Author Topic: Canon DSLR: Body vs. Glass (Read 11590 times)

Daneel · « **on:** February 19, 2007, 07:03 »

Hi all,

given the same glass, what are the differences between the various Canon bodies (XT, XTI, 30D, 5D, 1D)? Will a XTI with the same glass get (much) worse image quality than a 1D with the same glass?

All the best,
Michael

CJPhoto · « **Reply #1 on:** February 19, 2007, 07:18 »

xt and 30D have a similar but different sensor. xti crams more into the same size so maybe worse. 5D is full frame and more pixels. 1 D ....

Autofocus and metering also vary with the 1D being the best.

For stock, all are fine. depends how far you want to go and whether you want to do anything else (ie. crops give good bang for bucks for wildlife due to crop sensor but 1D range has weather seals which can be of benefit depending conditions)

Daneel · « **Reply #2 on:** February 19, 2007, 07:21 »

Hi!

So the "naive" conclusion would be: If you have a limited budget, don't care much about the DSLR body but get the best glass within your budget?

All the best,
Michael

epixx · « **Reply #3 on:** February 19, 2007, 07:33 »

Quote from: Daneel on February 19, 2007, 07:21

Hi!

So the "naive" conclusion would be: If you have a limited budget, don't care much about the DSLR body but get the best glass within your budget?

All the best,
Michael

That's correct. Nikon D40, D50 (if you can find one), Canon D350 (XT), Pentax K100D and Olympus E-500 are all great deals. The best lens deal are the standard 50mm's. They mostly cost around $100. Just be aware that Nikon D40 can't autofocus with the 50mm and that there's none available for the Olympus.

A macro-lens is also a good idea for a DSLR, and there are lots of good one available for reasonable prices.

Daneel · « **Reply #4 on:** February 19, 2007, 07:41 »

Many thanks.

So the habit of always getting the latest DSLR body is mostly luxury or the result of a very constraint / demanding usage environment, right? Good to know :-)

All the best,
Michael

epixx · « **Reply #5 on:** February 19, 2007, 08:05 »

Quote from: Daneel on February 19, 2007, 07:41

Many thanks.

So the habit of always getting the latest DSLR body is mostly luxury or the result of a very constraint / demanding usage environment, right? Good to know :-)

All the best,
Michael

Absolutely. Although sensors evolve, and new ones with more megapixels or better low light performance are introduced, the cameras are basically the same. I have recently had images shot at ISO800 with my E-1 approved by more or less all agencies. Already when the camera was introduced three years ago, it was criticized by the pixel peepers for having bad high ISO performance. The problem with the pixel peepers, those who buy a new DSLR every 18 months (this is according to the gospel of the great god Canon, the same god who reigns in the kingdom of L), is that they are just that: pixel peepers. The rest of us are hopefully photographers.

Unfortunately, many of the reviewers at the microstock-agencies are pixel peepers as well, but as long as they get properly exposed, sharp photos that are real stock material, they'll let your images through.

Daneel · « **Reply #6 on:** February 19, 2007, 08:52 »

Hi!

So which good quality lenses would you pick for a Canon body? I assume a Macro lens, a "regular" lens (for landscape / portrait) and a zoom lens?

If you want good quality, this would place you at 1000-2000 USD I guess, right? Which would you pick?

Thanks,
Michael

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #7 on:** February 19, 2007, 09:43 »

If you have $2000 to spend, I'd buy a Canon 24-70 f4L and a 70-200 f4L. Better yet, buy something like a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 or Sigma 24-70 f2.8 DG and a set of lights. Lighting for stock is almost as important as the lenses.

Quote from: Daneel on February 19, 2007, 08:52

Hi!

So which good quality lenses would you pick for a Canon body? I assume a Macro lens, a "regular" lens (for landscape / portrait) and a zoom lens?

If you want good quality, this would place you at 1000-2000 USD I guess, right? Which would you pick?

Thanks,
Michael

Daneel · « **Reply #8 on:** February 19, 2007, 09:50 »

Hi!

Quote from: Professorgb on February 19, 2007, 09:43

If you have $2000 to spend, I'd buy a Canon 24-70 f4L and a 70-200 f4L. Better yet, buy something like a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 or Sigma 24-70 f2.8 DG and a set of lights. Lighting for stock is almost as important as the lenses.

Thanks. I still have to learn a lot w.r.t. lighting. For my (self-built) light tend I currently use three halogen construction lights (e.g., http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/ICL/ICL155/CON_016.jpg) - one left, one right and one from behind, together with custom white balance. Is that very bad? The results seem to get accepted well at agencies.

I notice that all the lenses which you suggest above have a fixed aperture. Doesn't that limit your depth of field? With my Canon S3 I mostly shoot my isolations at its highest aperture (8.0) in order to get as much as possible of the object sharp in the photo. Is that a bad technic?

I'm looking forward to your replies / explanations.

Many thanks,
Michael

CJPhoto · « **Reply #9 on:** February 19, 2007, 09:59 »

Quote from: Daneel on February 19, 2007, 09:50

I notice that all the lenses which you suggest above have a fixed aperture. Doesn't that limit your depth of field?

These are the widest apeture avaliable for the lens. other ones can be selected easily.

When you see fore example 17-85 f4-5.6, it means the widest apeture changes with the zoom, that is at 17mm it is f4 but at 85mm it is f5.6. Off course other apetures can be selected.

Daneel · « **Reply #10 on:** February 19, 2007, 10:02 »

Quote from: CJPhoto on February 19, 2007, 09:59

Quote from: Daneel on February 19, 2007, 09:50
I notice that all the lenses which you suggest above have a fixed aperture. Doesn't that limit your depth of field?

These are the widest apeture avaliable for the lens. other ones can be selected easily.

When you see fore example 17-85 f4-5.6, it means the widest apeture changes with the zoom, that is at 17mm it is f4 but at 85mm it is f5.6. Off course other apetures can be selected.

Uh...see, I'm a DSLR newbie. So the lower the f value, the higher the quality of the glass, right?

Just one more question: What does the other end of the aperture range depend on - is it the body?

Many thanks,
Michael

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #11 on:** February 19, 2007, 10:59 »

The f value is not necessarily a measure of glass quality, but it is a measure of price. Wider-aperture lenses are more expensive--and heavier--than lower-aperture lenses. Also, you should know that fixed-aperture zooms are much more expensive, generally speaking, than variable-aperture zooms.

To determine quality of a lens, look at the various reviews of that lens. If the info is available, also try to get the MTF curves (this is a too big an issue to explain here--go to luminous-landscape.com for an explanation).

The minimum aperture is also a function of the lens. Most lenses designed for 35 mm cameras have a min aperture of about 22 or so, depending on the lenses. Practically speaking, those really small apertures shouldn't be used because of diffraction problems degrading your image, especially with digital cameras.

BTW, your light tent set-up sounds just right.

Hope this helps.

Quote from: Daneel on February 19, 2007, 10:02

Uh...see, I'm a DSLR newbie. So the lower the f value, the higher the quality of the glass, right?

Just one more question: What does the other end of the aperture range depend on - is it the body?

Many thanks,
Michael

Daneel · « **Reply #12 on:** February 19, 2007, 11:40 »

Hi!

Many thanks for your valuable replies. I'm really learning a lot, many thanks.

Quote from: Professorgb on February 19, 2007, 10:59

Practically speaking, those really small apertures shouldn't be used because of diffraction problems degrading your image, especially with digital cameras.

BTW, your light tent set-up sounds just right.

While we are talking aobut f-values and light tents. I've been wondering about something. I currently shoot all of my isolations with the highest f-value which my camera supports (which is 8 ) in order to be sure to have as much as possible of my object in focus. But I'm now wondering if this habit of mine is hurting my image quality? I know with a higher f-value I sacrify "brightness of the photo" (naively said, should I say exposure?) for depth of field. I have to compensate the lack in "brightness of the photo" with a slower shutter speed.

Now I wonder if there other things which I implicitely sacrify by shooting at f8. Does it affect contrast or color? In my photo series, should I try going down with the f-value and see if I can get better photos with, e.g., f4? Will certain characteristics of my image quality improve by that? Which ones?

Many thanks,
Michael

CJPhoto · « **Reply #13 on:** February 19, 2007, 11:52 »

first you cant compare f stops between DSLR and P&S (well you could but there woul be a conversion factor I think).

The best thing about digital is you can experiment. Take the same photo at different settings and look at the difference. If the photo is relatively flat a less DoF might not be a bad thing at all. Also small DoF photos also sell (ie only focused on the front of a pen as opposed to having the whole thing is focus).

Daneel · « **Reply #14 on:** February 19, 2007, 11:59 »

Hi!

Sounds great, maybe the IQ will increase by using a smaller f-value.

I'll experiment.

All the best,
Michael

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #15 on:** February 19, 2007, 12:28 »

Because of focal length and image sensor-size issues, your best image quality with the point and shoot camera is wide open--maximum aperture. This isn't a problem because these cameras have tremendous depth of field. If and when you convert to DSLR, you must remember that your DOF will shrink radically from what you're used to with the P&S.

As to exposure length, with almost any camera you will sacrifice image quality if you extend the exposure time. The longer the shutter is open, the more noise you'll find in your image. Given that most P&S cameras suffer from noise, this can be a significant issue for those cameras. It is not nearly so important for a DSLR until you get into very long exposures.

Quote from: Daneel on February 19, 2007, 11:59

Hi!

Sounds great, maybe the IQ will increase by using a smaller f-value.

I'll experiment.

All the best,
Michael

steve-oh · « **Reply #16 on:** February 19, 2007, 15:24 »

Here's a link to an online DoF calculator. Might be good to play around with some numbers so you get a feel for how DoF works:

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

-Steve

Daneel · « **Reply #17 on:** February 19, 2007, 15:26 »

Hi Steve,

kewl - thanks!

All the best,
Michael

t_rust · « **Reply #18 on:** February 19, 2007, 20:56 »

Quote from: Daneel on February 19, 2007, 11:40

Now I wonder if there other things which I implicitely sacrify by shooting at f8. Does it affect contrast or color? In my photo series, should I try going down with the f-value and see if I can get better photos with, e.g., f4? Will certain characteristics of my image quality improve by that? Which ones?

Many thanks,
Michael

2.8 lenses are expensive. You need them for shooting in low-light handheld or for the artistic effect of a shallow depth of field.

For most stock work this is rarely required.

If you are on a super-budget, get a used Canon XT and a 50mm 1.8 prime. The 50mm is about 100 US$. I like the 20D much better than the XT, so you might want to check used prices. Also I might add that I personally find primes (=fixed focal length = NO zoom) quite inconvenient. But they deliver great image quality and are "relatively"cheap.

If you can afford a bit more, I would recommend the 28-135 IS USM lens. Its a very solid lens. Not really wide enough, but has advantages compared to the 17-85 EF-S.

Also I would wait 2-3 more weeks. PMA exhibition starts soon and most likely many new products will be announced/ released. Prices for "old" models might fall.

Feel free to check out this article about lens selection on my blog.
http://tr-photo-blog.blogspot.com/2006/12/what-lenses-glass-to-choose-for-canon.html

It explains a few details for Canon Lenses and gives you a few hints on how to start.

Regards,
Thorsten

Daneel · « **Reply #19 on:** February 20, 2007, 03:15 »

Hi Thorsten (Hallo?) ;-)

Quote from: t_rust on February 19, 2007, 20:56

2.8 lenses are expensive. You need them for shooting in low-light handheld or for the artistic effect of a shallow depth of field.

For most stock work this is rarely required.

If you are on a super-budget, get a used Canon XT and a 50mm 1.8 prime. The 50mm is about 100 US$. I like the 20D much better than the XT, so you might want to check used prices. Also I might add that I personally find primes (=fixed focal length = NO zoom) quite inconvenient. But they deliver great image quality and are "relatively"cheap.

If you can afford a bit more, I would recommend the 28-135 IS USM lens. Its a very solid lens. Not really wide enough, but has advantages compared to the 17-85 EF-S.

Also I would wait 2-3 more weeks. PMA exhibition starts soon and most likely many new products will be announced/ released. Prices for "old" models might fall.

Feel free to check out this article about lens selection on my blog.
http://tr-photo-blog.blogspot.com/2006/12/what-lenses-glass-to-choose-for-canon.html

It explains a few details for Canon Lenses and gives you a few hints on how to start.

Thanks for that reply. For my isolations I do not use the zoom at all with my current equipment, but rather move the tripod. So for that a fixed lense would be ok. But it would indeed be better to get a lense which I can use both for isolations and regular (outdoor) shots - so a small zoom lens like the one you mention above would be nice.

I'll have to take a look at the DOFmaster online calculator to get a feeling about the supported DOF with a DSLR F4 lens.

One question: How close can you focus (macro) with DSLRs. Does this depend on the body or the lens? With my Canon S3 I can focus down to 0 cm ("super macro") which is quite convenient for certain shots. How does that work with a DSLR?

Thanks,
Michael

leaf · « **Reply #20 on:** February 20, 2007, 06:50 »

macro with a dslr is ONLY to do with the lens. When looking at the specs for a lens you will often see a minimum focusing distance - this is how close you can get to your object. You might also see a magnification ratio, which gives an idea of how large the object will be on your sensor.

If you are taking a picture of something that is 1cm wide, and the mag. ratio of the lens is 1:1 - the object will end up being 1 cm wide on the sensor - which is pretty big.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Canon DSLR: Body vs. Glass (Read 11590 times)

Daneel

CJPhoto

Daneel

epixx

Daneel

epixx

Daneel

Greg Boiarsky

Daneel

CJPhoto

Daneel

Greg Boiarsky

Daneel

CJPhoto

Daneel

Greg Boiarsky

steve-oh

Daneel

t_rust

Daneel

leaf

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors