vkalia wrote:
....About the only job I can think of which requires a lot more weathersealing would be shooting in heavy rain for extended periods of time - at which point the answer is not weathersealing but a raincoat (the lens mount is not weather sealed).
Personally, just because my 1D3 and say 400/2.8 IS are weather sealed, I still wouldn't be out for prolonged periods of time in continuous heavy rain without a rain cover. It is useful to have, especially at motorsport events, where say the cars are running, it is sunny, the next minute it is raining hard and as the cars pit to change to wets you can catch some funny moments before I towel off the body and lens and put a rain cover on.
400d wrote:
It amazes me when people spend their time all day thinking: what if they are the manufacturers and what they should be thinking in terms of marketing strategy.
I only spend half my day thinking of cameras - the other half I'm asleep dreaming about cameras
Anyway, my money is spent, a few months old 5D, a fairly major rebuild of my van after the wheels stopped going round and a new kick ass PC after my other one blew smoke, blew the fuse and set off the fire alarm.
Yakim Peled wrote:
I highlighted my question so it will be easier for you to answer. I added the VF as it comes along with the FF.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Again if you never own 5D/L primes like 35L, 85L, 135L - you will most likely never understand difference. It is huge!!!! It is something you will never achieve with cheaper bodies no matter 10D/20D/30D/40D. And not just because of FF but also because of different exposure sensitivity on same ISO.
5D used by pros all over, take a look on this shots made with it:
Yakim again, if you need live view - yes 5D doesn't have it. What else apart of excellent and amazing shots results do you need from camera? It should be able to make cofee for you and play mp3 files same time?
Breitling65 wrote:
Yakim again, if you need live view - yes 5D doesn't have it. What else apart of excellent and amazing shots results do you need from camera? It should be able to make cofee for you and play mp3 files same time?
It all started in page 2. I said that the 5D is a 20D with FF and you disagreed. When I wanted to know why, I got many answers but no reply.
Breitling65 wrote:
I wouldn't agree on this statement. At very high level yes they are looking like same body. Based on this logic I could say pretty much no difference between 20D & 30D & 40D. Also same logic will say D700 is same as D3 just 1/3 less tall
I shot lots of macro with both 20D and 5D and same lenses. 5D does it better just because AF is better, I shot AI Servo and 5D does it better because extra assist points. 5D exposure metering is more sensitive as well as ISO, I am getting faster shutter on 5D on same ISO/lens/aperture. Many other things including shutter sound and viewfinder ... So, no Yakim it is not just sensor!!! ...Show more →
as a 5D owner, i pose that whereas a 40D might be a "cheaper body" in the canon line, a 5D is also no more than a mid-grade body itself in horizontal comparison across manufacturers. especially three years on, and considering the top build quality & feature sets of the competition (or even in some respects, the feature set of the 40D). it has full frame and is physically a large handful of camera. full stop.
the 5D is capable of great resolution, but i've seen some atrocious images taken with 5Ds and rather fabulous ones taken with 40Ds (and vice versa), so the body is only one part of the equation.
FretNoMore wrote:
Even if it was debatable to begin with, this thread now *does* belong at dpreview.
If this is referred to me then I apologize. The only thing I can say in my defense is that I was really curious. I'm hear to learn and when I hear a controversial idea I'm always keen to know more.
Yakim Peled wrote:
It all started in page 2. I said that the 5D is a 20D with FF and you disagreed. When I wanted to know why, I got many answers but no reply.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Read this thread again, I did. You just don't like to read it, that is very typical to your behavior.
> I think the market is still looking for MORE megapixels. I cannot understand why though. 12 seems way too many as it is.
and
> MPs still sell cameras and amateur/pro status means nothing. Look at all the people buying the grossly overpriced 1Ds3's, a camera that offers nothing but MPs over a $3500-$4K 1D3.
I love megapixels. The more the merrier, as long as they are usably informative. Like many photographers I often have to take pictures like the ones below. Why would I use a 12 megapixel camera when I can get equally good, but much sharper results from a 21 megapixel camera?
Assuming that the pixel quality is acceptable, and in the case of the 1Ds3 and 450D it is, then why on earth wouldn't a photographer want more pixels? You don't have to drive your Porsche at an average speed of 100 mph, but sometimes it's very useful to have the capability.
jamesf99 wrote:
Aren't you a regular over there
Yes, among several other sites. I've been trying to stop going there though, it's not good for you. I'm not visiting nearly as much as I used to, the noise level and rudeness has increased a lot lately. Some of the ugliness there tends to rub off on you if you don't watch out, and I'm not proud of how I've let it make me grumpy and less polite than I want to be at times. It's just hard to not respond to some of the more inane things that are "truths" online. The main thing that's good about dpreview is the high traffic, dpreview is a source of a lot of info and news - if you could just tolerate the noise level.
In fact, I probably should take a breather from Internet in general and concentrate more on real life. Difficult to do though, since IT and Internet is a big part of my day job.
brainiac wrote:
...
Assuming that the pixel quality is acceptable, and in the case of the 1Ds3 and 450D it is, then why on earth wouldn't a photographer want more pixels? You don't have to drive your Porsche at an average speed of 100 mph, but sometimes it's very useful to have the capability.
I can think of what's to me quite rational arguments against that...
The vast majority of drivers will never have a need for or a place to drive at 100mph, so why pay for that capability?
The same I think would go for cameras, if you know you'll never print a poster why would you want to bog your computer and memory cards with unnecessarily large image files? To really get the benefit of those pixels you also need better lenses, so it adds up to a huge cost for a capability you'll prehaps never need.
Yakim Peled wrote:
O.K., apart from IQ and VF, what is huge gap between 20D and 5D?
Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Attendee: Brought peace?
Reg: Oh, peace - shut up!
Reg: There is not one of us who would not gladly suffer death to rid this country of the Romans once and for all.
Dissenter: Uh, well, one.
Reg: Oh, yeah, yeah, there's one. But otherwise, we're solid.
brainiac wrote:
Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Attendee: Brought peace?
Reg: Oh, peace - shut up!
Reg: There is not one of us who would not gladly suffer death to rid this country of the Romans once and for all.
Dissenter: Uh, well, one.
Reg: Oh, yeah, yeah, there's one. But otherwise, we're solid.
FretNoMore wrote:
...if you know you'll never print a poster why would you want to bog your computer and memory cards with unnecessarily large image files?
You could try turning down the resolution. I won't bore you with the options, and there are only two sizes of raw, but this facility has been available on most cameras for a long time now. It's like driving a Porsche at 30. Quite comfortable.
> To really get the benefit of those pixels you also need better lenses, so it adds up to a huge cost for a capability you'll prehaps never need.
I am afraid this is a myth. If you buy a Canon 50 f1.8 and shoot it at f5.6 the 1Ds3 or 450D will capture a whole load of detail missed by a D3 or 20D file. There are plenty of cheap primes which can outresolve the sensor at normal apertures, over at least the great majority of the frame.
Sensor resolution is not very intuitive. People stick a 24-70 on and expect it to resolve to 5.2 microns because it's an L. It's not that simple.
Sure, but seriously, who uses a set of cheap consumer lenses with a 1DsIII? It comes with the territory that you'll end up with a camera bag that's *really* expensive, for capability the general photographer hardly ever uses.
Edit: Remember this was in reply to "why on earth wouldn't a photographer want more pixels", and I responded from a practical value/cost angle.
