The photos will come out even better if you put a beautiful girl in front of the lens, regardless of the camera. I thought you had learned that valuable lesson already.
Looks like a fun project. Can't wait to see more of what you get from this experiment.
I like the first one better! But that's just because I'm not a fan of flash. I'm a natural-light fangirl.
Can't wait to see the video.
And about a previous comment about MP..I have so many people ask me how many MP my camera is. It's the first and mostly only question they ask. Even the other weekend when I was hanging out with other teen photogs. It makes me go
I hear what you're saying. My counterpoint is there are very valid reasons why people spend the money on more expensive gear. In my example, which was very similar to his example, a 20D probably wouldn't have produced a professional product. At least not what I'd want to present to a client knowing there are far more capable cameras out there.
At any rate, the infamous Ken Rockwell did this schtick some time ago. $150 vs a $5,000 camera
But, I think Rian's point is that someone who wants to make nicer photos might consider using light rather than thinking they have to have a more expensive body or lens to improve.
You obviously have the gear you need to shoot what YOU like to shoot.
Many others do not have the funds to buy a 5Dmk2 let alone a 5D (or both)...or L glass etc.
You are fortunate to have what you have.
Others like to make photos and have to make do with much less.
So, I think Rian's concept will be interesting to LOTS of folks who want to photograph their friends and local bands and will prove they can make nice photos without having to buy lots of expensive gear that is perhaps outside of THEIR budget or financial ability.
Rian I agree with one of the earlier posters that you need to change the title of the video or concept to being about lighting.
The difference between good and great is lighting but equally important is knowing how to use the equipment you have.
About two weeks ago I was photographing a country artist prior to the concert for some promotional shots. I had already been informed of what they wanted but was told I'd have about 10 mins to shoot. In a case like this I found the location that had good natural light at the venue and only about 60 yds from where the tour bus was located. I used one off camera light for fill and shot Aperture priority/centered weighted using on camera exp comp to adjust for clothing colors. My assistant had on a sky blue dress so I used her to set my off camera light power for fill. Then when the female artist cameout wearing all white and the male artist had all black on I used exp comp for the individual shots and 0 comp for the together shot.
I used one of my D3's for this shoot but could have done the shoot with my brothers D60. Point being you have to know both lighting and equipment. Along with what the output is going to be and what it is to be used for before comparing this camera to that camera.
The fact that a camera i paid $350 for keeps up with my $4500 camera its testament to that
er. no.
That statement might be true making the following assumptions:
1.) You're using artificial lighting
2.) You're shooting under ISO 800
...there are more but I can't think of them
anyways, comparing the mk2 to the 20d is sort of like comparing a
corvette to a corolla. They both work and will get you from point
a to point b. BUT you look way cooler in the vette
I see the hay you're trying to make here.. pretty much every lens looks good at f/8 and studio lights can give you f/8 in pretty much any condition... thus, starting out the kit isn't so important.. to a studio photographer. Which is why original 1D's are still floating around making money for pros, despite them being a 4 MP camera and noise that looks like shizz at ISO800+
Even cheaper is the 20D and 50/1.8, which, at f/8 will produce sharper shots than the kit lens! Obviously the first thing to invest in really should be the lighting equipment if one wishes to be a studio photographer.
For natural light / wedding / sports / nature / landscape photographers, the 5dII is the better choice.
The image quality of the $1500 20D was great when it came out.
Since then, it has stayed the same. Surprise!!
It still produces great quality photos. It didn't become obsolete. (Obsolete means no longer suited for the purpose.) Sure, better cameras came along, but it still works fine.
All gear has it's place, even a Polaroid camera. The quality of the gear is really meaningless without some frame of reference as to the intents for using it.
Take Canon's 50mm prime lineup; they have 4 lens offerings, none of them are perfect but they all offer something a little different. For $80 you can get the 50/1.8... or for $3000 you can get the 50/1.0... and I bet at F/8 they both look about the same But you don't buy the 50/1.0 to shoot at f/8. The 70-200 is another lens with 4 flavors to suit different needs.
Same idea applies to the bodies. What are you going to use it for, so what do you need?
Well, what is the point then? Your thread title is 5d2 vs. 20d, then you're talking about lighting and lenses? I obviously got lost somewhere.
You can take a snapshot of your buddy in a field with a cheap P&S and pop up flash, why even buy the 20D? Hopefully you don't want to hang those snapshots on the wall on large art paper... otherwise you might regret not having the 5D2
After all the ya ta da ya ta da, if the camera is not strained to its limits, it's the man behind the gun. The high end may be sharper in the laboratory, but the major difference is still flexibility, ruggedness, and reliability. Especially flexibility. Speaking generically, no brand comparisons.
It's funny to read this post... I'm mounting my most expensive flash - on a 4$ clamp I got at Home Depot. .59$ in bolts & a 3$ clamp -- holds a 500$ flash.
It's all about the light, and what you do with it.
