Bit of advice from DSLR gurus on here... I'm currently shooting crop, and own EF 24-75L, 70-200L F4, a 50mm 1.8 and a Tamron 28-75 2.8 and i've got on order a 17-40L which should be here this week . I like this camera (550D) , but for one exception, high iso noise. I gave my EFS crop lenses to my daughter as she has a 1100D that was bought for her birthday. I played around with the new 5D mk3 yesterday, and it was ace on high ISO..but it's a hell of a lot of dosh, but the images it produces are sublime. I went to Liverpool Cathedral today, and took my Tammy lens and shot inside, no flash at 6400 iso, handheld. The noise is pants at these ISO settings, and although i own a tripod, i don't use it much as it's a pain in the arse carrying it around. I'm happy with daylight performance and good light, but the DOF is light years ahead with the 5D mk3, and AF is superb. Some pics and a general idea of the noise, which has been calmed down in Lightroom, a girl was getting photographed for a magazine, so i thought i would photograph too, she was very pretty anawl : I have been paying out for L lenses as the quality and speed of the AF is much better than others, so i suppose it makes sense to invest in full frame now.. is it worth it over crop???
The ISO war has now replaced the megapixel war off old. Is it worth the full sensor? Ask yourself, is it worth the loss of reach from your lens? Personally, I stuck with a crop sensor (Nikon D300) as with the 70-200/2.8 and the 300/4 plus 1.4x T/C fitted it gave me better reach for motorsport (like most things in life, you simply can't have enough length LOL) I did borrow a mates D700 (f/f sensor) and had a Tokina 16-28 lens for last years NEC and it wasn't below 1600ISO and it outshone what the D300 would do even at 400ISO. Personally speaking, I've stopped shooting motorsport now and for me a F/F sensor is the next best step for me, but the money involved inchanging isn't worth it. If you wanna splash the cash then go for it, if not then get one of the cropped sensor bodies that's closest to the pro reange. My D300 is still classed as a pro camera, but just not F/F.
I can keep the 550D for the longer reach for the TT and such like, but the FF is calling me. It's a lot of dosh though....
If you can afford it and justify it's use then go for it. If it's making you borrow to pay for it then don't bother. As I'm sure you know, camera bodies will continue to loose money whereas glass on the other hand keeps it's worth (well, the good ones do at least) I used to have a hard-on for photography with 2 dSLR bodies and 2 SLR's, a rake of lenses, flash guns, memory cards, film, bags, accessories, tripod's, monopods etc etc. Now I'm down to just 1 dSLR, an 18-70 and a 70-200 (as well as the obligatory 50mm). I did turn a few quid at it too with the odd wedding here and there as well as selling some race pics, but I wanted to buy a house and the camera stuff was a 'get some money quick' solution for us so half of it went.
Yeah, did my first wedding this year... hence the decent lenses.... talk about shitting bricks though... I've got rid of the EFS lenses for crop, as the AF wasn't that good, although the 18-55is was great quality, although plasticky... better IQ than the tammy 17-50 which i sent back (2.8 was the only good feature, as it was soft). The AF on the 550D is ok, although it's a bit slow in servo mode and 3fps isn't that great for moving objects.... the 5D3 does 6fps, and the AF seems like the 1D judging by reports. I can afford the 5D3, but don't know wether to hang on for a bit to see if prices come down???
There is a school of thought, and it is logical, although I'm not 100% convinced, quite, that the images off cropped chips are mathematically sharper as they only use the area of the lens with the best acuity. A full frame chip takes you out to the edges of the image circle where the sharpness of the lens starts to fall off. I say mathematically as with L lenses there's very little drop off anyway, but the theory is still sound. As Viper says though the low light capabilities of current gen cameras are staggering and almost worth the money on its own. If you were a pro, relying on the shot for your living, I'd say buy it in a shot, but it's not my money.
Nikon D7000 I was just looking to make a move to the D800 from my D7000 but will miss the reach so would end up keeping two and taking two with me. See pics taken last week of a Bank Vole at 6400 ISO, always looking for more speed with wildlife. May wait for the next camera?
why dont you just buy a mk11? still a very very good body with enough settings that most wont even use while saving a grand
Ooooh...Weddings...I came out of retirement to do a wedding a couple of years ago. Gods bless digital. It makes life sooo much easier than the bad old days of film.
Because the AF isn't fast enough for sports, and is a little old in AF speed compared to the new breed. My mate has one, and although fantastic, i was getting quite a few oof shots on moving people, Plus, i will regret not buying the mk3. I'm not a great photographer, in fact i class myself as quite shit in comparison to 99.99% of amateur photographers, but i want something that will last me years, without any shortcomings etc..
Trust me Si, I mentor degree students who aren't capable of producing shots to equal the ones at the top of this page mate.
No really verygood si , nothing wrong with them mate , Getting back onto the camera 5D mkiii nice camera si bloody expensive mind , but its light easy to use and you can carry it around all day long no prob , but if it was my money mate a canon 1D mkiii about 1k on eBay and buy a canon 70/200 2.8 or for the close up and distance shots a canon 28/300mm cracking lens . You could buy both those and have money left over , but its only my opinion .
A bit off topic I've not long just got myself a NIkon D5100, my first DSLR, getting into it a bit more now and wondering what photoshop to get CS5-Lightroom? What do you think for a novice? I can get it a bit cheaper with a student card but don't want to go mad. Thanks for your input.
I use Lightroom for the mac as it's easier for me, and cheaper. I don't edit much as i'm not savvy with it all, and lack of time stops me trying to learn really. There's CS6 out now, but both CS5 and CS6 are expensive.
I wouldn't bother with any of them Tom. I'd download GIMP. It's as powerful as Photoshop, and much more versatile as it not only reads it's own native file type, but everybody else's too. It's constantly being updated and debugged and as it originated in Linux form, it's free. Photoshop has become bloatware and Adobe seem to think that as they are filling the code with crap it's your due to pay them through the teeth for it. Lightroom and Aperture are great if you have loads of images to process and batch convert in one go. That's why a lot of pro's are going down that route rather than full blown Photoshop. If you've got the same couple of adjustments to make to a lot of pictures, they're brilliant. But, again, why pay. XNview, again, based on a linux product will do virtually everything they will do for free.
