Camera upgrade. add [extra mad money]

[Smoove910]

Why all the Canon recommendations?

Simply.... because OP mentioned three Canon cameras and was asking about them.

I'd love to recommend the K5 as well, but it was not mentioned in his list.

 

[finbarqs]

I have a 5D Mark 2, had a D300, Panasonic DMC-L1, XTi, and on the film side, Asahi Pentax 6x7, and a Nikon FE.

MP ARE important relative to the size of prints he is going to make. However, Pixel Density is important in regards to IQ (less chance of diffraction with lower MP cameras)

Just think of this way, do you need more frame coverage? Can you live with a permanent 1.5-1.6x smaller crop?

Do you want video? All in All, I would go for the insanely awesome Sigma SD-1 (though I don't know how well it shoots low light) 15MP foveon ftw! Now we just want that in a FF format, and game over!

 

[iGas]

I have a 5D Mark 2, had a D300, Panasonic DMC-L1, XTi, and on the film side, Asahi Pentax 6x7, and a Nikon FE.

MP ARE important relative to the size of prints he is going to make. However, Pixel Density is important in regards to IQ (less chance of diffraction with lower MP cameras)

Just think of this way, do you need more frame coverage? Can you live with a permanent 1.5-1.6x smaller crop?

Do you want video? All in All, I would go for the insanely awesome Sigma SD-1 (though I don't know how well it shoots low light) 15MP foveon ftw! Now we just want that in a FF format, and game over!

I don't need video that why I was thinking of the Canon 5D.

1.5~1.6 crop would throw my current lenses focal length out of whack. I might as well go to another brand if I drop down in CMOS size.

I might just go for the Canon PS S95 for my vacation in a couple of weeks it got good review by Ken Rockwell). And, wait and see what the Sigma SD-1 has to offer before I make the decision on a 5D MKII, or SD-1.

 

[GoSharks]

What lenses do you actually have? Are they worth keeping?

 

[iGas]

What lenses do you actually have? Are they worth keeping?

20mm, 50mm, 85mm, 28-105mm, 100-300mm.

Rarely use 50mm & 100-300mm, commonly use 28~105mm & 20mm, and 85mm occasionally.

I still have a 6x6 medium format system with 3 lenses that I might get rid off because I haven't use it in years.

 

[finbarqs]

1.5 ~ 1.6 will not through any focal length out of whack... a 35mm is still a 35mm... an 85mm will STILL be an 85mm. What changes is the FOV (field of view). Best way to think about it is that imagine that you take a picture that was a 8x12 size. Now crop that image 40% less horizontal, and 40% less vertical, and that's what you're gonna get with the APS-C crop size. Blow that picture up 100% to 8x12 again, and boom... that's what crop sensor does!

The SD-1 is just too awesome to pass, makes me wanna consider switching systems!

 

[iGas]

1.5 ~ 1.6 will not through any focal length out of whack... a 35mm is still a 35mm... an 85mm will STILL be an 85mm. What changes is the FOV (field of view). Best way to think about it is that imagine that you take a picture that was a 8x12 size. Now crop that image 40% less horizontal, and 40% less vertical, and that's what you're gonna get with the APS-C crop size. Blow that picture up 100% to 8x12 again, and boom... that's what crop sensor does!

The SD-1 is just too awesome to pass, makes me wanna consider switching systems!

Am I getting this right for 35mm to APS-C view of field crop?

20mm = 32mm (no longer an ultra wide)
50mm = 80mm
85mm = 136mm (too long for my taste)
28~105mm = 44.8~168mm (useless focal length for me)
100~300 = 160~480mm (useless focal length for me)

If the above is the case, then only the 50mm is useful for me.

PS. The SD-1 would make an awesome macro & wide landscape camera with out the medium format bulk.

 

[finbarqs]

yeah... it's about 44% tighter, but your DOF remains unaffected.

 

[finbarqs]

btw, sigma's also APS-C, but you'd have to change systems... the APS-C system in sigma is just a hair larger than nikon's APS-C sensor.

 

[Sp12]

Am I getting this right for 35mm to APS-C view of field crop?

20mm = 32mm (no longer an ultra wide)
50mm = 80mm
85mm = 136mm (too long for my taste)
28~105mm = 44.8~168mm (useless focal length for me)
100~300 = 160~480mm (useless focal length for me)

If the above is the case, then only the 50mm is useful for me.

PS. The SD-1 would make an awesome macro & wide landscape camera with out the medium format bulk.

For a 1.6 crop, yes. That is the 'effective' field of view.

But frankly there are no compelling 1.6 crops on Canon. For 1.3 crops there's the 1D series though.

All of those lenses are very old, correct? Like Canon doesn't make/service the 20, 28-105, or 100-300?

 

[iGas]

For a 1.6 crop, yes. That is the 'effective' field of view.

But frankly there are no compelling 1.6 crops on Canon. For 1.3 crops there's the 1D series though.

All of those lenses are very old, correct? Like Canon doesn't make/service the 20, 28-105, or 100-300?

Yes they are old but all good sharp lenses. I think Canon still produce the 20mm, and both of the USM zoom are now replaced by USM II/III or IS versions. And, the 50mm & 85mm are tack sharp.

 

[ElFenix]

yeah... it's about 44% tighter, but your DOF remains unaffected.

what? no. you lose over a stop of DoF control going from 35mm --> APS. an f/2.8 lens on APS is like an ~f/4.2 lens on APS.

 

[iGas]

what? no. you lose over a stop of DoF control going from 35mm --> APS. an f/2.8 lens on APS is like an ~f/4.2 lens on APS.

That mean I couldn't get good boken for any of my lenses, except maybe the 50mm f1.4, and the 85mm f1.8 become utterly garbage for boken.

 

[BigSmooth]

If you want to keep using those lenses I would definitely go full frame. Get a 5D mkII if possible.

 

[Sp12]

what? no. you lose over a stop of DoF control going from 35mm --> APS. an f/2.8 lens on APS is like an ~f/4.2 lens on APS.

That's not 'quite' how it works. The DOF stays the same between different sensor formats. The difference is the framing. To get the same framing for shot on a 50mm, you'd have to stand 1.6x the distance from your subject away. As we all know, the further the distance the greater our plane of acceptable sharpness is.

You still get bokeh, but very much only at the effective focal length.

 

[iGas]

I bought the Canon PS S95 yesterday, and it is a great camera with loads of features in a pocket size camera. The best feature of the camera is the fast f/2 that allow for low light shooting, focus and tracking is much better than any camera that I ever own, nice aperture priority mode as well as miniature & saturation mode.

Still image are great, however it was a bit awkward at viewing the subject with out a viewfinder. And, the video mode (720p) is incredible on this camera.

I would love to see a FF Sigma camera body with Foveon sensor due to the fact that Sigma have a much fuller line of 35mm lens.

 

[finbarqs]

what? no. you lose over a stop of DoF control going from 35mm --> APS. an f/2.8 lens on APS is like an ~f/4.2 lens on APS.

Negatory. You don't loose DOF at the ACTUAL focal length. You'll loose DOF at the GIVEN Field of View (which I find it to be just confusing marketing terminology)

To make things Easier, just think what a crop sensor is:

Cropped. Your image that you take, but cropped. Your bokeh Remains EXACTLY the same as you would see in a full frame 35mm, but just less coverage.

Sure you can convert all you want, and give it equivalent values, but one thing is 100% certain: you just have a high MP "Tighter-cropped" image.

Canon backs this with their sensor comparison chart. There's no zoom, (unless you count it as "digital zoom") as optically, you're seeing the SAME image, just smaller, but higher MP to blow up to a bigger size. That's where Pixel Density comes to play.

SP12 is right on the nose. You're thinking in terms of Field of View. Which EXACTLY means: Because it's cropped, it "should be a longer focal length, and the bokeh SHOULD increase dramatically because of the longer focal length but it doesn't so we'll have to increase the f-number".

Remember 3 things affect DOF: Aperture, Focal Length, and focus point (Distance between subject and the camera)

 

[spikespiegal]

I mean, Pentax's crop sensor outdoes Canon's flagship full-frame in overall IQ,

I realize Pentax and Olympus users live in a reality distortion field and like to take shots at FF cameras every 10 minutes because they don't have one, but this is laughable. I've noted that hardcore Nikon users using the same sensor as the K5 know better than to make comments like this.

iGas, if you can afford full frame GO for full frame. The reason 99% of us are shooting APS-C is because we either can't afford to go full frame, or have an obsession shooting birds. Simply pick up and look through a 5DII or D3 and compare it to *any* APS-C camera and you'll quickly realize the compromises cropped sensors make. If you're coming from a film SLR world full frame will be easier to transition to.

APS-C was implemented because full frame bodies are so expensive and camera makers needed a way to reduce costs and get quality dSLRs to consumers below $1,000 - period. APS-C *was not* invented because it's makes your lenses act longer than they are or has any other advantage. Also, I have a new 60D, and if anybody wants to trade it for their 5DII I'll pay shipping.

 

[GoSharks]

iGas, if you can afford full frame GO for full frame. The reason 99% of us are shooting APS-C is because we either can't afford to go full frame, or have an obsession shooting birds. Simply pick up and look through a 5DII or D3 and compare it to *any* APS-C camera and you'll quickly realize the compromises cropped sensors make. If you're coming from a film SLR world full frame will be easier to transition to.

Don't act like everybody that isn't shooting birds wants full frame. Many people just don't give a shit, and others just prefer a smaller/lighter camera.

I pretty much never shoot low-light and full frame size and weight would just make things harder.

 

[Sp12]

I realize Pentax and Olympus users live in a reality distortion field and like to take shots at FF cameras every 10 minutes because they don't have one, but this is laughable. I've noted that hardcore Nikon users using the same sensor as the K5 know better than to make comments like this.

While the D7000's sensor is very good (matches Canon's and Nikon's old full frame offerings), Pentax pulled some proprietary magic to get the CD, FPS, and DR up even more for this sensor. I'll leave this as mah proofs. I also like how I'm labelled a Pentax user despite having a 1DsII.

iGas, if you can afford full frame GO for full frame. The reason 99% of us are shooting APS-C is because we either can't afford to go full frame, or have an obsession shooting birds.

Many types of shooting (sports, performances, outdoor sports, wildlife, travel) must be foreign/difficult for you If you'd never prefer a crop.

If you're coming from a film SLR world full frame will be easier to transition to.

A valid point.

APS-C was implemented because full frame bodies are so expensive and camera makers needed a way to reduce costs and get quality dSLRs to consumers below $1,000 - period. APS-C *was not* invented because it's makes your lenses act longer than they are or has any other advantage.

APS was around during the film era. It was only since digital's IQ improvements that it's been usable for pro applications. It does give your lenses more reach (higher megapixel density on your target), and allows for cheaper, lighter bodies. Even Canon's pro sports line is a crop sensor.


Crop is a much less expensive way to get into digital. Many pro shooters don't own a full-frame camera, while some hobbyists (like me) do. Even more people use both for different situations. It's certainly foolish to eliminate one over the other without knowing what you're shooting.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

I didn't read the whole forum, but what do you intend to shoot? The 5D Mk II is a great camera. I've always liked Nikon since going digital. For the kind of money you are going to spend, go rent a couple of cameras and actually spend a few days taking shots. Today, I would recommend the Nikon D7000. At Adorama you can get the D7000 with the excellent 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR II lens for under $2000. You can use this lens if you upgrade to an FX camera in the future.

http://www.adorama.com/INKD7000L12.html

For low light, add the $200 35mm f/1.8G

http://www.adorama.com/NK3518U.html?...e=rflAID021866

 

[iGas]

Budget is now bumped from $3K to $8K.

What to get?

Will definitely dump the old gears, possibly get an additional $2~$3K.

 

[AkumaX]

D3S? Shoot @ ISO 10000 like its nothing!

 

[BigSmooth]

Personally, I would still just get a 5D mkII - it's easier to handle than a D3S/1D mkIV, and you'd leave plenty of room in your overall budget to spend on some awesome glass. And if some of your existing lenses are "tack sharp" then it's perfectly reasonable to keep using them.

 

[Sp12]

What are you shooting? That's the primary determinant.

D3s, D7000, 5D Mark II, 1D Mark IV are the big options that come to mind.