5D MkII as second body?

[pellicle]

Helena

The problem here in Norway is that it's so hilly. Hill up and hill down, never ending... I tend to fall sometimes, which is why I'm reluctant to bring the 5D.

hills ... ohh hills ... I love hills ... I dream of hills while I trudge along on the dead flat lakes ...

do you have any idea how fast the bottom of skis attract snow after you've wet them?

last time I had to chip my laces off my bc boots to get my feet out of my bindings.

sigh

no wonder the old guys here prefer the gum boots

Btw. this last week we have gotten at least 70cm of snow and more is coming. Spring seems to be far away...

you lucky lucky ....

 

[Photomorgana]

My vote goes to old 5D. It can be had for very reasonable price and image quality is still top notch. I do also believe that FF EVIL camera will be coming pretty soon, so I can't justify paying big $$$ for 5DmkII (but I'm not a pro)

I use 5D with MF lenses only.
4/3 with 12-60mm and Lux 25mm (I believe there isn't many AF lenses in any system that can beat this combo)
And m4/3 again mainly with MF lenses, plus 7-14 and 20mm.

I love them all, but I think if I had to choose one system only, I'd go with m4/3, for its size/performance ratio, cine lens compatibility and EVF of ep-2.

 

[JohnW]

Well, one thing's for sure. I'll find out how well I like my GH1 for landscape work in a few weeks when I head out to Lake Tahoe for a few days. I know it won't be a perfect comparison because I don't have anything wider than 14mm, but it'll have to do. I'll probably end up trying some pano stiching using bracketed exposures - maybe I can pull off my first successful HDR out of it as well.

While in Tahoe, why not consider renting a 5DII and one wide "L" for a few days? My guess is the 4/3 would quickly become your second body. I really enjoy the GF1 and 20 1.7, but my view is that if a photo is worth taking, the extra weight of FF is an acceptable tradeoff for better quality. For me there really is no comparison. Renting would help you resolve this for yourself.

John

 

[pellicle]

John

but my view is that if a photo is worth taking, the extra weight of FF is an acceptable tradeoff for better quality. For me there really is no comparison. Renting would help you resolve this for yourself.

exactly one of the reasons my 4x5 outfit remains with me ... but its worth mentioning that I don't usually take it out every day, and ... well the old saying about the best camera being the one with you.

perhaps I'm just not dedicated, but I can not tell you how many great scenes I've seen with either no camera with me (cos I got tired once in the week) or no film left in the holders ... or just plain no film in the holders and I didn't know till I got home.

 

[Diane B]

I have never shot with 4 x 5, but even with my 5D and gear, I have found myself just plain tired at the end of the day (or even earlier) enough to just not even try one more shot. Granted, I'm well past middle age but can certainly still carry my gear, but there are times it just takes any pleasure away from the shooting experience--which, for me, is part of photography (other than when I was shooting commercial--but I didn't have to haul my gear then except in and out LOL).

But--if you have the itch, I say try it. I love my 5D shots but I love my photography experience better with my m4/3rds. I have to say too, I'm not one that is ever happy with OOC shots, so I can deal usually pretty easily with the compromise of m4/3rds except for very shallow DOF, but even there, you can achieve a very nice compromise with the right lenses, setting up, etc.

Diane

John



exactly one of the reasons my 4x5 outfit remains with me ... but its worth mentioning that I don't usually take it out every day, and ... well the old saying about the best camera being the one with you.

perhaps I'm just not dedicated, but I can not tell you how many great scenes I've seen with either no camera with me (cos I got tired once in the week) or no film left in the holders ... or just plain no film in the holders and I didn't know till I got home.

 

[Tonygamble]

What MFT is doing is to make those of us who have been sucked up the EOS route start noticing just how much heavier those 1d and 5d bodies have become. It not the bulk as, once a camera cannot fit into your pocket so has to be on a strap, the bulk is barely relevant. It is the weight on your shoulder that you notice.

I've got an old twin lens Rollei that I had in the fifties and I'm sure it weighs less than my Canon 5d.

MFT is clever in that it is filling the need of the DSLR brigade who value the ability to change lenses and who would never regard something like the Canon G11, small though it is, as a subsitute.

And yes, like an earlier poster, I can well see EVIL coming for the FF brigade as there is so much more you can do with it compared with an optical viewfinder.

Tony

 

[clark666]

My cell phone camera (BB 9700) gets the most use because it is small and with me everywhere I go. I usually carry a backpack so the weight of the camera is not an issue.

My E-620 takes good photos with the PL 25mm, but the 7D takes better photos and Canon has a selection of quality prime lenses. So, I would be happy to try a 5D as the dSLR I just don't know that it is that much better than my 7D. I probably wouldn't notice?

 

[Helena]

Helena

hills ... ohh hills ... I love hills ... I dream of hills while I trudge along on the dead flat lakes ...

do you have any idea how fast the bottom of skis attract snow after you've wet them?

last time I had to chip my laces off my bc boots to get my feet out of my bindings.

sigh

no wonder the old guys here prefer the gum boots

you lucky lucky ....

Fortunately, I have only experienced wet skis once, but I never want to do it again. We were going down a slope and there was some water at the bottom. My fiancé yelled "don't...", but it was too late. Then I had to carry the skis to one of the cottages where you can get inside and have a snack, and wait there until the ice had melted.

Back on topic (slightly): Hope there will continue to be cameras with optical viewfinders even in future. I thought that G1's EVF was nice and bright, but really tiring for the eye. It was something like looking at an movie on a computer screen instead of at the reality through a clear window. But I guess the EVFs will continue to be improved.

 

[pellicle]

Tony

What MFT is doing is to make those of us who have been sucked up the EOS route start noticing just how much heavier those 1d and 5d bodies have become. It not the bulk as, once a camera cannot fit into your pocket so has to be on a strap, the bulk is barely relevant. It is the weight on your shoulder that you notice.

I've got an old twin lens Rollei that I had in the fifties and I'm sure it weighs less than my Canon 5d.

I happen to be firmly in that camp, I wrote my complaint down on my blog a while ago.

Essentially as one who has been using 35mm for many years (my first one when I was 15 was a viewfinder only type). I considered the first of the DSLR's to be disappointing (I was living in Tokyo when the D30 was released) and thought that any serious camera owner would be disappointed by the heavy mass small sensor and pathetive view finder. Actually much of what was written at that time reflected just that sentiment.

Its interesting that the G1 has got DSLR to the same point (more or less) as my 1980's OM10 camera just now.

G1

OM 10

even though its sensor is about 1/4 the area (half either dimension) of the 35mm camera. Comparing to a film camera with an equal sensor size:

the micro 4/3 ceases to really look compact.

Certainly there is little doubt that a sensor is flatter and thus allow more accurate capture from the lenses than film can, but you know, there is only so much that lack of area can make up.

In fact I can compare favourably my 35mm film scans with the capture from my G1, and since the systems really are the same size it just goes to show how fat the 5DMkII really is

There is no doubt that the 5DMkII is an incredible professional tool. When toting along all the goods and shackles that one does in professional work (stands, lighting, lenses, cases) it won't matter a rats arse that its big, but for people who hike their gear around it sort of does.

So if people can design all the requirements of an MP3 player which fits into something smaller than a matchbox (and this player was bought in 2001)

perhaps they could also fit the electronics of a camera like one of the snuggle tiny compact casio Exilim cameras

with a sensor the size of the G1 into a package the size of the Pentax 110

 

[snowy]

I see ... so you think that in my view I really believe something else?

or did you fail to notice it was not an absolute but "in my view"

?

I simply meant *I* don't agree that the G1 was better at everything else - maybe I should have added "in my view"! I wasn't trying to tell you what you believe...

 

[photoSmart42]

As a quick update, I decided to get a 35mm Canon FTb as my FF companion to the GH1. With high-quality scans and good film I should be able to squeeze nearly 5DII performance from my film, and it was only $50. I posted some initial test shots in the Analog Cameras forum.

For sure one thing that's clear is that using film is forcing me to think about my photos a LOT more, which should also improve my digital experience as well. Knowing that I only have a few rolls of film on me is really making me think about composition, lighting, etc. It took me over 2 hours to shoot the 24 frames of test film the other day when I was checking to see how well my metering works. I'm very happy! Testing it for real in Tahoe next week.

 

[m3photo]

Re: 5D MkII performance

With high-quality scans and good film I should be able to squeeze nearly 5DII performance from my film, ...

Good to see an optimist from time to time
I wonder how much each "high-quality scan" will cost? Even then the "nearly" will still be a stretch I think.
However, I still shoot a roll from time to time with my trusty F3 but I realize that even the G1 can outperform anything I get from 35mm film. Why do I do it? It's not for the "performance" it's for the feeling one gets from a film image versus a digital one.

 

[photoSmart42]

Re: 5D MkII performance

Good to see an optimist from time to time
I wonder how much each "high-quality scan" will cost? Even then the "nearly" will still be a stretch I think.
However, I still shoot a roll from time to time with my trusty F3 but I realize that even the G1 can outperform anything I get from 35mm film. Why do I do it? It's not for the "performance" it's for the feeling one gets from a film image versus a digital one.

I'm nearly always an optimist . I can get 17MP scans for about $12 per roll on top of the normal developing charges, so call it $17 per roll. That means I can shoot about 130 rolls (4500+ photos) for the price of a 5DII body, and frankly it'll take me forever to shoot that much film on a backup camera. 17MP is not as detailed as the 24MP 5DII, but the DR is likely better and I do get the film 'feel' as a bonus.

I do agree that for most everything I want to do, my GH1 will fit nicely. But for the money, scanned film is a much better proposition for me over buying a 5DII+lenses just to get the FF experience. Even if I were to rent the 5DII for a week I'd still come out ahead using the film camera. Still, I may buy a 5DII if I happen to have an extra $3000 laying around the house

 

[m3photo]

Re: 5D MkII performance

Still, I may buy a 5DII if I happen to have an extra $3000 laying around the house

I see what you mean, $17 per roll and I'd be doing the same but in my neck of the woods it's cheaper to reshoot them on a digital camera.
I happened to have an extra (nice bank manager) and went for a D700 to complement my manual Nikkor lenses and have been well pleased with the acquisition.