*OFFICIAL* general photography conversation thread

[dcstep]

I think that the ole 12mp ceiling guideline is way out of date. The 5D MkII proved that you can combine high pixel count with stellar high-ISO performance. Having said that, I don't yearn for 32MP. I'm pretty darn happy with the current setup; however, if the 5D MkIII could combine or improve on the Mk2's high-ISO performance AND deliver the greater image detail of the 7D, then I'd vote for it.

Canon's had three years of sensor development since the 5D2. They're constantly improving SNR, dynamic range and noise rejection. Applying the old 12-mps "rule", now five or six-years old, seems silly to me.

Dave

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Chewy, if you only shot street stuff, then the Leica is a great camera, but if you've ever lived with a rangefinder, you'll never long for one after using a good SLR. Forget about getting out over 100mm and choke just looking at the len prices.

I happily carry my 5D2/24-105mm combo around all day. The 70-200mm is usually in a nearby bag, if needed. Those combos shoot day and night in just about any situation.

I'm leaving on a trip this Thursday and trying to decide if I want the 7D/500mm in the bag (rollerbag really). Part of my trip will have me just a few miles from Gatorland and I might pop by to take a few bird in flight shots. I might also have some wildlife opportunities in the Bahamas. I think I've convinced myself. Anyway, with the Leica, that's not an option.

Dave

Dave, we have a tendency of shooting different things, so I agree that the Leica would be a waste of money for you. I rarely use my telephoto, whereas you almost exclusively use yours. Looking back at my archives, I'd have to say that almost 90% of my shots are between 17-85mm. Plus, most the of things I shoot aren't moving (stationary cars, buildings, etc), whereas yours are (animals, etc). I hate carrying around anything that doesn't fit in my smaller LowePro backback, whereas you have no qualms about carrying a lens that needs its own roller bag.

Honestly, the only thing that scares me about switching to Leica is loosing AF. But then, I guess you get used to it and become better with practice (for which I have none at the moment).

You're going to FL and the Bahamas?? sweet! Now, visiting Nashville sounds stupid. How long are you gone for?

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by The1

how big are your full RAW files on the 12mp?

~7-10mb each. But, my laptop's HD is a measly 100gb and most if it is taken up by my work stuff.

[The1]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

Dave, thanks for the comparison.

As I said, you can't really compare the two. If I was a journalist or street-photographer, I would take the Leica hands down. If I was into sports or action shots, then the 5D hands down. What fewer things the Leica does, it does very well.

Have you tried auto-focusing your 5D in very very low light (and I mean low light, not candle light)? You can't. With a rangefinder, if you can see it, you can focus on it (to a certain extent). Regardless if you believe it or not, I've seen Leica shooters focus sharper and faster than AF on modern-day dSLRs.

On the other hand, good luck shooting anything past 135mm. They don't even make lenses past that focal length. Would you be able to shoot birds with it? no way. Can you shoot a sporting event while sitting in the nose bleeds? nope. That's where the dSLRs excel. If you want to shoot a horse jumping a fence, you shouldn't be using a Leica rangefinder. They all have their applications.

I guess what I'm saying is, I wouldn't mind having both, a 5D and a Leica. But, I have a feeling that if I ever get both, I'll eventually be using the Leica more often than not, and saving the 5D for those rare occasions I shoot sports, need telephoto, or needs higher fps.

well, if you're doing sports and wildlife in the future, i'd pretty much just skip over to the 7D, it's a bit sharper at 100% crop, and it's soooo much faster at autofocusing. Unless you're just doing landscapes and low light (not no light) then the 5D wins.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by The1

well, if you're doing sports and wildlife in the future, i'd pretty much just skip over to the 7D, it's a bit sharper at 100% crop, and it's soooo much faster at autofocusing. Unless you're just doing landscapes and low light (not no light) then the 5D wins.

That's why I use both.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

~7-10mb each. But, my laptop's HD is a measly 100gb and most if it is taken up by my work stuff.

Easy solution, get a Firewire or USB 3.0 external HD. 2TB are only around 200-bucks.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

,,, Good Leica lenses run circles around the L lenses, ...

This little factoid is no longer true, IMHO. Remember, when comparing lenses you need to compare post-processing. Software like LR and DxO now correct for geometric distortion, chromatic aberration, vignetting, etc., etc. The end result of L-series zooms is now comparable to Zeiss primes and zooms.

When we shot in slide film and needed perfect in-camera results, then I couldn't argue with you, but today, it's a totally different game.

Dave

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

...

Have you tried auto-focusing your 5D in very very low light (and I mean low light, not candle light)? You can't. With a rangefinder, if you can see it, you can focus on it (to a certain extent). Regardless if you believe it or not, I've seen Leica shooters focus sharper and faster than AF on modern-day dSLRs....

I always wonder what people are talking about when they say this. If you know how the Canon AF works, then it's easy to find a contrasty element to focus on and then recompose. I do it all the time with no problem like here:


Anyone for absinthe? by dcstep, on Flickr

and here:


Streeetch... by dcstep, on Flickr

ISO 6400, BTW.

Dave

[leemik]

I had a 5D for many years.. loved that camera.. I "upgraded" to a 5DII and I'm really missing my 5D..

I'm experiencing the well documented color banding issue with the 5DII that I never had with the 5D.. It ocassionally ruins a shot or two for me and it's gotten to the point where I just don't trust the camera in low light situations anymore.. Luckily I have a 1DIV that doesn't suffer from this problem but unfortunately it's a 1.3 crop!

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by leemik

I had a 5D for many years.. loved that camera.. I "upgraded" to a 5DII and I'm really missing my 5D..

I'm experiencing the well documented color banding issue with the 5DII that I never had with the 5D.. It ocassionally ruins a shot or two for me and it's gotten to the point where I just don't trust the camera in low light situations anymore.. ...

