This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 20097d for weddings?
p.2 #17d for weddings?
~ $1700 US
looks like a good back up or mate to a 5Dmkii.
intersting......
looks like a good back up or mate to a 5Dmkii.
intersting......
Sep 01, 2009 at 02:13 AM
p.2 #27d for weddings?
Ziffl3 wrote:
~ $1700 US
looks like a good back up or mate to a 5Dmkii.
intersting......
Agreed, interesting back-up to my 5dmkII. In my situation even more interesting than the current 1D III.
~ $1700 US
looks like a good back up or mate to a 5Dmkii.
intersting......
Agreed, interesting back-up to my 5dmkII. In my situation even more interesting than the current 1D III.
Sep 01, 2009 at 02:47 AM
p.2 #37d for weddings?
I'm a Nikon user but I can chime in on the crop sensor decision by Canon... I think that Canon might be selling this in the wedding world as a companion camera to the 5DII... In the Nikon world I see no problem using a FF D3 or D700 in tandem with a D300 for getting that extra "free" zoom on i.e. the 70-200 when needed in a large room rather than spending $$$ on a much more expensive fixed 300mm lens for wedding coverage when photg is banned to the back of the room... Also having 2 different sensor bodies on you means that the shots that might be too far for the 85mm 1.4 on a FF body are just right on a cropped sensor if you cannot get any closer with your feet ... that's how your prime lenses become two-focal length slow changing zooms 
**
**Late Night Post Disclaimer... it's late I was up editing when I saw this post, what I wrote above may not make any sense... will revisit tomorrow
g nite everyone.
****Late Night Post Disclaimer... it's late I was up editing when I saw this post, what I wrote above may not make any sense... will revisit tomorrow
g nite everyone.Sep 01, 2009 at 04:06 AM
p.2 #47d for weddings?
Crop cameras can go a long way - granted nowhere as long as FF cameras. However, this will probably be the best Canon crop camera for those starting out and needing something solid on a budget. The only other prosumer crop camera with pro line features up until now was the D300 and D300s. The 7D now gives the Canon crop folks a worthy competitor.
A lot of wedding shooters starting out get invested in crop lenses like the 17-55, 60 macro, etc. So, having a top notch crop body is a good idea. If it performs well in the IQ department, it should be a wonderful implementation.
A lot of wedding shooters starting out get invested in crop lenses like the 17-55, 60 macro, etc. So, having a top notch crop body is a good idea. If it performs well in the IQ department, it should be a wonderful implementation.
Sep 01, 2009 at 05:07 AM
p.2 #57d for weddings?
sidewa
388 wrote:
can someone explain why you guys choose full frame over crop?
Some peeps post about Full Frame as if they were really shooting 35mm film before getting their first DSLR and they really have a true problem with the focal lenghts not matching up.
Older folks may indeed have this problem but I suspect most have adapted.
There are in fact three SIGNIFICANT advantages to a Full Frame sensor, more significant than some of the explanations you've gotten (especially once one accounts for the availability of some excellent wider EFs and not glass to do the task):
1. A Significantly LARGER Viewfinder - Switch back and forth between a 5D and a 40D and you'll know what I mean. It makes a big difference, especially if you do any manual focusing work as those who shoot T/S lenses do. I don't have a T/S but i have a lensbaby.. on the 40D it's a crapshoot. On the 5D I can actualy tell when something is going to be in focus or not
2. More DOF control with a given lens and a given subject framing due to a change in relative distance from the subject:
Mount a Canon 50mm 1.4 on a crop body and set it to 1.4 then frame someone's face "headshot style" Note your distance from the subject. Now mount the same 50mm 1.4 on a 5D and frame the same. Notice how much closer to the subject you are. The change in camera-subject distance implies a change in the camera-subject-background ratio, which affects fg/subject/bg separation significantly at a given aperture. I don't know if the change can be quantified (like for instance say that 1.4 on Crop is same as 2.8 on Full but there is a significant change
3. Larger light gathering sites at a given megapixel count. This results in better High ISO performance and overall "cleaner" images (more S in the S/N ratio at any given photosite)
Of course it's not all roses on one side and thorns on the other, but that wasn't your question. FWIW I too prefer FF for most applications.
388 wrote:can someone explain why you guys choose full frame over crop?
Some peeps post about Full Frame as if they were really shooting 35mm film before getting their first DSLR and they really have a true problem with the focal lenghts not matching up.
Older folks may indeed have this problem but I suspect most have adapted.
There are in fact three SIGNIFICANT advantages to a Full Frame sensor, more significant than some of the explanations you've gotten (especially once one accounts for the availability of some excellent wider EFs and not glass to do the task):
1. A Significantly LARGER Viewfinder - Switch back and forth between a 5D and a 40D and you'll know what I mean. It makes a big difference, especially if you do any manual focusing work as those who shoot T/S lenses do. I don't have a T/S but i have a lensbaby.. on the 40D it's a crapshoot. On the 5D I can actualy tell when something is going to be in focus or not
2. More DOF control with a given lens and a given subject framing due to a change in relative distance from the subject:
Mount a Canon 50mm 1.4 on a crop body and set it to 1.4 then frame someone's face "headshot style" Note your distance from the subject. Now mount the same 50mm 1.4 on a 5D and frame the same. Notice how much closer to the subject you are. The change in camera-subject distance implies a change in the camera-subject-background ratio, which affects fg/subject/bg separation significantly at a given aperture. I don't know if the change can be quantified (like for instance say that 1.4 on Crop is same as 2.8 on Full but there is a significant change
3. Larger light gathering sites at a given megapixel count. This results in better High ISO performance and overall "cleaner" images (more S in the S/N ratio at any given photosite)
Of course it's not all roses on one side and thorns on the other, but that wasn't your question. FWIW I too prefer FF for most applications.
Sep 01, 2009 at 05:51 AM
p.2 #77d for weddings?
I'm going to seriously look at adding one of these to my bags, simply because I'd love the versatility to extend the reach of my telephoto lenses without sacrificing a LOT of IQ over the 5D II. Right now my 70-200mm stays on the 40D most of the time during a wedding, but I find myself wishing at times that the IQ was closer to what the 5D II delivers. Now, perhaps a camera exists (or is much closer at least) that can fill that gap.
Sep 01, 2009 at 06:33 AM
p.2 #87d for weddings?
I will be interested in seeing some test shots from this. I am curious how the high ISO delivers compared to the 50D.
Sep 01, 2009 at 06:40 AM
p.2 #97d for weddings?
the crop sensor is disappointing, but I'm excited that they're finally putting a "built in ST-E2", of sorts, into the bodies. Now you'll be able to fire flashes remotely without an annoying piece of hardware on top or the extra weight.
Not to mention a number of other genius improvements they've made, which will all make for a mind melting 1Ds IV =)
Not to mention a number of other genius improvements they've made, which will all make for a mind melting 1Ds IV =)
Sep 01, 2009 at 08:10 AM
p.2 #107d for weddings?
except for the 1.6 crop i would say this camera is win....
and seeing how i like to keep crops around for extended reach it might be on my list of backup to get.
two requirements
1. it fares decently at high ISO
2. the AF actually works.... lol
and seeing how i like to keep crops around for extended reach it might be on my list of backup to get.
two requirements
1. it fares decently at high ISO
2. the AF actually works.... lol
Sep 01, 2009 at 08:24 AM
p.2 #117d for weddings?
It'll be a superb 1.6x body for sports and wildlife shooters, but won't be for wedding photographers.
Sep 01, 2009 at 08:26 AM
p.2 #127d for weddings?
sherijohnson wrote:
I will be interested in seeing some test shots from this. I am curious how the high ISO delivers compared to the 50D.
The high ISO performance of the 50D is pretty mediocre. I don't think its the best idea to use it as a gauge for performance.
I will be interested in seeing some test shots from this. I am curious how the high ISO delivers compared to the 50D.
The high ISO performance of the 50D is pretty mediocre. I don't think its the best idea to use it as a gauge for performance.
Sep 01, 2009 at 08:27 AM
p.2 #137d for weddings?
Mike Mahoney wrote:
$1,700 US is a lot of buckos for a cropper.
Nikon charges $1800 for their D300s and Canon charges $3700 for their 1DIII. IMO, Canon is offering a very compelling camera for the money here with the 7D.
$1,700 US is a lot of buckos for a cropper.
