Who here has already sprung for a 5DIII?

[Designer Dale]

Photography as a hobby is a lot like hunting as a hobby. It can put some food on the table, but not sustain you. Still some people own a $2,000 Beretta shotgun and others own a $600 Savage Arms shotgun.

It the 5d Mk III is in your budget and you want it, buy it and enjoy it. If you need to justify the purchase by hoping to make money with it you might want to think it over a bit. There is a forum member who shoots professionally with a kit lens and another who was making some money with an entry level Canon before moving to semi pro and pro level equipment.

Just my £2 worth.

Dale

[LumbermanSVO]

Originally Posted by Phrasikleia

I'm of two minds about the whole justification thing when it comes to hobbyists. It's fairly straightforward for my own decisions because I make part of my living with photography, though a more prudent business person would surely make different decisions than I do. But for hobbyists, the investment equation is not a factor. I often wonder what conversations take place on forums dedicated to other hobbies...like doll collecting or something... "Do you really need the Barbie with the blue dress? What will she enable you to do that your Princess Barbie won't?"

I have been involved in a couple of expensive car hobbies, racing and stereo competition. Luckily you can compete in drag racing, road racing and autocross with budgets that range from "just buy a helmet and fire suit" to full on tractor trailers to haul your car around with and a small pit crew.

How you justify the cost is another issue. I know one guy who literally justified buying a car buy realizing he could live in the car, but not race a house. With a lot of hard work and track time he managed to turn that decision into a money making one, most people thought he was crazy.

I could never really pull the trigger on the bigger, more expensive stuff so I was more on the helmet and firesuit side of things. I'm finding it much easier to buy camera gear than it ever was to buy car stuff.

[Phrasikleia]

Originally Posted by LumbermanSVO

I know one guy who literally justified buying a car buy realizing he could live in the car, but not race a house. With a lot of hard work and track time he managed to turn that decision into a money making one, most people thought he was crazy.

Hehe. Yeah, I know somebody who bought a 40-foot yacht for a similar reason. He said his justification was that he would have a place to live if a big earthquake ever leveled his house. Hard to argue with that logic; in a cash-and-carry disaster zone, no amount of money in the bank would be of any real use. But then again, most sailors know the definition of yacht: a big hole in the water into which you pour money.

[unclegit]

Originally Posted by fitshaced

Not sure if this helps, but I'm really impressed with how good the 24-105 works on the 5d mk iii. The DOF is much more significant.

Image
untitled shoot-1848.jpg by kevinfl2011, on Flickr

This is incorrect - I don't know where these ideas about full frame Vs crop sensor start - but the ONLY thing it is doing is projecting the light onto a smaller sensor - the image projected by the lens is identical.

Crop cameras have no more "reach" than do full frame cameras, nor does depth of field change in any way for a given set of shooting parameters.

NOTHING in the optics changes at all.

Take a full sensor image and crop it down to match the 1.6 sensor size and you'll have the exact same image assuming equal pixel density on the sensor...

Depth of field does not change - it's just a cropped image.

The DOF depends on focusing distance, lens focal length and shooting aperture.

</rant off>

To make this a bit more relevant to the thread I got my Mkiii last week :P

[fitshaced]

Originally Posted by unclegit

This is incorrect - I don't know where these ideas about full frame Vs crop sensor start - but the ONLY thing it is doing is projecting the light onto a smaller sensor - the image projected by the lens is identical.

Crop cameras have no more "reach" than do full frame cameras, nor does depth of field change in any way for a given set of shooting parameters.

NOTHING in the optics changes at all.

Take a full sensor image and crop it down to match the 1.6 sensor size and you'll have the exact same image assuming equal pixel density on the sensor...

Depth of field does not change - it's just a cropped image.

The DOF depends on focusing distance, lens focal length and shooting aperture.

</rant off>

To make this a bit more relevant to the thread I got my Mkiii last week :P

I believe you're wrong. DOF does change from crop to full frame.

[unclegit]

Originally Posted by fitshaced

I believe you're wrong. DOF does change from crop to full frame.

I'd say I'm right.

Think about it - the lens is projecting an image circle onto a focal plane - it doesn't matter what area of that focal plane your sensor chooses to capture.

What you are seeing is people mistaking changing the framing of an image for changing DOF.

Because a crop sensor camera doesn't record as large a part of the image circle, an object will appear smaller in the frame of the full frame camera. So people move closer to the object on a full frame camera to fill the frame - but this means DOF changes, as will perspective.

The closer you get to the subject the shallower the depth of field in the resulting image - but it's a totally different set of shooting parameters.

Place a full frame and a crop sensor camera at identical points in space and focus on a target from the same distance at a set aperture using an identical focal length lens and you'll get identical DOF on both cameras.

In fact if the sensor pixel density is equal on both sensors you could crop the full frame image to get an identical image to the pixel - to that taken with the crop sensor camera.

The optics don't change - and DOF is an optical phenomenon.

Hope that ramble made sense...

[fitshaced]

Originally Posted by unclegit

I'd say I'm right.

Think about it - the lens is projecting an image circle onto a focal plane - it doesn't matter what area of that focal plane your sensor chooses to capture.

What you are seeing is people mistaking changing the framing of an image for changing DOF.

Because a crop sensor camera doesn't record as large a part of the image circle, an object will appear smaller in the frame of the full frame camera. So people move closer to the object on a full frame camera to fill the frame - but this means DOF changes, as will perspective.

The closer you get to the subject the shallower the depth of field in the resulting image - but it's a totally different set of shooting parameters.

Place a full frame and a crop sensor camera at identical points in space and focus on a target from the same distance at a set aperture using an identical focal length lens and you'll get identical DOF on both cameras.

In fact if the sensor pixel density is equal on both sensors you could crop the full frame image to get an identical image to the pixel - to that taken with the crop sensor camera.

The optics don't change - and DOF is an optical phenomenon.

Hope that ramble made sense...

But I never said the optics change. I said I'm getting better DOF which I do.

[macjonny1]

By comparing the Canon 5dII, and the Nikon D800, I would sell all of my Canon gear if I had some and go for the Nikon. I'm saying this having never owned a Nikon.

[jbg232]

I upgraded from an XSi 450d and what an upgrade. I obviously can't compare it to anything else but with my new 24-105 I take shots indoors and in the dark handheld without a flash that there is no way I could have taken before. If it helps I was also having the d800 vs 5d mark III argument in my head but for my uses as a walkaround camera for Europe without wanting to use a flash (to get "surprise" real life shots) I think 5d/24-105 is a great combo. Not to mention the file sizes and ridiculous focus you need to obtain for the d800. However, if i was doing studio work I think I'd go for the d800 based on the images ive seen at "normal" isos. I just see the 5d as the ultimate travel camera now.

[unclegit]

Originally Posted by fitshaced

But I never said the optics change. I said I'm getting better DOF which I do.

Technically you're not - your just shooting closer to the subject on a full frame camera because of the larger sensor to fill the frame. Which is a totally different photograph to what you'd take on a crop camera to fill the frame.

It results in shallower DOF and a few other things as well including a different perspective because you're closer... step back to the same spot where you took the image with the crop and you'll get identical DOF and perspective - just more space around the edges due to the larger sensor.

The DOF for a given set of shooting parameters doesn't change with your sensor size.

[VirtualRain]

Originally Posted by unclegit

The DOF for a given set of shooting parameters doesn't change with your sensor size.

True. But simply put, the DOF does change for a given composure, by sensor size. That's what most people witness in relation to moving from crop to full frame.

I'm expecting to be impressed by this phenomenon any day now

Originally Posted by jbg232

I upgraded from an XSi 450d and what an upgrade. I obviously can't compare it to anything else but with my new 24-105 I take shots indoors and in the dark handheld without a flash that there is no way I could have taken before. If it helps I was also having the d800 vs 5d mark III argument in my head but for my uses as a walkaround camera for Europe without wanting to use a flash (to get "surprise" real life shots) I think 5d/24-105 is a great combo. Not to mention the file sizes and ridiculous focus you need to obtain for the d800. However, if i was doing studio work I think I'd go for the d800 based on the images ive seen at "normal" isos. I just see the 5d as the ultimate travel camera now.

Personally, I'm glad Canon opted to stick with 22MP... I have enough trouble managing storage as it is, and I certainly don't find many of my pictures on billboards

But I agree, the 5D3 is the ultimate travel photog camera... which is my primary use as well. I think the 24-105L and my 35L will make an awesome duo for virtually any situation. And my 70-300L that's relatively slow at f4-f5.6 will probably gain a whole new life on this body. The only thing I may be missing is the UWA range... I'll have to see how I fare at 24mm first.

[fcortese]

I got the 5D3 (my sig has been updated today). I was just going to buy the body only and had an order with B&H about 5 day's after the announcement after several of the pre-production reviews came in. I was going to sell my 5D2 (just 1 year old) and offered it to my son-in-law first. When there appeared to be a delay in getting the cameras out to all of the pre-orders, I bought a kit with the 24-105 and got it right away. My son-in-law agreed to take my 5d2 with it's kit lens (24-105) so that chopped not quite 50% off of the 5D3 + kit price. Both my son-in-law and I are quite happy. Now all I need to do is go out and shoot some photos with my new gear.

PS- I enjoyed using the 24-105 on my 5D2. It's a great walk around lens with more reach than the new 24-70 and a lot less expensive!

[Designer Dale]

I feel like a pauper. I can bite $1600 for a 7d, but almost 4 grand is beyond what I will take on in camera debt. My cc balance is almost zero and I could easily afford the Mk III, but it goes against my upbringing. Enjoy your camera and make sure it's paid off as soon as possible.

I mean no disrespect to anyone, BTW. I'm the child of depression era parents.

Dale

[vraxtus]

I upgraded from a 5D Mark ONE. For me, it's an easy 4 stop difference on ISO speeds. That said though, without being able to process RAW yet, it's difficult to say the exact quality in the ISO noise given the JPEG conversion being so muddy.


I also don't use the 24-105 at all anymore. At f/4, shooting in low light for a reasonable action-stopping speed, you do need to be in the range of 16,000 ISO, where your noise levels will start to show, particularly with even a little post processing off the shadow areas.


I'm a prime guy, and so I usually use the 24L and the 85L and so far the results from those have been quite good, though I have had issues with the focusing drive so far. Given the DOF at 1.4, and also shooting from a bit of a distance, the 24L does have trouble with focusing on finer details in low light. A marked improvement over the original 5D, but still not "error free" as some would like to think.


The evaluative metering seems to be good overall, and not a huge improvement there. Otherwise, general improvements in the body design and integration of the custom functions into the standard menus is a nice change (not sure how it was on the Mark II).


Lastly I'd say that if you're in the market for a FF camera, the Mark II should do most people fine. For a person like me who primarily shoots with ambient light sources using primes, this camera is a dream come true

[Funkatronic]

Originally Posted by VirtualRain

True. But simply put, the DOF does change for a given composure, by sensor size. That's what most people witness in relation to moving from crop to full frame.

Very true, I actually came across the same "discussion" on POTN 3 days ago, with better explanations.

Short story:

Originally Posted by Mark-B
If the resulting image has the same field of view on both cameras, that means you are standing closer with the full frame. If you are closer to your subject, the depth of field will be more shallow. I think most people forget about distance to subject when comparing DOF on the two formats.

Long story:

Originally Posted by JeffreyG
I will be talking about using the two formats to take the same photo. This means we have the cameras in the same position and use the same angle of view in each case.

So to start, imagine you take your 7D with the EF-S 17-55 and take a photo with these settings:
35mm, f/2.8, ISO 1600 and 1/100.

Now to take the same photo with the 5D Mark III and the 24-105L we know that several parameters are easy to pick.
Obviously, we go for 56mm focal length to get the same angle of view.
Second, we keep the 1/100 shutter speed. If this was correct for subject motion and handholding with the 7D, it will be correct still.

Now comes the two parts you are specifically asking about.

First, since we had to increase the focal length from 35mm to 56mm to keep the angle of view the same, we now also need to stop down to keep the DOF the same. In fact, f/4.5 on the FF setup will give the same DOF as f/2.8 did on the 1.6X setup.

Also, since we kept the same shutter speed we need to increase the ISO to 4000 to compensate for that aperture shift.

So to recap,
35mm, f/2.8, 1/100 and ISO 1600 on 1.6 X is equivalent to
56mm, f/4.5, 1/100 and ISO 4000 on FF

This is the scenario to have everything the same. If we instead mounted a 24-70L on the FF camera and stuck with the f/2.8 we could take that FF shot at:
56mm, f/2.8, 1/100 and ISO 1600.

But now while the FF setup has the same perspective, shutter speed and exposure it also has much thinner DOF. This is simply because 56mm @ f/2.8 has less DOF than 35mm @ f/2.8.

You use longer focal lengths for the same shots on larger formats. This delivers less DOF in practice.

Link to the POTN thread: Link

[unclegit]

Originally Posted by VirtualRain

True. But simply put, the DOF does change for a given composure, by sensor size. That's what most people witness in relation to moving from crop to full frame.

I'm expecting to be impressed by this phenomenon any day now

But it's not the same composition - move the viewpoint and the perspective changes as will objects relative placement in frame....

I shoot large format as well for some of my landscape work - so I'm pretty familiar with image circles, movements and depth of field - trust me on this, sensor size has no impact on DOF The fact I can take the same photo on a full frame and crop it and produce an identical photo down to the pixel as the crop sensor camera should prove it.

You can't do that by moving the viewer position to "fill the frame" since that changes the composition.

In fact here is the math for calculating DOF :

How to calculate depth of field

None of the variables seem to be sensor size....

My 'other' camera :

Originally Posted by VirtualRain

Personally, I'm glad Canon opted to stick with 22MP... I have enough trouble managing storage as it is, and I certainly don't find many of my pictures on billboards

But I agree, the 5D3 is the ultimate travel photog camera... which is my primary use as well. I think the 24-105L and my 35L will make an awesome duo for virtually any situation. And my 70-300L that's relatively slow at f4-f5.6 will probably gain a whole new life on this body. The only thing I may be missing is the UWA range... I'll have to see how I fare at 24mm first.

Yea I think canon hit the sweet spot for noise / resolution with the Mkiii. I shoot many different subjects - primarily landscape / wildlife, but with some motorsports etc. the MKiii looks to be a great all rounder. Hopefully we'll get the RAW processor engine issues sorted sooner rather than later so we can start to get the best from it.

I shot the 24-105mm quite a bit my last trip to Africa - the barrel distortion on the wide end bugged me a bit, but it's a great travel lens otherwise.

[VirtualRain]

Originally Posted by unclegit

But it's not the same composition - move the viewpoint and the perspective changes as will objects relative placement in frame....

I shoot large format as well for some of my landscape work - so I'm pretty familiar with image circles, movements and depth of field - trust me on this, sensor size has no impact on DOF The fact I can take the same photo on a full frame and crop it and produce an identical photo down to the pixel as the crop sensor camera should prove it.

You can't do that by moving the viewer position to "fill the frame" since that changes the composition.

In fact here is the math for calculating DOF :

How to calculate depth of field

None of the variables seem to be sensor size....

Yeah, I think we all agree and we're just arguing semantics now.

We know that distance and focal length are factors, and that's what changes when composing a "similar" shot with bodies using different sensor sizes. It makes sense... to take the same picture with a FF as a crop you need to either zoom in or move closer and either of those will impact your DOF. That's what people upgrading to FF are noticing and it's not surprising.

BTW, My 5D3 kit arrived today at my Hotel in Florida. I will have my hands on it tomorrow night when I check-in and will have a week in the Caribbean with it on a cruise. Can't wait!

[classicaliberal]

It seems like anymore I shoot just as much (maybe more) video as photos... as such, I think I'll stick with my superior Panny GH2: http://www.eoshd.com/content/7631/pa...vs-5d-mark-iii

[VI™]

Originally Posted by chrono1081

I'm attempting to pretend that I don't even know it exists

I need some studio lighting first anyway. I've been a natural light (or just a flash or two) for...12ish years?

Its time for me to play with studio lights.

^^

I had one on pre-order but cancelled when the opportunity to purchase a Dynalite kit arose. The Speedotrons I'm currently selling were just way too heavy for one location photography.

Anyways, I wanted to wait to see reviews between the D800 and 5D MKII. I've seen photo comparisons where although the D800 is showing more noise, it's also showing a lot more detail. I'll wait until several thorough comparisons are done. My 5DII is serving me well enough right now and it's already more than adequate for love concert photography, so if the D800 performs the same or even slightly better in the ISO category while providing more detail, then I may be switching.

After all, most of my shooting is done with strobes so the ISO isn't a huge deal and the D800 now has comparable video features which was one of the reasons I spent an assload on Canon lenses and the 5DII in the first place over the D700.