[Weebl]

Mark,
Yes, I was kidding but at least the 5DIII should be announced this year. Like you, it will take at least a few winning numbers to pass off a body expenditure like that. Good lenses on any body will take your pictures to a different level and the PP and composition even more so.
I try to look at things every day as a point of composition, how would this be framed, where the light comes from and what kind of crap is in the background.
I still have so so photos but at least my image quality is starting to improve.

Chewy,
At least the 24-105 at $999 will have the full warranty and not the 90 day refurb one. It is the only thing which makes me nervous. Other than waiting to find out when my car will be towed again for engine problems.

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by Weebl

Chewy,
At least the 24-105 at $999 will have the full warranty and not the 90 day refurb one. It is the only thing which makes me nervous. Other than waiting to find out when my car will be towed again for engine problems.

That's true. But it is a lens after all. No reason you can't test it out within 3 months and determine it's not soft, etc.

[Weebl]

It isn't the optical part I would be worried about, that as you said can be easily tested. It's the USM, IS and electronics.
At least they don't have build quality issues and deny warranty claims like some brands ;-)

[Chewy734]

Ahh, good call... I forgot about that other stuff. I was mainly concerned with the optics.

[The1]

Originally Posted by Weebl

It isn't the optical part I would be worried about, that as you said can be easily tested. It's the USM, IS and electronics.
At least they don't have build quality issues and deny warranty claims like some brands ;-)

examples of brands?

[Weebl]

BMW
I have not had terrible problems with them but I know they can be horrific money pits. When I bought my 740, I knew it may cost me up to $3-5k a year in stuff that should never have failed. Hence the wink on the end of my statement.

[The1]

Originally Posted by Weebl

BMW
I have not had terrible problems with them but I know they can be horrific money pits. When I bought my 740, I knew it may cost me up to $3-5k a year in stuff that should never have failed. Hence the wink on the end of my statement.

ohhh, i figured you were referencing a camera company or something


makes more sense now.

[rodi]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

soooo tough to focus that shit with sweat in your eye and an ND filter cutting your viewfinder's light in half.



just got home. exhausted.

[The1]

long day, almost 5am bed time eh?

sample pic looks good, feel free to share one or two others

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by The1

long day, almost 5am bed time eh?

sample pic looks good, feel free to share one or two dozen others

this rodi.

Also, remember to stay hydrated.

What was this shoot for?

[vachss]

Originally Posted by The1

the one thing that really surprised me was dave convincing me to do a side by side comparison of the 5DmkII and the 7D, and to find that i was getting a sharper image with the 7D at 100% crop. The final image basically appeared as though i hadn't actually zoomed in to 100% where i could easily tell i was as zoomed as i could go with the 5DmkII

???? I have both and haven't seen this. The 7D's a great camera in its place (reach limited situations or fast action needing fast AF), but when I can get close enough to the subject I believe I see (a bit) more detail in 5D2 images.

Anyway, this is probably lens dependent. My absolutely sharpest lenses typically get used on only one body (long ones like the 500 only on the 7D, short ones like the 24 and 135 only on the 5D2) so I only have direct comparisons on the 300/4IS. Still, with that lens I think the 5D2 typically produces the superior image - again assuming I'm close enough that I don't need to crop.

[Chewy734]

I'm sure it also depends on the lighting conditions and the ISO you use, eh?

[M_Six]

So how does this guy get this shot? It says he was in a chase plane, but this angle seems impossible. Same with pics 10 and 11. I'm thinking it had to be a serious zoom/crop. Great shot in any case.

Link to the story and pics.

[rodi]

not a serious zoom: 1. wide angle distortion. 2. the houses are also in sharp focus.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by M_Six

...
So how does this guy get this shot? It says he was in a chase plane, but this angle seems impossible. Same with pics 10 and 11. I'm thinking it had to be a serious zoom/crop. Great shot in any case.
...

We don't see his plane, but I'm guessing that it's upside down and the canopy is different so that he can shoot behind a good bit. I'm guessing the lens is a 70-200mm or a 200-400mm.

Dave

[The1]

Originally Posted by vachss

???? I have both and haven't seen this. The 7D's a great camera in its place (reach limited situations or fast action needing fast AF), but when I can get close enough to the subject I believe I see (a bit) more detail in 5D2 images.

Anyway, this is probably lens dependent. My absolutely sharpest lenses typically get used on only one body (long ones like the 500 only on the 7D, short ones like the 24 and 135 only on the 5D2) so I only have direct comparisons on the 300/4IS. Still, with that lens I think the 5D2 typically produces the superior image - again assuming I'm close enough that I don't need to crop.

I shot both with my 100mm macro lens of the same object, i used the same ISO setting as well as shutter and aperature. I made sure the camera settings were on standard. and set white balance to incandescent because i turned on a bunch of lights in the room to help with detail (also a lot of natural light) A tripod was used as well.

I cropped the 7D to 100% and the 5DmkII at first to 100% just to see how they would look at 100, and the 7D appeared cleaner. I then backed the 5DmkII out so it would be about the same amount of zoom as the 7D and they are fairly comparable, however, the 7D just appears a little sharper overall.

I found with this experiment however, that the 5DmkII has a better white balance and is more true to life colours (this i really hate about the 7D) and was always suspicious of from the first time i shot it.

I found the whole picture clarity issue a little odd untill i started researching it. It all comes down to how the 5D has it's sensor designed. As it is made to be able to handle higher ISO settings, the pixel pitch isn't as strong, and many times higher ISO sensors have more coatings on them to help prepare the light before it hits the sensor. as a result, this can dull images ever so slightly.

and of course, the 5DmkII is now a much older design then the 7D, so the technology has changed a bit.

I love my 5DmkII and it's the first camera i will pick up out of the two, unless i know i'm going to be in situations where i need something fast and acurate for the situations where i can't just stand in one spot and shoot 20 shots to make sure i get the right shot.

[dcstep]

The 7D's pixel-pitch allows for more detail, but at the expense of noise at higher ISOs. Here's the way I decide between my 7D and my 5D2; if I'm shooting telephoto and likely to crop, I use the 7D; however, if I'm shooting at high-ISO (3200 and above) and or I plan to crop very little (like for scenics, travel, street shooting, etc.) then I use the 5D2.

Both are fantastic cameras and I consider myself very fortunate to own both.

Dave

[The1]

Originally Posted by dcstep

The 7D's pixel-pitch allows for more detail, but at the expense of noise at higher ISOs. Here's the way I decide between my 7D and my 5D2; if I'm shooting telephoto and likely to crop, I use the 7D; however, if I'm shooting at high-ISO (3200 and above) and or I plan to crop very little (like for scenics, travel, street shooting, etc.) then I use the 5D2.

Both are fantastic cameras and I consider myself very fortunate to own both.

Dave

this is also why i like using the 5DII for shooting people in non sports situations, I don't really need to count their pores. and i get better colours with the camera with it's natural abilities. However, as i'm shooting more raw now, the colour isn't as much of an issue anymore.



5DmkII = portrait, landscape, wide angle, and narrow DOF (or emphasized depending how you look at it)
7D = sports, action, telephoto/wildlife, precision focusing, and occasionally portrait as it can remotely set off my to flashes without needing to use my pocket wizzards.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by The1

this is also why i like using the 5DII for shooting people in non sports situations, I don't really need to count their pores. and i get better colours with the camera with it's natural abilities. However, as i'm shooting more raw now, the colour isn't as much of an issue anymore.

...

I consider the colors and contrast equivalent between the 7D and the 5D2, but I shoot RAW in both cases and always adjust to taste. I "expose right" to the right of the historgram, so my out-of-camera jpegs always look washed out and I use them only for preview. In RAW conversion I get everythig where I want it and then convert.

Dave

[The1]

Originally Posted by dcstep

I consider the colors and contrast equivalent between the 7D and the 5D2, but I shoot RAW in both cases and always adjust to taste. I "expose right" to the right of the historgram, so my out-of-camera jpegs always look washed out and I use them only for preview. In RAW conversion I get everythig where I want it and then convert.

Dave

I've started to use the histogram a lot more lately and really like the results i am getting when shooting people with natural light. The histo is a really poerfull tool, i'm glad it's there! People are really starting to see it in my photos too. So i'm getting a lot more shots that i'm proud of lately.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by The1

I've started to use the histogram a lot more lately and really like the results i am getting when shooting people with natural light. The histo is a really poerfull tool, i'm glad it's there! People are really starting to see it in my photos too. So i'm getting a lot more shots that i'm proud of lately.

"Exposing right", shooting RAW and using a good conversion software are three elements to making your pictures "pop" without unnatural effects, like cartoonish HDR, oversaturation and other cheap tricks. When people see natural colors, great detail, realistic contrast, they "see" the difference, but don't know what's difference. They just know it's "better" and say so.

Dave

[vachss]

Maybe I'm a bit confused here. The finer pixel pitch of the 7D (about 4.3 um vs. 6.4 um for the 5D2) should only provide more detail if the same lens is used in the same position (i.e. the 7D's framing is 1.6x tighter). If the 5D2 is moved closer to the subject so that the framing is the same then any pixel pitch advantage should go away.

What I think The1 is saying is that the 5D2 has a stronger anti-aliasing filter and thus provides more blurring at the pixel level. This is possibly true, but I am surprised that this would be enough to negate the advantages of requiring 33% lower lens MTF to get the same level of detail (and to a lesser extent the advantage of 21 vs. 18 MP). And again, this runs counter to my own experience.

If we're talking about using the same lens from the same shooting position then I have no arguement - the 7D is a clear winner in detail. If, however, we're talking about equivalently framed scenes I reiterate my doubts: under these circumstances I've seen the 5D2 yield more image detail than the 7D.


On a different note: what do you guys use for RAW conversion software? I'm pretty happy with DPP (having played with Lightroom and a couple of others).