Messages

46

United States / Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)

« on: July 28, 2011, 01:04:23 PM »

For those of you that are curious, I picked up the camera with the Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens. My other lens is gonna be picked up tomorrow, Saturday, or Monday.

So far I've had a bit of an issue with certain lights and I'm still adjusting to the focus system. When I have my house lights on pictures can appear very yellow and I end up having to change the white balance later on through photoshop. I'm still troubleshooting on how to fix this. I'll have to read through the camera manual some more tonight.

BUT here are my first few test shots. I'm warning you, I was mostly just playing with the AF system and getting a feel for the camera itself, rather than trying to seriously take a shot, so they're a bit sloppy. However once I understand the system more it will get better.





This one is an example of DOP:





Today I hope to go outside and take some photos. Can anyone give me a critique?

The canon strap that comes with the camera is not going to do it. I need a non-slip strap that is supportive and isn't going to result in shoulder pain. Any brand recommendations for me to look at?

Personally, I use and really recommend a BlackRapid strap.  Convenient in that the camera hangs at your side leaving your hands free (possible but unwieldy with a neck strap), the weight is on your shoulder but the strap is very comfortable, and it's fast and easy to bring the camera up for a shot.  I routinely walk around for hours with a gripped 7D + 100-400mm  (a load of >6 pounds) on a BlackRapid RS-4.

They said the 7D is allowed, but that we'll do so much landscape and architecture and portrait shooting that I'll be desperate for a full frame within the first year and that I should probably save up for one now. It's a very competitive school, though. Any person I've met who came out of it was phenomenal. It's a rigorous and unforgiving program and I think they're trying to deter the people who are just "trying out photography for fun" by requiring that you get top notch gear first.

Full frame is required for the 4th quarter (it's a 6 quarter program) because they start some very ultra wide angle stuff. A crop frame would not function.

A crop frame would function just fine.  The EF-S 10-22mm on APS-C has equivalent angle of view to the EF 16-35mm on FF (so, a little wider than your 17-40mm would be on FF).  Optical quality of the 10-22mm is equivalent to the 17-40mm in most ways, and if you end up shooting a lot of architcture, the 10-22mm on APS-C is substantially better than the 17-40mm on FF in terms of barrel distortion (click to compare 10-22mm @ 10mm vs. 17-40mm @ 40mm).

16mm FF-equivalent not wide enough for you?  The widest prime Canon makes is the 14mm f/2.8L II, and that will set you back $2200 (but you could get the MF-only Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 14mm f/2.8 lens for $400).  However, Sigma just released a rectilinear (i.e. not fisheye) 8-16mm lens for APS-C, which at the wide end is equivalent to 13mm on FF - that's wider the rectilinear options for FF.  The idea that you need FF to achieve ultrawide angles was true several years ago, but has been obviated by developments in lenses.

I'm not saying you shouldn't get the 5DII - it's really an amazing camera (provided your subjects aren't moving).  But if your reason for wanting/needing it is for ultrawide shots, you can achieve that with your 7D, and for a lot less $.  OTOH, for architecture if you splurge, it's tough to beat a TS-E lens on a FF body.

Thanks, I'll check out black rapid. I don't think I'll ever give up my 7D. Having a crop frame will come in handy even when I do decide it's time for me to need a full frame. The 10-22mm is actually on my list of lenses to get!

They said the 7D is allowed, but that we'll do so much landscape and architecture and portrait shooting that I'll be desperate for a full frame within the first year and that I should probably save up for one now. It's a very competitive school, though. Any person I've met who came out of it was phenomenal. It's a rigorous and unforgiving program and I think they're trying to deter the people who are just "trying out photography for fun" by requiring that you get top notch gear first.

Full frame is required for the 4th quarter (it's a 6 quarter program) because they start some very ultra wide angle stuff. A crop frame would not function. However, by then I would hope that I have a full frame camera. I absolutely LOVE the 5d mk ii. Love. I played with it some more today. The local camera shop is happy that I shopped there.

  I'm confused about that first part.  Landscape, maybe, but desperate for FF on portraits?

well i guess because FF has better bokeh then APS-C camera for portrait while most professional architectural photographer prefer using large or medium format cameras so putting that to digital perspective means using FF, you'll also have an advantage in wide angle view and less noise...

This. I almost always prefer portraits that are taken with a full frame because of the lack of noise and the way the subject stands out. The 7D is much better for action shots (though, not with the lens I'm using).

They said the 7D is allowed, but that we'll do so much landscape and architecture and portrait shooting that I'll be desperate for a full frame within the first year and that I should probably save up for one now. It's a very competitive school, though. Any person I've met who came out of it was phenomenal. It's a rigorous and unforgiving program and I think they're trying to deter the people who are just "trying out photography for fun" by requiring that you get top notch gear first.

Full frame is required for the 4th quarter (it's a 6 quarter program) because they start some very ultra wide angle stuff. A crop frame would not function. However, by then I would hope that I have a full frame camera.

Well Good luck with your schooling and as I mentioned in one of my first replies.. make sure your fiancee is fully on board with the costs of photography... Money and budgets could be a detriment to young marriages and it took a while to even get my wife get used to me spending thousands on camera bodies and lenses. 

Also try to get as many critiques from strangers as possible towards your portfolio.  At my school, professors (industry professionals) had no qualms on ripping you and your work to shreds if they didn't think they were up to par.  Some professors I've heard of were infamous for throwing away peoples assignments because they were displeased with the work and or passing out McDonalds applications to students.  They also would blatantly tell you if they felt you didn't belong at that school.  They basically were the Simon Cowells before Simon Cowell became popular.  Most would call them jerks or worse, they hardened us to the realities of customers expectations... Getting used to this will help you avoid the shock and awe of these critiques when you get to school. 

Dont Give Up.  I cant stress this enough.  My school during its hay-day when I was there, anyone who had high purse strings and could afford the tuition and THOUGHT they could be photographers went to my school.  It was a very expensive school and became very large quickly.  The problem was it was so tough and expensive half of incoming freshmen quit by the end of the first 2 classes and even more by the end of the first year.  By graduation of my class, probably 1/8 of the original class I started with graduated to get the full BA on time.  Others probably graduated but their graduation dates delayed for whatever reasons.  Schools like ours are meant to weed out those many hopefuls and graduating the select few.  They are good at shaking out those who cant hack it and it's easy to quit.  I went in hoping to get straight A's... that didn't happen, but I graduated, so in some perspective I feel is just fine with me.

This is probably some of the best advice I will ever receive. Thank you so much for it. I think my fiancé understands--though not much. His uncle is a professional photographer and he knows his uncle has spent more money on his camera/lens collection than his car. Thankfully money has never really been one of our issues because we both have slightly expensive hobbies and both accept them.

A lot of schools are doing that now. I went to a prestigious equestrian school as a working student for one summer, and they were brutal. I'd been riding horse for 15 years and they called my seat sloppy, kept saying I should give up, and even at some points wouldn't let me ride and would force me to watch others who had been riding for longer to "learn". Within the first week I improved a lot, but it is tough. There's no room for error. This could potentially be very stressful to me but I agree, it's important not to give up.

Lady, one last thing to ask your school... does their rental department rent strobes or just on camera flashes?  What about C-Stands/light stands?  Sandbags?  Light modifiers?  Diffusion?  Reflectors?  It may help to know which lenses the offer so you can plan accordingly... What about studios or studio equipment such as seamless backdrops and background muslins?  Do they offer  q-flashes and Wireless transmitters and recievers?  Umbrellas and or Softboxes?  This may all seem trivial but it's nice to know so if they dont offer any of these, you know to save up for them.  You may also want to check which flashes they offer?  Do they offer monoblock strobes (wireless) or powerpack (wired).  Stuff like this, if they dont have them, they may seem like small purchases but costs as a student add up and when an assignment pops up that requires such equipment and you need to buy said equipment and you are pinching pennies to pay for food, it is better to know about this before hand.

I'll know that when I visit. I've written all of those things down on a list. Thanks

47

United States / Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)

« on: July 27, 2011, 10:41:20 PM »

I worry people will take it the wrong way when I say things like that. I always want the best model I can possibly afford, not the cheapest one. 

Like someone else already suggested, have fun with the 7D now, and by the time you're ready to upgrade, hopefully the 5DIII will be available by then. That said, I'm surprised your school requires full-frame bodies. I don't see how they can expect students to come up with that kind of money. Maybe they're just trying to get you accustomed to getting raped on camera gear early on in your career 

They said the 7D is allowed, but that we'll do so much landscape and architecture and portrait shooting that I'll be desperate for a full frame within the first year and that I should probably save up for one now. It's a very competitive school, though. Any person I've met who came out of it was phenomenal. It's a rigorous and unforgiving program and I think they're trying to deter the people who are just "trying out photography for fun" by requiring that you get top notch gear first.

Full frame is required for the 4th quarter (it's a 6 quarter program) because they start some very ultra wide angle stuff. A crop frame would not function. However, by then I would hope that I have a full frame camera. I absolutely LOVE the 5d mk ii. Love. I played with it some more today. The local camera shop is happy that I shopped there.

I know I could have saved some money online, but I like supporting the locals whenever I can. They were happy. They then said I could come in and try various cameras any time I wanted. Nice people. One of the people who works there does sports photos for the local news paper, and he's REALLY good. It was cool to be able to talk to someone who takes photographs you idolize.

48

United States / Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)

« on: July 27, 2011, 10:32:34 PM »

I got the 7D today with the 50mm F/1.4 to complement my 17-40mm.

I have another problem. I'm fairly petite. I'm 5'5 with a very small body frame. We're talking very small.



That's a 24" monitor box. My fiancé could close it with me inside.

The canon strap that comes with the camera is not going to do it. I need a non-slip strap that is supportive and isn't going to result in shoulder pain. Any brand recommendations for me to look at?

49

United States / Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)

« on: July 27, 2011, 07:23:54 PM »

Ah, skateboarding I had completely forgot about! Thanks both of you!

It's nice to have someone who understands that. I worry people will take it the wrong way when I say things like that. I always want the best model I can possibly afford, not the cheapest one. Someday I hope to have a 1d (or one of its future variations) as well.

50

United States / Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)

« on: July 27, 2011, 05:57:08 PM »

I already own a 17-40mm. After extensive testing and comparison I found it to do significantly better than the more expensive 17-55.

Funny how I thought the same thing about the 17-40 vs 17-55 on my original tests...

Interesting - how was it significantly better?

I tried out a 17-40mm and definitely preferred the 17-55mm from an optical standpoint - especially stopped down to f/4, the 17-55mm is sharper across the frame, and the EF-S lens, surprisingly, has less barrel distortion at 17mm than the 17-40mm, despite a broader zoom range and the 'sweet spot' effect of using an EF lens on a crop body.  The only place the L lens won was less vignetting.  From a build standpoint, the L lens is definifely better, of course.

I ended up getting the 16-35mm f/2.8L II instead of the 17-40mm for use on FF (as good or better at comparable apertures), and the 17-55mm on the 7D outperforms the 16-35mm II on the same body, from my own testing.  I shoot a fair bit of wildlife with the 7D and a telezoom, and bring a standard zoom along 'just in case' - in the rain, I bring the 16-35mm II, but otherwise I grab the 17-55mm lens, and in fact, I hung onto that lens after getting the 5DII for just that reason.

It's hard to say... when I did my testings I tested it against the sigmas and tokinas (my local store didn't sell tamrons so i couldn't test their version which has gotten good reviews) as well as each other...  I dont know... I just felt when I did my unscientific tests, the 17-40 locked focus a tad faster, felt more robust (i need my gear to keep up and be ok if it has a little bang here and there)... the L had weathersealing and  IQ i felt was close but not near enough to warrant the price difference.  The 2.8 would have been nice but that wasn't a driving factor because I was ok with my cameras ISO if needed.  For what I do and how I shoot, that's how I made my choice.  BTW, the sigma and tokina lenses tested were horrid in focusing in low light.  The 17-40 I was able to focus almost in the dark without even needing the AF lamp...  I'm sure under certain conditions the 17-55 could produce sharper images but I've been pleased with my lens.

This, on top of the fact that I only had to pay $600 for the 17-40mm because they had a used model. The 17-55mm was $1200 and did not have the weather sealing that the 17-40mm did. I also didn't really like the 40-55 zoom range on it and would rather get a 50mm prime (which is what I'm doing) because the sharpness on the 17-55 just wasn't up to my tastes. in the 17-40 I didn't notice any barrel distortion what-so-ever. I pulled up the images next to each other on a 30" monitor in the store and there was no visible distortion at all. It may have been my settings, or it may have just been that you got a bad model. I'm not sure why someone would see barrel distortion on that lens.

I'm trying to stock up on EF lenses right now, not EF-S. That's a huge thing. I do plan to get one or two EF-S lenses, but for now I'm alright with the 17-40. In the future I'm thinking of the 10-22mm mostly.

The 16-35mm I drool over, on a completely unrelated note.

And on another one.

Could someone please explain to me the point of fisheye? I always thought it was a phase because I never really liked the way certain photos looked with fisheye lenses. Is there a valid use for it besides deceptive real estate advertising?

51

United States / Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)

« on: July 27, 2011, 03:50:15 PM »

So I got an update from the school I'd attend next year (or 2013). I need a full frame dslr, the school provides all film cameras for us. My 7D is acceptable, and is the absolute least expensive model they will accept. They say that if I can, I should upgrade to the 5D mk ii because I will need it after my first semester. Right now I'm going with the 7D for temporary practice and to build up a lens collection. I'll probably have both before school starts (even if it starts next september).

I'm also potentially picking up the 7D tomorrow. Potentially.

I'm hoping they have used lenses in stock.

For your needs, I agree that the 7D is a better choice over the 5D. If you don't need the 7D's blazing frame rate and fancier AF, a 60D might be a better option. IMHO, for people just starting out in photography it's best to learn on the least expensive body you can get away with. Nicer bodies - with their superior dynamic range, contrast, and high ISO abilities - tend to hide your mistakes. It's these mistakes that you'll learn from, and it's these mistakes that will help in refining your technique, whether it's something as simple as learning how to properly expose a frame, or something more complex such as learning how to position your lighting equipment at the ideal angles and setting their power outputs accordingly. There's so much latitude with digital images, especially RAW files, that it's easy to become overly dependent on post production to correct simple mistakes that could have been avoided in the field in the first place. That's fine if you're just taking images for fun, but it can impede on your ability to make a living as a working pro. A common scenario I see all the time with hobbyists making the transition to gigs that pay money is they spend so much time in post processing, that it limits the number assignments they can take on. The massive competition these days amongst working photogs means that gigs don't pay as much as they used to, so you end up having to turn around greater volumes of work in a short durations of time just to pay the bills. The "I'll just fix it in photoshop" trap is something that needs to be avoided. IMHO, starting out with a less expensive body that's less forgiving of user error will help you recognize those mistake more easily, allowing you to refine your technique.

I've been photographing things for years on manual settings with various compact camera models. I tested the 60D out for a day, but it felt far, far too cheap to work for me. The ergonomics were wrong, the photos were not being taken at the speed I would have liked, and the entire thing felt like plastic. I mean no offense to people who start out with the 60D, it's just that the 60D is not enough of an upgrade from my compact camera. When I rented the 7D I was in heaven, the entire thing just responded to me and did exactly what I wanted it to do. I have yet to fully try out the 5D Mk ii. The 7D is the cheapest one I will accept, and I do need it for the fast shutter speed (yes, even if I had the 5d I would need it).

Also, I very rarely need to correct error in photoshop when I shoot. Unfortunately now the problem I'm running into is that any of my cameras in my collection are just not professional enough to do what I want. I don't have enough control over them (with regards to aperture, iso, lens, etc) to get the effect I both desire and know how to achieve. My photography isn't perfect, not by a long shot, and I'm far from being pro, but trust me when I say the 60D would be a complete waste of money. Money that I cannot afford to waste.

Keep in mind the price difference. Even if you must shoot hand held at dusk, a 7D + 30 f/1.4, purchased with part of the savings, will easily beat a 5D mkII + f/4 zoom (for example) in low light.

Ah yes thank you, very helpful!

I assume you mean in addition to a general purpose zoom?  A 70-200mm zoom on the 7D will be too long for many situations.  As a general purpose zoom, IMO the best option for a 7D is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.  That plus the 70-200mm f/4L would be a good combination, as awinphoto suggests.  For portraits, I highly recommend the EF 85mm f/1.8 - it's one of the best values in the Canon lineup in terms of cost vs. IQ.

In terms of the 7D's ISO noise, it's an issue - I'd set aside a small part of your budget for DxO Optics Pro, which really does a great job of reducing noise in your RAW conversions (much better than Canon's DPP).

I already own a 17-40mm. After extensive testing and comparison I found it to do significantly better than the more expensive 17-55. This isn't just for portraits, I do need the zoom in the lens to shoot action from a distance. The EF 85mm seems like a great idea, though. Thank you!

Is $1600 the budget just for this lens, or for all your lenses?

You might want to consider a Canon 70-200 f/4L (around $500?) and a fast prime for portraits (i.e. Canon 85 f/1.8 or Canon 135 f/2L). At least with the 85 you would still be under budget and able to either save money or pick up another lens. If you really need the extra stop of the 70-200 f/2.8L it's worth it, no question about that. But it's also pretty heavy and expensive. The 70-200 f/4L's are feathers by comparison, and the non IS version is cheap (relatively speaking). While the 70-200 f/2.8 does make a good portrait lens, a fast prime makes an even better portrait lens while the 70-200 f/4L gives you a zoom for covering horses and other fast moving events.

That said, I find myself using my Sigma 50 f/1.4 a lot for portraits. It equates to about 80mm on crop and it seems to be a natural FoV, plus that lens has incredible bokeh. Something to consider.

No, it's $1600 max per lens right now (with taxes). The 70-200 f/4L is not something I thought of, though! I forgot about that model entirely. I'll test it at the photography shop today if I can. I'm possibly picking up my 7D tomorrow.

The sigma? Hmm I'll see if they have that in stock as well to give it a try, and I'll let you know.

52

United States / Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)

« on: July 27, 2011, 11:09:08 AM »

The school I will be attending in a year or two offers rental equipment but requires that you buy your own camera. The rental equipment is for flashes, various lenses, and more expensive cameras that students couldn't possibly afford. The school I would be attending in the mean time does not provide or rent equipment because they're very small. Their main focus is work shops and fine art. They still have yet to get back to me, and I'm thinking that I should just drive over in person today to ask. Sometimes it's hard to get concrete answers by email.

As I said, I'm going with the 7D for now. I think the 5D Mk ii is better however it stretches my purse strings too much for it to be comfortable. I'm going to spend a few months to a year building up a glass collection, then purchase the 5d. I don't want the first DSLR I purchase to be used just in case, but the second I won't mind so much. With canon hinting that something big and exciting might be coming out next year anyway, I think it's wiser to not break the bank now and just hope the school means film (considering they have the only public dark room in the area, I'm going to assume this is the case).

On the subject of glass collection, I do need some advice. I'm looking for something that's fast, good for portraits, but has telephoto zoom (such as the 70-200mm f/2.8 [or 4] USM or 75-300mm) and is good for moving horse photography if I find I need to do it. IS is irrelevant to me. Are the ones I mentioned good options, or is there a better one I can get in the <$1600 price range?

53

Canon General / Re: Switching to Nikon

« on: July 27, 2011, 10:55:23 AM »

I don't think there's anything wrong with being curious about switching. Nikon makes fantastic cameras. If it were financially possibly I would carry both Nikons and Canons. I used a Nikon years back (the d40) and loved it. It's all about personal preference. You could be using the best, most expensive camera in the world but if its layout doesn't work with your hands you're going to hate it and take terrible pictures.

I find that Nikons have a much better button layout, however, their camera ergonomics are lacking. Canon has great ergonomics down to a "T". For me this is important because I have tiny hands and weak wrists. Other people may not notice the difference so much. Good ergonomics is the difference between my arms getting tired and shaking, and me taking a good picture without getting exhausted in a few minutes.

Nikons, as somebody else mentioned, have less megapixels in their cameras. I'm not sure if there's any data to back up Nikon having larger pixels, but generally when you raise cameras to very high megapixel counts you make the pixels smaller to cram a larger number in there. This decreases the quality of an image. I know people who would swear on whatever holy book they follow that Nikons have better coloring/image quality. I have noticed it as well, but I haven't found an unbiased side by side comparison of the two yet.

For me, ergonomics and a lower price point is how canon won me over. For you, all you need to do is rent both, try them out, and see which one fits you more. If you're still unsure, then don't switch.

54

United States / Re: What's your favorite area of the US to shoot?

« on: July 27, 2011, 02:40:36 AM »

I live in Seattle and I LOVE shooting the area, but New York City and New England are probably my two favorite places to shoot. New England for old architecture in the fall, and New York because, well, I grew up just outside the city. It has so many different people to shoot and so many different things. A lot of diversity.

For coastline Oregon & Washington are my favorites.

Crashing Cape Kiwanda [explore 9/22/10] by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr

Dusk at Cape Kiwanda [now edited] by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr

Half Remembered Dream by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr

indomitable coastline by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr

For waterfalls Oregon and Washington win hands down.

Lower Lewis Falls by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr

i'm from AUS i want to go to New York and yellow stone, maybe cal or miami

Yellowstone is nice, but Grand Teton National Park, which is immediately south of Yellowstone is arguably much, much better for landscapes.  If you want wildlife shots, both are good...but aside from the Yellowstone Grand Canyon and the geothermal activity, I think Grand Teton is much more interesting.

Teton Majesty by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr

For mountain landscapes, Glacier National Park, Mount Rainier, the Grand Tetons, Zion, and Yosemite are probably the best within the States.

The Mountain by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr

The Majestic by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr

Dawn at St. Mary Lake by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr

Mt. Oberlin and Bird Woman Falls by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr

There are a few things to be found in the Midwest, despite the region being rather boring relative to landscapes.

A River Runs Through It, my New Years Resolution version by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr

zoom zoom by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr

As c-law already mentioned, Seattle is great for photography.  I can't think of a more gorgeous city, if urban landscapes are your thing.

Living in Washington state myself I must say you do an excellent job at bringing out the beauty in these photos. I'm drooling over them, and in fact I added several of them to my favorites on flickr.

55

United States / What's your favorite area of the US to shoot?

« on: July 26, 2011, 05:44:01 AM »

I just thought I'd make a fun thread to combat all the question ones. For those of you out there that enjoy shooting cities, people and scenery:

Which places in the US are your favorite to take photos of and why?

56

United States / Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)

« on: July 26, 2011, 05:42:05 AM »

No it's not. The 7D has visibly more fine detail, slightly better noise characteristics, and slightly more DR across the shared ISO range (100-3200).

While the 7D does have slightly more DR I would argue that the detail, better noise characteristics, and sharpness all are better with the 5D Classic. You don't even have to take my word for it.. See http://bit.ly/o75QZA For sharpness examples you can see Google.

The 5D mark II beats both. For someone serious about photography and is going to go to full frame eventually anyway, as most people do when they see the quality, the 7D is just a waste of money.

I've done this dance so many times... just buy the best products the first time and you won't have to buy them again and again.

While I do agree with your points on buying the best, I think I will wait for now. I want to build up a solid lens collection before I get the 5D Mark ii and I don't want to start using a full frame with only one lens. I think the best decision for me, for now, is to go with the 7D for as long as I possibly can. I would most likely keep both cameras when I upgrade.

That being said, I really appreciate your input guys. It has helped me a lot! Thanks.

57

United States / Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)

« on: July 26, 2011, 03:22:09 AM »

Obviously you need to verify this with both schools. But I seriously doubt that either school means "full frame digital only" when they say "35mm camera." They might actually mean a 35mm film SLR. I've seen that requirement before for the beginning of a program. But they probably mean any small format, interchangeable lens, SLR or DSLR. I have yet to see a school or program that required or allowed digital and wouldn't accept FX, DX, and even 4/3rds, as long as the body takes different lenses and offers full manual modes.

That is a very, very good point.

Unless you really have to upgrade in a year, stick with the 7D and put the money saved towards glass and lighting. The differences between Canon's 18 MP APS-C and 21 MP 35mm sensors are nothing compared to the differences you will see with more/better glass, and better lighting (flashes). For some reason "full frame" has an almost cult like following. But at this point in sensor evolution it's really only necessary for certain specific niche uses. And APS-C is not only cheaper when you buy the body, it's cheaper for certain fields of view (lenses) as well.

Of course full frame is not bad if you can afford it. But my definition of afford is buying with cash and not sacrificing glass or light just to get the body.

Either way I'll get the same basic things with the camera (no more, no less) but will gather more in a few months. If I get the 7D I could stick to EF lenses and gather them until I know for sure about full frame.

Given properly processed, low to mid ISO images, you cannot tell prints from these two bodies apart even at large print sizes (i.e. 24"-30"). Before someone asks, yes I have tested both, and yes I do make large prints of challenging landscapes with lots of fine detail. No one who argues with me in person can tell me which print came from which camera. Granted, I put a little more effort into 7D files. A bit more sharpening and sometimes a bit more NR and local contrast enhancement. But the end result is the same.

The 5D mkII becomes clearly better at around ISO 1600 and above, but only for larger prints. At 8x10 and 11x14 it's a wash even at 1600 and 3200. That said, the 5D mkII does give you about a stop more DR, and it is more forgiving of exposure error.

The difference is noticeable rain. I live in Seattle and there are a lot of dark/overcast days. I also like to shoot at dusk. I'm not sure about how much of a difference it is on a DSLR than a compact, but on my Panasonic I'm at max ISO (1600) all the time when I do my evening shoots. You bring up some excellent points though, and the 7D may be the way to go for now despite the noise. Do you think the overcast days and dusk shoots will take a hit from choosing the 7D?

Again, verify with each school first. But if they mean any small format SLR and will accept the 7D, really think about where your money is going. Contrary to popular belief there's little IQ difference between these two sensors.

All I have to do is wait until they get back to me. My emails went out yesterday morning.

58

United States / Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)

« on: July 26, 2011, 02:00:50 AM »

Now you can pick up a 5d classic for under that price of a 7D... The IQ of the 5Dc is still better than the 7D at ISO 1600 or below. Obviously focusing and handling will be better with the 7D being newer.

Hi, I'm just wondering if you've considered a used 35mm (aka 'full-frame') camera? As an example, you could purchase a used 5d mark I, which is a fine camera except for action/sports. You could pick a fine example up for about $1000 or less, and then spend the rest on some great glass which you could later use when you upgrade.

I shoot equestrian sports (should have mentioned that in my first post) so having a good camera for that is important (which is why I was so convinced about the 7D, I rented it for a day and it was amazing).

Personally, I had the same decision to make and I save the extra cash for the 5D mark II and I couldn't be happier. Plus, it will serve as a great backup camera when I get a 5D mark III whenever that comes out.

Thanks, it's nice to have someone who can relate. I'm going to wait for some more feedback before I decide. I don't want to spend the extra money unless it's absolutely necessary. I'm taking out a loan for this camera (which will be paid off way before it has time to accumulate interest). I can get cleared for enough to cover either, but less loan is better and if I do go with a 7D, when it comes time to upgrade to a 5dmii, the upgrade will have to come out of pocket.

Another factor is that, while I do shoot equestrian I'm going to spend a few months getting used to the new camera before I do any practice shoots at the barn. So for a good chunk of time I won't need the 8fps (though in the long run I will) and I'd rather have the image quality of an aps-h sensor.

I wish I could just get both.

59

United States / I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)

« on: July 26, 2011, 01:17:35 AM »

I have been sold on the EOS 7D for several months now after extensive research. Last week I went in and had a 7D with the 17-40L lens put aside for me so I can purchase it in August. Then something I did not expect happened. I got a chance to take photography classes at a photography school (private scholarship for the first year or so). I know for a fact I'm serious about photography, however I was putting off school for another year until I can get my in state residency. This DSLR will be my first DSLR purchase. I have used them briefly before, but never owned one for myself.

The classes are at a small photography center and would prepare me for entering the Commercial Photography program at Seattle Central Creative Academy in 2012/2013 like I had planned.

However, the program requires that I purchase a 35mm camera with a decent lens. This means within a year (possibly two, since I'm getting married next fall and might skip out on school that quarter) I will be upgrading to the 5D Mark II anyway. While I absolutely love the idea of having a full frame DSLR and have had my eye on the 5D Mark II since it came out, I'm torn. It would require spending an extra $2,000 on top of what I had planned to spend on a camera, and I've heard rumors about new FF DSLRs being released by Canon next year.

I sent the photography center a message asking if the 7D was an acceptable camera (I don't think it will be) and I'm waiting on them to get back to me.

SO my question is, to avoid rambling too much, should I still stick with my guns and complete my 7D purchase even if it means I might have to upgrade within a single year, or should I suck it up and get the 5D Mark II now?