How do you rate various DSLRs

[koputai (Jason)]

Chris, I wouldn't bother upgrading from your 50D to the 7D. great camera though it is, I don't think your bird photography would be noticably better with the change. If you really want another body, the 5DII if that suits, or wait for the 7DII or similar for a more major upgrade.

How are you going with the G12? I picked one up on sale at Harvey Norman the other day for $488, which is cheaper than even D-D! I'm giving it to my wife for Xmas, to use as our carry everywhere travel camera.

Cheers,
Jason.

[hotspur (Chris)]

Yes,Jason-I've been meaning to contact you in regard to this matter,as I knew you had the 350D and upgraded to the 7D,and you mentioned you did some wildlife photography.

Certainly-'in the field skills' and knowledge of camera settings is certainly going to be a very major part,regardless of what make a camera is used.

The G12 is great I carry it in the same bag as 50D and 400L,on most of my paddock trips.It certainly is good with the flip screen,maybe the 7DII will have this.My son has used the filter in the camera for good results.The RAW only works in manual type modes not auto.

I have to get the instruction manual printed,as its on the disc.Your wife will be happy with the g12,its a little heavier than most P.S,but I think it could take a knock and still work well.

I'll post some recent quick shots from a walk a couple of days ago.

Cheers Chris

[gregbradley]

Originally Posted by Octane

Would using a Nikon body make you a better photographer?

H

Part of being a good photographer is selecting the right gear for the job you want to do isn't it?

Gear doesn't take you all the way there but its easier when you have the right gear.

Like learning to snow ski. You use rental lousy ski's which are twice as hard to ski in and then if you take it up you get some nice skis and its a whole lot easier.

Greg.

[Octane (Humayun)]

That's why I shoot Canon.

H

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Ah yes Greg... but this argument suggests that either the Nikon or Canon camera is the rental pair - and neither are. They are each either high end Rossignols or Fischers (i.e. different brands), and definitely not "rentals".

I'm a Nikon shooter from way back - and I mean the 70's. I've always preferred Nikon gear because the family had it. We never had cause to try Canon.

Years later, although I've swapped allegiance to Canon, (5D-II) I still prefer the ergonomic qualities of a pro Nikon. They're rounder and feel nicer to me to hold. I also way prefer their menu systems and general handling - by far. That's me - it's bit the same with everyone else. As far as technical merit goes - apples for apples, I'm not up on them these days enough to know. I do love my full-frame 5D-II though - especially with the L-series Canon offer. The best landscape camera I've ever had.

[toc (Tim)]

I went from the 40D to 7D - the 7D is a GREAT body - personally I found it a pretty big step up. Thats not to say my photographs are any better

The only real criticism I have of the 7D is a little bit of banding in the shadows at low ISO - sometimes it creeps in when pushing.

With a decent lens the AF, and buffer on the 7D is just a pleasure to use.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

I have a 40d and 5d mk2, my daughter has a 60d.

"Greg" and "waiting" is an oxymoron.

Stop mucking around and get full frame 5dmk2 and fast L lenses , and then buy the mk3 when it comes out. There's no comparison IMO, 5d mk2 is the ducks guts, life's too short for waiting.

[DavidTrap (David)]

Originally Posted by Octane

Would using a Nikon body make you a better photographer?

H

The skills to be a good photographer cannot be purchased, they are only obtained through practice!

DT

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Originally Posted by DavidTrap

The skills to be a good photographer cannot be purchased, they are only obtained through practice!

DT

What do you mean by "skills to be a better photographer"?. Granted a bad tradesman blames his tools, but a good tradesman is only as good as His tools. If the aim is a better pic, rather than "as good as I can do with what I've got", then shurely , given a set skill, your can absolutely purchase a better result!.

[DavidTrap (David)]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

What do you mean by "skills to be a better photographer"?. Granted a bad tradesman blames his tools, but a good tradesman is only as good as His tools. If the aim is a better pic, rather than "as good as I can do with what I've got", then shurely , given a set skill, your can absolutely purchase a better result!.

It's not the size of the wand, but the magic you perform with it. Just because you can buy a 85mm f1.2 lens, doesn't mean you'll produce great portraits - you need to know how to use it.

On the subject of 85mm f1.2 lenses, I used one today and the depth of field is nuts. At f1.2 the tip of the nose can be in focus, but not the eye lashes (and before someone says the obvious, no the subject didn't need a nose job!)

DT

[gregbradley]

Originally Posted by Octane

That's why I shoot Canon.

H

Hmm, So if someone lent you a new D800 for a week I wonder if you would go over to the dark side?

Greg.

[gregbradley]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

What do you mean by "skills to be a better photographer"?. Granted a bad tradesman blames his tools, but a good tradesman is only as good as His tools. If the aim is a better pic, rather than "as good as I can do with what I've got", then shurely , given a set skill, your can absolutely purchase a better result!.

Totally agree Fred.

Greg.

[gregbradley]

Originally Posted by toc

I went from the 40D to 7D - the 7D is a GREAT body - personally I found it a pretty large big step up. Thats not to say my photographs are any better

The only real criticism I have of the 7D is a little bit of banding in the shadows at low ISO - sometimes it creeps in when pushing.

With a decent lens the AF, and buffer on the 7D is just a pleasure to use.

I bow to your experience. Personally I am just partial to full frame. I just loved the original EOS 7 35mm camera from Canon. It was my first really good camera and taking an excellent image was like falling off a log.

I feel that it is only now that the DSLRs have caught up with film. 5D Mk11 matched that standard, perhaps the 5D.

Greg.

[CDKPhil]

Hi Greg
Just to throw a spanner in the works.
If you are talking about full frame you might want to look the medium format DSLR. Something like the Mamiya DM. Depends on your budget but you can get a 80Mp back for these.
The quality is far better than the 35mm format. ( it always has been ) especially when it was compared to film.

The draw back on these cameras, limited lens selection, and capture rate. I think about 1 sec per frame.
If you have a really big budget go for a Hasselblad these cameras are brilliant. but $$$$$.

As far as Canon and Nikon they are both great 35mm format cameras
both have dominated the professional market for years.
You would do great with either.

Originally Posted by DavidTrap
The skills to be a good photographer cannot be purchased, they are only obtained through practice!

This statement is partly true. But from my experience in the photography profession I have found that there are a lot of photographers who are naturally talented, with little training they can produce fantastic images.
But you can not produce fantastic, high quality images on poor quality equipment. Having higher quality equipment will certainly help to improve your Photography.


Cheers
Phil

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Originally Posted by DavidTrap

It's not the size of the wand, but the magic you perform with it. Just because you can buy a 85mm f1.2 lens, doesn't mean you'll produce great portraits - you need to know how to use it.

On the subject of 85mm f1.2 lenses, I used one today and the depth of field is nuts. At f1.2 the tip of the nose can be in focus, but not the eye lashes (and before someone says the obvious, no the subject didn't need a nose job!)

DT

No, bigger wands do bigger magic

Anyway,you can't produce the the depth of field of an 85mm f1.2 lens.............without one . Nice glass BTW sounds extreme.

[DavidTrap (David)]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

No, bigger wands do bigger magic

Anyway,you can't produce the the depth of field of an 85mm f1.2 lens.............without one . Nice glass BTW sounds extreme.

I know better gear lets you achieve certain things, (this forum has cost me a lot of dollars as my appreciation of fine glass has improved dramatically over the last two years) but the skills to use that gear to achieve the result are a totally different thing. I learn new tricks every time I use my fine glass - which is definitely not enough!

Unfortunately Nikon only make an f1.4 85mm lens.

DT

[gregbradley]

You bring up another point here in that a really good lens on 20D on up may perhaps perform better than an average lens on a 5Dmk11??

So lenses come into this as well? How much is the camera and how much is the lens?

Greg.

[DavidTrap (David)]

Lenses are extremely important. We spend lots of dollars on fine telescopes and the same parallels can be drawn to camera lenses. You'll see a bigger difference between a cheap lens vs a pro lens, than you would between an entry level camera and a pro camera.

Good glass also lasts a long time, whereas the body will be due for an upgrade much sooner.

DT

[hotspur (Chris)]

Originally Posted by gregbradley

You bring up another point here in that a really good lens on 20D on up may perhaps perform better than an average lens on a 5Dmk11??

So lenses come into this as well? How much is the camera and how much is the lens?

Greg.

Yes,Greg-its all about the lens! more so than body,Just had a chap down over the last few days getting serious into photography-I listened to what he wanted to achieve in photography and astronomy, and he looked at some of the gear I had in observatory. Usually when I have someone ask me advice and they have no idea what direction their photography will take-I advise the Canon or Nikon D/SLR kit.

But this fellow was different,he had been into photography years ago,and had some firm thoughts on what he wanted to achieve -he had a budget,so suggested a few options,with the Canon 600D and 70-200L F.4 been what I most recommended,he went off got that is most happy,along with a few other bits.

If you have firm ideas of what you want to photograph-get the very best you can afford-even if you have to loan a bit-its more than worth it.

Bodies come and go,glass is here to stay

[toc (Tim)]

Originally Posted by gregbradley

I bow to your experience. Personally I am just partial to full frame. I just loved the original EOS 7 35mm camera from Canon. It was my first really good camera and taking an excellent image was like falling off a log.

I feel that it is only now that the DSLRs have caught up with film. 5D Mk11 matched that standard, perhaps the 5D.

Greg.

Heh - for me Digital whipped films butt the moment I got the original digital rebel - film was always a huge PITA for me...even if the resolution was not as good in those early days.

FF is great, but to be honest, doesn't really suit my interests (macro and wildlife) quite as much - and there is a pretty big difference between the AF and speed of a 7D vs 5Dmk2. (Thats not to say you wouldn't be able to great macro and wildlife shots with the 5Dmk2)

If I was going FF I would probably lean towards a D700 anyway ('only' 12mp, but amazing body, and superb high ISO)