To full frame or not to full frame....

straycat said:
keep the gf1 and learn it inside out then buy a D700 with a 50mm f1.4 and learn that inside out [still keep the gf1 as well]

easier to get results with the gf1 than the D700 untill you know what you are doing,dont rush no need.

i left my D700 home and took my LX3 [only had it a day] to one of the darkest venues.
i had better photos than the chap next to me with a gf1 and the others with DSLR.you have to know what your doing.
Click to expand...


Bit patronising. I know I can get good shots with the GF1, thanks. :)
 
david1701 said:
I think he meant knowing your equipment is of more importance than what it is ;)
Click to expand...

People with expensive pro cameras always seem to say that. I wonder why they aren't just shooting with a camera phone seeing as equipment doesn't matter. :thinking: :p

I reckon I know my GF1 pretty well - have taken thousands of shots with it.

I dunno, I probably will stick with the GF1 for a little while and see if any bargains come up. Kind of thinking of a second hand D300 at the moment, as I already have a video mode on the GF1.

Had a play with Kaouthia's D300s last night and the high ISO performance and speed of the thing is pretty impressive.
 
"Cheers Trenchers And I think you make a fair point"

I don't. The Tamron is a different and better spec than the 17-85mm and that could possibly reinforce the opinion that intrusion into the body brings little benafit as if you can make better without it what's the point. Plus EF-S limits use to EF-S bodies and means a more complex build, ie, mirror movement and more clunky noise, whilst something like the Tamron doesn't.

Anyway as to me and trench having differing views in multiple threads, such is life and it would be boring if we didn't.
 
BTW if anyone's still interested among all the bickering then I am leaning towards a second hand D300 at the moment. :)

Had a play with Kaothia off here's D300s last night and it's pretty sweet, but I'm not too bothered about the video mode.
 
woof woof said:
"Cheers Trenchers And I think you make a fair point"

I don't. The Tamron is a different and better spec than the 17-85mm and that could possibly reinforce the opinion that intrusion into the body brings little benafit as if you can make better without it what's the point. Plus EF-S limits use to EF-S bodies and means a more complex build, ie, mirror movement and more clunky noise, whilst something like the Tamron doesn't.

Anyway as to me and trench having differing views in multiple threads, such is life and it would be boring if we didn't.
Click to expand...

Bud, this post does not make sense. It suggests that you are misunderstanding some fundamental issues here and therefore drawing incorrect conclusions.

We are discussing both facts and opinons, and you haven't got all the facts. The relevant areas are image circle size, back focus and lens register, and retrofocus lens design.

I have explained things several times now. I am only interested in giving information, as factually as I can, so folks can make up there own minds on the pros and cons. Not endless circular debate and argument.
 
grum said:
People with expensive pro cameras always seem to say that. I wonder why they aren't just shooting with a camera phone seeing as equipment doesn't matter. :thinking: :p

I reckon I know my GF1 pretty well - have taken thousands of shots with it.

I dunno, I probably will stick with the GF1 for a little while and see if any bargains come up. Kind of thinking of a second hand D300 at the moment, as I already have a video mode on the GF1.

Had a play with Kaouthia's D300s last night and the high ISO performance and speed of the thing is pretty impressive.
Click to expand...

equpiment matters like hell, but a new to you d700 will underperform because you don't know how to make the best of it, whereas you can push your gf1 harder because you know it

I work to know my kit hard and can do most stuff by feel and know just how much black line I get as I push the sync speed on the 5d, not there yet on the 1d
 
"Bud, this post does not make sense. It suggests that you are misunderstanding some fundamental issues here and therefore drawing incorrect conclusions."

I too feel a little bored and frustrated with this now as you and one other seem to be making a mountain out of a mole hill. I don't think I'm misunderstanding anything but I'll have another go...My point, and I appreciate that we almost certainly wont know the answer is...

Canon have the EF-S system which involves their lens protruding further into the body than normal and this has caused them to alter how the mirror mechanism works.

Other manufacturers have small sensor only lenses that seem to offer a comparable level of quality without the additional physical intrusion and the necessity to alter mirror movement.

As I said, people here probably wont know why but I just find it interesting that Canon have done something different to the other manufacturers.

The End.
 
woof woof said:
"Bud, this post does not make sense. It suggests that you are misunderstanding some fundamental issues here and therefore drawing incorrect conclusions."

I too feel a little bored and frustrated with this now as you and one other seem to be making a mountain out of a mole hill. I don't think I'm misunderstanding anything but I'll have another go...My point, and I appreciate that we almost certainly wont know the answer is...

Canon have the EF-S system which involves their lens protruding further into the body than normal and this has caused them to alter how the mirror mechanism works.

Other manufacturers have small sensor only lenses that seem to offer a comparable level of quality without the additional physical intrusion and the necessity to alter mirror movement.

As I said, people here probably wont know why but I just find it interesting that Canon have done something different to the other manufacturers.

The End.
Click to expand...

That's wrong. The smaller mirror size and mechanism is the same with Canon, Nikon or any other manufacturer of crop sensor cameras.

It is dictated by the size of the sensor and therefore the smaller image circle, not the lens. Since the mirror is small anyway (and less clunky) it doesn't matter whether the lens protrudes or not.
 
grum said:
BTW if anyone's still interested among all the bickering then I am leaning towards a second hand D300 at the moment. :)

Had a play with Kaothia off here's D300s last night and it's pretty sweet, but I'm not too bothered about the video mode.
Click to expand...



I was and I agree with Alan, the 300 sounds like a good choice to augment little Geff. As much as I still think all modern digi slr's produce fab quality files I'd still say that any lower in the food chain and the gains will be so small, you'll never actually take it anywhere once the novelty wears off. :)
 
Chaz Photos said:
How can you make such a sweeping statement like this have you used all of them and i not mean just had a play?
It always gets me when people say thing like this

Oh and I was not aware that the d200-700 are pro spec and how a grip makes any different to how it works... Oh hang on Nikons do need it to get the faster FPS i belive
Click to expand...

To clarify....

In
My
Opinion

Now that disclaimer is out of the way...

Chaz Photos said:
How can you make such a sweeping statement like this have you used all of them and i not mean just had a play?
It always gets me when people say thing like this....
Click to expand...

Have you? I've used enough Canon's over the years to know what I'm talking about. The only one I've not had a great deal of time with is the D700. If it gets to you that much you obviously need to get our more....

Chaz Photos said:
...Oh and I was not aware that the d200-700 are pro spec and how a grip makes any different to how it works... Oh hang on Nikons do need it to get the faster FPS i belive
Click to expand...

They are classed as pro-spec by Nikon. Maybe they do need grips to have faster FPS to match the Canons, but that's beside the point. How fast something shoots isn't an indicator of the level of build quality and overall usability.

Anyway, you misquoted and didn't fully read the preceding words, although I have added an amendment in red to clarify what I was saying:

specialman said:
.....Great high ISO capabilities, fast FPS (well, fast enough for most situations) and amazing build quality - personally, IMO all the pro-spec Nikons of the ungripped variety (D200/D300/D300s/D700) are streets ahead of the ungripped (40D/50D7D/5D) Canons in that respect....
Click to expand...

That's better :)
 
Well spaced double post.
 
Grum, sorry - had to say my piece in defence of what was originally an intentionally helpful post. Hope you get sorted :)
 
Comparing the specs of the d300 and the 40d/50d I'd say the d300 has the edge

Slightly larger sensor than the 40d (50d has the edge here)
Has better focusing system than the 40d/50d
Has a better resolution LCD than the 40d (same on the 50d)
Has larger view finder area
Has built in af assist lamp (canon uses flash)

Having said that the 7d is a step above the nikon in the spec dept but probably not in the noise dept

How much are d300's going for 2nd hand?
 
No worries specialman :)

Cheers Alan - yeah tbh it's the fast AF and noise capabilities that are attracting me to the D300. Put off the 7D by the seemingly excessive MP count.

D300 seem to go for £7-800 on evilbay but some as low as £600.
 
grum said:
No worries specialman :)

Cheers Alan - yeah tbh it's the fast AF and noise capabilities that are attracting me to the D300. Put off the 7D by the seemingly excessive MP count.

D300 seem to go for £7-800 on evilbay but some as low as £600.
Click to expand...

Canon certainly seem to be pushing megapixels, where as nikon concentrate on noise IMHO

I got some stunning a3 prints out of my 10mp 40d

Comparable prices to 50d then - my 7d body is probably worth about £900

How do lens prices compare to canon gear?
 
Not too sure really - trying to get my head around the lens ranges at the mo - looks like the Nikons might be a little more expensive generally.
 
grum said:
Not too sure really - trying to get my head around the lens ranges at the mo - looks like the Nikons might be a little more expensive generally.
Click to expand...

Can't speak for the nikon range so I won't :LOL:

The canon range stacks up like this

EF-S - designed for crop sensors only
EF - will work on both crop and ff
L / Red ring - pro spec lenses again will work on crop and ff

Then you have all the 3rd party with canon mount
 
Grum, Canon deffo has the edge over Nikon in terms of overall range, although I think most people would say there's nothing in it in terms of quality when you're taking a close look at the pro-level fast glass. Nikon is more expensive as a whole thoug by a whisker.

