MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Advice on camera upgrade  (Read 18050 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: February 03, 2009, 02:16 »
0
Paula:

From what Ive read about your workflow, you first need to remake your workflow. No camera will produce stunning results when you do not edit properly. I would suggest Photoshop CS2 or CS3 - much cheaper and not really weaker in most features then CS4, also PS Elelments arent bad with most features for beginners with PS. You can try it and see if it fits you. Some ppl like Gimp, which is freeware and definitely good tool, however it has not many PS features and I foud its user-interface pretty non-ergonomic.

I know there are screamers telling you "buy 5DMkII" or "only FF is the real camera". I say thats not a whole story. To feed sensor of 5DMk2, you need lenses which are above grand each and long tele lenses easily cost several grands. And you will quickly discover, that despite more then hundred lenses offered, Canon has only few capable for 50D or 5DMkII which are not extremely pricy and those left still arent cheap. Lisa said that 40D is much worse then 5D - well, many reviewers including dpreview.com disagree with that because of many reasons. Its not true that 40D has "high noise" - in fact its one of the world top cameras about noise level. 40D is by some reviews even better per pixel quality then 50D and comparable to 5D, while much cheaper then both. Except fullframe cameras there are only few which have same or lower noise.

For 40D there is available pretty good budget lens option:
Tokina 12-24 + Tamron 17-50/2,8 + Tokina 50-135/2,8 (all pretty good and much cheaper then comparable Canon stuff)

In case you have enough money you can go also EFS 10-22 + EFS 17-55 + EF 70-200/4 but I would prefer other kit Tokina 12-24 + Canon 24-105/4 + 70-200/4 in case you decide to go FF later.

For 5DII I would go C16-35/2,8 + 24-70/2,8 + 70-200/4

Just my suggestions  ;D


CofkoCof

« Reply #51 on: February 03, 2009, 07:12 »
0
The one thing that is really a pain is the perfect blue skies with no clouds. I am still pretty clueless on how to fix banding more frustrating than anything else.

I have been wandering over forums everywhere, asking questions, and nobody has a clue how to solve it. I went to 16-bit and it doesn't help. Most people don't see it actually on CRT's, but I'm using a high contrast LCD, just for that (I'm using a second CRT monitor to adjust colors).

You can try adding some noise, it helps with banding. I use 0.3 or 0.4 pixels.

lisafx

« Reply #52 on: February 03, 2009, 12:14 »
0
Lisa said that 40D is much worse then 5D - well, many reviewers including dpreview.com disagree with that because of many reasons. Its not true that 40D has "high noise" - in fact its one of the world top cameras about noise level. 40D is by some reviews even better per pixel quality then 50D and comparable to 5D, while much cheaper then both. Except fullframe cameras there are only few which have same or lower noise.


Are you speaking from personal experience about the quality of the 40D vs the 5D?  Do you own both cameras?  I read those glowing reviews of the 40D, which is the reason I bought it as a backup. 

I did not expect it to be as good as the 5D, but even so I was quite disappointed for all the reasons listed above.   Yes, the 40D can produce some good images, but not consistently enough to make it a good choice for a business tool IMO. 

If you have personal experience differing from mine Basti, I would be interested in hearing it.  Who knows, maybe I got a "bad copy" of the 40D? Anything's possible.

Dpreview is a great resource for information, as are a lot of the online sites that do camera reviews.  I always read up on them before making a camera buying decision.  But it is good to remember that most of the people voicing opinions there are not required to produce images that are as clean and sharp as the micros demand at 100%.     

 


« Reply #53 on: February 03, 2009, 12:21 »
0
Dpreview is a great resource for information, as are a lot of the online sites that do camera reviews.  I always read up on them before making a camera buying decision.  But it is good to remember that most of the people voicing opinions there are not required to produce images that are as clean and sharp as the micros demand at 100%.


That's very true. I've noticed some equipment reviewers on Fred Miranda rather dismissingly refer to such people as 'pixel peepers'.

lisafx

« Reply #54 on: February 03, 2009, 14:45 »
0
Dpreview is a great resource for information, as are a lot of the online sites that do camera reviews.  I always read up on them before making a camera buying decision.  But it is good to remember that most of the people voicing opinions there are not required to produce images that are as clean and sharp as the micros demand at 100%.


