like say in my case..... i usually shoot events such as birthday parties, weddings, school programs and the like. Most are done indoors with not so good lighting.
would you say that if I got myself a 1dsmkiii or 1dmkiv that would be "too much camera" for me?
I sense a theme running through your posts.
I'm going to cut to the chase. What is the REAL question? It's not about megapixels or camera bodies. I believe the real issue at hand is that you don't know what your photographic needs are, and as a result, you are unable to connect your needs to the appropriate tools.
Sure, a 1D-series body will do just about everything that a non-flagship model can do. There are minor differences due to the fact that some recently-released bodies have newly introduced features. But that's not the point.
I notice you haven't asked a single question about lenses, which I consider to be the real deciding factor in terms of what the image actually looks like. In fact, when I see someone else's work, my first question is not which body they used, but rather, which lens they used.
Nobody can predict for you whether or not you will ever use the bulk of the features in a 1D-series body. How can we answer that question for you, when it is up to you to decide how much you want to learn and challenge yourself technically and artistically? The equipment is only one third of the photographic equation. The second third is the subject, and the final (and arguably most important) third is the photographer's vision. You can't expect anyone else to guess at whether you will ever push yourself to the point where you will effectively utilize a flagship DSLR or an EF 600/4L IS.
Frankly, I've never agonized over my equipment choices. I pretty much know exactly what I want because I understand my needs and have researched the technical information to determine which pieces of gear satisfy those needs at the price point I can afford. That doesn't mean I won't ever sell some of my stuff--in due time, I may sell my 24-105/4L IS, 85/1.8, 70-200/2.8L IS, and maybe even the 300/4L IS. (I'm not selling my 100/2.8L macro IS, I know I nailed that one!) In its place I would get the 24-70/2.8L (and if Canon makes an IS version, I'm DEFINITELY getting that), the 85/1.2L II, and the 300/2.8L IS. But maybe I won't. My 70-200 is very sharp, and I like the MFD and light weight of the 300/4. Bottom line is that I don't worry about whether I'm going to get what's right for me; I just accept that when I grow out of it, or when my needs change, or when the technology changes--because all of these things are inevitable--that I adapt and reconsider. If you go about choosing a camera on the basis of the notion that it should be the only camera you will ever need, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.
My advice is simple. Take pictures. Think about what you want to get out of the photographic process. How much effort are you wanting to put into it? How much do you want to know and how good do you want to be in so far as expressing your vision? Then take that understanding and think about what kind of tools within your budget will get you to where you want to be. And don't worry about the rest.
hi WP,
yes i guess i am as you said " unable to connect my needs to appropriate tools."
As far as lenses go I just got my second lens a 70-200 2.8 IS and am very ahppy with it. my other is 24-70 2.8. For now I do feel "contented" as to the "reach" and IQ these 2 lenses give me. I might look into primes in coming months.
No I don't see myself using a 600mm in my future. I mainly shoot portraits and events such as weddings and bdays and such.
I guess I'm trying to look for equipment that will give me great images that are shot in low or poor lighting conditions.
Originally Posted by jks
Given what you want to shoot, I would think you should have been looking into primes sooner, perhaps before dropping ~$3K on zooms. Yes, f/2.8 is fast - for a zoom lens, that is. The EF 85mm f/1.2L and the EF 50mm f/1.2L are excellent portrait lenses that let in five times as much light as an f/2.8 zoom. Even the relatively inexpensive EF 85mm f/1.8 and EF 50mm f/1.4, which still deliver very good IQ, let in 3 and 4 times as much light as the f/2.8 zooms, respectively.
I agree 100%. I mainly use f/4 zooms and an f/4 telephoto prime. I am still amazed at the light gathering capabilities of my 50mm f/1.4 whenever the light fades and I switch over. It's like getting an extra hour of daylight at the end of the day!
Yes. The 1 series cameras are professional bodies meant to be used by experienced photographers who know their stuff. If you aren't at that stage a 1-series body would be some pricy overkill. The 1D4, while good in low light, is the ultimate action camera. You can get most of its features, minus the 1-series bells and whistles, in the 7D for $1700. The 1Ds3 is a studio/portrait camera. The $2500 5D Mark II has better image quality AND low light performance. Basically what I'm saying is that you're not a position to profit from buying a $4,000 or $7,000 camera. If you need low light capabilities, the 5D 2 will more than satisfy you. Also remember that no body is any good without good glass. For low light, try either the 24-70 zoom or, as mentioned above, a fast prime. But for your own sake stay away from 1 series bodies, for now.
I may be wrong, but I would say that for you, buying a 1-series body would be like buying a ferrari before before getting the driver's license. I'm at the same level as you. I'm a bird photographer. Give me an 800mm lens and a 1D4 and I would have no chance against Nate, with his 40d and 400 f/5.6. I lack the experience and knowledge to take full advantage of such equipment.
my 2¢
brendan
That sentence has "5D Mark II" written all over it. Get that and a couple of decent lenses.
From where I sit, my dream is to have the following:
14/2.8, 35/1.4, 85/1.2, 200/2, 500/4
Other than the slow focus of the 85/1.2, that's a killer five-lens lineup that covers a 35x range, with 2.5x jumps at each step (approximately), with legendary lenses at each stop. Yeah, I'd like to fill in with the 24/1.4, 300/400/600/800 superteles, and probably some tilt-shift and macro glass, but it's a VERY workable kit.
Notice that I'm not dreaming about cameras. I have a 1D3, absolutely love it, and I'm about to buy a 1D4, but I'm not buying because I want "that camera". I'm buying it because I'm a two-camera shooter, and a Rebel XTi is just not a good partner to a 1D3; having used a variety of other cameras as my second body, I found that an identical body streamlined my shooting significantly. I'm also the kind of shooter who will shoot until the shot disappears; a weatherproof body that's durable is important to me, so I'm willing to pay the price tag.
I suggest that people acquire two cameras of the same crop factor (so their lenses are versatile), then go for a larger crop factor camera (if that's a factor for them), build up the lens inventory to suit the new camera, then trade the oldest body and perhaps the EF-S lenses for another larger crop factor body when they're ready.
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
I don't think so. If someone has the disposable income, I encourage them to buy as much camera as they want. If camera sales were restricted to only the bare minimum of what people needed, then the market would be small and there would be little money for R&D, and cameras would be very expensive.
This is probably the first time I will disagree with you, Daniel.If I wanted to, I could probably find enough dough to buy a 1D Mark IV in the next couple of months. But I'm not doing that because I'm rather new (not a complete noob, but not an expert by any means) to SLR photography and being somewhat unskilled a pro camera wouldn't be for me. I am saying that I'm not at the level where I could take full advantage of a 1-series body, so it IS too much camera for me. It's weather-sealed, but I'm not standing in a blizzard (well, today I am, we're getting 20'' of snow!) on a cliff four days a week. It shoots 10fps, which is awesome, but my 7D shoots 8fps and honestly I doubt I could use the difference to my advantage. I would pay extra cash for all of those features that I wouldn't be able to exploit because of my experience. a 1D would be too much camera for me IMO. It is for others too.
my 2¢
brendan
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote