The 500/4 is a fine lens, but many times the weight and cost:
brainiac wrote:
This highlights the number 1 full frame advantage: it's much more forgiving with all of these factors and can save you a lot of money on lenses for an equivalent result UNLESS you are reach limited in your typical application.
This highlights the number 1 full frame advantage: it's much more forgiving with all of these factors and can save you a lot of money on lenses for an equivalent result UNLESS you are reach limited in your typical application.
How can a FF camera save me money over a crop? You lost me there. Both the 5d, 7d, and even the newest rebel call for "L" glass to really shine.
As soon as I got my 7d, I dug out the junky 18-55 kit lens I originally got with my 20d and I could not see much difference in the 7d images. Put on the 24-105L and its a totally different story.
pKai wrote:
I have to jump in here and offer nothing useful.......
I'm an engineer too, like many of you seem to be in this thread... -- I, however, instead of trying to work my passion as if it were my profession, rather like to take refuge in protography from the daily drudge of calculus, ballistic coefficients, kinetic potentials, and other things that make one's brain hurt.
Geez people... photography is art and as such it is very subjective.... So think of the comparison this way -- Look, Ma -- no math!
I have an assignment to shoot...let's see... some Rolex watches for a Jewelry story catalog.. I will shoot this assignment with either a 7d or a 5d.....
I choose my trusty 24-105L for this.... its awesome sharpness, ability to focus to 1.5ft, and its zoom range appeal to me. Of course, IS never hurts!
I set up my lighting and "scene" or layout of products WITHOUT regard for any camera -- just like I would do it if I had already chosen the camera. I don't care at this point.
I compose the scenes in the viewfinder the same way with each camera and shoot a series of test shots..... meaning, I take the same shots with each camera -- I don't care about sensor size or pixel density. If I move up or back, its not to compensate for larger VS smaller pixels at their relative densities within their respective sensors --- I only move to make the same composition in the viewfinder. I'm just as likely to change focal length to achieve the same thing. Since this is a comparison exercise, I would take comparable test shots by both moving and changing focal length with each camera. I only care about the finished product.
I either print or view the results on screen along with some assitants and maybe the client and choose the best. Done.
If I had a 5d2, I would do this tonight and post it tomorrow for you all to choose....Unfortunately, I only shoot crop bodies......
Epologue with an old cliche: "The more things change, the more they stay the same".....
Back in the day before the Web was even a twinkle in a Swiss researcher's eye.. I remember being at a local camera club meeting and witnessing a heated conversation betwen several chemists... one of those great Kodachrome vs Velvia flamefests... They were arguing passionately about how a one film emulsion's silver halide particulate distribution interacted with the color dyes to produce much better images than the other....... and how a 21 chemical process with a .25 degree temperature tolerance was so easy to screw up by the mere mortals who were running the labs....... and oh yes, my favorite... they argued endlessly about how invalid all suggested testing methodologies were..... WHY
BECAUSE Kodachrome and Velvia are (were?) very different films!!
pKai wrote:
...I compose the scenes in the viewfinder the same way with each camera and shoot a series of test shots..... meaning, I take the same shots with each camera -- I don't care about sensor size or pixel density. If I move up or back, its not to compensate for larger VS smaller pixels at their relative densities within their respective sensors --- I only move to make the same composition in the viewfinder. I'm just as likely to change focal length to achieve the same thing. Since this is a comparison exercise, I would take comparable test shots by both moving and changing focal length with each camera. I only care about the finished product...
Thanks for all well meaning comments. I have created a new thread which hopefully adresses the area of misunderstanding in the purpose of the comparison and makes it more valid.
)