Thinking of going Full Frame... (1 Viewer)

[ManW_TheUncool]

Well, obviously, you'd still want quality glass that an 8MP APS crop DSLR won't outresolve, not just any old cheapy consumer lenses. My main point was to not assume that what held before for your higher pixel density, APS crop DSLR would directly translate to the Canon 5DMk2 w/out any consideration for such factors.


Still, if you want to ensure that your 5DMk2 (just as an 8MP APS crop DSLR) won't outresolve the lens when shot wide open (or near that), then yeah, you may still end up needing to go w/ all L lenses and primes to get that. OTOH, a higher pixel density, APS crop DSLR would probably outresolve any lens when shot at/near wide open anyway.


One other point I neglected before though is the edge/corner softness issue (besides outright vignetting/light falloff). You would certainly experience more of that w/ the same lenses on FF than on APS crop bodies -- maybe it's enough to offset the diff in pixel density in those parts of the frame.


_Man_

 

[DavidJ]

I'm not going to get into all the technical details and discussions, but I wanted to let you know that when the 5DmkII came out I added the 24-105L to my kit and that I absolutely love it. To me it is about as close as you can come to the perfect walk-around lens. For various reasons, I was put in a situation where I had to use it a lot more than planned and I've been very pleased with it.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Thanks for your input, David.


Well, I finally have my mitts on my new toy. Hooray. It looks pretty clean/new, just has a small "refurbished" sticker on the bottom. Need to juice up the battery, and then pick up a CF card.


It's pretty hefty without the battery or lens, or grip. But, I'll see how much the camera weighs when I put my EF 70-200 F/4 IS lens (almost 27 oz.) on it, that should give me an idea if I can handle lugging the 33 ounce 24-70 F/2.8 lens. Sooooo.... maybe I may just choose the EF 24-105 F/4 IS lens (almost 24 oz.) for now, and then hope Canon finally gets off their duff and puts out the EF 24-70 F/2.8 IS USM version that many people are hoping will materialize within a year or two. Weird how it can come down to an extra $200 and half a pound in weight if I still went with the 24-70 F/2.8 non-IS lens.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

The 24-70mm L isn't called "The Brick" for nothing, Patrick. If Canon does revamp this lens to add IS, count on the cost going up quite a bit. Just look at the price increases on their other recent lens refreshes -- they have all been very hefty.


If I ever went full frame, I think the 24-105mm L would be my first choice as a general purpose lens.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Yeah, lens prices have been going up, especially w/ recent new updates. That seems to be happening pretty much across the board, not just w/ Canon. I really regret missing the boat on the old Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR a few years back when they were still doing frequent rebates for them -- it was going for ~$1300 after rebate back then, but now goes for $800-900 more w/ no rebates in sight (and was actually another couple hundred higher at some points, IIRC). Seems like all the global economic instabilities are causing a good deal of fluctuation in prices though I doubt we'll ever get back down near where prices were a few years ago.


Anyway, for something like the 24-70 f/2.8 on FF, I don't think IS is all that important. Just use a pod or brace the camera against something steady when you need it. And the lens being as hefty as it is to go w/ the 5DMk2's own weight probably makes getting steady shots a bit easier anyway. PLUS you can always crank up the ISO that extra bit to get workable shutter speeds when need be -- afterall, that's part of the reason why you went FF in the first, and you'd probably need to do that if you're shooting anything that moves at all...


_Man_

 

[Patrick Sun]

The US dollar is currently suffering across both ponds, so the prices are creeping up.


Didn't get to play with the new toy last night (had to deal with a magical floor leak in my bedroom closet, which soaked the carpet in there), so I was shopping for baking soda last night, and found two boxes that were 1 pound each, so I put 2 boxes in one hand, and damn if 2 pounds aren't a trivial amount of weight to hold in one hand for a long time (so I cried a little on the inside).


I suspect the IS version of the 24-70 F/2.8 will probably cost an extra $500-$700 from the MSRP of the non-IS version, as well.


I'll probably have to look for a padded neckstrap to cushion the pressure on the back of my neck.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Originally Posted by ManW_TheUncool


Anyway, for something like the 24-70 f/2.8 on FF, I don't think IS is all that important. Just use a pod or brace the camera against something steady when you need it. And the lens being as hefty as it is to go w/ the 5DMk2's own weight probably makes getting steady shots a bit easier anyway. PLUS you can always crank up the ISO that extra bit to get workable shutter speeds when need be -- afterall, that's part of the reason why you went FF in the first, and you'd probably need to do that if you're shooting anything that moves at all...


_Man_

While I agree that IS is not usually needed on this focal length lens, I have found it useful in special circumstances when using my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens on a crop body. In the photo below, we were hiking through Watkins Glen Gorge, and I did not want to take my tripod. I was trying to blur the moving water, so needed a slower shutter speed. Exposure info: f/10, 1/4sec, ISO 800.





I take these types of photos often enough when we travel that I like having IS available, as the 17-55mm is my general purpose walk around lens. This lens on a crop body is pretty much the equivalent of the 24-70mm f/2.8 on a full frame.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Bring a monopod and save some $ for that kind of shot, if you really don't want to bring a tripod. But if you don't bring any pods for such, when do you actually bother to bring your pods at all? That is not the kind of shot you normally just happen to come across when you go out shopping or run some errand or the like afterall.


Besides, ISO 800 is a bit too high for such shots anyway (unless you were shooting FF perhaps). IOW, the IS probably wasn't really good enough to yield the PQ you'd probably want for such. Actually, what focal length was that? Why not open up the aperture another stop for this one? I probably would've gone for f/8 (at least on the APS crop cam) for something like that myself unless it was really at the long end of your 17-55...


_Man_

 

[Patrick Sun]

Tripod? What's a tripod?


I'm about 99.9999% hand-held in my photography shooting style. You just learn to lean your upper arms into your chest/torso area, and hold your breath during the shutter activations. But I'm sure I'll try shooting with a tripod one of these days...

 

[Citizen87645]

Do a lot of self portraits and you'll have to.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

_Man_

 

[Patrick Sun]

Don't want to break the camera, no self-portraits if I can help it.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Originally Posted by ManW_TheUncool That is not the kind of shot you normally just happen to come across when you go out shopping or run some errand or the like afterall.


Besides, ISO 800 is a bit too high for such shots anyway (unless you were shooting FF perhaps). IOW, the IS probably wasn't really good enough to yield the PQ you'd probably want for such. Actually, what focal length was that? Why not open up the aperture another stop for this one? I probably would've gone for f/8 (at least on the APS crop cam) for something like that myself unless it was really at the long end of your 17-55...


_Man_

I just grabbed that photo as an example of a circumstance where IS can be useful at that focal length -- it's not one of my better shots of that type from the trip. In fact, one turned out well enough that we enlarged it to 30x20 -- I just couldn't find that one quickly on my Smugmug account.


Anyway, I was going for greater depth of field along with the blurred motion on the waterfall, hence the smaller aperture, which forced the higher ISO. Yes, ISO 800 on the 40D (which I had for that photo) causes some issues, but should not with the 7D that I now own.


I do not currently own a monopod, but it is something that I am now considering since adding the heavier 100-400mm lens to my kit. In the past, I've relied on IS for those times that taking a tripod on a hike is not attractive, and that has usually worked out okay with the 17-55mm and 70-200mm f/4 lenses. With the 100-400, I do not think it's IS will be enough at times.


Any recommendations for a monopod with a head compatible with Arca-Swiss plates?

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I bought my carbon fiber monopod along w/ my CF tripod from Feisol a long time ago, but maybe CF is not that necessary for monopod since we're probably only talking ~1/2 pound diff, if that. Still, I guess that depends on how you feel about hiking w/ the extra several ounces to lug.


One thing. I originally went w/ Bogen/Manfrotto's Carbon Fiber One(?) monopod (before I lost it ), and that thing seems rather flimsy (and even springy) to me as it seems to bend/flex some, which is probably not a good thing. You should probably check for that when you shop for a monopod.


You can always just get a quality monopod w/out the head and add your prefered choice of Arca-Swiss head separately. I actually only use an inexpensive Manfrotto tilt/swivel RC2 QR head (

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Arca-Swiss compatibility would be very important for me, since I leave the tripod collar and mounting plate on my 100-400mm all the time. I would imagine a smaller, lighter ball head that takes this type of plate would work on a monopod? After all, it doesn't need to support the entire weight of the camera & lens rock-solid like a tripod.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Scott,


For monopod, you don't really need a ballhead -- in fact, a ballhead may just overly complicate things and slow you down. A decent swivel/tilt head probably works best. If you can't find an affordable one w/ Arca-Swiss QR built-in, maybe check out the QR-less Manfrotto head and add your own Arca-Swiss QR on top. In fact, looks like B&H offers a pre-assembled option like that w/ a Kirk QR:


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/555294-REG/Kirk_MPA_1_MPA_1_Swivel_Tilt_Monopod.html


Also, you might want to check out Really Right Stuff for more info (and possible head choice) on this -- even they recommend using the Manfrotto head for low capacity uses:


http://reallyrightstuff.com/WebsiteInfo.aspx?fc=75



_Man_

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Man, thanks! I wondered if a ballhead even made sense on a monopod. That Kirk head looks like a perfect solution. I also found an Induro CM24 carbon fiber monopod for about $120. I may have found my Christmas gift suggestion to my wife.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Scott,


Just to clarify. Near as I can tell, that's actually the QR-less Manfrotto head w/ a Kirk Arca-Swiss QR added on top -- basically what the RRS site recommended for low cost, low capacity monopod head.


BTW, I just finally received the Giottos 3300 ballhead that I had been eye-ing seemingly forever now -- after spotting it for just ~$135 on Amazon last week (and got an extra 5% credit back w/ Amazon's GC offer that recently ended). Still waiting for my Manfrotto RC2 QR adapter to arrive to be used w/ it. Can hardly wait. Hopefully, there's still a bit of color left in my neck of the woods for me to use the new setup.


Happy shopping and shooting!


_Man_

 

[Patrick Sun]

While I'm waiting for a proper CF card to arrive, I picked up a SD/SDHC-to-CF (Type II) adapter which allowed me to use some SDHC cards on hand, and the adapter worked in my 5D MKII, so I got to take some shots, and play with the controls (so different from my starter XSi, but it's coming along). Using my 50mm F/1.8 lens, I was pretty amazed at the shots I took in low light at ISO 1600-3200. I thought the camera was defective because I couldn't change the aperture in manual mode, but I found out that I didn't have the power switch in the second "On" mode (who invents 2 "On" modes?). So that was a relief to find out my camera wasn't defective, and that I can now shoot in full manual mode. Looking forward to coming out with setting up the 3 preset shooting modes for various situations.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Patrick,


My old 40D had that same two position "on" switch. It can definitely cause some confusion. Thankfully, Canon changed the design on the 7D -- they went back to an on/off switch underneath the mode dial on top of the camera, and have a 2nd switch on the lower back of the camera if you want to lock out the rear controls.


The three custom modes (C1, C2 and C3) are very handy. I setup C1 as manual mode customized for indoor flash, C2 as Tv mode customized for action shots, and C3 is currently setup for shooting ice hockey at the Plymouth Whalers arena.


I'm looking forward to seeing some shots from your new camera.