which camera and lens combo do you like?

[Jon Ruyle]

You are partially lens-limited but the sensor
density is a stronger limiting factor except in very high noise
situations. Ask Daniel Browning if you don't agree.

Let me admit that most of my pictures look best when viewed at less than 1-1. If I'm not viewing them at 1-1 anyway (either because my screen isn't big enough or, when I crop heavily or pixel peep, it doesn't look good at 1-1), doesn't that mean more pixels won't help much? I realize that more pixels help for post processing and that a very high pixel density can give modest improvements in prints, but I feel like I'm usually *more* limited by other factors.


On the other hand, I don't really think I'm usually limited by lens quality either. Today I think focus is the #1 limiting factor for me (I shoot a lot of pictures of objects with very narrow DOFs), but I change my mind a lot


Anyhow, in a sense this is all silly because my sharp pictures look good
when viewed on a 24" monitor or printed at say, 11x14. But usually not
when viewed 1-1.


Either way, you make good points wikerprints. Many of us make arguments based on an
assumption that "X" is the limiting factor, and start arguing
(discussing, I should say, this is a very polite forum) with someone
arguing based on the assumption that "Y" is the limiting factor, and
they get nowhere.

[Fast Glass]

Say you have a 500/4L + 1.4x II. Lens-wise, that's all you have.

Now you are really not making any sense. Who is stopping you from getting a 2X. All you doing is buying a very expensive extender with a 1.6 crop camera.

Which do you choose? If you say "get an 800/5.6 or 2x extender," you're missing the point.

I think you are missing the point. I doesn't matter how you get to your maximum focal length, you will be just as limited in the field with a 1.6 crop body. When I am buying a lens for birding or wildlife I will be buying the longest focal length I can afford, whether it bea 1.6 crop body or a extender it does not make any differance. Your point is that you get the longest focal length for as many extenders you are using, but it does not make it any moreversitile in the field because I will be buying that focal length anyway. Like Daniel Browning said, "It doesn't matter how many cylinders it takes to make a 200 HP engine".


John.

[Jon Ruyle]

Say you have a 500/4L + 1.4x II. Lens-wise, that's all you have.

Now you are really not making any sense. Who is stopping you from getting a 2X. All you doing is buying a very expensive extender with a 1.6 crop camera.

Which do you choose? If you say "get an 800/5.6 or 2x extender," you're missing the point.

I think you are missing the point. I doesn't matter how you get to your maximum focal length, you will be just as limited in the field with a 1.6 crop body. When I am buying a lens for birding or wildlife I will be buying the
longest focal length I can afford, whether it bea 1.6 crop body or a
extender it does not make any differance. Your point is that you get the
longest focal length for as many extenders you are using, but it does
not make it any moreversitile in the field because I will be buying
that focal length anyway. Like Daniel Browning said, "It doesn't matter
how many cylinders it takes to make a 200 HP engine

John- I agree wickerprints on this. While an extender can give you more effective pixel density, in this case it *does* matter how you get your proverbial 200HP. Extenders are not the same as cropping. They cost money, they make your camera autofocus worse (or not at all) and do degrade the image beyond simple magnification of flaws in the original lens (I have no idea how much they do this, but they certainly aren't perfect optically).


Wickerprint's point is that if you can't even fill the whole 7D sensor, then having an even larger 5DII sensor doesn't buy you anything, and in fact, if pixel density is limiting your IQ (even a little), then the 7D sensor will be the better choice. (That is, until they start making optically perfect extenders that don't hurt autofocus performance and giving them away for free [])

[wickerprints]

Say you have a 500/4L + 1.4x II. Lens-wise, that's all you have.

Now you are really not making any sense. Who is stopping you from getting a 2X. All you doing is buying a very expensive extender with a 1.6 crop camera.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Okay, so say you get that 2x extender. You can either use 1000mm on the 5D, or 1000mm on the 7D. Or say you buy the LONGEST focal length possible, the EF 1200/5.6L IS + 2X extender, for a whopping 2400mm. Now say you need to image an object that, again, you cannot get close enough to, and it only fills a fraction of the frame on the 7D, even at 2400mm. You would rather take the 5D2 instead? The full frame confers no additional advantage, and the lower pixel density is a disadvantage.


John Ruyle said it better than I could--if you find yourself in a situation where you are focal-length limited, and you cannot get the subject to fill your frame, your only option is to crop to the desired composition. You don't always have the luxury of buying a longer lens, and even if you could, you could just as equally put that same lens or lens+extender combination on an APS-C body.