Have you installed the well documented firmware update? I never have this issue and I'm around 25,000 clicks into my 5D2.

Dave

[leemik]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Have you installed the well documented firmware update? I never have this issue and I'm around 25,000 clicks into my 5D2.

Dave

yup i have the latest firmware on it..

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by leemik

yup i have the latest firmware on it..

Then you should probably send it to Canon. Mine doesn't do it and my pro friend says it's a distant memory to him and he takes several thousand clicks per month.

Dave

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Easy solution, get a Firewire or USB 3.0 external HD. 2TB are only around 200-bucks.

Yeah, that's true. I just hate extra wires and things not being as portable as they could/should be.

Originally Posted by dcstep

This little factoid is no longer true, IMHO. Remember, when comparing lenses you need to compare post-processing. Software like LR and DxO now correct for geometric distortion, chromatic aberration, vignetting, etc., etc. The end result of L-series zooms is now comparable to Zeiss primes and zooms.

When we shot in slide film and needed perfect in-camera results, then I couldn't argue with you, but today, it's a totally different game.

Dave

Yeah, I agree that the ballgame has changed with digital. But, I still think it's true to some extent. The Leica lenses are pretty sharp even at the edges, or when wide open, whereas the Canon/Nikon lenses can lose their sharpness on the fringes, in different lighting conditions, less barrel distortions, etc. Of course you can fix some of those things in post-processing, but with Leica glass you don't necessarily have to. What comes out of the camera could be as good as me tinkering around in DxO, Lightroom, PS, etc for a while afterwards.

Think of it this way... amateur videographers who shoot with dSLRs stick with their Canon/Nikon lenses, but "professional" ones use Zeiss glass when filming on a dSLR, or something more professional like the Red, etc.

I tend to think there has to be valid reasons for that, besides just the ability to spend 2-10x as much on gear.

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by dcstep

I always wonder what people are talking about when they say this. If you know how the Canon AF works, then it's easy to find a contrasty element to focus on and then recompose. I do it all the time with no problem like here:

ISO 6400, BTW.

Dave

Dave, ask anyone with a 5DMKII and a D700 what camera they would take to... let's say shoot an outdoor concert at night. I'm sure most would answer the D700.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Canon fan, I love the 5DMKII (for as little as I've played with one), and the high ISO performance is fantastic. But, when it comes to AF in the dark, the D700 wins hands down. It doesn't search at all (or nearly as often) as the 5DMKII. This is one area that I feel Nikon has a definitive edge over Canon. The 7D does noticeably better than the 5DMKII with it's AF points, but still, the D700 beats it. Those are just my opinions with minimal experiences on both cameras.

[M_Six]

Score! Went to B&H today and grabbed a mint 85mm f1.8 for $319. Might try some night shots out in front of the hotel tonight. We're right on 7th across from Carnegie Hall.

The guy at the counter was singing the praises of his Pentax camera as far as size and weight of the lenses. I don't brush aside talk like that from the folks at B&H. They know their stuff.

They also have a really interesting class there on Thursday about "golden hour" lighting. It's already full, but I may drop by to see if I can get in on standby.

[Chewy734]

lucky bastard!

Most some pics up tonight!

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

...

Think of it this way... amateur videographers who shoot with dSLRs stick with their Canon/Nikon lenses, but "professional" ones use Zeiss glass when filming on a dSLR, or something more professional like the Red, etc.

I tend to think there has to be valid reasons for that, besides just the ability to spend 2-10x as much on gear.

Yes, for video, it's much like shooting the old Chrome films, where you can't process each frame. You can do a little processing with video, but nothing like you can do with stills.

Interestingly, most, not all, video isn't as critical in lens requirement. Still, if you want to knock them out of their seats, then a great lens really helps.

I briefly consider a 17mm f/2.8 Ziess for my 5D2, but decided that I preferred the flexibility of a Canon zoom and processing correction in DxO.

Dave

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Yes, for video, it's much like shooting the old Chrome films, where you can't process each frame. You can do a little processing with video, but nothing like you can do with stills.

Interestingly, most, not all, video isn't as critical in lens requirement. Still, if you want to knock them out of their seats, then a great lens really helps.

I briefly consider a 17mm f/2.8 Ziess for my 5D2, but decided that I preferred the flexibility of a Canon zoom and processing correction in DxO.

Dave

Ahh, that's interesting about video vs. stills. I didn't know that. I've heard the 5D2 is nothing short of awesome for dSLR video. Perhaps rodi can chime in with his experiences?

[Chewy734]

Ok, I have a question for you dSLR owners...

Let's say I see dust in my photos. Is there any way to tell if I need to get my lens cleaned or if my dirty sensor is the culprit?

[TL]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

Ok, I have a question for you dSLR owners...

Let's say I see dust in my photos. Is there any way to tell if I need to get my lens cleaned or if my dirty sensor is the culprit?

I would first start by cleaning the lens (front & back) with lens tissue. Then take some pics and see if the problem is still there. If it is, then I would get the sensor professionally cleaned. The least expensive way to fix your issue is with CS5 spot healing tool.

[Chewy734]

Well, here's the thing. The dust spots don't appear if the aperture is wide open. But, at f/8 to f/22 there are dust spots everywhere. I cleaned the lens (front & back) and it's still there. How much does it usually cost to get the sensor cleaned?

[TL]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

Well, here's the thing. The dust spots don't appear if the aperture is wide open. But, at f/8 to f/22 there are dust spots everywhere. I cleaned the lens (front & back) and it's still there. How much does it usually cost to get the sensor cleaned?

oh dam....yea then it seems your sensor is dirty. Nikon offers a free cleaning within one year of purchase on the body. I think it would cost about $200 but im not too sure