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

the first one would have been a lot better if you exposed for his face but i get your point and agree

jprezant wrote:


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



totally agree! So what should be a 16 year olds first car?

I think you showed that you can take a mediocre shot with both a "prosumer" camera and a "consumer' camera. I am not surprised.

Rian:

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.

I have both of those cameras.

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.

RianFlynn wrote:
jprezant wrote:


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



totally agree! So what should be a 16 year olds first car?




A tercel.

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?

You guys really are missing the point here.

oh well. I'll link to the video when its done

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.

what's funny is the first picture is clearly better lol.