Undecided on equipment upgrades

[Robin Usagani]

based on my experience, I need zoom on longer reach. So I personally rather have nice primes on the short end and 70-200 for long end. You more likely dont need the zoom as much when you are closer (you can always walk closer or move farther to get the framing you want). My first suggestion I think is the best option. If you dont like the 35L idea, replace it with 24-70L.

 

[Derrel]

Okay..a 20x20 studio--that means a FF camera is almost a necessity, just for santity's sake. The background control due to the shallower DOF, and the larger capture format, mean that your portrait work will look BETTER than if you used a smaller-format (APS-C in Canon is very small, 329mm square capture size) camera and its correspondingly shorter lenses. A full-frame camera has an 864mm square capture size. That is a MUCH larger "film format".

The thing I notice about APS-C indoor portraiture work is how the background coming into good focus, and distracting from the subjects, is a constant, ongoing problem. APS-C photograhers frequently end up shooting full-length shots at 30,31,32mm in most smaller studios...with FF cameras, a 70 to 80mm focal length can be used for the same picture height...and the results look better from the FF camera.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Listen to derrel. Like he said, being able to shoot at 70+ mm in your small studio should control you decision. 7D is not a good idea. You will never be able to shoot 70+mm with a 7D in your studio unless you are shooting a baby.

 

[MLeeK]

I agree that ultimately the full frame is the way to go. I just would wait for the 5d3 and not go with the classic either. Or if you can tuck the $ away for a few months then order the 5d3 when it comes out.

 

[MLeeK]

5D Mark III Sooner Than Later [CR2] « Canon Rumors

 

[TooShay]

Okay..a 20x20 studio--that means a FF camera is almost a necessity, just for santity's sake. The background control due to the shallower DOF, and the larger capture format, mean that your portrait work will look BETTER than if you used a smaller-format (APS-C in Canon is very small, 329mm square capture size) camera and its correspondingly shorter lenses. A full-frame camera has an 864mm square capture size. That is a MUCH larger "film format".

The thing I notice about APS-C indoor portraiture work is how the background coming into good focus, and distracting from the subjects, is a constant, ongoing problem. APS-C photograhers frequently end up shooting full-length shots at 30,31,32mm in most smaller studios...with FF cameras, a 70 to 80mm focal length can be used for the same picture height...and the results look better from the FF camera.

That's what I was thinking, Derrel. I can never get my framing right because there's just not enough room, especially with a 50mm on my crop sensor... drives me insane. Granted, It's not the most ideal space but it works for now. If I'm ever at a point where I'm making good money, I'd rent a commercial space, but until then, my converted two car garage will suffice.

Okay... so instead of the 7D, what about a used 5D Mark II, 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 IS USM. I can always get the speedlite later. Total = $4658. Not bad?

 

[Robin Usagani]

to me, the only good thing about Canon right now is:
1. 5D classic. You can go full frame for $900!
2. Video is awesome
3. 1Dx.. expensive as hell but that is it! Ultimate camera for 2012.

If money is not an issue for me, I would go with NIKON full frame. You cant have a full frame for $900 though LOL. I am hating Canon though. I miss so many shots due to sucky AF system. I am just hoping 5D III wont have this problem or I may have to fork the money and get a 1Dx or switch to Nikon. 5D classic should be on the top of your list.

 

[TooShay]

I wish I knew what the specs of the 5D Mark III were going to be... I'm extremely impatient and I'd rather just get the mkii version now if it's going to be a bunch of hype for not much of an improvement, you know? They need to announce the dang thing already.

 

[Robin Usagani]

get a 5D classic now.. you may be able to find one for $850-$900 locally. Spend some $ to get a couple of fresh batteries. If you regret it, you probably can sell it for the same amount of money or just a little less if you sell it in 1-2 years. My guess is a few months after 5DIII comes out, 5D classic should be around $750-$850. Not much of a drop. If you have a buyer remorse on a new 7D or 5DII, you will lose a lot of money.

 

[TooShay]

What are the main differences between the 5D and 5D Mark II? Other than megapixels... I haven't been able to find a good article on it.

 

[MLeeK]

Rumors on the 5d3's focus system have left me really sour on Canon.
A Bit About the 5D Mark III? [CR1] « Canon Rumors

The focus system in the 5d sucks and there doesn't seem to be much push to upgrade it. Instead I think canon is trying to push people toward the 1DX which is crazy expensive. I have been having dreams about it since the announcement. I'd have to sell off everything I own and still rob a bank and sell a kidney or two to get there.

 

[Robin Usagani]

MP, video, push the ISO higher. That is it I think.

 

[Derrel]

5D Mark III Sooner Than Later [CR2] « Canon Rumors

Yeah, so they expect the 5D-III to be available in summer 2012. Sounds believable. And so, I EXPECT that like the 5D Classic, and 5D-II, the 5D-III will premier at a premium price that many people will not be able to afford, such as $3199, to as low as, MAYBE, $2999. Canon will leave the price high at first; the 5D premiered at $3499, and those who could afford it bought it, then there were some rebates offered, bringing it down to $3199. Then, it sat there for a while. Then, the price was lowered to $2999. After about two years, it became possible to buy a 5D for $2,200 in a kit with the 24-105-L zoom, and selling off the zoom to get to the final price.

Fast forward...the 5D-II has been $2799 for much of its run. At various times, rebates have lowered the cost, and the MSRP has been lowered, then raised, then lowered. Right now, retailers are trying to clear the channel by offering the 5D-II at what is it? $2099?

You do not gain much by spending $2099 on a 5D-II versus spending $800-$900 on a used 5D. You're doing portraits. 12.8 MP of CLEAN, big pixels is all you need.

If you want to dump $2,700 into a "brand-new" camera, it might as well be a Nikon D700 or D800. Unless of course, the 5D-III adds a HUGE amount of new features, like TTL flash commander, high-FPS rate, professional build quality,top-class viewfinder system, 51-point AF system, and a built-in flash unit....all of which are available in a Nikon D700 today.

The original 5D offers about the same image quality as the original Nikon D3 or the Nikon D700, up to ISO 1600. The question I have is, "Will the 5D-III finally be a professionally-oriented BODY with pro-level features and sub-systems in it? Or will it continue to be yet another, third iteration of a $389 EOS Elan body, with a $1,800 sensor in it??" That is why Schwetty and I keep suggesting the 5D Classic, since your budget of $3,500 needs to give the MOST RETURN on each dollar invested!!!

And a fairly interesting article there on lenses: Lens Genealogy « Canon Rumors

 

[MLeeK]

What are the main differences between the 5D and 5D Mark II? Other than megapixels... I haven't been able to find a good article on it.

More ISO's, higher and it expands to 50 in the MK II. Classic stops off at 3200 and II goes to 25600. Supposed to be better image quality with the II. No live view, micro adjustments, highlight tone priority, auto lighting optimizer and peripheral illumination correction or hdmi port in the classic. The classic has a smaller screen.
Everything I have read says that the II was a BIG jump from the classic.

 

[MLeeK]

I have to ask... what all do you have in Canon gear?
Honestly, if I were not so incredibly invested in Canon I'd switch I am so disillusioned with canon lately.