Canon 5D Mark II's Full HD

J

joewell

Football Fan
#3
Nov 29, 2005
14
0
#3
Don't waste your money on the body - spend it on a good lens! Your pictures are only as good as your lens! I suggest a lens with IS built in. Take a look at the Canon XSi body - pretty good for the $$
 
Asus

Asus

Bench Warmer
#4
Jul 24, 2004
802
0
39
Montreal Canada
#4
I agree with you the lens is very important but, it only matters to a certain extent. There is a point you reach where the definition of your lens exceeds the definition of the sensor. Also when we are comparing a body like the XSi to the 5D there are many many other factors. But what it comes down to is the full frame vs. crop sensor factor and high ISO performance(5d mrk 2 can do 25600 as opposed to 1600 which is a full 4 stops higher).

In most cases if you get too good of a lens on a simple body like the XSi you are wasting your money. Also when it comes down to IS, I don't have it as a priority. My priority is usually a wide aperture and sharpness.

With all that said, the XSi is a brilliant body, I have an XT which is 2 generations old and I love it. Even when i get a 5D I would still keep the XT for many many senarios.
 
Sepahan

Sepahan

Bench Warmer
#5
Jan 4, 2003
1,536
0
#5
I was always intrigued with 5D, just for its censor. The photos posted on the web reminded me to Fuji Velvia film (saturated, vibrant color and low grain). I am Nikon user otherwise 5D MII was my shopping short list too.
That HD video looks amazing, but really if you want to do that you can buy a HD video camera for $700. 5D MII can do only 12 min in 1080 resolution. Logical upgrade from XT is to 40D or 50D and invest rest in 16-35 mm F2.8 L II USM ($1,700) or 70-200 F2.8 (1,400 or 2,000 for IS)
40D $1000 + 16-35 $1700= $2700
50D $1400+ 16-35 $1700=$ 3100
But the 16-35 will be amazing on 5D MII, 16 mm wide on full frame is amazing for landscape and great DOF.
 
Asus

Asus

Bench Warmer
#6
Jul 24, 2004
802
0
39
Montreal Canada
#6
You are right about the HD video camera part. However i'm not someone who would shoot video much. But having the option to shoot video on my DSLR is a very big feature because you have some controls on a DSLR that you never have on a HD video camera. The quality of this HD is actually much higher then Canons own AH-1 which is a very expensive semi pro HD recorder.

Also when it comes to the 40D, I don't really call it much of an upgrade for me because my XT is able to do most things I need in most cases. But what it doesn't do is full frame and neither does the 40D. Most people seem to forget that the full frame idea isn't just about having a video FOV(you can get that with EF-S lenses) but what does matter is the composition. If you want to get the same composition with a full frame as you do on a 1.6 crop sensor, you have to be closer to the subject which means that you will get more of a diffused background, and an overall better picture.

The 16-35 is a brilliant lens. but on a 1.6x body I feel its sort of a waste of money since the range is neither super wide nor normal. on a full frame however it's very wide.

In the end its pretty simple. Bigger sensor means better pictures. Try arguing with Hasselblad users that a 5D is better.
 
Sepahan

Sepahan

Bench Warmer
#8
Jan 4, 2003
1,536
0
#8
Full frame sensor is as good as the lenses in front of it. You cannot take advantage of full frame unless you use high quality lenses with edge to edge sharpness. Using lower quality lenses you will get better result with APS-C sensors. Since APS-C crop factor will fall more in the middle of the lens which is sharper than the edge. Vignetting is another problem with wide lens wide open on full frame.
I have to disagree with you bigger sensor does not mean better picture. And comparing blad to Canon or Nikon is not fair. You cannot compare a $3000 camera with blad that costs $30,000.
Enjoy your 5D MII when you buy it. It is an excellent camera.
 
Asus

Asus

Bench Warmer
#9
Jul 24, 2004
802
0
39
Montreal Canada
#9
Well ofcoarse the lens has to be good. I never disagreed on that. However I did say that having a 1700$ lens on an 800$ camera is sort of a waste considering how you will never even use the edge sharpness of them. However when you say bigger sensor is not necessarily better, I have to disagree because it's not just about the sensor being bigger but about the image circle being bigger. Let's forget sensors for a second. Let's go back to the fundamentals of photography. It you shot 4x5 film moving down to medium format 120 film would be a massive decrease in terms of composing abilities. Same goes for the move down from 120 to 35mm. It's the exact same issues with the sensors. It's not only an issue of sensor size but more of image circle size. And ofcoarse you cant compare a hasselblad with a canon or a nikon body because it's so much more expensive. But that price is because that massive sensor is so expensive. Which is actually better. If you can find an instance where a crop sensor is better then a full frame. Or a full frame that is better then a medium format sensor then I will admit that i'm wrong. However that is never the case because with digital there is also the case of noise. and The bigger the sensor the higher the pixel pitch which means less pixel density which means better noise control.

Anyway, maybe there is a misunderstanding here. And I sortof feel we are saying the same thing but we're just not understanding each other. What I mean to say is that a combination of a good lens with a 5D in my case im planning on the 24-70mm f2.8 to get with the 5D mrk2. Is better then a good lens with a crop sensor.
 
Sepahan

Sepahan

Bench Warmer
#10
Jan 4, 2003
1,536
0
#10
I am not trying to argue, full frame is the way to go as long as you supplement it with good lenses. I read this article while a go about full frame vs APS-C and effect of different lenses. They done extensive test showing the importance of very good lenses for full frame especially wide open. Anyway these differences do not really matters unless you are going to make very large prints.
There a couple things you mentioned that are not correct (or I misunderstood you). Image circle is pure property of lens and has nothing to do with sensor or film. Image circle in very crucial in large format photography for perspective control or to increase the DOF. You need large enough image circle to cover the film while you are shifting or tilting front or rare plain. The image circle is also bigger than normal in PC (perspective control) lenses offered by Nikon and Canon to allow you to tilt and shift the lens to correct the perspective.
Again, maybe I misunderstood you with regard to composing ability. Asus jan, if you consider the film size (or the sensor size) to be a canvas or drawing board then the size of your created image (or composition) will depend on the boundary of your canvas. So if you are using large format (8X10 or 4X5), medium format (6X9, 6X7, 6X6, or 6X4.5), or SLR (full frame or APS-C) you have a fixed area to compose your image. So by moving from large format to small format as you mentioned your composing ability does not change but in fact your canvas size changes (and I am not talking about crop factor). 50mm lens is normal lens on full frame SLR, while 80 mm lens is normal for medium format and 150 mm is normal lens for 4X5 format. As you move up the camera format the image circle of lens increases to cover the film size. The image ratio falls between 1.2-1.5 in different format camera (except in 6X6).
Since you are going to buy 5D MII and 24-70, maybe you should mail order it from another Provence, you will save big time on PST. I am planning to buy Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 form L.L. Lozeau (mail order) or B&H to ship to Ontario.
 
Asus

Asus

Bench Warmer
#11
Jul 24, 2004
802
0
39
Montreal Canada
#11
Ofcoarse, image circle is a property of the lens. I was sort of referring to another thing when I was talking about composing abilities. What I meant really was that since I already have a bunch of lenses who's image circle are already big enough for a full frame, I would be able to get closer to my subject to get the same size of subject in the frame and have a blurrier background. so for example with my 100mm f2.8 lens I can actually stand closer to my subject since its effective focal length wont be 160mm anymore.

But the whole deal with me going to full frame is mainly for my 100mm f2.8 lens because the abilities of that lens surpass my body by a lot. It's very very sharp wide open. the corners on a full frame are just as sharp from what I've seen online. And also I've gotten tired of EF-S lenses because they have no resale value(maybe the 17-55mm f2.8 is an exception) and they are pretty much the only way to go wide on a 1.6x crop(except the 16-35mm as you mentioned).

By the way, about buying this stuff, watch out if you buy it from B&H because you will probably need to pay custom fees. But as for me I actually work for a camera shop in Montreal so I can just pay cost without paying any taxes. And i'm guessing the cost for a 5d mrk2 is something like 2300$(if the mrsp actually turns out to be 2600). Too bad i'm not a Nikon user. I can actually get cheaper then cost for Nikon.
 
Sepahan

Sepahan

Bench Warmer
#12
Jan 4, 2003
1,536
0
#12
Wow, good for you, pretty good discount. I have purchased many times from B&H, the custom fee or duties are not much, I have saved $500 on single lens by buying from B&H than Canadian photo stores.
Nikon 14-24 f2.8 that I want to get is $1850-2000 in Canada while B&H sell it for $1550. I am also looking at Zeiss 18mm f3.8.
You know Zeiss has introduced last week series of manual focus lenses (ZE) for Canon.
 
Asus

Asus

Bench Warmer
#14
Jul 24, 2004
802
0
39
Montreal Canada
#14
Sepahan said:
Wow, good for you, pretty good discount. I have purchased many times from B&H, the custom fee or duties are not much, I have saved $500 on single lens by buying from B&H than Canadian photo stores.
Nikon 14-24 f2.8 that I want to get is $1850-2000 in Canada while B&H sell it for $1550. I am also looking at Zeiss 18mm f3.8.
You know Zeiss has introduced last week series of manual focus lenses (ZE) for Canon.
Click to expand...
Yea, so I've herd. I've never used any zeiss lenses before so I can't really understand what it is everybody raves about. I understand that Schott glass is probably the highest quality glass there is but I have yet to do my research and see if in the end it's worth it. Because I also do many spontaneous shots and autofocus is a great help in that area. It has to be a loooot better then the canon equivalent for me to pay the prime and loose AF. I have many manual focus lenses and I am still not used to them enough to be fully comfortable to carry it around when I have to take critical shots.

That nikon 14-24 seems like a really sweet lens. I hope you enjoy it and post some pics here so we can all see the capabilities. The super wide lens I have my eye on is the Tokina But personally I donno how much use I would have for an 18mm prime. But then again I used to think a 100mm(160mm effective on my xt body) wouldn't have as many uses as I actually have for it now.
 
Soroush-IK

Soroush-IK

Ball Boy
#15
Jan 28, 2005
297
0
Stockholm
#15
I recently purchased a Nikon D90 myself. The D90 was the first DSLR with 720p video capture and it does so with my favorite frame rate at 24p (=film look). Canon has a bigger sensor but captures the images at 30p (=soap opera look). On the other hand Canon shoots in full HD and with a better codec (QT H.264 as opposed to Mjpeg).

I was sponsored by Canon with a XL-1 DV cam for the shooting of my first shortfilm back in the days when ppl where still shooting S-VHS, so I will always be grateful to Canon but IMHO I think that Nikon produces more organic pictures while Canon looks more digital.

Both are great cameras and for sure this Canon is the overall better one. But lets not forget that the camera costs 2 1/2 times more and that it shoots in soap operaish 30p frame rate. Since I already owned two of the best Nikon zooms (17-35 f/2.8 and 80-200 f/2.8) and needed 24p for my projects I chose the Nikon D90.

Now I hope that the next Nikon will come with a FX sensor shooting 1080p 24p full HD and that it hopefully comes with a much better codec.
 
Sepahan

Sepahan

Bench Warmer
#16
Jan 4, 2003
1,536
0
#16
Soroush Jan, those are very good lenses. Especially 17-35, the only think that make me hesitate to buy 14-24 2.8 is lack of ability to use filters on the lens due to it’s the permanent hood.

Enjoy your D90, it is very good camera.
 
A

Amirrr

Bench Warmer
#17
Jun 8, 2005
766
0
Toronto
#17
i have a canon xt with a 50mm f/1.8 and 70-300mm f/4-5.6 lens. Im planning to get a macro lens. What is a good affordable macro lens? btw Asus jan bro im really jealous..ishala ye roozam ma betonim begirim az in camera ha..pishapish mobarak bashe ;)
 
Asus

Asus

Bench Warmer
#18
Jul 24, 2004
802
0
39
Montreal Canada
#18
What I would personally suggest would be the Tamron 90mm f2.8. It's a brilliantly sharp lens and the pictures come out great. However I strongly believe that the Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro is the way to go if you are willing to spend a little bit more. What you get in return is pretty quick and silent USM AF as well as internal focusing. The 100mm lens is the one I have on my camera most of the time.

But the 90mm tamron is a great as well.
 
Soroush-IK

Soroush-IK

Ball Boy
#19
Jan 28, 2005
297
0
Stockholm
#19
Sepahan said:
Soroush Jan, those are very good lenses. Especially 17-35, the only think that make me hesitate to buy 14-24 2.8 is lack of ability to use filters on the lens due to it’s the permanent hood.

Enjoy your D90, it is very good camera.
Click to expand...
Sepahan jan, thank you, Im actually really enjoying the D90, you get so much camera for the price, the best one I have ever owned.

Have you ever considered the [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X? That might just be my next lens, check it out! :)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm
[/FONT]
 
Asus

Asus

Bench Warmer
#20
Jul 24, 2004
802
0
39
Montreal Canada
#20
Soroush-IK said:
Sepahan jan, thank you, Im actually really enjoying the D90, you get so much camera for the price, the best one I have ever owned.

Have you ever considered the [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X? That might just be my next lens, check it out! :)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm
[/FONT]
Click to expand...
That's if you can find a store that has them in stock. That lens turned out to be sooo good that Tokina was overwhelmed. And every store is out of stock. But yea it is definitely a great lens. Again, if you can find one. I know that my store has been trying to get them in for a while but no luck. They told us the end of October, it might be sooner for bigger stores.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.