D300 is a great buy. I had a D200, which shares a very similar body, and the handling is superb. The D300 is better in terms of high ISO and AF though, which makes it a very enviable camera.

With regard to DX-format lenses, you aren't limited to AF-S (built-in motor) lenses that are designed for the like of the D40 and D60, those models without a body-based AF motor. I have a D2x and like the D300, you can use 'D'-type lenses, Nikon's older generation of glass from its 35mm film camera days. The AF-S lenses with built-in motors are quicker mind, but the fast glass (70-200mm VR etc) is expensive compared to the D-type versions, although most offer the best quality with a very wide scope of use.

A typical example is the 70/80-200mm f/2.8; the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR retailed for £1,100+. It focusses faster and has VR. The 80-200mm f/2.8 doesn't have a built-in motor so focusses slightly slower but is fairly equal optically, but no VR - that retailed for about £700.

The one thing about Nikon is there are none of those 'halfway house' lenses like what Canon has; no 17-40mm f/4, no 70-200mm f/4. But then again, for me, that was a conscious decision because I felt that cameras themselves offered more than what Canon did at the time and I'd make the compromise by paying more for glass :)

NB: here's how the Nikon glass works:

AF-S: has a built-in motor so can be used on all Nikon digital bodies
AF-D: no built-in motor so can only be used on bodies with motor (D200, D300, D3 etc)
DX: Digital-only (1.5 crop) bodies (all bodies bar the D3 series and the D700)
G-type: No aperture ring
VR: Vibration Reduction

Think there are more but can't remember them at the moment...
 
If you are considering the 5DII, then think carefully about your lens choices. I have the 5DII and the 40D and the 20D. I shoot primarily landscapes followed by people followed by some sports. I print my own images up to A3+. The 5DII was chosen to improve image quality and detail in print.

I have to say that IME of my lenses, only the 135L does this camera justice. There is no noticeable improvement in print detail using the 17-40L or the 50f1.4 over the 40D or indeed the 20D. The 40D/Sigma 10-20 is very close at the wide end to the 5DII/17-40L in print after processing. I've tried a 24L on the 5DII and it blows the 17-40L out of the water, so in time I'll be getting this lens. I can live without the ultra wide for now.

Colour rendition and contrast is a different kettle of fish though. 5DII just has a better 'feel' with every lens. Chalk & cheese. AF performance of the 5DII and 40D is much the same. MF on the 5DII wide open is easier especially with the EG-s focussing screen. I have to watch for focus shifting near to wide open with both the 50f1.4 and Tamron 28-75 on the 5DII. Not the case with the 40D though. If your into machine gun sports stuff then the 5DII isn't too hot. Even single shots requires different shutter timing than the 40D - pressing noticeably earlier to get the same effect.

In short, if you're going to get a 5DII, then get the best glass. Anything else is a waste.
 
Thanks for the lens overviews - that's exactly what I needed. (y)

One thing I'm not quite clear on is how to know if it is a DX or FX lens if it doesn't say FX or DX in the description - just look it up somewhere?

And cheers for the thoughts on the 5DII Trevor.
 
DX lenses say DX on them; FX lenses are all D-type lenses (designed for 35mm) or ones that don't say DX on them. :)
 
woof woof said:
You obviously haven't tried some of the better 3rd party lenses.

For example I swapped my 17-85mm EF-S for the much superior Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. The Canon lens was IMHO and in the opinion of some on line reviewers nothing special and indeed suffered from excessive distortion, at least one review site stated that it distorted more than any lens they'd ever tested.
.
Click to expand...

well if you try different lens like this what do you expect?:shrug:
You need to test it with the 17-55 IS 2.8 then see which is best
 
TrevorP said:
There is no noticeable improvement in print detail using the 17-40L or the 50f1.4 over the 40D or indeed the 20D. The 40D/Sigma 10-20 is very close at the wide end to the 5DII/17-40L in print after processing.
Click to expand...

You saying that your 20D you can print A3 and there is no difference to your 5DMKII :shrug:
 
Chaz Photos said:
You saying that your 20D you can print A3 and there is no difference to your 5DMKII :shrug:
Click to expand...
So long as I don't have to crop the 20D image, then the detail in print is pretty much the same using the 17-40L. Of course the colour rendition and contrast from the 5DII look much better than the 20D. But the detail after processing is very similar in print. I've only tried the 24L on the 5DII and not the 20D. Prints from the 24L contain more discernable detail than those from the 17-40L on the 5DII.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top