wildlife.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kawi_200
Member
Joined: 13 Nov 2014
Posts: 236 | TRs | Pics
Location: Everett, WA |
|
kawi_200
Member
|
Wed Dec 03, 2014 10:21 am |
|
|
| Cyclopath wrote: | | I just always have my camera in what you'd call "AF-C" mode. If I want one shot focus, I'll tap the * button (which does AF) and take the picture; if I want continuous focus tracking I'll hold the * button down and take the picture(s). And if for some reason I want MF, I'll turn the lens ring instead of pressing the * button and take the picture.
It's the quickest and most natural way I've found to always get what I want. To each his/her own, that just works really well for me. (That's why it didn't even occur to me that people are using one-shot AF.)
Mostly I shoot from a tripod, but if I'm doing a close up like of an insect or a flower, and hand-holding the shot, continuous autofocus will deal with any movement, whether it's the wind moving the subject, or me taking a deep breath and swaying a little backwards. |
That is the most sane reason I have ever heard for using back button AF. Makes a lot of sense. I use AF-C so little that if/when I don't use it I just switch the camera over from single shot.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7721 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle |
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
|
Wed Dec 03, 2014 10:52 am |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker
Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cle Elum |
Ive got a Canon 5D Mk2 and 3. I kept my two after getting the three. Ive had cropped cameras before, after getting and using a full frame camera Ill never go back.
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
— Abraham Lincoln
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
— Abraham Lincoln
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 7464 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Hermitage |
|
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
|
Sat Dec 06, 2014 1:50 am |
|
|
BPJ - in your opinion, what's so much better about FX vs. DX?
Yes, I know that FX sensors usually do better in low light due to larger pixel sizes (but this isn't always true), and that the viewfinders are usually bigger/brighter, but other than that I'm not sure what the big advantage is? I've managed to take some pretty nice pictures with my DX cameras. Would they really have been better if it was FX?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7721 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle |
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
|
Mon Dec 08, 2014 8:42 am |
|
|
My boss's boss has an 85 mm f/1.2 L v2, and let me borrow it. Gorgeous lens! Autofocus is much faster than people reviewing it online would have you believe. It's cut-your-eyes sharp at f/1.2 and there's something magical in the way it transitions out of focus. Can't see taking it into the backcountry, though. Galen Rowel said he could do 90 % of his photography with a 24 and an 85 mm, but I don't see how. It's the perfect length for Kerry Park, though.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7721 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle |
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
|
Mon Dec 08, 2014 9:00 am |
|
|
| Bedivere wrote: | | Yes, I know that FX sensors usually do better in low light due to larger pixel sizes (but this isn't always true), and that the viewfinders are usually bigger/brighter, but other than that I'm not sure what the big advantage is? I've managed to take some pretty nice pictures with my DX cameras. Would they really have been better if it was FX? |
Assuming FX means full frame ... it's that the light gets angry when you bend it through tiny little lenses. 
(1) All else being equal, larger pixels give less noise and more sharpness. The bigger pixels sample a larger space on the chip, so they're less critical of lens performance. (Corner issues in cheap lenses notwithstanding.)
(2) Viewfinders are usually bigger and brighter because most bodies have cropped VFs along with their cropped chips.
(3) For the same reason, autofocus and metering work more naturally in many full frame bodies, because that's what they were designed for. A lot of Canon and Nikon bodies are broadly based on 35 mm and the AF points are spread out further by cropping the sensor. Pro: wider coverage area. Con: poorer tracking between AF sensors.
(4) If you have prime lenses, ones you've had for a long time, this is probably the best argument for FF. When I got my 5D (v1) my 135 mm made so much more sense than it ever did on my D60 which was a 1.6x crop.
(5?) I think wide angle lenses made for FF are generally better, it's really hard to make a wide lens and a 15 mm lens involves more compromise than a 24 mm, and they give the same field of view on different Canon bodies. I could be wrong on this point though. And for the record half this post doesn't apply to formats designed from the ground up for digital.
When you ask "Would they really have been better if it was FX?" that's really a lot trickier. Photographers look for technical quality, but most people look for artistic quality. Having shot both for years, I feel like my photos are technically a bit better on FF but not enough for most people to notice. I also feel like the process of capturing my photos is more enjoyable.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 7464 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Hermitage |
|
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
|
Mon Dec 08, 2014 1:13 pm |
|
|
| Cyclopath wrote: | | Bedivere wrote: | | Yes, I know that FX sensors usually do better in low light due to larger pixel sizes (but this isn't always true), and that the viewfinders are usually bigger/brighter, but other than that I'm not sure what the big advantage is? I've managed to take some pretty nice pictures with my DX cameras. Would they really have been better if it was FX? |
Assuming FX means full frame ... it's that the light gets angry when you bend it through tiny little lenses.
(1) All else being equal, larger pixels give less noise and more sharpness. The bigger pixels sample a larger space on the chip, so they're less critical of lens performance. (Corner issues in cheap lenses notwithstanding.)
(2) Viewfinders are usually bigger and brighter because most bodies have cropped VFs along with their cropped chips.
(3) For the same reason, autofocus and metering work more naturally in many full frame bodies, because that's what they were designed for. A lot of Canon and Nikon bodies are broadly based on 35 mm and the AF points are spread out further by cropping the sensor. Pro: wider coverage area. Con: poorer tracking between AF sensors.
(4) If you have prime lenses, ones you've had for a long time, this is probably the best argument for FF. When I got my 5D (v1) my 135 mm made so much more sense than it ever did on my D60 which was a 1.6x crop.
(5?) I think wide angle lenses made for FF are generally better, it's really hard to make a wide lens and a 15 mm lens involves more compromise than a 24 mm, and they give the same field of view on different Canon bodies. I could be wrong on this point though. And for the record half this post doesn't apply to formats designed from the ground up for digital.
When you ask "Would they really have been better if it was FX?" that's really a lot trickier. Photographers look for technical quality, but most people look for artistic quality. Having shot both for years, I feel like my photos are technically a bit better on FF but not enough for most people to notice. I also feel like the process of capturing my photos is more enjoyable. |
So in other words, other than the larger viewfinder (which *is* nice, I recognize that) for someone who doesn't have a large lens collection already it probably doesn't make much difference.
See, I'm willing to live with the compromises of the DX format to get some of the advantages. The important ones to me are a smaller, lighter body and longer reach with the same lens.
Sensor performance doesn't really enter into the equation any more. Modern sensors are so good that you have to be a pixel peeper to notice any difference between them. The question of pixel size on the sensor is also highly dependent on which body you're talking about, too. Nikon's D810 has a 36 mp sensor yet everyone raves about that camera's sharpness/resolving ability and it has very good low-light performance too. In fact, I believe it has superior performance to my D7000 which has a 16mp sensor. Of course, the D7000 is an older generation.
I predicted this awhile ago - that improvements in sensor tech would go a long way towards offsetting the pixel-size advantage in low light performance on a practical level. True, with a completely level playing field the larger sensor with larger pixels will outperform a smaller sensor with smaller pixels, but things are rarely that equal in the real world.
Still, I *am* considering stepping up to an FX body with the D750. It's low-light performance is incredible and it has arguably the best AF system Nikon's produced yet. I'm going to wait though and see if Nikon responds to the Canon 7Dii in kind. If they finally release a new DX body that truly competes with the 7Dii in terms of specs, I'll probably go that route. It would save me the cost of buying a new every-day lens and would end up being lighter weight unless the new body is a tank.
I'd also like to add a Tamron 11-16mm f2.8 lens to my kit. That lens gets rave reviews and is reasonably priced. A lens with an equivalent field of view and IQ on an FX body is big $.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s). |