Nikon charges $1800 for their D300s and Canon charges $3700 for their 1DIII. IMO, Canon is offering a very compelling camera for the money here with the 7D.
Sep 01, 2009 at 08:29 AM
p.2 #147d for weddings?
deepbluejh wrote:
It'll be a superb 1.6x body for sports and wildlife shooters, but won't be for wedding photographers.
Exactly... If I was an amateur sports photog, I'd be very happy with this as it's the only low-end camera capable of shooting that style...
Not sure about why people are upset about this... It's not meant for us. We have the 5D, now sports has the 7D.
It'll be a superb 1.6x body for sports and wildlife shooters, but won't be for wedding photographers.
Exactly... If I was an amateur sports photog, I'd be very happy with this as it's the only low-end camera capable of shooting that style...
Not sure about why people are upset about this... It's not meant for us. We have the 5D, now sports has the 7D.
Sep 01, 2009 at 08:29 AM
p.2 #157d for weddings?
I was stung by the 50D... it'll be a long, LONG time before I would trust marketing hype -- 18MP does not sound good for a crop, IMO.
Sep 01, 2009 at 09:08 AM
p.2 #167d for weddings?
I think Canon will almost certainly release an FF camera with these features now. It may be several months or another year, but the 5DIII or 3D, or whatever you want to call it, will be on its way.
That will be a wedding photographer's camera.
That will be a wedding photographer's camera.
Sep 01, 2009 at 09:56 AM
p.2 #177d for weddings?
deepbluejh wrote:
Canon is offering a very compelling camera for the money here with the 7D.
Don't be so quick to judge based on only the manufacturers marketing .. we know little about this cameras' actual performance. Right now it looks to me like Canons' Christmas gift to their retailers.
On paper it looks great .. but in the real world of actually shooting weddings it has to focus well in low light, and offer good high ISO noise performance. Given it's specs that's something I seriously doubt.
When the 50D was first introduced I said no way would the noise performance match the 40D or 30D .. you simply cannot jam more and smaller pixels onto a sensor without paying the price with higher noise and lower dynamic range. And now the 7D crams even more pixels on the same size sensor.
Spend the extra grand and get a real camera.
Canon is offering a very compelling camera for the money here with the 7D.
Don't be so quick to judge based on only the manufacturers marketing .. we know little about this cameras' actual performance. Right now it looks to me like Canons' Christmas gift to their retailers.
On paper it looks great .. but in the real world of actually shooting weddings it has to focus well in low light, and offer good high ISO noise performance. Given it's specs that's something I seriously doubt.
When the 50D was first introduced I said no way would the noise performance match the 40D or 30D .. you simply cannot jam more and smaller pixels onto a sensor without paying the price with higher noise and lower dynamic range. And now the 7D crams even more pixels on the same size sensor.
Spend the extra grand and get a real camera.
Sep 01, 2009 at 10:05 AM
p.2 #187d for weddings?
Right now, my main body is a 1DmkIII and my second is a 20D. We also own a 5DmkII, but my wife uses that as her main body. I like the fact that we have all of the different crop factors covered because they allow us several different looks for every lens we own... Obviously the 20D is beginning to lag at this point, so I'd seriously consider this as an option to retire my 20D. It sports the 1DmkIII VF and viewfinder which I really like and the AF seems like it might be similar (I have no problems with mine). Assuming the ISO performance is good (good is a relative term) I'd consider this. I use my 20D as a second during the ceremony, assuming its outside, but once we head indoors into lower light, the 20D gets put away. If this can deliver usable images at ISO 1600, maybe 3200. I'd pick one up.... or do I just wait for a 1DmkIV to move the 1DmkIII to my second body
hmmmm
hmmmmSep 01, 2009 at 10:17 AM
p.2 #197d for weddings?
Quan wrote:
its ok though, means i dont gota spend monies on new body. I like my 5D1 anyhow.
+1
its ok though, means i dont gota spend monies on new body. I like my 5D1 anyhow.
+1
Sep 01, 2009 at 10:17 AM
p.2 #207d for weddings?
On the Rob Galbraith site, there are 100% images from the new 7D at 1600, 3200, 6400, and dare I say 12,800. It doesn't match the 5D2 but is fairly impressive for an APS-C sensor nonetheless.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10042-10239
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10042-10239
Sep 01, 2009 at 10:23 AM