MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Photography Equipment => Cameras / Lenses => Topic started by: graficallyminded on April 09, 2008, 21:31
-
(http://www.infosyncworld.com/gfx/articles/canon_eos_rebel_xsi_02.jpg)
http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/8887.html
Anyone going to be buying the new Xsi that is coming out on April 27th? I want the kit lens. It's about $70-100 extra for the 18-55 IS kit lens, instead of buying the body alone. If anyone wants to work out a deal, shoot me a PM. I don't want to spend $200 on it. I have a feeling that as soon as all of the Xsi's hit the shelves, these lenses are going to flood ebay and sell for cheap.
I am hearing they are much improved over the older EF-S 18-55 kit lenses.
-
Yes: I'm going to buy it.
I currently have a 350D and for microstock alone, going from 8Mp to 12Mp should allow me to have larger pictures and hopefully higher earnings.
There are also some interesting improvements compared to the 350D.
It's time to spend some of the money I've earned in microstock ;D
-
It's time to spend some of the money I've earned in microstock ;D
I did that and bought the 5D! Didn't see the point in upgrading from a 1.6x crop to a 1.6x crop. Full frame is sooooo much more lovely!
-
It's time to spend some of the money I've earned in microstock ;D
I did that and bought the 5D! Didn't see the point in upgrading from a 1.6x crop to a 1.6x crop. Full frame is sooooo much more lovely!
I don't see any clear advantage in a 5D compared to a 450D when I consider my own needs. I don't need a robust body and the 5D is twice heavier and a lot more expensive that the 450D.
Moreover, I have EF-S lenses which are not compatible with a full frame.
And I don't see the point in purchasing a more expensive camera only because it is more lovely ;)
-
The advantage of having a full frame is undeniable. But the investment is huge when somebody started whit APS-C. From last year I started to buy only full frame compatible lenses, hopefully the only lense I must change now is my Nikon 18-70 for a 24-70 who's priced at around 1800 piece of paper ::).
The bad thing it's that Nikon didn't produce an affordable FF camera and I will have to wait maybe more than one year before an announcement. My D300 is not that bad so I can wait, but the day I will be able to say "hey I can keep this camera for the next 10 years" it's gone be that less on my shoulder
-
The advantage of having a full frame is undeniable.
Could you tell me more about that?
Apart from specific needs (robustness) and personal preference, what are the undeniable advantages of a full frame over an APS-C?
Especially when we talk about a quite old full frame model (5D) and a brand new 450D which get some features the 5D does not have (14bits processing, DIGIC III, Live View, integrated cleaning system).
I know that a 450D may seems like a toy compared with the 5D when you hold it, but is there any advantage in purchasing a $2500 full frame from a picture quality point of view?
I dont' think so, but I'm interested in your opinion.
-
There is the robustness of the camera itself from physical damage, but there is also the robustness of the shutter. No matter how much you baby your camera, it will eventually fail. FF cameras on average (or the step up APS-C models like the 40D) are rated to significantly more shutter cycles than the rebel series, anything between 2x to 6x. To me this is extremely important. My Rebel xT is rated to 50,000 cycles. At the shooting rate that I maintain, it will take me less than a year and a half to hit 50,000 shots with a body. Just based on this alone, a camera with a longer life shutter is worth that much more to me. (the new 5D replacement is supposed to have a 300000 cycle shutter, compared to just 100000 for the new rebel, this alone makes it worth 3x as much, any other differences notwithstanding).
With the bigger, more expensive cameras, comes much better exposure metering, and much better focusing, two things that are very important to taking quality high quality shots (it sucks when you take the money shot but come to find out later on the computer that the AF was off a little or the exposure meter missed by a mile and there are overexposed parts). The viewfinder is brighter on a FF camera, allowing easier shot composition and easier recognition of focus, and the higher end cameras are designed and layed out for people that shoot in manual, and not for people that shoot in auto. A rebel can be operated manually, but the layout is quite clumsy for it compared to the bigger bodies (I can not tell you how many good shots that I have missed because I hit the timer button at the same time as the aperture button).
Not to mention a Rebel is essentially useless for stock above 100 ISO, whereas 200 ISO is still quite safe on a FF, even 400, which opens up a lot of shooting possibilities that just aren't there with a Rebel.
