[ichiban]

yea, it's about time i upgraded one of my 5d2s. Right now i just use the AF assist on my flash to focus and it dose fine. Just a bitch carrying the extra weight. I really don't see the point of 32 megapixels. 22 is already good enough, and for weddings, i always do sraw for receptions anyway.

[The1]

Originally Posted by ichiban

yea, it's about time i upgraded one of my 5d2s. Right now i just use the AF assist on my flash to focus and it dose fine. Just a bitch carrying the extra weight. I really don't see the point of 32 megapixels. 22 is already good enough, and for weddings, i always do sraw for receptions anyway.

sraw just to cut down on size? or the pictures are good enough that way?

[Chewy734]

so I almost bought the M9 an hour ago, but I walked away in the last second after some serious consideration.

[The1]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

so I almost bought the M9 an hour ago, but I walked away in the last second after some serious consideration.

new or used?

and that cost would definitely cover you for your next few self purchased birthday and Christmas presents

I love the idea of the Leica M9 but for that money, you can pick up a 5DmkII and 2-3 L series lenses (model dependant) And you're not exactly skimping on quality making the sacrifice to go with that stuff Mind you, i've never shot a leica, but I figure, as long as i don't shoot one, i'll be very happy with my current setup

[The1]

you can buy a ferarri, or you can get a porsche with 99.9% the performance, better reliabilty, and almost half the cost

[remmib]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

Finally, some decent news about the 5DMKIII from CR:

This is one prototype, and two others exist.

Specifications
32mp
ISO 100-25600 (L1, H1, H2, H3)
DIGIC V
4.2fps
19point AF
CF Card
Slightly larger LCD (new ratio)
New autofocus while filming, performance unknown.
All the standard video stuff.
RAW video still unknown
This is apparently coming before any 1Ds replacement.

Crazy mp and iso, and at least the fps is a bit faster than the mkII.
All though it must feel slow compared to the 7D.
I guess the 5D will never be an action camera.

[The1]

Originally Posted by remmib

Crazy mp and iso, and at least the fps is a bit faster than the mkII.
All though it must feel slow compared to the 7D.
I guess the 5D will never be an action camera.

definitely, a bit of a let down with the frames per second, i figured they would want to try and make it faster then the D700 just for bragging rights... like 5.1fps or something.

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by The1

new or used?

and that cost would definitely cover you for your next few self purchased birthday and Christmas presents

I love the idea of the Leica M9 but for that money, you can pick up a 5DmkII and 2-3 L series lenses (model dependant) And you're not exactly skimping on quality making the sacrifice to go with that stuff Mind you, i've never shot a leica, but I figure, as long as i don't shoot one, i'll be very happy with my current setup

New. But it was on sale, which is extremely rare... more rare than Apple having a sale on their products. Even so, it wasn't cheap, but it was very tempting.

What you mentioned is pretty much the reason I walked away. I think if I had a real job (and wasn't a grad student), I would've walked away with a big smile on my face and an M9 in my hand. Oh well...

I honestly don't think you can compare the 5DMKII with the M9. Good Leica lenses run circles around the L lenses, and coupled with the full-frame sensor on the Leica and the size of the camera, it's hard to beat. But, it's important to understand where the 5DMKII can excel, since the Leica cannot be used easily for a variety of different situations.

Originally Posted by The1

you can buy a ferarri, or you can get a porsche with 99.9% the performance, better reliabilty, and almost half the cost

If you find a high-perdormance Ferrari or Porsche for $6k (and not ones from the 70s or 80s), let me know where.

Originally Posted by remmib

Crazy mp and iso, and at least the fps is a bit faster than the mkII.
All though it must feel slow compared to the 7D.
I guess the 5D will never be an action camera.

Yeah, the 5D line will never be for wildlife enthusiasts or sports photographers, etc. Stick with the 7D or upgrade to the 1D. The 5D is excellent for landscape, portraits, architecture, etc. The low-light capabilities are better than the 7D. I just wish Canon would fix the damn AF. I've played around with the 5DMKII and D700, and the D700 wins hands down with it's AF system, especially in low light.

If you need higher fps, wait for the new 1Ds or get the 7D. If they made the 5DMKIII 8-10 fps, then there would be very little need for the 1D line.

[ichiban]

Originally Posted by The1

sraw just to cut down on size? or the pictures are good enough that way?

a little of both. the pictures are good enough, but you can't crop much. and 10 mp is less than half the size, saves on disk space when ur shooting 1500 images a wedding.

[The1]

Originally Posted by ichiban

a little of both. the pictures are good enough, but you can't crop much. and 10 mp is less than half the size, saves on disk space when ur shooting 1500 images a wedding.

do you switch to full raw and sraw during the day depending on picture importance? or just stick with sraw for the entire event?

[Chewy734]

Shooting in sRAW for an entire wedding is pretty ballsy. I don't think you can get a high-quality wedding photo larger than 4x6" out of it. Don't you get paid to do weddings ichiban? Invest in some more storage with some of that money.

[The1]

you should be able to get some great 8x10s with a 10mb Sraw file... But cropping will be next to nothing.

all the books i keep reading are saying that anything over 12mp is really overkill. ( i don't fully agree, but i see their point. Mostly because, what if i wanted to print larger then 8x10?)

[Chewy734]

So, I ended up deciding to go to Nashville for the long weekend. It was either there or Chicago, but Chicago is pretty close for me and I can always visit there over a weekend. Nashville is ~12 hrs away, so a long weekend would be better. Hopefully the weather will cooperate.

I'll obviously be taking my 20D with me. I think my 17-40 f/4L, 70-300mm, and nifty-fifty should be more than enough to cover me. I was seriously considering just taking my 17-40. That would be good enough for wide-angle stuff and regular all-around shooting. I'd miss the telephoto stuff, but how often will I really change lenses on the go? Plus it's a pain in the ass to walk around for 10+ hours for a couple days with extra weight. Man... if only I had bought that Leica... it would be the body, one 35mm lens, and that's it.

Anywho... I've been to Nashville once before to see a Dave Matthews concert about 10 years ago. Unfortunately, I didn't do any sightseeing then, so my plan this time is to look around. Anyone have suggestions on places to see or things to do while I'm down there?

[The1]

haha, graceland in memphis....

don't you have a 5DmkII? if so, why are you taking the 20D?

[Chewy734]

meh... I debated it, but I'd rather not drive the extra 7 hrs back and forth to see "the King".

nah dude... I wish I had the 5dMKII. I'm still living in the 90s (so to speak). I only have my trusty, 7 year old 20D.

[The1]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

meh... I debated it, but I'd rather not drive the extra 7 hrs back and forth to see "the King".

nah dude... I wish I had the 5dMKII. I'm still living in the 90s (so to speak). I only have my trusty, 7 year old 20D.

ahhh, well then it will be a great choice!

just wait a little longer, and you'll start seeing 5DmkIIs for for sale used

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by ichiban

yea, it's about time i upgraded one of my 5d2s. Right now i just use the AF assist on my flash to focus and it dose fine. Just a bitch carrying the extra weight. I really don't see the point of 32 megapixels. 22 is already good enough, and for weddings, i always do sraw for receptions anyway.

I don't understand why you'd buy a 5D MkII and then shoot in sRAW. You give up a little dynamic range, a little cropping potential and a pretty big margin for error. You can always down size as needed, but upsizing can be limiting. CF cards are pretty inexpensive and hard drive storage is cheap.

Dave

[The1]

here's something fun for you chewy, i know it's not really an accurate way to look at them. but it's food for thought.... and as a bit of a joke.

5DmkII vs Leica M9

don't get me wrong, i think i've had some naughty dreams about the leica's, especially while i was standing above a case full of them when i was in New York in the fall, however......

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by The1

you should be able to get some great 8x10s with a 10mb Sraw file... But cropping will be next to nothing.

all the books i keep reading are saying that anything over 12mp is really overkill. ( i don't fully agree, but i see their point. Mostly because, what if i wanted to print larger then 8x10?)

Well... for something you can't do-over (like a wedding), I'd rather shoot full RAW than sRAW just incase you have to crop, or if the client wants a larger print, etc.

About the 12mp comment you made. I'd have to agree with the books. Unless you are a professional photographer getting paid to do your thing (or if you need insane crop abilities), there's really no use for 12+mp cameras.

95% of my images are for the web/computer only. That remaining 5% probably falls into the maximum 8x10" print category. I hate working with large RAW files. I have a 12mp camera, and I'd hate increasing my storage size by 2-3x with a newer body. It would take forever to process all those images as well . If you really need 30+mp, why not go medium format at that point?

The other aspect to consider is that manufacturers have to balance things out. Higher mp usually comes at a cost... either lower ISO, more noise, lower fps, different sensor, etc. I would rather have less mp and have better ISO capabilities, more fps, etc. As the mps get higher, the flaws of lenses also become more noticeable. So then you have to upgrade your lenses, spend more money for other accessories like memory cards, etc. It's an endless cycle.

[The1]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

Well... for something you can't do-over (like a wedding), I'd rather shoot full RAW than sRAW just incase you have to crop, or if the client wants a larger print, etc.

About the 12mp comment you made. I'd have to agree with the books. Unless you are a professional photographer getting paid to do your thing (or if you need insane crop abilities), there's really no use for 12+mp cameras.

95% of my images are for the web/computer only. That remaining 5% probably falls into the maximum 8x10" print category. I hate working with large RAW files. I have a 12mp camera, and I'd hate increasing my storage size by 2-3x with a newer body. It would take forever to process all those images as well . If you really need 30+mp, why not go medium format at that point?

The other aspect to consider is that manufacturers have to balance things out. Higher mp usually comes at a cost... either lower ISO, more noise, lower fps, different sensor, etc. I would rather have less mp and have better ISO capabilities, more fps, etc. As the mps get higher, the flaws of lenses also become more noticeable. So then you have to upgrade your lenses, spend more money for other accessories like memory cards, etc. It's an endless cycle.

and that's exactly why Canon is insane going to 32mp for the 5D3 (if that's really what they do) however, they do boast a higher ISO ability still, so that's good, but again, the price goes higher because of all the coatings and such they have to put on the sensor to make it able to go higher.

how big are your full RAW files on the 12mp?

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

..
I'll obviously be taking my 20D with me. I think my 17-40 f/4L, 70-300mm, and nifty-fifty should be more than enough to cover me. I was seriously considering just taking my 17-40. That would be good enough for wide-angle stuff and regular all-around shooting. I'd miss the telephoto stuff, but how often will I really change lenses on the go? Plus it's a pain in the ass to walk around for 10+ hours for a couple days with extra weight. Man... if only I had bought that Leica... it would be the body, one 35mm lens, and that's it. ...

Chewy, if you only shot street stuff, then the Leica is a great camera, but if you've ever lived with a rangefinder, you'll never long for one after using a good SLR. Forget about getting out over 100mm and choke just looking at the len prices.

I happily carry my 5D2/24-105mm combo around all day. The 70-200mm is usually in a nearby bag, if needed. Those combos shoot day and night in just about any situation.

I'm leaving on a trip this Thursday and trying to decide if I want the 7D/500mm in the bag (rollerbag really). Part of my trip will have me just a few miles from Gatorland and I might pop by to take a few bird in flight shots. I might also have some wildlife opportunities in the Bahamas. I think I've convinced myself. Anyway, with the Leica, that's not an option.

Dave

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by The1

here's something fun for you chewy, i know it's not really an accurate way to look at them. but it's food for thought.... and as a bit of a joke.

5DmkII vs Leica M9

don't get me wrong, i think i've had some naughty dreams about the leica's, especially while i was standing above a case full of them when i was in New York in the fall, however......

Dave, thanks for the comparison.

As I said, you can't really compare the two. If I was a journalist or street-photographer, I would take the Leica hands down. If I was into sports or action shots, then the 5D hands down. What fewer things the Leica does, it does very well.

Have you tried auto-focusing your 5D in very very low light (and I mean low light, not candle light)? You can't. With a rangefinder, if you can see it, you can focus on it (to a certain extent). Regardless if you believe it or not, I've seen Leica shooters focus sharper and faster than AF on modern-day dSLRs.

On the other hand, good luck shooting anything past 135mm. They don't even make lenses past that focal length. Would you be able to shoot birds with it? no way. Can you shoot a sporting event while sitting in the nose bleeds? nope. That's where the dSLRs excel. If you want to shoot a horse jumping a fence, you shouldn't be using a Leica rangefinder. They all have their applications.

I guess what I'm saying is, I wouldn't mind having both, a 5D and a Leica. But, I have a feeling that if I ever get both, I'll eventually be using the Leica more often than not, and saving the 5D for those rare occasions I shoot sports, need telephoto, or needs higher fps.