full censor vs a crop sensor is their a $1500.00 difference

[kundalini]

full censor vs a crop sensor is their a $1500.00 difference

I have both in Nikon flavor plus a Canon 35mm film camera. I wanted it, I got it and I like it. I don't make any money off the stuff I shoot, just an enthusiatic hobbyist with good taste.

If you want it and get it, you should like it also.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Yeah, how the **** do all those professional wedding photogs get such great images out of 5D2's? Jeeze. :meh:

Extensive photoshopping.

 

[Geaux]

Not sure if there is a 1500 worth difference. What I do know though, is a difference between "there" and "their"

 

[Gaerek]

Yeah, how the **** do all those professional wedding photogs get such great images out of 5D2's? Jeeze. :meh:

Duh, they're not. Obviously, they're all actually shooting Nikon, painting their black lenses white (to fake everyone out) and using an EXIF editor to make it look like the shot they took with a D700 is really from a 5dmkii. I thought every professional photographer knew that.

Derrel says 5dmkii sucks, so it MUST be true.

 

[Kerbouchard]

I don't think anybody thinks the 5d series are horrible, but I do think most people can acknowledge that Canon doesn't have a direct competitor to the D700. It is basically a smaller, lighter version of their flagship model for around $2300. Canon hasn't made anything close to their 1Ds Mark III series anywhere near that affordable. This isn't a Canon vs Nikon thing. I am sure a lot of Canon users would be thrilled at 1Ds performance for around $2300. Nikon just happened to make it available...about 4 years ago.

 

[Gaerek]

I won't reply again, just because this thread's been derailed enough, but I will make a couple final comments. Reading Derrel's post makes it sound like the 5d-II is a Rebel in a metal body. Which simply isn't the case. When someone can start showing me photos, and without looking at EXIF definitively tell me a photo was taken with a Canon or a Nikon, then maybe all of the nitpicking about camera companies would actually make sense. As it is, no one can do that. Shoot what works for you. To most shooters, the difference between shooting equivalent models, across brands is negligible, especially when you factor out familiarity with a particular brand's control layout. Does Nikon make a better product? I don't know from experience, but most review's, tests, etc, seem to point to that being the case. Does that mean Canon makes a bad product? Absolutely not. Shoot what you like, and have fun. Forget about the Ford/Che, errr, Coke/Pep, I mean, Nikon/Canon debate.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Well, interestingly enough, this is one of the few threads where the Nikon vs Canon vs expectations vs value actually matters. The OP has a large investment in Canon gear, but 5 out of his 6 lenses cannot continue up the Canon upgrade path. The OP is at a crossroads, and needs to make a decision as to whether to drop the full frame aspirations and stick with his initial investment, or look at selling some of his gear that is unusable at the next level. If the OP decides to start selling gear, then it is relevant as to whether or not he sticks with Canon or moves to Nikon, or Sony, or Pentax....

P.S. I was just kidding about Pentax.:smileys:

 

[flea77]

The 5Dmk2 must be really bad, shame it is the most popular wedding camera in the UK

I sincerely doubt that. I would be willing to bet good money that disposable film cameras have taken far more wedding pictures than the 5Dmk2, by a massive amount. Next step down is some digital P&S, then way way way down is the 5Dmk2. Now you may have meant current model pro wedding camera, in which case I would love to see where you get your statistics (links would be nice).

Allan

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

To the OP: It depends on what you like to shoot and whether or not you plan on making money ( or have money to burn ) Personally I shoot a 7D because I like the crop factor for more reach from lenses and a faster frame rate for birds and sports.

Too bad you bought Canon, whose EF-S lenses will not even MOUNT on their FF bodies...Nikon's FX bodies WILL mount and WILL shoot the Nikkor DX lenses, either at reduced megapixel count, OR with almost full-frame coverage in the 4:5 aspect ratio on the D3 series bodies...as Nikon showed, there is no real reason that a reduced-circle lens must be made so that it will mount ONLY on crop-frame bodies....as Nikon proved, a reduced-circle lens can easily be made so that it works on ANY camera body currently made...

As to the worth of a 5D-II with a $389 EOS Elan body paired with a $2,000 sensor....hmmm....the sub-systems (simplified extremely centrally-weighted autofocusing, color-blind metering, no built-in flash, no flash commander, slow FPS, poor light meter readouts for use in bright light) ehhhhh....I can see how many people do not see the value proposition in the 5D series. It's another matter entirely if you're looking at a Nikon D700 at the SAME price as the Canon 5D-II....there you're getting a camera with a full-bore professional autofocusing system, color-aware light metering for both daylight and flash, built-in flash, built-in flash commander system, faster FPS, and a rugged pro-type camera body, not a consumer body that has had a good sensor dropped into it. If you're looking for the lowest-cost, highest megapixel full frame d-slr, the SOny A900 and A850 are the lowest cost AND the highest MP models currently on the market, and are actually pretty nice cameras, with good viewfinders, and actually quite nice ergonomics and 'feel'.

The value of a FF camera depends on what you need it for, and to an extent, on which camera maker you buy it from. Canon, Nikon, and Sony are all selling very different types of FF d-slrs at the $1899-$2600 price points. FOr people photography, I prefer the "look" of shallower depth of field, and the way FF allows me to use traditional focal lengths, in traditional locations, to get the kind of background control that is a total PITA to achieve with a crop-body camera.

Genius, so let me get this straight....you dump +$2000K into a camera body with high rez and high megapixels and then essentially crop it with a DX lens because the mount fits? Canon didn't bother doing that, because most Canon shooters aren't morons.:lmao:

 

[Vtec44]

Genius, so let me get this straight....you dump +$2000K into a camera body with high rez and high megapixels and then essentially crop it with a DX lens because the mount fits? Canon didn't bother doing that, because most Canon shooters aren't morons.:lmao:

Just because you can do it, doesn't mean that it's logical to do it or people will do it at all. However, the option is there when absolutely necessary. People like to have options, that's why we get DSLR's because of the many options.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Genius, so let me get this straight....you dump +$2000K into a camera body with high rez and high megapixels and then essentially crop it with a DX lens because the mount fits? Canon didn't bother doing that, because most Canon shooters aren't morons.:lmao:

Look on flikr for D700 and 35mm 1.8. There are some absolutely stunning shots that wouldn't have been possible with Canon gear. Especially, since EVERY photographer seems to think it is en vogue to add vignette to their photos anyway...using a DX lens on an FX camera just saves time in post processing...best of both worlds. ;-)

 

[o hey tyler]

Genius, so let me get this straight....you dump +$2000K into a camera body with high rez and high megapixels and then essentially crop it with a DX lens because the mount fits? Canon didn't bother doing that, because most Canon shooters aren't morons.:lmao:

Look on flikr for D700 and 35mm 1.8. There are some absolutely stunning shots that wouldn't have been possible with Canon gear. Especially, since EVERY photographer seems to think it is en vogue to add vignette to their photos anyway...using a DX lens on an FX camera just saves time in post processing...best of both worlds. ;-)

Why wouldn't the shots be possible on a full frame Canon with the 35mm f/1.4L? You'd be able to print them larger than 11x14.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Genius, so let me get this straight....you dump +$2000K into a camera body with high rez and high megapixels and then essentially crop it with a DX lens because the mount fits? Canon didn't bother doing that, because most Canon shooters aren't morons.:lmao:

Look on flikr for D700 and 35mm 1.8. There are some absolutely stunning shots that wouldn't have been possible with Canon gear. Especially, since EVERY photographer seems to think it is en vogue to add vignette to their photos anyway...using a DX lens on an FX camera just saves time in post processing...best of both worlds. ;-)

Why wouldn't the shots be possible on a full frame Canon with the 35mm f/1.4L? You'd be able to print them larger than 11x14.

You kind of missed the point. For one, I was half-joking. For another, we were discussing lenses that don't even mount to a full frame Canon since Canon decided to use a separate mount for their full frame cameras.

Canon deliberately made a separation between their lines. Once you get to a certain point, your old Canon lenses won't even mount to the current Canons. I appreciate Nikon's backwards compatibility...even at reduced function.

 

[Derrel]

Yeah, how the **** do all those professional wedding photogs get such great images out of 5D2's? Jeeze. :meh:[/QUOTE]

Kind of amusing that you should ask that...a few months back there was a professional wedding shooter posting shots here. He had some BEAUTIFUL shots of a really pretty bride, posed inside of a nice wedding area, a large room, with a very grand fireplace behind, and lots of opulent wall decorations, etc.etc. An "upscale wedding venue". His static bridal portraits looked GREAT here, on PF, so I went to Flickr. I downloaded some of his large-sized JPEG images....know what??? MANY of them were OUT OF FOCUS!!!! Eyes missed...focus OFF...looked fine when shrunk down and plastered on the web, but POSED bridal portraits, with bad focus from his Canon 5D Mark II.

Anyway, Tyler, if you have never used a PROFESSIONAL-level d-slr, like a Nikon D1, D2, or D3 series, then you cannot possibly understand how weak and feeble the Canon 5Ds AF system is under demanding conditions, or with slower-aperture lenses...if you've never used, and owned, a PROFESSIONAL-level (read $5,000 body) Nikon, or a Canon 1-series $4,500 body, then you really are just talking out of your ass. And once again, you're talking out of your ass...with zero actual experience with TOP-level gear. I do not think you have any idea of what the difference is between salmon fishing and trout fishing, either. Nor between riding a bicycle, and riding a 1,000 cc touring motorcycle. Even though both trout fishing, and bicycling involve A)catching fish and B)getting from one place to another, the actual DIFFERENCES between salmon fishing and motorcycling and their pedestrian counterparts is staggering. Boy versus man, one might say.

I find it amusing to see the 5D defenders get their panties in a bunch....hell, I own a Canon 5D...I shoot it a lot...it's got a WEAK autofocusing system with an f/4 lens like the 24-105-L....the Nikon D2x by comparison, has a much,much,much stronger AF motor in the body, as well as a much better AF "system" as a whole,even when the lens is a slow-aperture consumer lens. The 5D is capable of taking good photos with a skilled operator, but it also has a very POOR AF system for leveraging off-center focus point with wide-aperture lenses, which is something that the flagship-level Canons and Nikons all can do much,much better. I've had my salmon fishing partners use my 5D,and it will fail miserably without a very skilled operator behind the eyepiece; that is not the case with a much more powerful, "smarter" camera that has color-aware light metering, and a wide-area AF system that uses red-green-blue color measurements to track focus,and can differentiate skin tone from background, and can tell the difference between sky, seawater, and white boats. Again, Tyler, let me say that until one has actually owned a flagship-level camera, the crudeness of the 5D and its sub-systems is not apparent from one's own, personal experience with consumer-level gear. In your case, maybe we could compare the 5D to naturally growing "ditchweed" selling for $40 an ounce, as opposed to some kind of purple-haired, resin-oozing sensimilla selling for $100 a gram. Maybe that analogy will make it more clear to you. You can get high off of ditchweed, if you smoke 5 joints of it, or.....go for the high-end...

 

[iNick]

"LOUD NOISES!!!!!!"