Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1
Both clear and valid. [:)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1
Sure, the 135 is nice. But if you use it wide open and crop it, it won't compare with the uncropped 200 f/2.8 used wide open. I'm just saying you don't pay all that money for full frame and get nothing in return.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1
Well, if performance = frame rate, then yes. Those who require FF with 7D+ frame rate need not consider canon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Re: 135 vs 200/2.8 IQ, I didn't get that same impression from Bryan's reviews, though he did say that the 135 sharpens up slightly stopped down. I do agree with the FF thing, though, and I don't even know why, to be honest. There just seems to be something about the images that is special. Kind of like Peety3 said recently about the 24-70, there's some magic air in it or something.
I am not trying to limit the discussion of performance to a single metric, but consider them in totality, with a bias towards the things that I feel are important to my shooting objectives. This was a way to simply point out one (frame rate) in isolation. Considering each on its own merits individually is at least a start towards some hopefully rational conclusion for my situation. Ultimately, I would like the best single body for my needs, if nothing else for the ability to learn it better and for cost reasons as well, even though I know a recent 1-series would be expensive all by itself. The 1DIV may well be that camera, but I don't have the experience to say that the APS-H sensor is a good or bad compromise for me. I have no doubt that is a better body than my 40D regardless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1
The 135 is sharper, I think, in a "fair" comparison, if you can make one with lenses of different focal lengths.
But the 135 f/2 + 7D will not be as sharp as 200 f/2.8 + 1DsIII if both lenses are used wide open (so as to get similar DOF).
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1
It's 'cause cropping (what you do with crop body) makes IQ worse, and stopping down (what you do to get the same DOF on a ff body) makes IQ better.
(Of course, if errors get worse linearly or faster as you move away from the center of the frame, cropping might actually improve IQ. I don't think many lenses have this property but maybe some do. And, of course, if aperture is small, stopping down might make IQ worse because of diffraction. But that is beside the point... :) )
It's probably also because ff gives other IQ advantages besides
sharpness (like dynamic range).
Quote:
Originally Posted by crosbyharbison
That may be a bridge too far.... I would need to find other living arrangements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan7
I already have a 23-70 and 70-200 2.8 IS I, which is what helps make one of these bodies a viable choice.Open the box, put on a L lens, familiarize myself with the new body and then good-to-go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1
I have heard similar comments before. Once I used a 1 series would I want to use something else? As of now, the gripped 50D feels very natural.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1
I would like his opinion as well. It seems to me I saw in one thread that while waiting for the 1DIV to become available he ordered a 7D, liked it so well he ordered another one and nixed the 1DIV. In addition, he has a lot of experience with all three formats.
Chris
Jon,
Okay, so I may have chosen a lens in the 135/2 that needs to be a click or three off MA to be its sharpest, but that wasn't the point of the comparison. With Brian's ISO crops, the 135 at 2.8 or larger f number is visibly sharper than the 200/2.8 if not dramatically so. Let's say for this discussion that we're using the 135 at 2.8 and the 200 at 4.5. Let's also agree that the effective DOF is the same, because I don't know how to calculate it but it should be close at that point.
Why do you think that the 1DsIII + 200 at f4.5 would outperform the 7D + 135 @ f2.8? Also, why do you say "cropping", based on your definition of "what you do with crop body" (which to me just alters the FOV) makes IQ worse? It seems like if the lenses + FOVCF of the bodies offer the same FOV and DOF that the IQ would be unrelated to sensor format. Is that incorrect? In my previous example, where the FF ended up slightly wider at 200 vs 216, the FF would actually be the one that was slightly cropped. Wouldn't that compromise the IQ of that image instead, since you would be working with effectively less pixels than the original on the FF, and the APS-C would have all 18MP?
I understand that generally sharpness is improved by stopping down to the point of DLA, and with a few exceptions. DLA seems kind of a wash with comparable pixel density per sensor area, regardless of APS-C, APS-H or FF. An APS-C body that reaches DLA around f10 (30D) would have the same DOF and other properties as a FF at about f16, right? Heck, the APS-C might even be the better choice in this example, since the FF body that has the same pixel size and DLA number is the 5D. If it holds true that DOF @ f10 on an APS-C is roughly equal to DOF @ f16 on a FF, then the sharpness of the APS-C is probably going to be slightly better.
I feel like I am spiraling into minutiae here, and even though I enjoy it, and enjoy learning about all this, I really want to know whether choosing an APS-H like the 1DIII or 1DIV will be better for me than having an APS-C. I love my 40D, and I am used to the framing with my lenses on it, but I'd like to get more from my 17-40L on the wide end and from a sharpness standpoint. I have been told that the 17-40L thrives on a FF, and is strangled on an APS-C, cruelly never allowed to blossom to its full potential. [:'(]I have noticed that it isn't uber-sharp, at least on my camera. It may just be that it needs AF Microadjust to match the body better, and it would be fine for me. In that case, a 50D or better would do the trick. Maybe it only needs APS-H to find happiness? [:)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris White
Chris,
First sorry for sort of hijacking.
Don't jeopardize the relationship over a camera. It probably isn't worth it. Unless the 1DsIV has a square sensor, electronic shutter, 10fps and costs only $4000. Then, ....
I hope Peety3 does chime in soon. I would like to know why he decided toforegothe 1DIV after owning a 1DIII, but using the 7D. Everyone including Bryan that has had 1-series seems to share the consensus that once you use one you never want anything else, and this seems counter to what he did this time. Even if his usage doesn't parallel mine, I'd still like to hear his reasoning. I have sought his advice before a couple of times and he's not steered me wrong yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1
Me, too. Sometimes I can't help myself :) I may start a new thread to continue our diversion when I get a few moments...
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1
Well, not quite everyone. I went from a 1DIIN to the 5DII. Thought I'd use the 5DII just to compliment the 1DIIN, but I hardly ever use the 1 anymore.
Yes, the 1D feels wonderful when I pick it up. Yes, it is beautiful. Yes, it is super fast, super responsive, and fun. But I just find that the 5DII suits my needs better. I love the low light performance, narrow DOF, and IQ.
I know the 1DIIN isn't the same as a 1DIV, and I've never used a 1DIV. But I can't imagine giving up my 5DII for anything but another full frame camera.
Having used both...the 5D2 and the 1D4, I have to go along with some of the comments that once you've used a 1 series, the other cameras just can't match the balance, feel, or ergonomics. My 5D2 has a battery grip on it, but still doesn't feel the same. They(the 1 series)just feel, well,...right!! Hard to put into words.
As far as image quality goes; I love my 5D2 for portraits, landscapes, low light performance. I have to admit, though, the 9 point system lacks, as far as I am concerned. It works, and I very rarely use the center point, but have the 45 on the 1 series, puts it to shame. I have never used the 7D, so I can't comment there...The focus points themselves, work just fine, and like I said, I typically only use the 8 outer points, and have never had a problem. My concern is using them to focus on what I want...not what the camera wants!! And I don't focus recompose, either.
Back to the quality...I would be hard pressed to find that much difference between the two. The FF 5D2 has a very slight advantage in low light. Other that, the image quality is very similar, with more DR going to the Mark IV. I can push the files much more(not that I do often, but if needed)with the 1DIV, than I can with the 5D2( and my assumption would be even less so with the 7D). The 1D4 just has a quality to the files that the other cameras just can't quite compete with, IMHO.
As far as Bokeh goes, if you look at DOFmaster.com, and compare the 3 cameras, you'll find that the difference isn't all that much, really. For example, I put in 200mm at 2.8 on each respective camera, and the results at 10' were minuscule, as far as paper goes. I know the difference is more noticeable in the field, I'm sure, but between my 2 cameras, in the field, it is not huge. I can take a portrait at 200 2.8 on both FF and 1.3, and they both make the background go buh-bye!!!
I have to admit, though, I really grab the 1D4 more often than I do the 5D2, except when shooting a session, where I employ both! In that instance, I put the 70-200 on the FF, and my 16-35II, on the 1.3. that being said, I really like the 16-35II on the 1.3 more than I like it on FF. Especially for landscapes, or HDR's. Something the 5D2 really lacks, is in the bracketing! I can do a 5 shot HDR hand held with 1D4, faster and better, than I can do a 3 shot with 5D2!!! Granted, it is not as wide, but the corner degradation on the 16-35II is much more prevalent on the FF, than it is on the 1.3. I have actually thought about getting 16-9.com Nikon G adapter, so I can use Nikons 14-24 2.8. But that is a whole different story, altogether.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greggf
I've never used the 1DIV, but according to DXOMark, they're almost exactly the same: 12 stops for the IV, 11.9 for the 5DII.
(Okay, sure, the 1DIV has more. [:)])
Probably this has something to do with the fact that the 1DIV has less pattern noise. So in some situations it probably has noticeably more DR than the 5DII, in some situations it probably has less.
I'm surprised. Other things being equal, the larger sensor will have more DR, so the 1DIV was able to make up a lot of ground. Hopefully the 5DIII (if/when) will have some of these same read noise improvements...
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1
Agreed. As much as I enjoy photography, I also have become accustomed to evening dinner and a warm bed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
No problem. It is adding to my education. In fact, I have followed you over to "Advantages of full frame?".
Quote:
Originally Posted by greggf
Quote:
Originally Posted by greggf
Thanks for joining in greggf, I was hoping to hear from those who have used both. If you were shooting a dance recital using available light, which body would you take if you could only take one?
Chris
Hi Chris.
Depending on the venue and available light, and of course which lens would you be using? I have taken some great shots using the 5D2 in AI hi-speed(wouldn't really call it hi-speed though!!), but your keeper rate won't be that fantastic because the frame rate being so slow, you jump a little too much between shots. Of course, if you're tracking, and anticipating, and are good at it, you can get some decent shots. The center point does work really well, too. There is a guy on DPreview forums, who swears his 5D2 center locks better than his 1D4 center point in low light....
My personal preference is the 1D4. I try to frame the way I see the shot, thus not having to crop too much. Having 45 points that, once again, as far as I'm concerned, lock all as good as the center point, lends to that task(framing). Plus, the auto-focus is blazing fast on the 4. Especially coupled with the new 70-200 2.8ll(rarely leaves either camera, by the way!!). With the 4 and 10 frames, you could burn shots, trying to get the perfect one....digital is sssoooooo nice!!
Both have great hi ISO, and with today's noise reduction software( I use Nik Dfine 2.0...but looking forward to LR 3 for comparison), I think you have more play in the 1D4 files(especially raw, the only way to shoot, BTW). The 1D4 files just have a LOOK to them, even at hi ISO, with a really good film grain feel.
I think you could survive with the 5D2 if that was you're budget...especially with a couple of fast primes. but the 1D4 would be my choice for that particular situation. Then again, not having used a 7D, that might work, too. I've just read that anything above 1600 or 3200 on the 7D, you really start to push your luck...
GreggF
Hi Gregg,
Quote:
Originally Posted by greggf
The light is low at my daughters recital at times. I currently have the 24-70 2.8 L and the 70-200 2.8 for use right away with either body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greggf
I realize that the 7D is certainly a step up from my 50D, but the 1D IV is a giant (huge, dare I say) step up. My decision between those two already favors the 1D IV, no offense to the 7D people. It is just that I have a very usable body in the 50D. When I add a second body I want to upgrade as much as possible. The 5D II intrigues me since it is a great full frame sensor at a good price. The trade as Bryan mentions in the review is the slower frame rate and shutter lag. I think with slower action I could work with it. As it is now, I usually shoot at the lower continuous speed on my 50D, which is probably close to the 5D II highest rate.
I am half-way towards the 1D IV so I could pick up the 5D II now, but that would push the 1D IV way back on the acquisition list. I do see the merit in the 5D II and some good prime glass. It is a harder choice when it comes time to pull the trigger than I first thought. I was all 'hot' for the 1D IV when it came out, and certainly covet a 1 series.
Chris
I want to thank everyone for their thoughts/opinions/experience.
After considering everything I am pleased to report that a 5D Mark II should be in my hands by tomorrow.[:D]
Chris
Awesome! I think you'll love it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
In a word WOW! Me Likey!
I see why <span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]you us 5D II owners love them. This is a center crop from a group photo taken from halfway in the theater with existing lighting. As I crop, obviously I lose some quality, but this is my daughter. I do not have permission from any other parents to put their daughters on a web site and do not know most of them well enough to chance it. But they were moving, my daughter is going up, if you notice her feet are off the ground and skirt drawing down. And this is one of the first of a couple hundred I took, I am sure I will have better as I sort through them.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.60/IMG_5F00_0023crop.JPG[/img]
5D Mark II/EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM 2.8 aperture / 1/400 / 95mm /3200 ISO
Thanks again for your advice. This is going to be a great companion to my 50D. I will have some saving to do before I contemplate the 7D VS. 1D IV question. In the mean time as I get closer, I may stop for a 100-400 L zoom. I can see where it would mount quite nicely to the 5D II.
Chris
I sold my 40D and bought a 7D. (I already had a 5D MK II). The 7d just did not get used, so I returned it. I still needed a 2nd body so I found a deal on a used 1d MK III. It gets plenty of use, Its much better for my use than the 7D. I do not have the 1d MK IV, I was planning to get one, but the 1D MK III works well for me, except in the ultra high ISO area, I do not use it beyond ISO 3200.
The 1D low light appears to be just a tad better than the 5D MK II, the sensor has the same pixel density.
I have dropped my plans to upgrade from the 1D MK III to the MK IV due to the problems with AF in low light, its something I use a lot on my 5D MK II.
Images from the sensor should crop very well, its the same density as the 5d MK II, and the 5D crops extremely well.
I'd suggest the 5D MK II, but be aware that it is a bit of a shock going to a FF from a 1.6 crop. You will want longer lenses to get the same field of view, unless you are sticking to wide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scalesusa
That is why I am going to take a look at the 100-400 L. But, the upside is that my 70-200 2.8 IS will get more use since it now falls in a real sweet spot for me. A lot of times it was a not wide enough, but I wanted more reach that the 17-55 or 24-70 afforded me. Since 70 is now really 70 and not 112, I will be using it a lot where I could not with the 1.6 crop.
Chris