Upgrading to Canon! Lenses?

[CMT]

CMT, what do you shoot, if not weddings?

Just about everything else from sports, automotive/motorsports to weekly candids of my friends. My latest try was for nighttime rolling shots of a friend's car, and sadly they did not quite make the grade - I blame the photographer.

The 5D II focusing system is weak, but I find it better than my original 5D. I suspect that it might be the placebo effect of having a new body, but the slightly faster frame rate over the original version has allowed me to get far better sport shots than with my original as I can crank up the ISO along with the shutter speed and still have serviceable shots. I also have far better cropping potential available at 21 megapixel, something that I still find pretty amazing and I've had the new body for a while.

That said, wedding-wise...If I had someone's life-long memories on the table, I would use the 5D II but it would freak me out. Not so much for the focusing deficiency, but for the lack of card redundancy. Pro bodies can write to two cards at once, a CF and SD card, and the redundancy would be necessary for me for piece of mind.

That said, I know quite a few wedding photographers, good ones who have real talent and who are quite successful at it, that use either a 5D or 5D II. The same number use Nikons, either the D700 or D3[whatever] series. You cannot really go wrong either way.

 

[inTempus]

For weddings the 5D2 is a great body, it's quite popular in the field. I've used mine for several weddings and I prefer it over my 1D4. The AF system is reliable if you use the center point, the outer points are pretty worthless and not to be trusted. But lots of people prefer the "focus and recompose" method of shooting, even when using bodies with far more advanced AF systems. I still use that method quite a bit with my 1D body.

The lack of redundancy on the memory cards is a bit concerning. But if you shoot with smaller cards (nothing over 8GB and shoot RAW) you can minimize the risk of a card failure by not losing all of your shots. I would prefer the D700 and 5D2 have dual slots like the 1D, D300s, D3, etc. I'm sure the next evolution of the D700, whatever they call it, will have dual card slots just as the new D300s does. With Canon, who knows... the 5D3 probably will won't have dual card slots.

 

[djacobox372]

I'm making the switch partially for focusing reasons and partially because Canon's technological research track record impresses me.

I almost never use my on-camera flash, and I've never been pleased with the results when I have used it. Video isn't something I've used yet, but upcoming classes will require me to learn how to shoot video. I don't mind learning different technology... Could be good for me, instead of relying on the features I already know.

....you always want to get the L lenses. Cool thing with Canon is that all EF lenses will fit all cameras. But do not buy EF-S lenses as they're not made for FF bodies.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Budget? Basically... figure out what I need and sacrifice to make the necessary changes.

CMT, what do you shoot, if not weddings?

Thanks all, for your help!

If you're picking a brand based on research, and pushing the tech... Sony is the brand to go for. Both canon and nikon seem hindered by their legacy user base.

And this is coming from someone that shoots nikon (you know the "camera" company).

 

[Sw1tchFX]

If you're looking to update your camera for "focusing reasons", don't get the 5D. Get a D700. If you're shooting weddings the D700 is the better camera than the 5D Mark II because:

AF: the 5D's have the 9 point system developed for the Canon 10D. It's like putting your D50's AF system in a FF body. D700 has a 51-point AF system that can track by color, the same system that's in the D3-series cameras.

Speed: 8fps with the grip, or without if your finger is fast enough. 5DII isn't even 4fps.

High ISO: although close, the D700 is still better when shooting at ISO 3200 and 6400, where you'll be alot.

Construction: the 5D's top deck is metal, but none of it's sealed. D700's all magnesium except the flash and card door, and the whole thing is weather sealed equivalent to the D3 and Canon 1D.

Fewer MP: When shooting high volume (wedding) 21MP takes up alot of space, and 12 is just fine up to 20x30, and how many wedding shots are printed up to 20x30? not many.

Lenses: The Bread-and-butter wedding lens for most FF shooters, the 24-70, is better on the Nikon system. The Nikon 24-70 is sharper than the Canon 24-70, anyone who's shot both will tell you that.

Wireless flash: Don't knock the pop-up, it can control speedlights off camera wirelessly, even in TTL so you can use flash and get more creative with your lighting.



There are really only TWO things the 5D does better than the D700:

Video: duh

Resolution: the difference between 12 and 21MP is significant, but not for the type of shooting you plan on doing.



Unless you plan on mostly using the f/1.2 Canon primes, you'd potentially be doing more harm than good switching.

 

[MrLogic]

AF: the 5D's have the 9 point system developed for the Canon 10D. It's like putting your D50's AF system in a FF body. D700 has a 51-point AF system that can track by color, the same system that's in the D3-series cameras.

If the OP only uses the "focus and recompose" method* (re: InTempus' post above) then this won't matter, as the 5D II has good center AF point performance. (Then again... so does the Nikon D50, as far as I know)


* which, of course, causes focus errors:

Why Focus-Recompose Sucks

 

[John Mc]

If you're picking a brand based on research, and pushing the tech... Sony is the brand to go for. Both canon and nikon seem hindered by their legacy user base.

And this is coming from someone that shoots nikon (you know the "camera" company).

Im not meaing to rain on your parade here,but heres some info on the "nikon" company.They Started out it in 1917 it only produced optics for telescoped,bino's ect up until around 1932 when they started producing Camera lenses under the name Nikkor. 2 years later Canon would release there First 35mm camera(ahead of the Nikon company even being thought about,This name would not be adopted untill 1946,after the war when they started producing small Film cameras) called the Kwanon.Nikkor did produce the Optical glass for the cameras that Canon Produced,up until around the 1940's,when canon founded Precision Optical Industry, Co., Ltd and produced there own in house lenses, and slowly stopped using the Nikkor lenses that They were previously instaling in favour of there own lenses.
In 1959 both companys introduced the first Slr range,and both companys profit into the Camera market grows.after the 60's both companys diverge,canon grows by producing Calculators,better video cameras,one of the first Xrays,and Photocopiers.Nikon Build cameras for Nasa's appolo missions,Which is a great feat,i'll admit,but Nasa still used the heavier Hasselblads.

Canon grew into a wider market by offering more products,which is rather smart on a business prospect,more products = more profit,More profit = longevity,Which as a business,you allways want.Nikon are still here,which i agree is brilliant,Being solely able to fund research on one type of product is a great way to bring out new technology faster then your competitor but does not allways happen.

The Camera company that you say,is mearly an Optics company,still Fighting though,just with more products on offer. The true Camera Company you speak of is Obviously Canon.They were producing Cameras long before Nikon had been thinking about doing so.Canon simply did as most Successful businesses do,Diverge into other parts of the market to guarantee that they live a longer life.

 

[inTempus]

AF: the 5D's have the 9 point system developed for the Canon 10D. It's like putting your D50's AF system in a FF body. D700 has a 51-point AF system that can track by color, the same system that's in the D3-series cameras.

If the OP only uses the "focus and recompose" method* (re: InTempus' post above) then this won't matter, as the 5D II has good center AF point performance. (Then again... so does the Nikon D50, as far as I know)


* which, of course, causes focus errors:

Why Focus-Recompose Sucks

The focus and recompose method has been used to great success since AF systems were devised. It's still used by countless photographers, many of whom likely have far more experience than you or me.

I also didn't say it was the best way, nor the only way, to focus. I simply said I use it sometimes. Heck, I would be willing to bet even you use it more than you care to admit. It also doesn't create focus errors in every situation, it's only an issue with shallow depth of field shots.

I use all of my focus points on my 1D when I have the luxury of doing so. But there are times when switching to that perfect AF point isn't an option if you want the shot.

It's merely one trick in a bag of tricks, but then I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

 

[shaunly]

That why it's nice to have lot of focus point, so that you can set your point closest to your subject and never miss focus.

 

[MrLogic]

AF: the 5D's have the 9 point system developed for the Canon 10D. It's like putting your D50's AF system in a FF body. D700 has a 51-point AF system that can track by color, the same system that's in the D3-series cameras.

If the OP only uses the "focus and recompose" method* (re: InTempus' post above) then this won't matter, as the 5D II has good center AF point performance. (Then again... so does the Nikon D50, as far as I know)


* which, of course, causes focus errors:

Why Focus-Recompose Sucks

The focus and recompose method has been used to great success since AF systems were devised. It's still used by countless photographers, many of whom likely have far more experience than you or me.

I also didn't say it was the best way, nor the only way, to focus. I simply said I use it sometimes. Heck, I would be willing to bet even you use it more than you care to admit. It also doesn't create focus errors in every situation, it's only an issue with shallow depth of field shots.

I use all of my focus points on my 1D when I have the luxury of doing so. But there are times when switching to that perfect AF point isn't an option if you want the shot.

I used to, but not anymore. My mentor hates it with a passion. I usually use the 11 AF point selection if I need to make a quick adjustment. This works better for me than the focus and recompose method. But to each his own.

It's merely one trick in a bag of tricks, but then I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

Sure, if "getting the shot" is what counts then anything is justified. "f/8 and be there," crazy high ISO, and yes......... the focus and recompose method. I was aware.

 

[inTempus]

Oh yeah, no one ever has any success with focus and recomposing... it's a miracle anyone got an in-focus shot before multi-zone AF! Actually, I don't think there are any in focus shots anywhere on the planet.

Somehow I pulled a bunch off Sunday though, I don't know how I did it. Crazy, perhaps the gods were on my side.

100% crop, f/5.6 shot with a 5D2 by focusing and recomposing. Focus is on the eye closest to the camera.

Full shot:

I know, amazing. I should play the lottery.

Here's one shot at f/4. I was really pushing things... but again, the gods were on my side apparently.

 

[mhafweet]

Thanks for your responses... I really appreciate everyone's help.

The Nikon D50 has a 5-point focus... but I can almost never get my photos to focus on something that isn't in the middle of the screen.... How does the camera know what to focus on if there are lots of potential focus points? Rather, how can I take advantage of a dynamic focusing system and make it work to my advantage, rather than against me?

 

[shaunly]

Oh yeah, no one ever has any success with focus and recomposing... it's a miracle anyone got an in-focus shot before multi-zone AF! Actually, I don't think there are any in focus shots anywhere on the planet.

Somehow I pulled a bunch off Sunday though, I don't know how I did it. Crazy, perhaps the gods were on my side.

100% crop, f/5.6 shot with a 5D2 by focusing and recomposing. Focus is on the eye closest to the camera.

Full shot:

I know, amazing. I should play the lottery.

Here's one shot at f/4. I was really pushing things... but again, the gods were on my side apparently.

All of these example show the focus point to be very close to the center of the image thus making it easy to focus-recompose. What if you want to have his eyes at the corner of image while shooting at f/1.4. By the time you recompose, your subject will be completely out of focus. That why it's a big plus to have lot of focus point because you can now select the one closest to your subject i.e. minimizes the distant to reduce miss focus.

 

[Derrel]

Oh yeah, no one ever has any success with focus and recomposing... it's a miracle anyone got an in-focus shot before multi-zone AF! Actually, I don't think there are any in focus shots anywhere on the planet.

Somehow I pulled a bunch off Sunday though, I don't know how I did it. Crazy, perhaps the gods were on my side.

100% crop, f/5.6 shot with a 5D2 by focusing and recomposing. Focus is on the eye closest to the camera.

Full shot:

I know, amazing. I should play the lottery.

Here's one shot at f/4. I was really pushing things... but again, the gods were on my side apparently.

Once again, samples that have almost no value whatsoever. So, you managed to get a static child's face in focus by shooting at f/5.6 at 70mm with flash....wow! And also did the same thing at f/4 with flash! Amazing how incredible this is.....but then, the depth of field at f/5.6 at 70mm is amply deep. You said you focused on the eye "closest to the camera" (sic). Well, the closer eye must be about 1/4 inch closer than the far eye, so you showed us that you can capture a flat-plane, static subject, at f/5.6, at 70mm. zOMG, maybe you *should* play the lottery!!! And yes, the gods are definitely on your side if you can pull off such a tough,tough shot.

Let's take the first shot, the one where the "closest eye" (sic) is the one you focused on. I'll say you shot that at around 8 feet, at 70mm. The lens was set to f/5.6, as indicated in the EXIF. The depth of field zone is 1.32 feet deep, extending from .61 foot in FRONT of the 8-foot focusing distance, to .71 foot BEHIND the 8 foot focus distance.

So, your sample photo that you are using to try to make a point is...worthless...the depth of field band is 1.32 feet in total--deeper than the measurements of a child's entire HEAD, from front to back.

On the second photo, shot also at 70mm but at f/4, if that was done at 8 feet focus distance, the depth of field band is .44 foot in FRONT of the 8-foot mark, and .49 foot BEHIND the 8 foot focusing distance, for a total depth of field band of .93 foot....again, a depth of field band that is deeper than the ENTIRE depth of a child's entire head...and so your attempted "point" is really not made by these sample pictures.

Sorry, but these two snaps are poor examples, and the flippant attitude in response to posts from Switch!FX and MrLogic above RE focus and recompose is not really all that appropriate to advancing the discussion,since the flippant tone disregards a lot of facts for the actual mechanics involved in focus-recompose. In these god-like, lottery-winning-like Halloween night samples...you're shooting with almost a foot of depth of field to play with, and are bragging about it as if it is some sort of amazing feat,and downplaying a very real issue that experiences shooters have been dealing with for DECADES, beginning with the first high-speed lenses back in the 1930's. When you have a FOOT to one and one-third foot of depth of field to play with, you can afford to be sloppy.

 

[inTempus]

These samples are far from useless. You're just mad because once again I'm right and you can't stand it.

These shots demonstrate quite clearly that in focus shots can be had using the method described. Yes, DoF field is on my side... that is my point that you stumbled into. LOL

I never said it was ideal. But contrary to Mr. Logics assertion that using this method yields out of focus shots and can't be trusted, it clearly doesn't if you know when it's safe to use.

There are plenty of situations where you wouldn't want to use this method as I've clearly stated before.

So, once again your rambling non-sensical post has absolutely no merit.

To recap since you have a hard time following simple conversations:

Assertion: you can't achieve an in focus shot using the focus and recompose method.

Reality: you clearly can if you know when it's safe to use it as I've clearly demonstrated.

Now, unless you can prove using this method always causes errors in focusing, kindly move along as you're wasting my time with your non-sense.

 

[MrLogic]

To recap since you have a hard time following simple conversations:

Assertion: you can't achieve an in focus shot using the focus and recompose method.

Reality: you clearly can if you know when it's safe to use it as I've clearly demonstrated.

Now, unless you can prove using this method always causes errors in focusing, kindly move along as you're wasting my time with your non-sense.

I didn't say "always" or "all the time."

Looks to me like "can cause" and "causes" can be used almost interchangeably in English (in certain instances):

BBC News | Health | Ecstasy causes brain damage
Oral Sex Causes Cancer, New Study Finds
Quitting Smoking: Why To Quit and How To Get Help - National Cancer Institute


You're arguing just to argue. Or at least, that's what it looks like to me.