[Chewy734]

life insurance rodi?

It's really weird looking in the viewfinder and seeing 24mm in a full-frame... so damn wide! The shutter feel/sound is also quite different. I feel like it's gonna take me some time to get used to this.

[sourphish]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

life insurance rodi?

It's really weird looking in the viewfinder and seeing 24mm in a full-frame... so damn wide! The shutter feel/sound is also quite different. I feel like it's gonna take me some time to get used to this.

Yeah, it'll take some time, but you'll love it =). If you don't already have a battery grip for it, you should get one. It just feels so much more substantial and balanced in your hands.

I want to get a 5D2 but need to sell off some other car/camera stuff first. And I don't know if I should go for the 5D2 or keep the brand new 7D (with 1 actuation on it!) that I got recently. One or the other, won't allow myself the luxury of both >.<

[Chewy734]

I think it all boils down to what you shoot. If you need the telephoto range and a faster frame rate, go for the 7D. If you shoot mostly portraits, architecture, landscapes, and wider-angle stuff, go with the 5D. I think both cameras complement each other very well (as Dave and others would say), but they both have their advantages and disadvantages.

[sourphish]

Hmm, I completely forgot about the reasons why I should get one or the other, thanks for reminding me. I used to shoot a lot of sports (mainly football, bball, tennis, soccer) but now I don't have that much access to the college sports anymore so I think I'll try some FF stuff too.

[The1]

Originally Posted by sourphish

Hmm, I completely forgot about the reasons why I should get one or the other, thanks for reminding me. I used to shoot a lot of sports (mainly football, bball, tennis, soccer) but now I don't have that much access to the college sports anymore so I think I'll try some FF stuff too.

if you get timing down right and such, for sports the 5DII can be great, however, if you want a compliation of several shots, you can't do much better then the 7D, especially since it has less shutter lag then the 5DII

I generally tend towards my 5DII over my 7D, i just like the smoother pictures with less noise. Not that the 7D is noisy, it's just not as smooth as the 5DII.

the softness of the 5DII sensor is a little nicer when shooting people as well, they don't hate you as much when you can count the pores on a pimple on their face, which the 7D is good for.

it's true however, they both have their desired applications, I wouldn't enjoy shooting wildlife as much without the 7D. This is when the details shine and the extra reach is an asset along with the autofocus.

[Weebl]

I just really like this one and had to share. From a local photography forum I'm on.
Look at all his other stuff too.

[Weebl]

Originally Posted by sourphish

......
I want to get a 5D2 but need to sell off some other car/camera stuff first. And I don't know if I should go for the 5D2 or keep the brand new 7D (with 1 actuation on it!) that I got recently. One or the other, won't allow myself the luxury of both >.<

Berkeley? What's up for sale.....(insert vulture pic).

[Chewy734]

well, it turns out the remote shutter unit I originally bought for my 20D also works on my 5DM2. So, I guess I'm set there.

Now to decide on which black rapid strap to get...

[oneintheory]

get the slim double. i have it, i absolutely love it. it breaks down to one strap if that's all you need, or you can double sling bodies, or you can put a lens or something on the other side.

[Weebl]

Ever shoot with a tripod in the wind? Going from BR to camera plate is another step. I was going to do an Op/tech, extensions and then a Uni loop to finish while leaving the uni loops on when it goes on the tripod.

[Chewy734]

I ended up buying the RS-Sport. Should arrive tomorrow... I'll let you know how it is

[khaye1]

i'm contemplating getting 70-200 f4L...the question is, is it worth getting the IS version? It's twice the price...not sure if I need IS at 200.

I'll mostly use this lens for wildlife, landscape and the occasional holiday trip to disneyland for their christmas parades.

I didn't want to create a new topic for this question so I figured I'll post it here.

edit: this will also be my very first L lens

[The1]

I've shot with my IS turned off with a few times only to find when i get to post processing that i've done some camera shake accidentally, so i do think that it is a good option on the camera.

you can get away with it turned off at 70mm quite easily, but get it up into the 100+mm range and you'll start to miss it.

If you don't have it, you'll find it unusable at certain times of day as well and have to compromise by bringing your ISO sky high just to get a decent shutter speed.

I agree it's a lot of money, but when you look at the 70-200 F2.8, you start to realize it's a bargan, especially since it's a sharper lens.

[Chewy734]

I also recommend the IS on telephoto lenses as well. It helps a lot, especially when the tripod isn't around (which is most of the time for me).

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by khaye1

i'm contemplating getting 70-200 f4L...the question is, is it worth getting the IS version? It's twice the price...not sure if I need IS at 200.

I'll mostly use this lens for wildlife, landscape and the occasional holiday trip to disneyland for their christmas parades.

I didn't want to create a new topic for this question so I figured I'll post it here.

edit: this will also be my very first L lens

Yes, get the IS if you can afford it. I use mine for wildlife, travel, scenics and portraits. It's wonderfully sharp, but I often find myself shooting it at under 1/100-second particularly for portrait and scenics. Also, for wildlife, I'll put the 1.4x TC on it and shoot at high ISOs and low shutter speeds, wide open in the predawn light.

I use it on a 5D MkII and a 7D. Believe me, the sharpness is exceptional when you do it right. It's a wonderful lens, rivalling my 500mm in IQ.

Here's an example, hand held at 1/60-sec, f/9 and ISO 800 at 250mm (1.4x TC attached, obviously). Close, dark bird in shade. I needed DOF and high-ISO, resulting in slow SS:


Red-vented bulbul by dcstep, on Flickr

IS makes such things easy.

Dave

[khaye1]

dammit...now you're gonna make me spend more money. I'll guess I'll wait and save up for some extra dough

[The1]

I believe mark rented the non IS version, and ended up throwing a lot of images away because they were unusable.

For sharpness, my 70-200 F4 IS is definitely a little sharper then my 100-400mm which is a fantastic lens on it's own.

and it's not like you're getting a run of the mill IS system, it's one of the newest versions with up to 4 stops of stabilization, as well as having a mode 1 and mode 2 on it.

It's still very light and portable.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by khaye1

i'm contemplating getting 70-200 f4L...the question is, is it worth getting the IS version? It's twice the price...not sure if I need IS at 200.

I'll mostly use this lens for wildlife, landscape and the occasional holiday trip to disneyland for their christmas parades.

I didn't want to create a new topic for this question so I figured I'll post it here.

edit: this will also be my very first L lens

I'll throw in my 2 cents here as well. Save for the IS. I rented the non-IS version and had trouble holding it still at 200mm. In less than bright sun, you'll struggle to get shutter times needed to freeze action and avoid camera shake blur. If you still can't decide, rent one. They're not pricey to rent.

[The1]

Originally Posted by khaye1

dammit...now you're gonna make me spend more money. I'll guess I'll wait and save up for some extra dough

worth it in the long run.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by The1

worth it in the long run.

That's what I keep telling myself. I passed up a sweet non-IS version for $500 last week. Need to have the IS.

[The1]

Originally Posted by M_Six

That's what I keep telling myself. I passed up a sweet non-IS version for $500 last week. Need to have the IS.

good choice, the lens has made it into rotation for some of my photoshoots, sometimes wish i had the 2.8 for those shoots, but if i set the scene up right, i really don't need the extra few stops.

again, depends what i'm shooting though.

when shooting objects that move around a lot, and you need the flexibility and range, that 70-200 is perfect.

I'll toss my 135 F2 on one camera, and my 70-200 on another if im outdoors sometimes. Otherwise, i depends a bit more on my 24-70mm. everything else i have is for personal playing about or wildlife.

[Chewy734]

I think there's a $100 instant rebate right now on it.