Canon 5D II

[shreds]

Although I am firmly in the Nikon camp and have been for many years, I would agree with the comments about the relative parity of Nikon and Canon nowadays.

I would however applaud Nikon for developing a FF solution. I was on the point of going over to Canon a few years ago to gain the advantages of FF, but luckily I stayed loyal and upgraded a couple of my lesser lenses.

I have been using Nikon FF for almost a year now and the resultant shots are noticeably better, when using the same lenses, and I would imagine that Canon shooters find similar results between the FF v crop sensor designs. Clearly the Nikon move to FF has made a huge difference in comparing the two brands, but at the end of the day, reviews and discussions are mainly subjective and it is the eye of the photter that really makes the most difference.

[Colin Southern]

To be honest - although I too shoot Full Frame these days, I do think it's somewhat overrated. There seems to be a bit of a mantra that "FF is always an advantage", whereas in reality, it can just as easily work against you ...

- In terms of perceived focal length it can very much work against you if you're a long-shooter eg. If 2 people were forced to share a single 400mm lens, the person with a 1.6x crop factor 50D will get a far more detailed shot of the moon than the other will with a FF camera (which makes me laugh when people always advise to "just zoom in with your feet - err, "hello NASA - any chance of a ride 1/2 way to the moon & back; I only have a FF camera and my friend is shooting crop!"). It can be neither here not there if you have the lenses to give you the lengths you need (ie "Joe Crop has a 100mm lens and Mike Full-Frame has a 160 to photograph the same scene). In my opinion it really only comes in to play if you can't get enough width out of your widest lens (as was my case when I had the 1/3x crop factor Canon 1D3) - Joe Crop can use a 10mm lens on a 1.6 crop (16mm FF equivalent) whereas Mike Full-Frame can use a 14mm on his camera.

- In terms of DoF it's about a stop better over a 1.6x crop-factor camera, and even less over a 1.3x crop factor, which can make a difference - but in reality, with lenses like the 85mm/1.2L (a) you very rarely use them wide open, and (b) when you do it's usually because you need to extra light at which point the extremely narrow DoF is far more of a curse than a blessing - on that a FF camera makes worse. If you're using a typical high-end zoom (say 16-35/2.8L or 24-70/2.8L) wide open then - yes I'll concede FF may give a noticeable tighter DoF.

- FF cameras generally enjoy a noise advantge, but in reality, unless you're pushing things to the limit, both sorts of camera are more than adequate.

Just my 10c worth on the matter!

Cheers

[sashu1]

I have just joined this forum. I own both the 1ds3 as well as the 5dmk2. I am happy with both camers, and it is refreshing to read Colin's thoughts that too often the decision to buy or sell a camera is based on the "specs" rather than the real need. The 5dmk2 for me was a lighter and cheaper camera to take travelling without losing the astounding power to crop an image and still retain enough resolution for a decent print. While the choice of lenses does become critical, I am yet to discard an image because of the "sharpness" in the corners etc. As far as high ISO performance, the noise of a well exposed image at ISO 1600 will beat a poorly exposed image at ISO 800 with post processing (or at least the amount of post processing that I do). My biggest challenge is creative composition, rather than the gear that I am using.

[sashu1]

Thanks Colin. I am playing with a lens that I bought yesterday, the TS E45. The liveview mode makes it really easy to experiment with this lens on 5Dmk2. I am an orthodontist and do a lot of macro photography of smiles and teeth and I find the FF is a disadvantage as I am closer to the subject making lighting very critical. I use a 1.4 teleconverter (not Canon as it does not work with the 100 mm macro lens) to simulate the "crop" giving me better magnification, more forgiving lighting and slightly better DoF. I am spending a lot of time explaining this to my colleagues who read the specs and must have a FF. Another problem with FF is vignetting at wide angle - with 24-70 zoom or 16-35 zoom you will see shadow cast by your UV filter at wide open, but not a problem with f4 and smaller. So on specs the F2.8 lens vs F4 lens and IS all have trade offs in certain situations. While it is good to see FF from Nikon, for new camera buyers who do not have a huge glass investment to consider, Nikon is till playing catch up both in terms of the CMOS sensors technology and resolution, but for most photographers who remember the days of 6 megapixel Kodak SLR digital cameras, we have come so far, that we can now conecentrate on the art rather than the technical aspect of photography. That's what I think anyway.

Cheers,

Alex

[Zephyrize]

Hi everyone,
I went through almost every article on this site and never thought of the forums.. now here I am hoping to learn more.

Regarding the 5DMII, it seems to be quite popular not only in photography, but since I also do some videography, its HD quality surpasses most of the HD camcorders and the colours are just breathtaking.