cogitech wrote:
You must have had a different kind of 5D than I have.
Plodding? C'mon. My 10D is plodding. My 5D is easily fast enough to keep up to fast-paced event/wedding shooting. Review time is fast, emptying the buffer is fast. Everything is fast...
Please tell me what is so slow on the 5D, because I have missed it over the past 3 years.
I wouldn't call the 5D plodding, but by today's standards it's not terribly responsive in the menus or the controls. But that's due to the bar being set much higher along with the demands set by higher fps rates, Ain't nothing wrong with the 5D's responsiveness. Write speeds are definitely low though, but Canon's never been known for blazing write speeds.
If you spend some time working with an A900 or D700 then go back to the 5D it will feel slow. I'd disagree that the GF1 is really any faster outside of somewhat snappier menus.
Sorry, but I have to laugh. Not at you or anyone else. Just at the thought of spending any time using the menus in my camera. Other than formatting cards and enabling/disabling MLU, I cannot remember the last time I used my camera's menus. I cannot ever remember being in a rush to format my card or enable/disable MLU, either.
What are you all doing in your menus? What is this world coming to?
Controls? You mean like the ISO, metering, drive, etc buttons? I press them and stuff happens. I can't imagine it being any faster.
Write speeds? There again, I shoot weddings (in RAW) and I can't ever remember a time when I filled my buffer to the point that I couldn't take my next shot. Honestly.
cogitech wrote:
Sorry, but I have to laugh. Not at you or anyone else. Just at the thought of spending any time using the menus in my camera. Other than formatting cards and enabling/disabling MLU, I cannot remember the last time I used my camera's menus. I cannot ever remember being in a rush to format my card or enable/disable MLU, either.
What are you all doing in your menus? What is this world coming to?
I don't spend much time there either (really, only changing metering patterns, it's a bit quicker than the other way to do so). You see it in image review as well though, the 5D's quick, newer cameras are instant.
Controls? You mean like the ISO, metering, drive, etc buttons? I press them and stuff happens. I can't imagine it being any faster.
Write speeds? There again, I shoot weddings (in RAW) and I can't ever remember a time when I filled my buffer to the point that I couldn't take my next shot. Honestly.
Am I getting old without knowing it?
Even just changing shutter/aperture. It'd not that the 5D's slow, but try an A900 or D700 for a bit then go back to the 5D, it'll feel like molasses until you get used to it again. The speed difference isn't really an issue though(unlike with the 10D, which is a pig)
As to write speeds, some of the newer cameras are just amazingly fast, especially the Sony's as Sony has seriously pushed the boundaries of write speeds to get around small buffers, some of their bodies effectively buffer twice as many shots as the base buffer with a card fast enough to take full advantage of the camera's write speed.
Faster, more MP, more GHz, more TB, more, more more... Pretty soon these things will anticipate what we want to do and do it before the signals pass from our brains to our fingers.
I really do feel old. And I'm a geek, too. I wonder how the non-geeks feel about all this crap.
5D ergo kit is primitive compared to newer cameras, if you cant see that, you havent walked into a camera store in 5 yrs, and havent really 'read' a review from anything else
* reading/adjusting controls off the tiny top LCD grey on grey is ancient, subject to error or oversight
* fumble making a setting change from the top LCD, and in 6 seconds its gone; frustrating at night
* changing ISO or WB etc requires negotiating the back of the camera while looking at the top, i can do all that in E3 with my eye in the OVF
* menu structure, what structure? basically a bunch of settings all in 'Custom Settings'
* no quick buttons for flash, 1st-2nd curtain, AF control, E3 has WB, AF (3 modes, and points), e/v, ISO, flash, mode, IS and a programmable
* AF itself is very mediocre for speed, point selection, spread, control
* frame rate not particularly stellar by todays standards either
* bring the camera to the eye, look in the OVF, see nothing until you press shutter
* OVF overlay incomplete, doesnt show a bunch of settings, mode ISO etc
* No programmable modes 'My Mode' where you can store settings appart from other modes
* Single control wheel, bahh!
5D has one thing going for it, the sensor, but thats no small thing, in everything else its a dust sucking dinosaur
HelenaN wrote:
I think part of my problem is that in my mind I have decided that 5D is much better and therefore am prejudiced when I look at my photos from G1. There's no question that 5D is better, but I think I judge G1 harder and sometimes see the photos as worse than they are.
I had the same problem, and even looking at photos now I say to myself "definitely a 5D" for some of the ones that have that "certain something". Back when I was trying to decide which system I should keep, I took my 5D, 40D, and E-510 out and shot them as best I could. I matched settings to make the photos identical for framing and DOF, cropped the E-510 to 3:2, then did a double-blind test with fully-processed photos on my 30" monitor. I enlisted my wife's help during my "quiz".
I was surprised to find that I had a LOT of trouble distinguishing most of the photos. I wasn't much better at picking the correct camera than random chance. Embarrassingly I sometimes picked the Four Thirds camera as the best of all, which I never suspected.
Anyway, I digress. If you're finding yourself prejudiced, you might want to run a test where you do the best you possibly can (shooting and processing) with each camera, and see how/if your opinion changes when you really don't know which camera you're looking at. If nothing else it will hammer home "f/8 and be there" in your head.
Chris: I agree 100%. Some of the most commented-on images on my site were taken with either the Leica D2 or the Panny LC1.
And the subject and the way it has been captured will trump pure IQ every time, for me. To really see this, go back 30 years and look at the best colour or BW images from the era: grain, blown highlights, etc., etc., and if it's a great image, no one looks at those aspects at all.
These days I am putting my energy into improving the lighting at the time of capture, and improving my PP skills. With the D700 and the G1 (and S90) I have decided the cameras' IQ is good enough; it's up to me to improve my shooting/processing skills.
That is a great post CKrueger (Chris?)! Just what I needed to hear. Like I wrote in my previous post (the one you quoted a portion of) the photos I took yesterday with 5D+35L were to my surprise not much better than the similar G1 ones I too a couple of days before. The main difference is white balance, and I think I'll be able to adjust that more to my liking after some trial and error (I shoot JPG most of the time).
Kit: It's the same for me. Photos from G1 that I post at Flickr get just as many comments as the ones from 5D.
I'll give the G1 a fair chance and will try and not be prejudiced.
PS. I adore my 5D. I don't care that there are better and faster cameras now. It does everything I need, it never frustrates me and the files are just beautiful.
Kit, I've been working to be a little less lazy with my PP, too. When I browse around the web and see photos that make my jaw drop, if they have "before PP" shots available it's obvious that the PP was a big part of what made the image pop. I've seen photos from Bigmas and 100-400 that make photos I've taken with my 300/2.8 look pretty poor, and I've seen photos from P&S cameras that eclipse some that I've taken with my 5D. Not only that, but some of the best photos I've taken with my 5D came with the much-maligned 28-135. The primary factors are invariably light and PP.
I just wish PP were a little more fun, because to me it's always the chore to rush through at the end of the shot. Only my very best photos get any sort of attention. I'm sure there are some photos that could be much better if I could be bothered to work on them more.
Helena, yeah, my name is Chris. If you're set on shooting JPEG (given the size of RAW these days, I can't blame you!), you might want to try a shoot-off to hone in on G1 settings you like. If you go to the white balance menu on the GH1 (I presume the G1 is identical), once you choose a white balance setting you can press the down arrow and get a green/magenta/amber/blue grid, where you can tweak each individual WB setting for the look you want. I bet you could make your G1 match your 5D pretty easily with these settings. In my experience Canon equipment is balanced more towards the magenta side than most other manufacturers, for what it's worth.
CKrueger wrote:
...