You keep talking about the lenses and using extenders. And what I'm trying to explain is that whatever (EF) lenses you have can be used equally on both bodies, so there's no point in saying you can use the extender on the 5D2 to get comparable FOV. You could just as easily use the extender on the 7D, and your subject would render in even greater detail.

[Fast Glass]

Your point is that you get the longest focal length for as many extenders you are using,

you could just as equally put that same lens or lens+extender combination on an APS-C body.

All you are doing is buying ainferior 1.6X extender. If I came to you with a3rd party1.6X extender with worse IQ and costed a lot more than Canon's exenters would youbuy it? Of course not. Nobody said you couldn't put a 1.6 crop camera on your existing lenses and extenders, except that would be equivalant of using ainferior 1.6X extender. My point is you have to stop somewhere in thisquest for reach and I would rather stop there with a full-frame. If you want to get nit picky the 5D II has three more megapixels than the 7D for more croping headroom once you have the same equivalant focal length. To say that *use all the focal length you can get andhang a 7Dto make the most out of it* is like saying "use all the focal length you can get and hang ainferior 1.6X extender*. Itwould be the same thing. That's what makes no sence to me. It's like saying there is an advantage in using a lesser 1.6X extenderover a better one.


With a 1.6 crop body you are cropping the image andlossinglight, with an extender you are optically cropping out the image circle and losing light. Except you do it with a better overall resultwith extenders.


Now the 7D is got it's advantages in terms of other photograpic quality's which make it sutible for birds and wildlife. But I am talking about reach only right now.


Either the full-frame with extendersis better or the 1.6 with extendersis better, you can't have them both. You have to choose between the two.


I do not want an argument here, just a civalised debate.


John.

[neuroanatomist]

My point is you have to stop somewhere in thisquest for reach and I would rather stop there with a full-frame.

Just curious - if your 'quest for reach' stops at FF, where did it start?? Unless you started with medium format or a view camera, it was a pretty short 'quest'. [:P]

Crop

FF

Ouch - you guys are making my head hurt! [:S]


I think we can debate endlessly about these issues, but fundamentally it's about getting the types of shots you want. It's not about reach only, nor about IQ only.


The choice between the 5D2 and the 7D is a compromise. Cozen made the right choice forlandscapes/portraits/events by getting the 5D2, just as Brendan made the right choice for birds by getting the 7D. For those of us who want to shoot all sorts of subjects, from sweeping seascapes to sprinters to sparrows, it's a matter choosing which features will give the most benefit. The 5D2 can shoot wildlife and sports, just not as effectively as the 7D; likewise, the 7D can shoot landscapes and portraits, just not as effectively as the 5D2.


Compromise. Even if you spend a few thousand $ more on your camera body, you can't escape the need for this compromise, although scale of the compromise is reduced. There will be some trade-offs in the (forthcoming) FF 1Ds4 vs. the1.3x crop 1D4, similar to the trade-offs in the MkIII versions of those top-of-the-line bodies, namely, sensor size and resolution vs. frame/burst rate - the former being favored by studio/landscape photographers and the latter being favored by photojournalists/sports photographers.

[Jon Ruyle]

Crop

FF

Ouch - you guys are making my head hurt! [img]/emoticons/emotion-7.gif[/img]

I laughed out loud at that.

similar to the trade-offs in the MkIII versions of those top-of-the-line bodies, namely, sensor size and resolution vs. frame/burst rate - the former being favored by studio/landscape photographers and the latter being favored by photojournalists/sports photographers.

Yeah, but... 1D vs 1Ds is a different debate. I mean, frame rate and *slightly* higher pixel density vs full frame? In this case, we've got less compromise on the FF side. I'm not saying the 1D isn'tpreferredby some, but price aside, I think a far larger proportion of people would prefer full frame in this case.


The 5DII vs 7D thing has far more going in favor of the crop side. The pixel density difference is far greater, the 7D is more responsive and has a better af, the 7D can use EFs lenses, etc.

[Bombsight]

Canon is a very succesful company.


Canon charges twice as much for the 5DMKII than the 7D.


The 5D MKII is still selling like it was just introduced.... even after what? ....2 1/2 years on the market?


To me, its not hard to figure out which is the better camera.

[neuroanatomist]

Canon charges twice as much for the 5DMKII than the 7D.


To me, its not hard to figure out which is the better camera.

Canon charges 50% more for the 50D than the T1i. Does that make the 50D a batter camera? Not if you need to shoot video with it.


Canon charges twice as much for the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS lens compared to the EF 14mm f.2.8L II. Does that mean the 300mm lens is the better lens? Not if I need to shoot a wide landscape...


Unquestionably, the 5D2 has a better image sensor. But overall, "better" is a relative term - it's really about getting the camera that suits your needs and budget.