And if you put a lot of money into good glass, especially telephoto lenses, they are absolutely ridiculous on a Rebel. A 70-200 f/2.8 IS looks and feels very, very wrong on a Rebel, the lens is gigantic compared to the little camera, and lenses get much bigger than that (I'd love to see a picture of a Bigma mounted to a Rebel, that would be hilarious).
-
to add to what waldo4 said..
The advantage that the full frame gives the 5D is less noise. Because it is a full frame sensor there is a lot more room for all the pixels to fit in. When the pixels are tightly packed like on a Rebel (with a 1.6x crop factor) or even worse on a point and shoot, the image quality suffers in the form of noise.
If you don't know about crop factors, also called focal length multiplier check out this page
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=focal%20length%20multiplier
-
The advantage of having a full frame is undeniable.
Could you tell me more about that?
Apart from specific needs (robustness) and personal preference, what are the undeniable advantages of a full frame over an APS-C?
Especially when we talk about a quite old full frame model (5D) and a brand new 450D which get some features the 5D does not have (14bits processing, DIGIC III, Live View, integrated cleaning system).
I know that a 450D may seems like a toy compared with the 5D when you hold it, but is there any advantage in purchasing a $2500 full frame from a picture quality point of view?
I dont' think so, but I'm interested in your opinion.
My opinions.
The selling point for me was the quality. The 5D produces better quality photos than a 1.6x crop camera. The sensor is better, the colour reproduction is better. The noise is quite obviously better - I can now shoot gigs at ISO3200 and still be pleased with the result.
The viewfinder is bigger and brighter allowing more accurate manual focus. And the depth of field preview is actually useful now!
I can shoot wide angle shots with my 24mm lens too.
My depth of field is shallower with the same lenses than a 1.6x crop.
Lenses didn't come into it for me. I bought my 5D with only one lens that would fit - the 50mm plastic fantastic. Since I've added the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8.
I wouldn't use things like liveview, and I don't need sensor cleaning (I've never had a problem with dirty sensors).
Shutter accutatios don't really come into it for me either. I had my 350D and only fired off 10,000 shots in two years. And that's shooting burst for football games and things too.
-
What Waldo4 Leaf and Seren said give a good resume. The more big advantage in the case of stock is what Leaf said about the wider area who allow each pixels to get more information about the scene. Taking the D3 is a good example. I already see many 1600iso pictures beeing accepted at IS while even whit my new D300 (1.5x) I probably can't go above 400iso (whitout having experienced it), maybe 800iso whit a good experience of photoshop.
But this is just words. I give you this link that everybody must have seen. It's a comparometer. I suggest you to compare the D300 and the D3 or the 1D MarkIII whit the 40D or whatever you want...
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
-
HOLY THREAD HIJACK, BATMAN!
Wow, this little thread has started such a winded debate! haha
So who here will be buying the 450D but doesnt need the kit lens? That's what I was originally asking.
-
graficallyminded,
Those of us that hold tight to our personal values, hygiene, and good looks, would
appreciate your shaving and looking somewhat presentable before we take your inquiries serious.
Thank you
The MIZ
-
graficallyminded,
Those of us that hold tight to our personal values, hygiene, and good looks, would
appreciate your shaving and looking somewhat presentable before we take your inquiries serious.
Thank you
The MIZ
Bob I recollect a certain photo of a certain someone...
(http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/1013/17547772mf3.jpg)
So please refrain from any further personal attacks on my Saturday morning grubbiness, as pictured in my avatar photo. If it makes you feel better, my face is currently smoother than a baby's bum.
-
I bet that there are going to be as many buyers for the new kit lenses as sellers so I wouldn't expect it to be too much less than brand new. There are A LOT of owners of the old Rebels that have kit lenses and nothing more, that would think seriously about upgrading to the new ones since they are so cheap. IS is a very popular feature, and this would be by far the cheapest IS lens. Even if IQ isn't important to a lot of people, IS is. Also consider that a lot of buyers of the new Rebel that won't need the lens will just buy the camera body only. They'll be available, but with the street price of the new kit lens about $200 new, I wouldn't expect to find them selling for much less than $150.00. New/barely used Canon glass holds its value quite well, especially on the high and low end (it is the midrange lenses that lose out the most).
-
Ok, i'll keep up with the thread hijack because i might actually learn something - should this be moved to a new thread?
I've always just thought of the difference between the full frame and the 1.6 to be no big deal - but after looking at the portrait images on the 'comparator' that Vonkara posted, (comparing the XTi that i have now to the 5D canon), i'm amazed. The question i have i that real what i'm seeing and it is because simply the difference between the sensor size? Are these shot with the same lens???
Most of the faces I shoot with my XTi are much like the image on the left and i'm always wondering why they're not crisp and clear like the image on the right... is it sensor or lens making the difference?
here's a sample from that site
(http://img.skitch.com/20080410-tbsjp2dy1rbh2jxm5734hma5dg.preview.jpg) (http://skitch.com/mitch/j84k/window)Click for full size (http://skitch.com/mitch/j84k/window) - Uploaded with plasq (http://plasq.com)'s Skitch (http://skitch.com)
-
Looking at the shadow, the lighting is different in those two photos, so I wouldn't think it is a good comparison.
-
"Ok, i'll keep up with the thread hijack because i might actually learn something "
OK so let me see if I got this straight maunger. This is all about you now. No consideration
for graficallyminded at all. Seems like sort of a self-centered way to learn.
I understand though.....you got very excited and carried away right? This is understandable
but the courteous thing to do would be acknowledge his inquiry first, and then make a helpful
reply to his question.
The MIZ
-
OK so let me see if I got this straight maunger. This is all about you now. No consideration
for graficallyminded at all. Seems like sort of a self-centered way to learn.
I understand though.....you got very excited and carried away right? This is understandable
but the courteous thing to do would be acknowledge his inquiry first, and then make a helpful
reply to his question.
The MIZ
My bad - i'm so glad you called me out on that and not all the others who've gone off topic here... i should have opened a new thread on my question... but i digress.
Sorry graficallyMinded, I don't have an answer for you as i only have an XTi and didn't get the kit lens. But I do have a question about the other issues raised here.
Mitch
-
Also I think it is horrible that you used this image of this poor women for your personal use
(http://www.microstockpix.com/ugly.jpg)
Shame on you!
-
Looking at the shadow, the lighting is different in those two photos, so I wouldn't think it is a good comparison.
In looking at other images on the comparator site, they're all similarly fuzzy on the XTi and the 5D are much clearer. I'm discounting the lighting here... but thanks for the reply. Mitch
-
LOL @ Miz
That woman is in every test shot - how kind of her to pose for such a scientific look at camera and lens quality. I praise her, and her photographer.
If anyone here sees an EF-S 18-55 IS for around $150, I want it. Please, someone sell me theirs.
-
LOL @ Miz
That woman is in every test shot - how kind of her to pose for such a scientific look at camera and lens quality. I praise her, and her photographer.
If anyone here sees an EF-S 18-55 IS for around $150, I want it. Please, someone sell me theirs.
If you live in a relatively populated area, keep an eye on Craig's List as soon as the new cam hits the shelves. Prices vary pretty widely but you can generally find better deals than ebay. I know here that I could basically get any popular L lens that I was looking for for about a $100 used discount if I kept up a diligent watch for a week or two, and the kit lenses are pretty prevalent too.
-
If anyone here sees an EF-S 18-55 IS for around $150, I want it. Please, someone sell me theirs.
I would not take the 18-55 while it's a fair lens but a standard one. I would look for a 17-85 or even the 17-55 but then you talk about much more paper spent...
here's a sample from that site
Please guys don't look at the poor women... take a look at the wine bottles ones. The lightning is not perfectly the same also but much closer
-
If anyone here sees an EF-S 18-55 IS for around $150, I want it. Please, someone sell me theirs.
I would not take the 18-55 while it's a fair lens but a standard one. I would look for a 17-85 or even the 17-55 but then you talk about
The 18-55 IS lens is a much better lens than the standard 18-55.
Here is the review for it. MTF #'s are better then the 17-85, and there are less CA's.
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-c/181-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review
-
to add to what waldo4 said..
The advantage that the full frame gives the 5D is less noise. Because it is a full frame sensor there is a lot more room for all the pixels to fit in. When the pixels are tightly packed like on a Rebel (with a 1.6x crop factor) or even worse on a point and shoot, the image quality suffers in the form of noise
True but false :D
Agree 200% for non-DSLR: noise is horrible, but those camera are aimed at people who most of the time do not even see that there is noise in this blue sky ::) Manufacturer do not put a lot of (expensive) technology in those models to reduce the noise.
For DSLR, the size of the photosites is not the whole story. The EOS-1Ds Mark III has a 21Mp 36x24mm sensor and the 350D a 8Mp 22x15mm sensor: the "pixels" are almost the same size on both camera, but I guess (hope) that the noise is less present on the brand new $8000 Mark III compared to the 3 years old $500 Rebel.
We also have to take into account other technologies and post-processing aimed at reducing the noise and Canon is strong here.
Some example of High ISO (1600) photos taken with the 450D are available here
http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos450d_preview/
and this new camera seems to produce quite good photos even at ISO1600
http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/photo.aspx?gallery=canoneos450d_preview&photo=15
In fact, I HATE the noise and it would be probable the only reason for me to spend that much money on a full frame. But I'm not convinced on the true advantage on a full frame here. At least not an advantage which is worth several thousands of dollars.
-
If anyone here sees an EF-S 18-55 IS for around $150, I want it. Please, someone sell me theirs.
I would not take the 18-55 while it's a fair lens but a standard one. I would look for a 17-85 or even the 17-55 but then you talk about
The 18-55 IS lens is a much better lens than the standard 18-55.
Here is the review for it. MTF #'s are better then the 17-85, and there are less CA's.
[url]http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-c/181-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review[/url]
I totally agree, but do you see the huge distortion, chromatic aberration and vignetting. That's just not professional or even semi-pro if you see what I mean. But I agree that they have make a medium standard lens a great one in term of sharpness
-
In fact, I HATE the noise and it would be probable the only reason for me to spend that much money on a full frame. But I'm not convinced on the true advantage on a full frame here. At least not an advantage which is worth several thousands of dollars.
5D's don't cost several thousands of dollars though. If I picked up a 5D for about £1000, then I should imagine a 5D body is available for under $2000 in the states.
-
In fact, I HATE the noise and it would be probable the only reason for me to spend that much money on a full frame. But I'm not convinced on the true advantage on a full frame here. At least not an advantage which is worth several thousands of dollars.
I also hate noise but also the lack of in camera sharpness quality. The only choice I find correct is to set the sharpness to 2 or 3/10 (avoid noise) on my D300 and then post process whit the unsharp mask in photoshop.
It would be great to have an improved in camera sharpening that would not add sharpness in the place that don't need it in anyway (sky and uniform areas) I don't think it would be too difficult if some camera now recognise faces
-
There is absolutely no way that those images would be acceptable for stock (I can see the noise plain as day at the small size, at 100% it would be ridiculous). There is noise, and then there is stock level noise. Camera reviews address noise for the general public (and Rebel reviews are for DLSR noobs). If there is any hint of noise the image wont be acceptable for stock though.
All the reviews of an XT show that there is an insignificant gain in the amount of noise from iso 100 to 200. True, if you don't pixel peep. Before I started stock shooting I kept my camera in 200 iso. The pictures looked fine, even full sized. Once I started going over them with a fine toothed comb the noise was everywhere. At 100% the amount of increased noise is very significant. Getting any images accepted even at iso 200 is a struggle and requires heavy PPing, even then no way for SS and IS.
The gains made in noise reduction just offset the losses due to pixel density, and noise reduction = overfiltered.
I highly, highly doubt that the new Rebel will be useful for stock in any ISO other than 100.
Also no matter how much reduction is done to the noise, you cannot escape the fact that higher pixel density = less dynamic range. The white noise level is increased on the low end, to combat it black becomes black faster than it would on a chip with less pixel density. There is no software workaround for this, it is an unavoidable fact of sensor technology. The light collecting buckets can only hold so much, when white noise is increased the buckets hold less. The only sensor that does not face this too much is the Fovean chip in Sigma cameras. This is why pictures taken with good old 2 MP PnS cameras typically look better at normal viewing size than ones taken with todays 7+ MP ones, the high MP cameras have absolutely no dynamic range.
-
If anyone here sees an EF-S 18-55 IS for around $150, I want it. Please, someone sell me theirs.
I would not take the 18-55 while it's a fair lens but a standard one. I would look for a 17-85 or even the 17-55 but then you talk about
The 18-55 IS lens is a much better lens than the standard 18-55.
Here is the review for it. MTF #'s are better then the 17-85, and there are less CA's.
[url]http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-c/181-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review[/url]
I totally agree, but do you see the huge distortion, chromatic aberration and vignetting. That's just not professional or even semi-pro if you see what I mean. But I agree that they have make a medium standard lens a great one in term of sharpness
Still better than the 17-85 though. Of course the 17-55 IS is the best, but is it worth 5x as much as the 18-55 IS when you could get a 17-40L + a 50mm f/1.4 for less $$ than the 17-55 IS, both of which are FF lenses and have fantastic IQ. Distortion , vignetting, and CA's can easily be corrected with software, resolution cannot be.
-
I highly, highly doubt that the new Rebel will be useful for stock in any ISO other than 100.
Well, maybe i'm doing something wrong, but my images shot with a Rebel XTi at ISO 400-800 get accepted all the time at IS and SS. I do sometimes use NeatImage to reduce noise in sky etc, but I'm not always locked into ISO 100 for stock.
-
I highly, highly doubt that the new Rebel will be useful for stock in any ISO other than 100.
You should not. I've a 350D and I never get any rejection due to noise issue. I shot mostly at ISO100-200 and sometimes at ISO400.
I agree that you may have problems at ISO800 with the 3 year old 350D, but with the brand new 450D and it new DIGIC III processor, I bet it should be OK.
Do you really think that all that skys at SS have been shot with a $2000 camera?
-
Still better than the 17-85 though. Of course the 17-55 IS is the best, but is it worth 5x as much as the 18-55 IS when you could get a 17-40L + a 50mm f/1.4 for less $$ than the 17-55 IS, both of which are FF lenses and have fantastic IQ. Distortion , vignetting, and CA's can easily be corrected with software, resolution cannot be.
I wasn't remember the 17-40 who's a good choice. I heard many good things about it but I never try it.
Maybe I missed something (I'm not a wizard) What software do you use to correct vignetting?
-
PS's lens correction filter can take care of normal distortion (it struggles with weird distortion like the Sigma 10-20), CA's, and Vignetting.
I have tried several times but never had a shot accepted at either SS or IS taken at anything but ISO 100, even with heavy PP to fix it. Instead of fighting it I just switched to ISO 100, shot to the right, and stopped using noise reduction software completely, only occasionally bumping up the Lum. Smoothing in ACR to 25% if there is a lot of sky. I haven't had a noise rejection since. PP time has dropped to next to nothing and virtually everything is accepted. I haven't had a shot rejected for a technical reason (aside from artifacting at IS, but that is a different story) that I have shot in the last 2 months. I don't even bother to look for noise anymore, since making the switch that is the level of camera performance that I have come to expect, and a 5D or other FF can deliver that at higher than 100 iso.
-
The 5D produces better quality photos than a 1.6x crop camera. The sensor is better, the colour reproduction is better.
I don't think this is correct as a general statement. 5D is indeed better quality than 350D or 20D. However the quality comparisons with 40D that I've seen aren't any better for 5D - the quality is basically the same! Sometimes 40D is even better thanks to 14-bit processing...
Yes you get wide angle with 24mm lens, but on the other hand EF-S 10-22 is quite compact and light which you can never get on full-frame...
With the latest generation of cropped SLRs the advantages of full frame camera are much more doubtful for me than ever before...
-
The 5d has been around a few years. I am sure the new version of the 5d will make the 40d look inferior again. I can't see how you can get similar quality cramming pixels on to a small sensor.
-
The 5d has been around a few years. I am sure the new version of the 5d will make the 40d look inferior again. I can't see how you can get similar quality cramming pixels on to a small sensor.
If you look at the 1DS MarkIII results the new 5D will be as good or a new revelation. Add maybe a 16mpx sensor and there is it, I change my Nikon gears for Canon...If Nikon don't move until one year after the announcement and that's probably what is going to happen
-
I still can't find an 18-55 IS relatively cheap.
I've even checked out NYC craigslist, although I don't live there. Many ads, I saw a 28-105 EF lens for $75 - that looked like a good deal. I want something with IS though, and wide.