Helena, yeah, my name is Chris. If you're set on shooting JPEG (given the size of RAW these days, I can't blame you!), you might want to try a shoot-off to hone in on G1 settings you like. If you go to the white balance menu on the GH1 (I presume the G1 is identical), once you choose a white balance setting you can press the down arrow and get a green/magenta/amber/blue grid, where you can tweak each individual WB setting for the look you want. I bet you could make your G1 match your 5D pretty easily with these settings. In my experience Canon equipment is balanced more towards the magenta side than most other manufacturers, for what it's worth. ...Show more →
Sorry, in my previous post I forgot to say that I had already started experimenting with adjusting the WB. Using Dynamic Color, moving AWB a few steps away from magenta towards green, and one step towards yellow, has made me very happy with the colors in good light. It's when the light is bad, or when it's foggy, that I'm struggling. It seems really inconsistent. Sometimes colors get a green cast, sometimes magenta and sometimes too blue, or just generally very dull.
I'll continue experimenting and perhaps set up a couple of custom profiles that I can switch between, but if I can't get it to work I guess I can live with shooting RAW when the light is bad.
Like you I want to avoid post processing as much as possible. The reason is that I'm a graphic artist/illustrator and sit by the computer all day. I want photography to help me get away from the computer, go outside and get some fresh air. If I need to PP everything I'm back at the computer again.
Others have covered it already, but the 5D is quite pokey in relation to a modern dSLR like the D700, which is my current camera. Just about everything about it is slower (although the review speed for some inexplicable reason is slow on the D700), but the biggest thing that gets to me is the slow mirror blackout time. When I had my 5D, it was my "every day" camera, while my 1D Mark II was my "pro" camera - bouncing between the two was unpleasant for me since I found it difficult to "see the shot" when shooting at a brisk pace, so I sold the 5D. And no, I'm not talking about sports shooting. If it's good enough for you, swell - it wasn't good enough for me.
But, the point that I failed to make very well is that image quality is just one aspect to a camera. While the 5D is great in this department, it isn't enough to overcome its other limitations, in my opinion. The flip side of that is that while the GF1's image quality isn't stellar in comparison to a 5D or my D700, it is an absolute joy to shoot with. The GF1 is compact, snappy and the Face Detection AF is great for people shooting, which allows me to shoot in ways I never would with a dSLR. The bottom line is that I love shooting with the GF1 - it's really just that simple. This joy, and my eagerness to take the camera everywhere and use the heck of it has resulted in a lot of photos that simply wouldn't have been taken if my "every day" camera was a 5D. So, while I can understand while some of you guys would be unwilling to take a "step back" by going to a GF1 or something like it, I think you're missing out if you don't spend a little time with one. With that said, there are certainly people who will take a 5D and it's big-assed lenses everywhere with them too, so in that case something like the GF1 may not be quite as emancipating as it has been for people like me.
With all that said, you'll rip my D700 from my cold dead fingers. I spent all day shooting a dog sports event with it, which always reminds how incredible a camera it is. So for me, the GF1 plays a big part in my daily life, but the D700 has the ultimate in speed, customizability, AF, high ISO performance and lens system that I need for my professional work. I feel quite fortunate to be a photographer at a time where the tools on both sides of the spectrum are so good.
alexandre wrote:
Nikon DSLRs are, AFAIK, less prone to accept almost any lens mount as an alt.
- Olympus OM can be adapted for use on the Nikon.
- Leica R's are usable as are M42 mount.
- Not 100% sure, but I think I recall seeing an adapter for Hassleblad to Nikon F
And of course, the F-mount options....
- Tamron adaptall with Nikon AiS adapters
- Zeiss offers the ZF options
- Voigt has their superb SL lineup
Are there any other mounts that can be adapted to the Nikon F - these are the one's I know of.....
Vern Dewit wrote:
Does this mean I'm done searching? Heck no! I want a GF2 with swivel LCD, more DR, HD video, optional EVF and a lens with the IQ of the 14-140 but maybe a bit less range and wider, 12-60mm f/4 OIS would be perfect!
12-75 f/2.5-3.3 would be the last lens I need to round this kit out; I am currently using the Olympus 14-54 with an adapter for that range. If Panasonic released a decent sized lens in that space, I would pick it up. Then again, an f/2.5 (wide) zoom might be pretty big, especially over that range.
