(no prefix)

Status
Not open for further replies.
EOS_JD said:
Hi Andrew, you're located not too far from me :)

Whilst the top 2 images are nice, that bottom one has a funny blurry streak down the right side going through the eye that loos a bit odd? Did it not look nice in shadow?

JD
Click to expand...

hi - I'm near Biggar. You possibly see some of my work most weeks if you buy the local paper.

Hadn't noticed the 'blurry streak' and I have an 18" sq print of this one on the wall. Maybe is due to PP but I still can't see it really. It could be down to lightening shadows though.
 
POAH said:
I see no difference in quality etc between my 40D and 5D2 for an A4 print.
Click to expand...

Great comment :thumbs:

Realistic, honest, true. If you look at an A4 print from a normal viewing distance (the distance of the diagonal, ie about 15in) you will not be able to see the difference.

It's your eyes that are the limiting factor, which is the whole basis for all sharpness measurements, circle of confusion, depth of field etc. It is not based on 100% viewing on a PC.

Dogfish_magnet said:
Thats interesting - post a link to some full size images so i can have a peek / print - what glass are you using ?
Click to expand...

And that's where it all goes wrong! If you do that, you'll never be happy.
 
awp said:
Here's a few portraits with a crop sensor (D2Hs) at only 4 megapixels - and they still print to 18" x 12"

AW3_2528-Edit.jpg
Click to expand...

Isn't this what it's about? All you need is "enough" resolution, then you need a great subject and great light.

Just look at that beautiful girl - the natural smile, the soft modelling and shadows from wonderful light.

That'll do me :thumbs: And I don't suppose her mum said ooh, if only you'd used full frame!
 
This is a pic from my 450D:



​

Taken with a "nifty Fifty" at 1/200sec at 400 ISO.

This is a 100% crop from the pic:



​

I don't know if a 5D would be any better or sharper but that pic could easily be blown up to 30x24 inches with no problems.
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
Thats interesting - post a link to some full size images so i can have a peek / print - what glass are you using ?
Click to expand...


its irrelavent

1/ looking at a full sized image on screen is far far too big comapred to an A4 print.

2/ 5D2 demands more from the glass than the 40D.


Given the same DOF an A4 portrait looks no different wither shot on a 40D or a 5D2. yes the 5D2 may be better on super close inspection but I don't look at A4 prints under a loupe.
 
POAH said:
its irrelavent

1/ looking at a full sized image on screen is far far too big comapred to an A4 print.

2/ 5D2 demands more from the glass than the 40D.


Given the same DOF an A4 portrait looks no different wither shot on a 40D or a 5D2. yes the 5D2 may be better on super close inspection but I don't look at A4 prints under a loupe.
Click to expand...

Whats irrelevant :thinking:

Post a couple of links so i can print and compare - as this was not the case with my 50D .
 
HoppyUK said:
Isn't this what it's about? All you need is "enough" resolution, then you need a great subject and great light.

Just look at that beautiful girl - the natural smile, the soft modelling and shadows from wonderful light.

That'll do me :thumbs: And I don't suppose her mum said ooh, if only you'd used full frame!
Click to expand...

Thanks Hoppy - my daughter - and yes, her mum likes it too! :) It's framed on her wall.
 
awp said:
hi - I'm near Biggar. You possibly see some of my work most weeks if you buy the local paper.

Hadn't noticed the 'blurry streak' and I have an 18" sq print of this one on the wall. Maybe is due to PP but I still can't see it really. It could be down to lightening shadows though.
Click to expand...

I'm Hamilton so your local rag is not the one I buy - :) Yes I think it is maybe the shadow recovery tool. The lighting is great though - it's the lightened eye that caught my attention at first but odd that the more I look at it the less I see it now :)
 
Quick question, Simon... Are YOU happy with the portrait shots you're getting from your 50D? If the answer's 'yes', then everything that's been said here is pretty academic. :)

Cheers,
Si
 
Nifkin said:
Why yes I am... but that doesn't mean my OP wasn't worth asking. I haven't been togging for that long, so of course there is plenty of room for improvement with regards to technique and approach. And I'm not the sort of person who thinks that upgrading one's equipment will yield an overnight improvement in results; I think that attitude (which does exist in abundance) is a load of nonsense. I guess my main concern is whether an APS-C camera can produce saleable portraits, and posts here have convinced me it is possible; there's nowt wrong with A4-sized portraits for a lot of people, after all.

There's a lot of sound advice in this forum, but also a lot of gear-head nonsense too. Sometimes I think people spend more time worrying about how great their gear is and slagging of other people's equipment choices than actually caring about the art and craft of the medium itself. I've enjoyed the responses in this thread, coz it's nice to hear from people who don't think that you have to buy the biggest/bestest/most expensive, or have a full-on pro kit, to actually achieve great pictures. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Simon
Just to let you know I have a 24x16 print from my 20D on my wall and looks great. Could easily have gone larger. You don't need the latest cameras to do that. Sure we all want the best but funds dictate :) I'm a gear head too by the way! Just sometimes I sit and think about it before throwing my money around.
 
Nifkin said:
So POAH, essentially you're saying that, at A4 sizes, you can't see the difference between prints from a 5DmkII and a 40D, but the difference between a 5DmkII and a 50D is, to use Magnet's well-worn phrase, 'like night and day'? Now that is nonsense.
Click to expand...

at A4 the resolution difference makes no odds whatsoever. What the 5dII does have over the 50d (or 7d or any other cropped camera I have used) is the smooth tonal graduation and the beautiful colourings.
 
I'd say the main difference is the ability to crop more and that those smooth gradations will help a lot. Not so much sure about the colouring though - looks black the same as my 40D ;)
 
Nifkin - The only way you'll find out is to try a FF body, we can post till were blue in the face and in the end it boils down to what you want and think - nobody else. As for the 50D i personally just didn't like it - my Nikon D300 was far better and i preferred my D70s images at low ISO's .
 
Nifkin said:
Why yes I am... but that doesn't mean my OP wasn't worth asking...
Click to expand...

That's good Simon... I didn't say that your original post wasn't worth asking; I merely suggested that the only person you should be convincing is yourself. :)

You're right that there's a lot of good information to be had on here. I guess that's why we keep coming back. ;) There's also a fair few people on here who own certain bits of kit that they've paid their hard-earned for and can't see any faults in it no matter how reasonable the argument.

By the way, I tried clicking on the 'Nifkin Puffoon Photography' bit in your signature but it doesn't work. I'd be interested to see how you do with your 50D. :)

Cheers,
Si
 
you'd probably not be able to tell the difference between the 40D and the 50D either on an A4 print. the 50D does have more noise than the 40D at all ISO's so you may see that in the OOF areas but probably not. Since I use my camera alot in very low light at high ISO's the 40D was superior to that of the 50D (&7D)


Nifkin said:
So POAH, essentially you're saying that, at A4 sizes, you can't see the difference between prints from a 5DmkII and a 40D, but the difference between a 5DmkII and a 50D is, to use Magnet's well-worn phrase, 'like night and day'? Now that is nonsense.

Shame, coz I thought your earlier posts were interesting and well informed :D
Click to expand...
 
Simon, APS-C and FF are both fine. I have no reservations using my 40D over 1Ds2 and even prefer it sometimes due to easier handling a lower weight. 1Ds does produce better colours and focusing is in a different league altogether. 5D should have even better colours as it is 3rd gen FF sensor, but focusing is perhaps not at 1-series level. Perhaps it is not enough to require an upgrade though. Pros use crop cameras and get good results. Technique is the most important part. But if you need to buy a new *toy* then it is time for a change.
 
Nifkin said:
Exactly, D; Of course technique is the most important part, as I addressed in my posts #12 and #55. As for whether I want a new toy or not, see my post #21; I want what I need, not what I think I should have. And if I already have what I need, then bluddy marvellous! :lol:

Perhaps I shouldn't have said 'is there anybody here who can convince me that [full frame] it's not entirely necessary?' in my OP; I don't really need to be convinced of anything, but I'm glad to hear people's views :thumbs:

Now, as I've said a couple of times before, my mind has been put to rest by the opinions here, and I don't think I really need to upgrade just yet; I'll give it another year yet! ;)
Click to expand...

That's quite a revealing comment.

What's going to be different in another year? Are your portrait clients going to suddenly get very picky? Are your standards suddenly going to get higher?

Or will you just be better able to afford it then? ;)
 
Nifkin said:
Nah, it was just a joke, like; hence the ;)

I'm happy with what I've got for now (although I do hope to get a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 for me birthday!) :lol:
Click to expand...

On a crop I always wanted the Sigma 30mm f1.4
 
Nifkin said:
Nah, it was just a joke, like; hence the ;)

I'm happy with what I've got for now (although I do hope to get a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 for me birthday!) :lol:
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like you're in denial Simon.

But luckily the Sigma 50 1.4 is compatible with full frame ;)
 
Simon,

This thread has amused me no end after you kept ribbing me about my thread on an almost identical topic you've pretty much asked the same questions!!

and pretty much came to the same conclusion

what gives dude?
 
without wishing to stoke the flames of brand rivalries too hard, it might be worth pointing out that, not too long ago, if you wanted to take portrait photos with a Nikon DSLR, an APS-C body was your only option...

:)
 
Nifkin said:
WTF Joe? Have you read this thread? Let me reiterate my reiterate my intentions for you;


  • [*]I want to develop as a portrait photographer
  • This could possibly include receiving payment for the portraits I take
  • I have no intention of giving up my day job or becoming a 'professional' tog

    [*]I wanted to find out if people do or do not use an APS-C type camera to prodcuce saleable portraits, or if I'd just be wasting my time until I move to full-frame

    [*]I'm not interested in a discussion about the pros and cons of particular brands or models, just different sensor sizes
Click to expand...

These were the exact same points I started my thread for

Nifkin said:
This query was spurred by the seemingly general consensus on here and other forums that 'crop is for wildlife/sports, FF for portraits/landscapes'; surely you're familiar with that position?
Click to expand...

again exactly what I was asking

Nifkin said:
If I was itching to upgrade (or worried about other people's comments concerning my equipment, which is what your recent thread was actually about Joe)
Click to expand...

I wasn't worried about peoples comments concerning my equipment I was asking exactly the same q as you. But instead of saying Is APS-C ok for portrait vs full frame I asked is the 7d good enough for portrait against the 5d - same question but with models instead.
 
Nifkin said:
Oh I seeeeee... just another excuse to start one of your semantics-based niggly arguments eh, Joe? Here was your question:

"So I was wondering why so many people bash the 7d when it comes to portraits and landscapes over the 5d.

Now I understand why the 5d is a better tool for portraits and landscapes given the full frame, larger sensor and higher dynamic range.

But is the 7d worse at taking portraits and landscapes than the 20d, 30d, 40d, 50d, 350d, 400d 450d etc?

you rarely see someone saying that these cameras aren't cut out for taking portrait and landscapes but you often hear it about the 7d and I wondered why that is.

Is it because the 7d is comparable in some ways to the 5d whereas the others aren't? I guess I'm just wondering is there something missing from the 7d that is found in all the lower models that makes it worse for taking portrait and landscapes then they are? and if the answer is no then why don't we mention that the 5d is better for this type of photography than all the other models too?"

As you can see:
  • You did not specifiy anything like the intentions that are in the bullet points in my previous post
  • I'm not asking about landscapes
  • I'm not bothered, which a large part of your query was concerned with, as to why my 50D gets slagged for certain things, whereas other similar bodies don't appear to be. My query was about sensor sizes, NOT brands and models.
  • I am not looking for reassurance that my 50D is as good as a 40D or 7D.
  • You are a self confessed gear head; in fact, out ofthe regular contributors to the forum, you are the most gear oriented.
Click to expand...

No need to quote my question since I wrote it I remember what I said. You can nit pick all you want mate about specific semantics of the exact words I used but my question was totally the same thing, if you actually read through the thread and not just the first question, and you bashed me for it.

Sorry mate but you're being a complete hypocrite here with this thread
 
Now now boys..... Lets keep it friendly - things are easily misread on forums -
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top