Jessops

[Mick Johnson]

Re: Jessops

More pixels do not necessarily equate to better quality in fact squeeze too many into a space and quality can be lost.

Give cropping more thought.
You like the 1.6 crop it gets you closer, but think for a moment, using the full frame of the 5D you could crop yourself to 1.6 if required giving you much the same file size as from an APS 8 million pixel sensor, same difference but the extra sensor size for wide angle at your disposal when required.
Up sizing as Stephen points out is a good option.

Patrick

One thing I really don't like doing unless I've accidentally framed the subject too small is crop. This is easy to do with a 20d as I sometimes forget about the tiny viewfinder being only 95% or less.

I'll crop something off the top or bottom of an image like masking a slide for compositional purposes but not a general crop of the whole image.

I still take all my pic's as I used to with slide film I suppose.

Also you will start to lose your nice blurred background if you can't get close enough and then have to crop.

I would like a 5d for Landscape and some general photography and may get one sometime but no way do I want one for Birds.

I thought if you cropped a 5d sensor to a 1.6 crop you ended up with 5/6mp image.

[Bearface]

Re: Jessops

I'd second Ian's suggestion - what about the 5D?

As the owner of both a 1D Mk2 and a 5D (and the former owner of a 1Ds), I can tell you that although the 1D body is slightly heavier and the focusing a tad more sophisticated, the 5D is nevertheless an exceptional camera. Like many people, I initially assumed that it was essentially a 20D with a full-frame sensor, but in fact it's a slightly larger, more solidly made DSLR which is capable of producing utterly incredible images. With the optional battery grip, it handles virtually identically to the 1D and while it lacks that camera's absolute frame-rate capabilities (as do most DSLRs on sale today...), it's every bit as responsive and critically, it gives you the viewfinder experience you've been used to with your 35mm SLR, as well as the convenience of knowing that your lenses are not compromised by the focal length "x" factor. Oh, and it's pretty cheap too...

That said, as an all-round pro-spec camera, nobody can argue against the 1D Mk2, because it too is a brilliant piece of kit. I have used one for stock photography (one of my clients refused to believe that I'd been using an 8.2MP DSLR - he thought it was a 1Ds MkII when in fact I'd been interpolating the files... ) for a couple of years now and the quality of both the camera itself and the results it's capable of just beggar belief. Plus it has wonderful focusing and a mind-blowing turn of speed should you need it.

It's a tough call, but I think you should definitely try a 5D (and look at the results) before you buy a 1D Mk2.

EDIT:

The 1.4x extender is superb and it of course eliminates the 1.3x advantage the 1DII enjoys (over the 5D) at higher zoom levels. Also, I agree with Stephen about the ease with which you can interpolate the 1DII images, but I have to add that with the 5D, you already have 12.8MP straight from the camera, so interpolation is rarely needed.

[Mick Johnson]

Re: Jessops

Tim, I tried a 5d when they came out but one of my favourite subjects is Birds and when you have had a 1.6 body you probabaly would'nt want to go back to full frame.

I also did not like the heavy vignetting I got with most lenses I have and apart from the obvious resolution advantage I saw nothing extra when compared to my 20d images.

I have also tried a 1D MKII and of course liked it...no, loved it.

The 5d has a slightly brighter viewfinder than my 20d but nowhere near as good as an Eos3. I don't think the 1D is quite as good either but near enough for me.

I'm a bit of a sharpness fanatic and even though I have a 1.4 converter I hate using it and always think it could of been better.

[Ian]

Re: Jessops

Tim, I tried a 5d when they came out but one of my favourite subjects is Birds and when you have had a 1.6 body you probabaly would'nt want to go back to full frame.

I also did not like the heavy vignetting I got with most lenses I have and apart from the obvious resolution advantage I saw nothing extra when compared to my 20d images.

I have also tried a 1D MKII and of course liked it...no, loved it.

The 5d has a slightly brighter viewfinder than my 20d but nowhere near as good as an Eos3. I don't think the 1D is quite as good either but near enough for me.

I'm a bit of a sharpness fanatic and even though I have a 1.4 converter I hate using it and always think it could of been better.

Danny Chau's brother, Tony, is a commercial photographer and he uses an EOS-1Ds MkII with various L-series Canon lenses. He confirms that the corners are often badly shaded and there is a noticeable loss in sharpness to the corners as well. But the central area of the frame is so good that he can live with it. As a former Hasselblad film user, the prohibitive cost of going to a digital Hasselblad made him go for the Canon full frame option.

Ian

[Mick Johnson]

Re: Jessops

Danny Chau's brother, Tony, is a commercial photographer and he uses an EOS-1Ds MkII with various L-series Canon lenses. He confirms that the corners are often badly shaded and there is a noticeable loss in sharpness to the corners as well. But the central area of the frame is so good that he can live with it. As a former Hasselblad film user, the prohibitive cost of going to a digital Hasselblad made him go for the Canon full frame option.

Ian

What are you trying to tell me Ian?

I still have some of the 5d shots I took and I have already seen the soft corners although it ain't bad really. The vignetting is another story.

Must admit though I did try to get it by shooting wide open with all my lenses, something I probabaly don't do too much in reality.

If I wanted full frame it probabaly would'nt stop me buying one, but I don't atm.

[Bearface]

Re: Jessops

Tim, I tried a 5d when they came out but one of my favourite subjects is Birds and when you have had a 1.6 body you probabaly would'nt want to go back to full frame.

Hey, that's a perfectly good reason to want to avoid a full-frame sensor.

I also did not like the heavy vignetting I got with most lenses I have and apart from the obvious resolution advantage I saw nothing extra when compared to my 20d images.

Well I have used all my EF / L lenses on the 5D and the only signs of vignetting appear when using the 17-40L at it's widest angle - even then it's negligible. As for outright picture quality, well there's frankly no comparision between a 20D and a 5D - resolution, colour, clarity and detail from the 5D are in a different league, although you have to use high-quality lenses. Despite it's similar resolution to the 20D, the 1D Mk2's images are noticably superior and stand up to close "pixel for pixel" comparison with those from the 5D.

I have also tried a 1D MKII and of course liked it...no, loved it.

It'd be hard not to - it's a superb camera

I'm a bit of a sharpness fanatic and even though I have a 1.4 converter I hate using it and always think it could of been better.

Well you should use it - it's commonly used by top wildlife photographers to devasting effect, so there's no reason why you shouldn't be getting high levels of sharpness when using it.