[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by raptor84 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Its probably due to slight motion blur. I was shooting 3200 in all except that last one.

Wow you're pushing it to the extreme already.

ISO1600 and the pushed 3200 still have a great amount of detail. Absolutely workable in B+W also.

 

[martook]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif If it's just about handling then I agree I prefer the D700. If I were to only have 1 camera, it would probably be the D700. But the 5D and 5D II to me have better image quality, namely in detail. I don't care much about high ISO noise. Ergonomics and other stuff, I can use nearly any camera I think as it's just a state of mind. Yeah the lens selection should matter. So if you prefer the 14-24, and 24-70, Nikon's lenses are great there.

I'd switch to the dark side as well, if they just had the lenses that Canon has... when I can get a Nikon equivalent of 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L, 17-40L, 24-105L and 70-200L f4 I'll give up all hope on Canon actually releasing a "3D" and switch. Now, I have to hope that 1Dmk4 (or whatever) is full frame at 16-18mpx. Stupid Canon. And stupid Nikon for not giving me a D700 with proper lens mount

 

[raptor84]

ISO1600 rocks big time

 

[vibin247]

After much conjecture, I've decided to keep going with Canon. Mainly because I spent a bundle for my current lenses, and would really lose a lot if I sell. I've been wanting a 1Ds Mark III, which has what I'm looking for: fast AF, large file, weathersealed body, excellent battery life, great ergonomics. I'd wait for the 1D Mark IV, especially if it's going to be a full frame competitor of the D3. A 5D Mark II is great for traveling, and the video function is handy.

 

[digitalfrog]

my first contribution to the Canon thread

 

[crazeazn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by raptor84 /img/forum/go_quote.gif ISO1600 rocks big time

i've seen that pic on FM with the post pics of your cat and 85 1.2 LOL

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitalfrog /img/forum/go_quote.gif my first contribution to the Canon thread

Nice. I knew this looks familiar. I've seen you on. MM.

 

[digitalfrog]

^^^^ small world

 

[mr_baseball_08]

Ok, new topic. Due to a college graduation in my near future, I will be the recipient of a $5000 prize.

You're mission (should you choose to accept it) is to spend this money for me. What would you get if you had $5000 to just blow away?

After much research, at this point I'm thinking 5D MarkII (I'm still using a 30D) because the low light ISO usability is amazing. I think I'll sell my 70-200 f4 and pick up the 70-200 f2.8 IS and pick up a 16-35L. Any thoughts, ideas?

 

[raymondlin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr_baseball_08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif After much research, at this point I'm thinking 5D MarkII (I'm still using a 30D) because the low light ISO usability is amazing. I think I'll see my 70-200 f4 and pick up the 70-200 f2.8 IS and pick up a 16-35L. Any thoughts, ideas?

Same set up as me

I have the 30D and planning to upgrade to the 5D II. I just picked up a 16-35L, getting the 24-70L next and then the 5D II. Set up completed.

p.s. the problem with me is that prices of Camera gear have shot up 40% in a month due to the weak £ pound......

 

[FrederikS|TPU]

Dear Canonphiles,

I am thinking about going fullframe, but I do not have a lot of money. So I was thinking about getting a used 5D, are there any pitfalls I should be on the lookout for?

One problem though I am a Canon rookie been using my Nikon D80 (please don't hang me), so I have absolutely no idea about what accessories to get besides a flash, I heard the Speedlite EX430 is good is that true? at the moment I am using the SB600 on my D80 with good results, anything that performs the same only in the Canon variety would be sweet.

As a side note I primarily do photos for my reviews and street photography.

 

[mr_baseball_08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymondlin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Same set up as me I have the 30D and planning to upgrade to the 5D II. I just picked up a 16-35L, getting the 24-70L next and then the 5D II. Set up completed. p.s. the problem with me is that prices of Camera gear have shot up 40% in a month due to the weak £ pound......

Do you have the 70-200 2.8 IS as well? I've heard that it's a wonderful lens, but I'm very happy with my f4 non-IS version. I'm seriously debating whether it's worth the extra $1000 (which it probably is).

I've also read about how great the 24-70 is and am actually still debating between it and the 16-35. Was the 16-35 everything you'd hoped it would be?

P.S. The problem with me is how ridiculously priced the 5D MarkII is. It will be the largest sum of money I've ever dropped on anything (besides my car) and it's already got me thinking about insurance for all my gear. It will probably be the last body I buy for several years to come, however.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr_baseball_08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I will be the recipient of a $5000 prize. After much research, at this point I'm thinking 5D MarkII (I'm still using a 30D) because the low light ISO usability is amazing. I think I'll sell my 70-200 f4 and pick up the 70-200 f2.8 IS and pick up a 16-35L. Any thoughts, ideas?

If you know your preferred ranges, the situations you're in, and your style of shooting, then the choices are very limited or make themselves pretty clear.

My thoughts are 70-200 2.8 IS is big, white, heavy, doesn't have the best quality, and is the most expensive so I'm not a fan of this lens. If you are a working pro, sure this'll cover more situations.

16-35 2.8 II, I don't use that much wide angle so can't justify that plus it's not the best wide angle either. The Nikon 14-24 is the best there. I don't feel like spending that much on a lens which is just good.

So it depends if you want to have convenience vs. better quality. I care more about quality though.

Convenience.
16-35 f/2.8 II
24-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8 IS

Better quality,
Nikon 14-24
Canon 35 1.4
Sigma 50 1.4
Canon 85 1.8
Canon 135 2
Canon 200 2.8
Canon 70-200 f4 IS. This is the best of the 70-200.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrederikS|TPU /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am thinking about going fullframe, but I do not have a lot of money.

If you have little money, it makes no sense to switch brands.

Nikon is a better street camera IMO with auto ISO. Nikon also have smaller prime lenses which are easier to carry and less noticeable.

Unless you wanted to go super wide angle. < "17mm"?

 

[mr_baseball_08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you know your preferred ranges, the situations you're in, and your style of shooting, then the choices are very limited or make themselves pretty clear. My thoughts are 70-200 2.8 IS is big, white, heavy, doesn't have the best quality, and is the most expensive so I'm not a fan of this lens. If you are a working pro, sure this'll cover more situations. 16-35 2.8 II, I don't use that much wide angle so can't justify that plus it's not the best wide angle either. The Nikon 14-24 is the best there. I don't feel like spending that much on a lens which is just good. So it depends if you want to have convenience vs. better quality. I care more about quality though. Convenience. 16-35 f/2.8 II 24-70 f/2.8 70-200 f/2.8 IS Better quality, Nikon 14-24 Canon 35 1.4 Sigma 50 1.4 Canon 85 1.8 Canon 135 2 Canon 200 2.8 Canon 70-200 f4 IS. This is the best of the 70-200.

Interesting. I'm glad to hear your thoughts on this.

I certainly not a working professional but do intend on making some money in the upcoming future through photography. I'll probably not give up on my future engineering career to pursue photography, but I would like to make enough to pay off the gear I want/need.

First, off I'm wondering why you'd recommend the 70-200 f4 IS over the 70-200 f2.8 IS. Monetary issues aside, I figured the 2.8 would at least be as sharp (if not sharper once you got around the f4 mark) and would work better in low light situations.

I think you're absolutely right about the 14-24 besting the 16-35, but the marginal difference isn't going to convince me to sell the Canon gear I do have and switch to Nikon.

I will probably agree with you for the most part and say I do care about quality more than convenience, but carrying around and/or owning that amount of primes just doesn't seem feasible or reasonable for my needs.

I've seen lots of images from the Canon 85 1.8, but honestly can't tell much of a difference between them and images taken with my 100 2.8. Along the same lines, there's not much difference between the 135 2.0 and my own 100. No doubt there is a difference there, but to my eyes at this point in the game, it's a marginal one.

Anyway, I'd love to hear more of your thoughts (or anyone elses!) if you would like to share more. Sorry if I come off as argumentative, that is not my intention. I'll just spending spending a large sum of money so I'd love to hear as many ideas, thoughts, justifications as possible.

.