Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

I did it, switched the 5D for a K-x
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
i am a very big believer in the subjectivity of almost all aspects of photography, including camera choice. yes the 5d is big, and thus i find myself using olly ep2 and film rfs much more in day to day situations.

but when i have something important to shoot, without doubt i happily choose my 5d, which by far produces the highest quality images of any of the dozen or so digicams i have had, and outside of the 5d mkii, the best images ive seen on this forum for dslr.

and while this is a very subjective medium, i am very surprised that any criticism can be levelled at the 5d vf, which to me is absolutely amazing, and better to me than even my rollei rf...plus it is the only dcam i have used with totally accurate focus confirm. and its lowlight/hi iso performance is legendary.

it seems you are very happy with your penatx, which is wonderful and means you will take great pix because of that comfort level. but for me, you would have to use a gun to get my 5d away from me!


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gah, I had to come back and read this thread again, now I'm even more angry.

ManualFocus-G wrote:

My solution? Cheap full frame with great IQ (5D) and cheap crop camera body for wildlife / longer treks (Sony a450) Smile


My solution: Buy a 5Dmkii. It's cheaper than having a 5D (not so) classic and continually breaking things in anger. Also, a 40D with a Sigma 17-70 for a walkaround. Now that is a fantastic combo!

Oh and I have both cameras gripped as they're too small and light without them. But I'm more than just a little insane.
Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

I'd like the 5Dii even more if I could use all my lenses on it instead of the mirror clonkers restricted to the 40D.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laughing My solution a cheap full frame film camera + cheap expired slides + good expensive lab + medium quality scanner Wink for quality shoots at infinity distance for everything else I am just fine cheap used Panasonic G1


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
Gah, I had to come back and read this thread again, now I'm even more angry.

ManualFocus-G wrote:

My solution? Cheap full frame with great IQ (5D) and cheap crop camera body for wildlife / longer treks (Sony a450) Smile


My solution: Buy a 5Dmkii. It's cheaper than having a 5D (not so) classic and continually breaking things in anger. Also, a 40D with a Sigma 17-70 for a walkaround. Now that is a fantastic combo!

Oh and I have both cameras gripped as they're too small and light without them. But I'm more than just a little insane.
Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

I'd like the 5Dii even more if I could use all my lenses on it instead of the mirror clonkers restricted to the 40D.


Listen beefcake, some of us only have girl sized hands and need something smaller Laughing Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:

And it needs better lenses, or rather, poor lenses appear even weaker on full frame. ;)


Quite the opposite; since the full frame image is enlarged less for a given output size the original image quality from the lens does not need to be as high. In other words, one can “get away with” lesser lens quality.

(Expanding this into even larger formats, an 8×10 camera can be built with carpentry precision and used with a simple uncoated lens and still provide amazing quality. The larger the format, the less precision and [absolute] quality is required.)

The only thing where full frame may inherently show less quality is at the edges (which would not be visible in the cropped image) but even this problem is often exaggerated by people looking at 100% crops or MTF figures to see that the quality is less on the pixel level. Meanwhile, as I said above, full frame does not require as much pixel level quality to look good in practice. (These comparisons may also be done unfairly by comparing the same lens instead of a lens with the same field of view; it's harder to make wider lens with good edges.)



Edit: As much as I dislike Ken Rockwell in general, his article on the full frame advantage does have an interesting comparison of cheap zoom on 5D vs expensive prime on D200.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:

And it needs better lenses, or rather, poor lenses appear even weaker on full frame. Wink


Quite the opposite; since the full frame image is enlarged less for a given output size the original image quality from the lens does not need to be as high. In other words, one can “get away with” lesser lens quality.

(Expanding this into even larger formats, an 8×10 camera can be built with carpentry precision and used with a simple uncoated lens and still provide amazing quality. The larger the format, the less precision and [absolute] quality is required.)

The only thing where full frame may inherently show less quality is at the edges (which would not be visible in the cropped image) but even this problem is often exaggerated by people looking at 100% crops or MTF figures to see that the quality is less on the pixel level. Meanwhile, as I said above, full frame does not require as much pixel level quality to look good in practice. (These comparisons may also be done unfairly by comparing the same lens instead of a lens with the same field of view; it's harder to make wider lens with good edges.)



Edit: As much as I dislike Ken Rockwell in general, his article on the full frame advantage does have an interesting comparison of cheap zoom on 5D vs expensive prime on D200.


+1 I agree with Arkku and I have verified it by myself
and I also agree with Rockwell, a cheap zoom on 5D can give better image than a expensive lens on crop
today I used the contax 80-200 in a swimming pool and I stay impressed;
on 40D crop, it never shined and I rated it behind prime
it is a waste to use great lenses on crop


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cited from the Ken Rockwell article linked above

"In the few rare cases that something will sit around and wait for me, I'll pull out my klunky Canon 5D"

"The only way to see any of these [...] differences is [...] when printed really big and you're looking too closely."

This is sounding more and more like one of the discussions on quality between high end audiophiles...


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
for someone who have used film camera, a 5D is more than enough but new users want more


That's actually my case Very Happy It's more than enough , i'm very happy !

Ok, now the debate is about weight, ergonomics of 5D , which are just enough, without "silly" predefined modes, in my opinion useless. As for Wb i bitch a lot, but now it's over i found a correct one, and even if i have LR.

Now let's talk about image quality, a main point on DSLR. The 5D can't be judged as "bad' , even if ergonomix , LCD and stuff aren't your taste, the IQ is unbeatable even 5 years after.

So if we are on Mr Rockwell's quotes, read this one :

Quote:
The Canon 5D is sharper than the $5,000 Nikon D3, and the 5D sells for less than half the price.

The Canon 5D is the world's best portrait and landscape camera for under $8,000. The images look fantastic, and it runs forever on a single charge. Unlike pro cameras, it's light enough to want to take in your backpack everywhere to bring back extraordinary images.

How good is it? The 5D doesn't handle as fast as a Nikon and isn't built anywhere near as tough as a pro Nikon, but if your subject holds still and you aren't shooting in the rain, the 5D easily can exceed the technical quality of anything from Nikon


By the way nothing personal, just admit that the 5D isn't so crap Wink


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hexi wrote:
Now let's talk about image quality, a main point on DSLR. The 5D can't be judged as "bad' , even if ergonomix , LCD and stuff aren't your taste, the IQ is unbeatable even 5 years after.


I never said it's bad, in fact apart from the awful WB, I loved the vibrancy of images shot with my 5D. A pity it's so clunky as to be awful in use, thus killing a big part of the joy in taking pictures.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ludoo wrote:
Cited from the Ken Rockwell article linked above


Yeah, these kinds of quotes (which I didn't want to repeat) are a good reason to ignore 99% of what he says. However, in this particular instance I linked to his article because it was the photo comparison easiest to find showing full frame vs APS-C. The most important quote would be:

Quote:
Feel free not to read anything and just look at the examples.


(Also the fact that he used a 5D for the comparison was coincidental, I'm not at all a fan of Canon ergonomics myself, I consider them the worst of all brands.)

In fact my post was merely directed at the erroneous claim about full frame requiring higher quality lenses, and thus may be considered completely off-topic in this thread. Sorry. =)


PostPosted: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
Wow. A brave step that not many will understand.
But as mo said "in the end it comes down to what you like..." and that's true.


Include me in the 'not many ' Smile

Pete


PostPosted: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

Just try to work creatively on the depth of field... APS-C kills most of it.


I don't think so

Pete


PostPosted: Sun Oct 03, 2010 5:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I see Smile
With a small camera, I am of the impression that even firing the shutter will cause hand shake. I am constantly of this feeling when using the M9.
I feel like walking on a ropes bridge, if you ever tried one: ondulating like a ship on open sea Smile
But it's not just my impression: my rate of keepers in portrait orientation photos has significantly improved since I am using the battery grip. Now I am able to shoot 135mm lenses at speeds like 1/80 and get perfectly steady images. That was just a dream for me without the grip.


Using a slightly larger Pentax as the K-x I can go as low as 1/30 on 135mm, without a grip. With the shakereduction switched off I have no big difference in amount of camera shake between my old istds and my K20D, despite the size difference.
If you use classic lenses a body with a built-in anti shake mechanism is a big advantage.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 03, 2010 12:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ludoo wrote:

This is sounding more and more like one of the discussions on quality between high end audiophiles...


Ludoo,
the best thing about the large offerings of cameras, is that everyone can pick his favourite, for what serves him best, or feels him best. So you surely did what was best for you.

Having that said, if you make a public forum thread about this, you have to expect that people who think differently express their objections.
You can not expect that your own choice is agreed 100% by everyone, and considered the best choice by everyone, or that if you feel that the 5D is klunky,
everyone feels that way, especially when there are so many satisfied 5D full frame users around.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 03, 2010 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow, from FF Canon 5D to APS-C Pentax K-x..costing now what, some 400+ usd new?

my first dSLR was the Pentax *istDs, now I am using the K-x
great handling, small physical size, good viewfinders, good sensors, now with inbody shake reduction.
I have done many handheld shots with 1/10 sec or even slower shutter speeds
for my travels using M42 lenses I would not want any other camera.

ludoo wrote:

As for the cropped format I don't mind it, in fact I prefer APS-C over FF as I mostly shoot people with normal or short tele lenses. 2x crop would be too much, but I like 1.5 where a fast, cheap, good quality 55mm serves my purposes very well and is much lighter than a fast 85mm.....


YES! a small 50/55/58 MF lens on the *istDs / K-x is my favorite too, what an amazing combo, small but powerful, it is!

Orio wrote:

..Just try to work creatively on the depth of field... APS-C kills most of it..

hm, Orio I certainly think that one can do creative DOF on APS-C!
I think that even I, a relatively inexperienced hobby photographer, have been demonstrating that


PostPosted: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:

Orio wrote:

..Just try to work creatively on the depth of field... APS-C kills most of it..

hm, Orio I certainly think that one can do creative DOF on APS-C!
I think that even I, a relatively inexperienced hobby photographer, have been demonstrating that


Kuuan, yours are great pictures.
I personally can not speak for you, I can only speak for my own experience of a user of both APS-C and full frame camera.
Whenever I move from full frame to APS-C, I feel I lose the subtlelty of the rendering in the IF-OOF transitions. My pics feel more of a "wham", in or out of focus. I feel I miss gradation, but maybe it's my wrong impression and/or my limited abilities.
OR perhaps it's the Canon's APS-C that are limited in performance compared to Pentax'ss, I have no idea since I never used the Pentax.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Having that said, if you make a public forum thread about this, you have to expect that people who think differently express their objections.
You can not expect that your own choice is agreed 100% by everyone, and considered the best choice by everyone, or that if you feel that the 5D is klunky, everyone feels that way, especially when there are so many satisfied 5D full frame users around.


Sure, I was saying exactly that: after a certain point in quality it's down to a matter of personal preference. Trying to convince others of our own choices is useless, especially since some of the arguments start sounding too much like esoteric stuff. Smile

kuuan wrote:
Wow, from FF Canon 5D to APS-C Pentax K-x..costing now what, some 400+ usd new?


Unfortunately more 500€ than 400$, 520€ with the kit lens to be exact. Anyway, I see I'm not alone in loving this wonderful little camera, and the advantages of the 1.5x crop factor. Smile


PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 1:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
kuuan wrote:

Orio wrote:

..Just try to work creatively on the depth of field... APS-C kills most of it..

hm, Orio I certainly think that one can do creative DOF on APS-C!
I think that even I, a relatively inexperienced hobby photographer, have been demonstrating that


Kuuan, yours are great pictures.
I personally can not speak for you, I can only speak for my own experience of a user of both APS-C and full frame camera.
Whenever I move from full frame to APS-C, I feel I lose the subtlelty of the rendering in the IF-OOF transitions. My pics feel more of a "wham", in or out of focus. I feel I miss gradation, but maybe it's my wrong impression and/or my limited abilities.
OR perhaps it's the Canon's APS-C that are limited in performance compared to Pentax'ss, I have no idea since I never used the Pentax.


Orio I should believe you, I do not have experience with FF, and it is a simple fact that dof on FF is more shallow than on APS-C. But since I have been playing a lot with shallow dof on APS-C the wording that APS-C 'kills most of it' IMO is far too strong. DOF on my Pentax is shallow enough for me, well, specially when using fast 50mm lenses, though it's a different story with wider lenses.

DOF of a f1.4/50 on APS-C ( though I am not sure if I got the f stop calculation right ) equals dof of a f1.9/75mm on full frame, but with the advantage of light gathering of a f1.4, an advantage of APS-C! DOF is just marginally deeper than on a f1.8/85 on FF, you would have to get a f1.4/85 for your FF camera to make a real difference. Roughly the same applies to longer lenses.

Of course the story is altogether different with wider lenses, specially fast 50mm lenses on FF have nothing comparable on APS-C. On the wide end FF cameras do have a great advantage, actually a very attractive advantage for me because I mostly use normal to wide lenses. In case I had experience with FF very likely I would be taken in by these advantages.

But again: specially using my 50/55/58mm lenses on APS-C I can play creatively with DOF on APS-C, and because of in body stabilizer even better than on any current FF body.


ludoo wrote:
Orio wrote:
Having that said, if you make a public forum thread about this, you have to expect that people who think differently express their objections.
You can not expect that your own choice is agreed 100% by everyone, and considered the best choice by everyone, or that if you feel that the 5D is klunky, everyone feels that way, especially when there are so many satisfied 5D full frame users around.


Sure, I was saying exactly that: after a certain point in quality it's down to a matter of personal preference. Trying to convince others of our own choices is useless, especially since some of the arguments start sounding too much like esoteric stuff. Smile

kuuan wrote:
Wow, from FF Canon 5D to APS-C Pentax K-x..costing now what, some 400+ usd new?


Unfortunately more 500€ than 400$, 520€ with the kit lens to be exact. Anyway, I see I'm not alone in loving this wonderful little camera, and the advantages of the 1.5x crop factor. Smile


I had bought mine, body only, for 500 Euro 8 month ago. I presumed that prices must have dropped, in Japan body only sells for slightly less than 400 usd.

Exactly, it is personal preference, resp. intended use.
If I was using my lenses mostly 'at home, on tripod' asf. I would want a FF! But for me personally, shooting on the road, the advantages of my small APS-C Pentax outweigh those of the FF offerings


PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 1:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Kuuan, perhaps I should have said "kills most of the pleasure for me".
That would have been more politically correct and still retain the meaning Smile

I do not certainly intend to look down on APS-C format.
I have always used it since 2003, and plan continue using it, although perhaps I'll take a short break since I am going to sell my 50D and not planning to replace it in the short term, since the 60D lacks features that I'd want.

For me the advantage of APS-C is in the possibility of shooting medium tele lenses (lightweight) and obtain an angle of view equal to that of a long tele lens. True, I could also shoot on FF and then crop; but the current breed of APS-C cameras (such as the 50D or 7D) offer more resolution than an APS-C cropped picture of a 5DMkII.

I also have sincerely to say that if I had to do work that involves shallow dof use, the thought of doing it with my APS-C would never cross my mind. Then of course APS-C users are free to disagree, but let's not forget the basis of the facts, otherwise, who's relying on esoteric arguments? Wink


PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
..... Then of course APS-C users are free to disagree, but let's not forget the basis of the facts, otherwise, who's relying on esoteric arguments? Wink


esoteric fact picture
no pp f3.5
Smile
Pete


PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 5:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Transit, even a compact camera would wholly blur the background at macro position Wink
Anyway, it's not just the DOF that is different in an APS-C camera compared to a full frame. Exposure latitude is, too - and this is an important difference, because it means more room to play with exposure in difficult situations. Signal to noise ratio is different, and, given the same number of MP, always better in full frame, which means neater images that look better and print better.
So, one can choose an APS-C camera over a full frame for a number of reasons, all valid, but image quality can not be really one of them, unless one evaluates it on a totally subjective meter.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Transit, even a compact camera would wholly blur the background at macro position Wink


sounds like a load of bull to me Mate Wink
I stepped way back with the ancient Tamron 300.
how's the blur ? Smile

Pete

no pp f8



PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Kuuan, perhaps I should have said "kills most of the pleasure for me".
That would have been more politically correct and still retain the meaning Smile

I do not certainly intend to look down on APS-C format.
I have always used it since 2003, and plan continue using it, although perhaps I'll take a short break since I am going to sell my 50D and not planning to replace it in the short term, since the 60D lacks features that I'd want.

For me the advantage of APS-C is in the possibility of shooting medium tele lenses (lightweight) and obtain an angle of view equal to that of a long tele lens. True, I could also shoot on FF and then crop; but the current breed of APS-C cameras (such as the 50D or 7D) offer more resolution than an APS-C cropped picture of a 5DMkII.

I also have sincerely to say that if I had to do work that involves shallow dof use, the thought of doing it with my APS-C would never cross my mind. Then of course APS-C users are free to disagree, but let's not forget the basis of the facts, otherwise, who's relying on esoteric arguments? Wink


Orio I understand and accept your reasoning. I don't doubt a minute that FF is better for shallow dof play.

here my account though:
today I was in the biggest camera store in Osaka.

Played with Canon 1D and 1Ds IV and 5DII...great cameras, but man, I would never seriously think of carrying any of those instead of my K-x which is so very light and tiny tiny in comparison. Ok, the 1D is much bigger than the 5D II..even the Pentax 645D ( yes, they also had one not only on display, and free to use - I inserted my SD card and made a few test shots Smile ) felt lighter, though objectively not true, I guess, anyway much more pleasant to hold than the 1D!

But then again I could not imagine using pretty much any of all these AF lenses I saw today, even primes, not only zooms, other than the small Pentax, because most seem so huge and heavy too!

For my use the smallness of my camera + M42 prime is essential!

and still playing with shallow DOF on APS-C not only crosses my mind but is one of the things I enjoy doing most! I do not need the shallowness of a f1.4 lens on FF for that, recently I even prefer, for using wide open wanting circular oof highlights without aperture blade corners, my f2/55 and f2/58 lenses over my f1.4/50, and that on APS-C, because of their deeper dof Smile

best regards,
Andreas


PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Andreas wrote:
Played with Canon 1D and 1Ds IV and 5DII...great cameras, but man, I would never seriously think of carrying any of those instead of my K-x which is so very light and tiny tiny in comparison

what a pity that they didn't had a Leica M9 at Osaka
crop body range for very small (Nex 5) to large (7D)
size of body is not proportional to the size of the sensor
a Full Frame body could be small like your K-x but most people have normal sized hand and appreciate bright and big viewfinder
I had a 40D (crop) and now a 5DII and they have the same size
my lenses sing Opera on FF, on the crop they sound like Karaoke
if you like Karaoke, it is OK for me but don't mix size of body with size of sensor


PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
a Full Frame body could be small like your K-x but most people have normal sized hand and appreciate bright and big viewfinder


Erm, I have huge hands (I can comfortably hold a basketball upside down with one hand), but I still hate the size of the 5D. The equation large hands == big camera is simply a myth. And Pentax cameras *have* large viewfinders, the difference with a 5D is easily compensated with a 1.2x magnifier.

Quote:
I had a 40D (crop) and now a 5DII and they have the same size
my lenses sing Opera on FF, on the crop they sound like Karaoke
if you like Karaoke, it is OK for me but don't mix size of body with size of sensor


Pah! Tons of pro photographers shoot with APS-C bodies and manage to produce stunning pictures. I think you are simply in love with technical qualities, photography is a different thing.

Even inside this forum, I have seen beautiful shots from Attila or Rolf (I think, cant remember exactly but it was a night shot) with Hexanon AR lenses on a Panasonic G1, 2x crop.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 2 of 7