Honest advice needed please!!

chuckles said:
Could do with the optics being a bit faster though.....
Click to expand...

For this my wish for it being constant f/2,8...But then I can understand KB's point of sacrificing something somewhere with a 5x optical zoom range:shrug:

Still it would be nice...


Then, would I ever live it down if I really bought a Nikon:thinking: :suspect:




:D
 
Anton Roland said:
This type of cropping makes the 1 Ds a very nice upmarket 5 Mp camera then doesn't it:thinking: :D
Click to expand...

LOL. The maths is beyond me but that's about it. I'll probably crop wider for Alamy - but it's far from easy. :shrug:
 
But I don't remember meeting you Cedric - I'm flattered! :clap:
 
CT said:
It really all depends what you mainly photograph doesn't it? Even with a 1DS Mk2 I'd just end up cropping more for most small bird shots than I do now, so I don't see an advantage even with 16 million pixels, unless somebdy wants to do the maths and convince me otherwise?
Click to expand...

I can't do the maths, but what 16.7 million pixels means for me is firstly I can push processing quite aggressively without the image deteriorating to any degree. As an example, when shooting running water, the tried and tested means of exposure is to expose for the whites, knowing it's easier to pull back mid-tones and shadows in PS. With 16.7 mp I can do this without noise being generated particularly in the shadows. This was brought home to me recently when I was guiding someone shooting a waterfall, we set up the same exposure, shutter , similar lenses etc. He sent me some processed files from his 5D, the noise in the shadows was bad, but not too bad, but a lot worse than my files. He also took a couple of shots with a 20D and a longer lens, the noise in the shadows was truly horrendous.

The other advantage is that I can submit files to libraries at 50mb without interpolation.

At the end of the day though, it's the person behind the camera that produces the goods.

My recent shots (Heros de lumiere) were taken around 3 years ago with a 10D and a 28-135mm lens, I think you would be hard pushed to tell the difference in image quality against my later images taken with a 1Ds MKII and L glass. Of course if you wanted an A3+ print, it's maybe a different story :)
 
Anton Roland said:
This type of cropping makes the 1 Ds a very nice upmarket 5 Mp camera then doesn't it:thinking: :D
Click to expand...

Honestly, you boys and your maths!!!

with a 1Ds MkII you can crop into the image equivalent to a 1.3 crop body frame (ie 1d Mkii N, etc) end up with 12.8mp effective resolution*

You can crop in further and achieve a 1.6 crop body frame (30d, 20d, 400d, 350d) and end up with 10.44mp effective resolution*

You can crop into a 1D MkIII image equivalent to a 1.6 crop body and end up with 8.2mp effective resolution*

Right you may say, but my photography interests lean more toward landscape. Get more pixies then, says I, as this silly cropping nonsense is irrelevant:D

(*caveat to this is that its purely mathematical and the scientific explanantion will be slightly different because of Quantum Elephants and the fragile Space Time Continuum. It was actually in the development of the Canon EOS 1D mkIX GLX Sportif that an unfortunate paradox created the Bermuda Triangle. Or will. Or has but we dont know the reason yet. Grandma, my pills please)
 
Fair comment Les. I think if you're not cropping substantially, the advantages are very real. :)
 
Les McLean said:
With 16.7 mp I can do this without noise being generated particularly in the shadows. This was brought home to me recently when I was guiding someone shooting a waterfall, we set up the same exposure, shutter , similar lenses etc. He sent me some processed files from his 5D, the noise in the shadows was bad, but not too bad, but a lot worse than my files.
Click to expand...

From personal experience i have to say that the noise in the 5D is handled better at higher ISO - this is due to the larger and less densely packed pixels as well as newer technology. I'm obviously not aware of the details of your shoot, Les, but suspect that there may be an issue with his 5d?
 
PMSL. And I spent all that money on your education too! :D
 
grumpybadger said:
That and the fact I found 5D controls easy to nudge and move accidentally, causing me to miss a few shots.
Click to expand...

But as the camera is just a slightly larger 20D as far as the controls go, being used to things you can do accidentally with the on switch in the high position.... I tend not to :)
 
Jonnyreb said:
(*caveat to this is that its purely mathematical and the scientific explanantion will be slightly different because of Quantum Elephants and the fragile Space Time Continuum. It was actually in the development of the Canon EOS 1D mkIX GLX Sportif that an unfortunate paradox created the Bermuda Triangle. Or will. Or has but we dont know the reason yet. Grandma, my pills please)
Click to expand...


JR, are the voices talking to you again?:suspect:

Jollyjuice alone can't do THIS to you!


:lol: :D :clap: :bonk: :thumbs:
 
RobertP said:
But as the camera is just a slightly larger 20D as far as the controls go, being used to things you can do accidentally with the on switch in the high position.... I tend not to :)
Click to expand...

It was more the top control that sets Av, Tv, P etc that I struggled with and ended up taping up with insulation tape.

Hope you're enjoying the camera Robert.
 
Jonnyreb said:
Honestly, you boys and your maths!!!

with a 1Ds MkII you can crop into the image equivalent to a 1.3 crop body frame (ie 1d Mkii N, etc) end up with 12.8mp effective resolution*

You can crop in further and achieve a 1.6 crop body frame (30d, 20d, 400d, 350d) and end up with 10.44mp effective resolution*

You can crop into a 1D MkIII image equivalent to a 1.6 crop body and end up with 8.2mp effective resolution*

Right you may say, but my photography interests lean more toward landscape. Get more pixies then, says I, as this silly cropping nonsense is irrelevant:D

(*caveat to this is that its purely mathematical and the scientific explanantion will be slightly different because of Quantum Elephants and the fragile Space Time Continuum. It was actually in the development of the Canon EOS 1D mkIX GLX Sportif that an unfortunate paradox created the Bermuda Triangle. Or will. Or has but we dont know the reason yet. Grandma, my pills please)
Click to expand...

Not true as it is a square law as it crops in two dimensions. Therefore, actual resolutions are:

Full frame (36x24): 16.8 Mp
1.3 crop (28.7x18.7): 10.7 Mp (or about the same as a 1D III)
1.6 crop (22.5x15): 6.6 Mp (or about the same as a 10D/20D/30D

The one that does work is that a 5D and 1D II have the same resolution for the same amount of crop.
 
chuckles said:
Maybe .... but think of all the new friends you gain! :naughty:
Click to expand...

:eek: :eek: :eek:

You mean you Nikon guys are not our friends? We might not like your cameras but we have nothing against (most of) you!!




:lol: :lol: :lol:


PS Barry you are such a pleasant chap I would have thought you were a Canon owner all along

:lol: :D :D
 
Jonnyreb said:
From personal experience i have to say that the noise in the 5D is handled better at higher ISO - this is due to the larger and less densely packed pixels as well as newer technology. I'm obviously not aware of the details of your shoot, Les, but suspect that there may be an issue with his 5d?
Click to expand...

It depends which review you read :)

This is one from Bob Atkins
Are there differences in noise? Yes, I'm sure there are. Are they significant? No, not really. Essentially the noise levels of the EOS 5D and 20D are the same, or at least very similar. Both are very good up to ISO 800, noise starts to appear at ISO 1600 and it's fairly pronounced at ISO 3200, though image quality is still quite usable even at ISO 3200, probably better than film pushed to the same speed

I have also read reviews where noise levels from the 5d are lower (and higher) than the 1Ds MKII.
 
Les McLean said:
It depends which review you read :)

This is one from Bob Atkins
Are there differences in noise? Yes, I'm sure there are. Are they significant? No, not really. Essentially the noise levels of the EOS 5D and 20D are the same, or at least very similar. Both are very good up to ISO 800, noise starts to appear at ISO 1600 and it's fairly pronounced at ISO 3200, though image quality is still quite usable even at ISO 3200, probably better than film pushed to the same speed

I have also read reviews where noise levels from the 5d are lower (and higher) than the 1Ds MKII.
Click to expand...

Reviews are great for info, but there's nowt better than pratical experience and i'd risk the 5d at higher ISO than the 1Ds MkII everytime. For average, good, excellent light, the 1Ds never leaves my hand :). I wouldn't take either passed 800 and if you're shooting at 1600 there's a screw loose somewhere. Bobs a lad though eh?
 
Jonnyreb said:
I knew those bloody elephants would come into it somewhere! :lol:
Click to expand...

Actually, it is the exponential moment of torque which manifests during transition point but it fades when out of ground-effect!




:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Anton Roland said:
Actually, it is the exponential moment of torque which manifests during transition point but it fades when out of ground-effect!




:lol: :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

lol - definately going to need Grannys Pills to ge tthrough that one ;) :lol:
 
If you want a camera that looks good on the shelf of the repair centre, get a Canon - if you want a camera that keeps working regardless of how badly you treat it, get a Nikon.
Canon have the edge on pixel-count and noise, Nikon have the edge on image-quality and colour rendition. And build-quality. And ergonomics. And lenses. And looks...
 
Arkady said:
If you want a camera that looks good on the shelf of the repair centre, get a Canon - if you want a camera that keeps working regardless of how badly you treat it, get a Nikon.
Canon have the edge on pixel-count and noise, Nikon have the edge on image-quality and colour rendition. And build-quality. And ergonomics. And lenses. And looks...
Click to expand...

You're wasted in this thread mate, go join the PC v Mac one ;) :p

Half agree with your build quality point and maybe ergonomics depending on model. IQ is true only in jpeg-only and then its a marginal call. you're blowing your misguided lens idea out your khyber.

Looks?!?!?!?! Depends if your going for classy-and-refined or pierced-and-tattooed - but thats another kind of -debate :lol:
 
Pierced and Tattoo'd every time - give me dirty over classy - far more fun...
 
Arkady said:
Pierced and Tattoo'd every time - give me dirty over classy - far more fun...
Click to expand...

lol - now all we need to do is canvass all other Nikon and Canon owners for some quality research :geek:
 
Arkady said:
If you want a camera that looks good on the shelf of the repair centre, get a Canon - if you want a camera that keeps working regardless of how badly you treat it, get a Nikon.
Canon have the edge on pixel-count and noise, Nikon have the edge on image-quality and colour rendition. And build-quality. And ergonomics. And lenses. And looks...
Click to expand...

ROFPMSL @ Arkady!!

:D

Come on old man - we understand you are a hard-core Nikon fan, but really...




PS Nikon actually has the edge in pixel count...
 
Jonnyreb said:
You're wasted in this thread mate, go join the PC v Mac one ;) :p

Half agree with your build quality point and maybe ergonomics depending on model. IQ is true only in jpeg-only and then its a marginal call. you're blowing your misguided lens idea out your khyber.

Looks?!?!?!?! Depends if your going for classy-and-refined or pierced-and-tattooed - but thats another kind of -debate :lol:
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :popcorn:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top