May 22, 2013, 03:54:45 AM
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Kernuak
« on: November 19, 2011, 08:25:56 AM »
My first camera in the early 80's was a Zenith 11, built like a tank, and it felt like you were carrying a tank at times. Although it's alot smaller than my 7D, it's almost as heavy. After concentrating on my career, my interest in photography was put on the backburner and I didn't enter the digital age until October 2007, with a 400D. At the time, I had a feel of the Nikon D90 and the 40D and preferred the feel of both, but both were significantly more expensive (especially the 40D), As I still had my old M42 screwmount lenses, I went with Canon and the rest is history. I soon found the old lenses weren't as sharp as the kit and the Tamron and I soon got a 100-400, as I photographed more wildlife. This started to show the limits of the 400D, pushing me into a refurb 40D the following August, which I bought for Â£482, after the winner of the bid on Canon's eBay site pulled out, as he had won the bid on two. My dad still has the 400D. I then started to do low light stuff and licence through Alamy, who required around 16MP at the time, so was looking for something with cleaner images and more resolution. I looked at the 50D when it came out, but wasn't impressed by the test images I found or a little later by some images taken at the same time as my 40D. The noise levels seemed alot higher and there was very little gain in resolution. Then I started looking at the 5D MkII, but I knew that at times, I needed the faster frame rate for wildlife, even though it would be ideal for landscapes. So I was patiently waiting for the 60D, but the 7D came out instead, so I pre-ordered against my better judgement after looking at a large number of preview test images (I knew I would be paying over the odds at first) and immediately got some shots where the 40D would have struggled. I kept the 40D as a backup, having missed an otter on the Isle of Skye through having the wrong lens on. I soon realised the 7D wasn't ideal for landscapes though, so I again looked at the 5D MkII and came across a refurb about a year later, slightly cheaper than new, but still with a full 12 month warranty from Canon. I then sold the 40D for Â£440, so Â£42 rental for about two years! I probably now use the 5D MkII slightly more than the 7D, bu they each have their uses. The 7D is the workhorse whenever I'm shooting wildlife, but when the light gets lower or I find some macro subjects, the 5D comes out and if an otter ever appears behind me again while taking landscapes, the 7D is ready to grab, with lens attached.
I was going through a similar decision making process about 18 months ago. Three lenses were on my radar, as firs thte 7D and then the 5D MkII when I got it were showing up the deficiencies of my 24-105 at 24mm. Initially, there wasn't really anything better enough to pay out silly money for, as the original EF 24mm f/1.4 had it's own problems, but then over a relatively short period, the EF 24 f/1.4 MkII, Zeiss 21 and T/SE 24 all appeared and all came out well in reviews. At the time, I was looking for a landscape lens (so manual focus) in that sort of range and was leaning towards the Zeiss, based on reviews and real life sample images (although very few exist for the tilt shift). However, recently, I arranged a northern lights trip, so a fast lens was more important than when I was originally deciding and that pretty much decided it. The reviews put the Zeiss and the f/1.4 even in terms of image quality, but one review stated that the Zeiss had that indefinable something, a certain look the Canon lens couldn't match. I would therefore say, if you might need a fast aperture, then don't rule out the Canon, but if you are only ever going to be using narrower apertures, then I would lean towards the Zeiss. 3mm can be important at wide angle and you can always crop or move if the 24mm field of view is important compositionally, so you have a bit more flexibility, then there is the difference in contrast. Ultimately, the test is going to be a trial though, as I'm sure some would prefer the look of the Zeiss and others the look of the 24 f/1.4. Also for seascapes, the ability to use a wider aperture to capture more wave definition and movement and still have sufficient DoF might make the tilt and shift a better proposition.
I don't do much portraiture fesapo, but the 135 has definitely made me more interested in it. It's just got that look about it. That's probably why I like the last one. I can't my finger on why exactly, but it's probably down to the narrow depth of field, giving just enough information for the brain to fill in a story.
Kernuak, I love that shot!
Here's one from Shinjuku, Tokyo:
Electric Fix by Fesapo, on Flickr
Thanks Fesapo. I read alot about people criticising the distortion on the 24-105 and 17-40, but I think there are times where it really adds to creativity. Of course, the extension tubes exaggerate the distortion.
Eddie, I can't say the precise reason, but was the uploaded file in Adobe RGB or sRGB? I've seen similar problems when websites have applied compression algorithms when converting from Adobe to sRGB, although I don't think that can be the reason here. However, browsers aren't very good at displaying Adobe RGB. Try using the Save for Web function if you use Photoshop.
« on: November 01, 2011, 05:06:08 PM »
It is possible to get special adaptor rings for wideangle lenses (although I'm not sure about for the Cokin system), but there comes a point where the field of view is just too great. If you try the 17-40 on full frame, you'll get the holder in frame as well :p. The only alternative is to use a 100mm system, such as Lee or Cokin Z, but even then, at 17mm, you have to position the filter holders carefully and stacking becomes an issue.
Thanks Fesapo, they were taken at ISO 1600 on the 5D MkII. I tried with the 7D, but didn't have any detail, probably due to a microadjustment problem to some degree, but I also find the 7D underexposes relative to the 5D.
Bottom line of this rambling post: Do those who use both a 7D and a 5d II really see a difference in the final product? And if so, do you feel the differences are visible at say 8x10. Do you feel the differences are visible at ISO 100-400 or only at higher ISOs?
Now, I know that preferences are personal and can only be ultimately decided by the photographer after having used both cameras, but I do wonder if the 5DII/7D dual body owners would be willing to give an honest assessment of the differences they can actually see in image quality.
There is a marked difference at high ISO. You get at least one stop more on the 5dII - I dont even stop to think about shooting at 1600iso with the 5DII whereas I wonder at 800iso on the 7D. Lets face it, both cameras give really good IQ, but it seems easier to get on the 5DII as the images from the 7D are not so tolerant of pp work - such as cropping or exposure changes.
I believe I see more detail coming through on large prints with the 5DII, but that is not backed up with a scientific study. Again more so when cropping has happened.
I agree with melbournite - they compliment each other and fill in the gaps of limitations
I agree. They do compliment each other.
I also agree about the ISO.. I'd never put the 7d above 640, yet regularly have the 5d at 1600.
I think I must be more tolerant of noise than most people, as I am happy to go to ISO 1600 on the 7D and haven't had a problem with acceptance by stock agencies. That could be down to use of 400 ASA film years ago, where the grain was much more obvious. However, exposure has to be perfect and if there are a lot of blues or shadows, then noise can get too much. On the other hand, as I start to use the 5D MkII more in low light, I'm becoming happy to use it at ISO 3200, but I'm still exploring and I've even used it at ISO 6400, where noise also looks pretty low, although I may be losing detail due to the noise characteristics (or it could have been the relatively low shutterspeed). At all ISOs though, the 5D MkII is noticeably cleaner at 100%, but in prints, it isn't really obvious (or at 50%, which is often a better fit to prints). I also see significantly sharper images with the 5D, but some of that is also overcome with sharpening. Less definable, is the tonality of the 5D, there's just some indefinable quality and the dynamic range is certainly noticeable, which probably helps the tonality.