That's very true. I've noticed some equipment reviewers on Fred Miranda rather dismissingly refer to such people as 'pixel peepers'.

LOL.  They must not be submitting to the micros.  If you do then you quickly become an "anal retentive pixel peeper"  :D

vonkara

« Reply #55 on: February 03, 2009, 15:57 »
0
Dpreview is a great resource for information, as are a lot of the online sites that do camera reviews.  I always read up on them before making a camera buying decision.  But it is good to remember that most of the people voicing opinions there are not required to produce images that are as clean and sharp as the micros demand at 100%.


That's very true. I've noticed some equipment reviewers on Fred Miranda rather dismissingly refer to such people as 'pixel peepers'.
Never go on amateur photography forums. At least I don't like it. I'm a weirdo there LOL. Because I downsize to get rid of noise. I use photoshop on all my pictures. I sometimes zoom at 200% and delete 50% of my pictures (not sellable). I'm a real witch for them

« Reply #56 on: February 04, 2009, 01:21 »
0
No Lisa, I do not own them. Tho I was pretty interested in comparing them, becuase I wanted to switch to Canon. I did pretty much searching around web a saw heap of test images in various conditions. Maybe your experience is different but Ive heard and read enough ppl saying it reverse that Im pretty unsure about what is better.

However I strongly disagree about 40D being "too bad for micro" - most ppl here shoot with much worse cameras, often 350D, 400D or cheap Nikons. Im using Olympus which is considered crap by many ppl who know nothing about it. Pixel-peeping is a disease of microstock - some do even check at more then 100%. Every serious graphic designer will tell you that offset print with 300dpi is MUCH smaller then what you see at 100% on your monitor. Btw. you often use CMYK and nor RGB for print - cropping colors in conversion from improperly postprocessed jpegs is much worse problem then some pseudo-noise visible only at 100% or above...

Many folks use cheap lenses on superb bodies. I know its not your case but I warn against "only fullframe" approach. Most ppl have NO idea what it is about and its much less painfull for them to start with 40D and set of average lenses then buying FF + 3 stunning quality lenses and then shoot jpeg, no postprocess and using that as P&S. Buying superb pro gear will not make you a pro... (Yes I know a Lisa is real pro  ;D)

Xalanx

« Reply #57 on: February 04, 2009, 01:46 »
0
Lisa said that 40D is much worse then 5D - well, many reviewers including dpreview.com disagree with that because of many reasons. Its not true that 40D has "high noise" - in fact its one of the world top cameras about noise level. 40D is by some reviews even better per pixel quality then 50D and comparable to 5D, while much cheaper then both. Except fullframe cameras there are only few which have same or lower noise.


Are you speaking from personal experience about the quality of the 40D vs the 5D?  Do you own both cameras?  I read those glowing reviews of the 40D, which is the reason I bought it as a backup. 

I did not expect it to be as good as the 5D, but even so I was quite disappointed for all the reasons listed above.   Yes, the 40D can produce some good images, but not consistently enough to make it a good choice for a business tool IMO. 

If you have personal experience differing from mine Basti, I would be interested in hearing it.  Who knows, maybe I got a "bad copy" of the 40D? Anything's possible.

Dpreview is a great resource for information, as are a lot of the online sites that do camera reviews.  I always read up on them before making a camera buying decision.  But it is good to remember that most of the people voicing opinions there are not required to produce images that are as clean and sharp as the micros demand at 100%.     

 

I have them both. You're right, 40D is not on a par with 5D, by miles away. But it has its strengths. 40D is very good for action and wildlife, for having 6.5 fps and 1.6 crop. stick a 300 or a 400mm (plus a 1.4x or 2x tc) in front of it and you'll be really happy. It can also give good results for shooting landscapes with the 10-22mm.
For a backup camera is really good, I don't think you can get something better for those money. Better than 50D in high iso, my opinion.
But, bottom line is.... I'm only using the 5D now ;D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2077 Views
Last post September 10, 2007, 14:00
by Pixart
12 Replies
3527 Views
Last post January 10, 2010, 13:30
by donding
12 Replies
3804 Views
Last post February 05, 2010, 21:56
by vonkara
12 Replies
3078 Views
Last post March 12, 2012, 23:00
by RacePhoto
11 Replies
1475 Views
Last post August 09, 2013, 12:07
by Pilens

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors