5d m2?

[John Bennett]

Hey guys, I feel obliged to post once more on this. I feel bad I may have left the impression I was knocking either your bodies or your images…I’m simply not. They are good/great images taken with a good/great body.

But for my own conscious I need you to understand where I coming from. Have a look at these images. Some are cropped, some aren’t.

Also want to point out that the reason I originally posted this first image was to illustrate the DoF. Which is almost always a good way to determine if an image has been cropped or not.. Another indication is the precense or lack of feather detail..Im talking the fine “feathers”. Brett in your swallow image theres little feather detail, compare it to the Blue Jay shot where you can count individual feathers. The further away your subject the less fine detail gets resolved

Anyways have a look at these

Heres another Bufflehead ( Trust me on this they are extremely tough to get good images of in flight. This has been cropped about 30%

Ok, I think that should be enough to illustrate/make my point.

On the whole I don’t think the images I just posted are any, any better, worse or different than the images you’ve posted. Every single one of them yours and mine are good/great images.

Every single image I just posted were taken with a Canon 30 or 40D. And there isn’t a shooter in the world who will claim that a 30/40/50D AF is on par with a pro grade 1D.

Trust me theres a world of difference and the images you’ve posted do not tax a bodies AF…See above. I can get those images at will with a 50D

Eric said.

The 50 makes alot of sense budget wise, but the 5D opens up alot of doors with super wides, fisheyes, and also would be beneficial for me getting into more paid architectural photography with the tilt/shift lenses on the full frame… ughhh.  I hate these decisions.

Again.. goes back to m2 is great for things that stand still i guess, and 50d is great for things that move.  I sure wish canon would have dropped the 1d type focusing system into 5d, like nikon did with the d700.

So I read those statements as Eric saying…..1) Budget is a concern and 2) He wants good AF and 3) He’s interested in some wildlife/action

Personally for his style of shooting I think he made the right choice. But by raving about the D700s AF ( and compare it, and almost insinuate its as good or better than a 1Ds) when in fact all you’ve done is post pictures a 40/50 D is capable of…..If he was more interested in shooting fast action/wildlife maybe you jutst cost him 3 grand.

Again I’m not saying the D700 isn’t a good body…Far from it or that your images aren’t good…far from it. But they aren’t taxing a bodies AF

But theres a reason why people pay 5 grand and more for pro bodies. I know sometimes we like to think our bodies are just as good… I did for a long time…well maybe not as good but good enough for sure…..until I learned better and than made the decision to make getting a 1D a certaintity. . Todays Pro-sumer bodies are very good, very very good but they don’t have Pro AF….I doubt they ever will.

And it’s someone else’s 2, 3 or 5 grand on the line

[J A Y M O R R]

Right on John.   I could put a bird feeder in my back yard and hit shots of song birds every night after work with the 70-200. Jays, chickadees, finches, sparrows…  I am letting this one go.  I enjoy your photography a lot.  

Again Eric, I apologize for turning this into a Canon vs. Nikon debate. I can’t wait to see some of your stuff on the new body.

Take care.

[kurt budliger]

….. and then there was the 7D 😀

[John Bennett]

Jay no idea what your bird and 70-200 comment is about.

,A the end of the day comparisons were made to Canons 1DMK AF<<<periodand thats including the problems they had which realy only manifested with fast lenses (f2.8 and faster, under certain conditions) on the MKIII ( A body by the way I wouldnt hesitate to buy and would gve a noogie for),.

Do you think Pros at World cup and olympics this year are going to be  usinge using MKIIIs/ MKIVs (if its released by then) or D700s. So ya call me skeptical and the bottom line is what if someone switchs to Nikon based on that kind of commentary.

Again I didnt knock the D700 but the reality is the shots shown are can be shot at will with a 40 or 50D and are not the kinds of shots that test AF systems. Or have you forgotten that Ive shot with all of them ad know what kinds of images are tough to almost impossible. So i all Im seeing are images I can getwith a 40/50d with my eyes closed………Nor am I saying the D700 isnt capable of more (tougher shots)….but I havent seen them.e that I have seen were taken with D3s.

Take a care, people do in part make decisions based on what people say.

Note what Canon says about incorporating 1D af systems
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10042-10239-10240

It still wont have all that a 1DMKII, MKIII or MKIV does.
In fact hes says is not always “all that”

[J A Y M O R R]

John, you are missing the point here 😉  My comparisons were for Eric in the beginning about D700 vs. the 5DMKii.  I still think the d700 is a better camera.  I mentioned some of my personal opinions about the 1Ds series about some flaws that it had and that was part of my reason why I moved away from the MKii and went with Nikon.  

I really did not intend for this thread to bleed over in a Canon 1Ds MK3 debate vs. Nikon or the D700.  I shoot BLACK and I haven’t gone back.. 😉

You posted pictures about your AF system and how great it is on your camera body. I get that….  but what I think is interesting is prosumer bodies are pushing the limits and capturing some great images that rival or are if not better than some of the things I have seen on Pro bodies.  Does that mean one is going to automatically assume that spending less can give them just the same results….no!  I do not think people are going to be switching over like you say. No I havent forgotten anything John and if you want my comparisons about a 40D vs. a Nikon D700, there is none.

[John Bennett]

OK my bad Jay and as I said earlier I hate the net, theres no tone or inflecton and would much rather over beer 🙂 And I agree on the other things neither of us said different. Bu after questioning it and then seeing shots I know are easy with a 40/50D what am I supoosed to say :)??

If I were starting from scratch, no coin invested in glass (switching makers) and wanted something more than a “pro sumer” but didnt have the budget for a 1D or D3 Id look hard at Nikon, very hard. Its a failing of Canons (imo) although with the 7D above i looks like theyre addressing it.

With regards to the 50D/D700 I dont know Jay.
If Im invested in Canon glass and want a body for wildlife (per Erics comment) from what ive seen from the D700 there isnt much difference and the 50D is 2g cheaper, nor would I have to switch systems and take a bath doing that.

No brainer if you ask me.
Especially when youlook at Nikons long lens lineup and the compartive cost.

That was my point.
Far as I know the only 400mm Nikon lens is the 200-400 VR …care to mention what that puppy cost? Thats a failing with Nikon, their lens line up is thin and expensive when you look at long lenses
*************

so were good, no harm/foul meant or taken

[J A Y M O R R]

Ahh no worries John, I totally agree with the 50 vs. Nikon if all you want is to shoot Wildlife and are already invested.

[Author]

Posts