Hmm ok. Now Im getting a bit weary haha, Ill have to read a bit more on what I need. Right now the 5d markII feels like the best choice.
Hmm ok. Now Im getting a bit weary haha, Ill have to read a bit more on what I need. Right now the 5d markII feels like the best choice.
I know that it's good enough for you but for me 204 DPI on a 13x19 was not by my definetion great. It was good butlacked fineresolution, I triedfractalsand other enlargment software and they only added some punch. There no replacement for dispacement.[]
If you don't need speed for sports, action and wildlife then aslower higher resolution camera would be a better choice. Also if a full frame camera would benefit you such as forportriats and lowlight then a 5D II would be far superior. What I recoment is to print for yourself and see if it's good enough for you.But don't let me sway you, you are the final judge on what you think is accepteble.
Cheers,
John.
I don
Richard, good point on the AF.
KEH, regarded by many as a very trustworthy seller of used equipment, describes the problem like this:
<span style="color: #0000ff;"]If you own a Canon 1D Mark III, it may be affected by a AF mirror adjustment problem. Camera bodies that fall within the serial numbers 501001 and 546561 may be effected (all cameras with serial numbers higher than 546561 have been manufactured with the updated mirror mechanism).
<span style="color: #0000ff;"]Canon is offering repairs free of charge to affected products experiencing this problem, which will include a mirror box modification.
<span style="color: #0000ff;"]The MK.III should also be updated (regardless of serial number) with the newest firmware, which is currently 1.3.0
www.kehblog.com/.../canon-1d-mark-iii-issues.html
Ragnar, your decision on which body would be best for you is complicated by the fact that you're looking for a great "all-around" camera, and the 5D Mark II and 1D Mark III are each specialized in different ways. Still, either one of them would make a great all-around camera. Truth be told, a great all-around camera doesn't need ultra-low-light capability, high-definition video, 10 frames-per-second burst mode, or the build of a tank.
On the other hand, that could make your choice easier, because you could decide based purely on which camera "feels" right to you.
When you think about it that way, you might be better off buying a less expensive body and putting the savings toward lenses. 5D Classic and 1D Mark II bodies often appear for sale at about half the price of used 5D Mark II and 1D Mark III bodies.
This community is great, I dont get how you take the time to write these conclusions to a total stranger! Im greateful to say the least.
At this point, the 5d mark ii got the upperhand regarding specifications. The downside is the 2300USD pricetag. What is affordable at a used one or even a refurbished one? Regarding 5d I think my 550D will have advantages on it towards my personal specifitacions.
Ragnar
Jeff, Thanks for posting the link and the serial numbers involved with the MKIII AF issues.
Ragnar, I also agree with your choice, as it sounds like the 5D MKII would be the way to go for you.
Rich
Don't worry about the "low" megapixel count. I have a gorgeous 20x30 print in my living room that is, in my humble opinion, undetectable as a digital image. It's of the Seattle Space Needle (the whole 575' tall structure), and you can tell which TVs are on inside the top. The sign on the outside of the TV station is ultra-crisp. Admittedly, this was taken with my all-time favorite lens, the 200/2.
See [View:http://c0460882.cdn.cloudfiles.racks...e0820-004.JPG] for the shot. Go ahead, zoom in some, now zoom in some more.
This was taken from Kerry Park, about 1.25 miles away from the Space Needle, handheld, standing up, at 1/13th f/2 ISO 1600.
Edit: the URL got expanded to include the image, so here's the URL directly: c0460882.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/Seattle0820-004.JPG
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
Uhmmm, thats not what I would call critically sharp at 100%, I'm looking at a 13x19 print from this and that's not what I would call gorgeous in terms of dietail, it's OK. I've done better at this print size. I can imagine at 20x30it would look pretty poor by my standards. When I look at a print I do not want resolution to be in the way of what I am seeing, I want it to look like I am staring the object in real life. Which for me begins at least 350 dpi, ideally 600 dpi.
This is what I callexcellent at 100%,
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/7/6428._5F00_MG_5F00_7774.TIF-reduced.JPG[/img]
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/7/0184._5F00_MG_5F00_7774.JPG[/img]
Taken on a XTi, bareMinolta 600mm f/6.3,100 ISO, 250th sec, wide open on a tripod.
John.
Originally Posted by Fast Glass
Sorry I didn't meet your exceedingly high standards. As a 20x30 print I think it's quite amazing, even when you walk right up to it. Did you notice the shutter speed and shooting conditions? Never mind.
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
peety,
Not to defend either position, but I understand what John is saying, and I also definitely appreciate what it takes to capture what I think is an amazing image on your part, what with it being handheld and low shutter speed.
I think what John is saying is that the conditions under which the shot was captured are irrelevant to the judgement of the final product's ultimate quality. In other words, even though I think you did a great job, I don't have the ability to blow it up to look at it critically at 20x30, and maybe it has flaws that wouldn't exist had you used a tripod and lower ISO with a correspondingly faster shutter speed, for example. And I may be more or less critical than either of you, so there is a subjective component, for sure. But from a purely objective perspective, John seems to be saying that, although it may be an amazing shot considering the circumstances, he seems to see room for improvement technically. It could literally only be that the resolution, in his opinion, needs to be higher to relay the sense of truly analog believability. You obviously don't agree, but surely you do see his point.
I will say that every shot I have ever seen, by anyone, probably has room for improvement in some regard. That doesn't make them poor, just leaves room for potential improvement.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote