File :-(, x, )
Delayed Gratification Anonymous
Soooo.
Should I buy my 5D now ($1200) or wait until next summer a grab a 50D for about the same price?

5D
+Shallow DOF,
+Clean 1600 ISO
+Tried and true
-3 Years old tech, only good at 1600,
-12 Bit files, Horrible screen

50D
+Newest and greatest sensor tech, noise control
+Micro-adjust, so I can use shitty sigma lenses
+all the newest giz-faggery
-questionable upgrade over the 40D
>> Anonymous
>>280789
holy shit where are you getting a 5D for $1200?
>> Anonymous
>>280791
Craigslist bro, don't tell all your friends.
Just wait for some studio to want to upgrade. Just wait.
>> Anonymous
get the 50D now
>> Anonymous
>>280789
ffs, learn to use torrents, idiot
get a 1Ds mk III like the rest of us
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
5D has superior image quality.
>> Anonymous
The 50D is also a faster camera.
>> Anonymous
What about the 5DMarkII?
>> Anonymous
>>280789
5D, but only if you've got the cash to get the nice L lenses to make it worthwhile.
>> Anonymous
>>280828
what the fuck do torrents have to do with anything?

The problem with going FF is that I have to get the lenses to match it. If I get my 50D, sure I loose the ultra awesome DOF, but my lenses will actually be sharp in the edges.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)
>>280934
>If I get my 50D, sure I loose the ultra awesome DOF
>sure I loose the ultra awesome DOF
>loose the DOF

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:09:27 11:41:54Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width300Image Height300
>> Anonymous
>>2808965D has superior image quality.

for image quality, 5D II > 50D > 5D I

gapless microlenses > full frame
>> Anonymous
>>280941


You're barking up the wrong tree. According to this board FF is the end-all be-all of digital photography.
>> Anonymous
"noise control" still won't fight the fact that larger pixels inherently have less noise.
>> Anonymous
>>280935
I like to verb my adjectives.

There's no reason to buy a 5D if I'm simultaneously going to have to buy $1000 lenses at the same time. I'll only be able to afford on fast wide, or a wide zoom, not as fast. I already have a 50/1.4 and 100/2.8 so I don't need anything in the long end.
>> Anonymous
>>280942

*sigh*

i thought we'd been over the whole FF/no FF thing.

FF is a scam. APS-C can produce images that are just as good. Also, Pentax doesn't produce any 'LOL FULL FRAME' lenses aside from their Limited series, and those can almost be counted on one hand.

Please, get real. Pentax's market isn't full frame, and it doesn't need to be for them to be successful. Granted, they are sure hurting for a success sooner than later. Hoya is sure not going to give them infinite leeway.

Maybe in a few years, depending on how things go, pentax might make a full frame body, but it'd be more for 'LOL LOOK WE DID IT' reasons rather than the fact that anyone really needs it.
>> Anonymous
>>280956


copypasta is fucking gay
>> Anonymous
>>280956

You've never tried to shoot with only a 50mm on a crop, have you?
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>280941
Larger photosites > microlens characteristics.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>280956
Consumers drive profits, but pros drive brand viability. People want to feel like they're buying pro gear even when they aren't (and don't need it, and should maybe be legally barred from owning it), so they need to see pros using it. Pros won't settle for a camera that takes good pictures but feels weird in your hands and places more emphasis on the HDMI port on the side than the AF speed or low-light metering ability.

That's why Pentax blows ass.
>> Anonymous
"shallow DOF" what the hell, that's a function of the lens and the settings you are shooting, not the camera.

Don't worry about full frame, its nice, but its expensive. There ARE pros who shoot on APS-C, so get what you can afford that fits your needs. I'll say it, unless you are shooting for vogue and National Geographic, the 5DII is more camera than you'll ever need.
50D ftw.
>> Anonymous
>>280978

Not entirely true. A full frame will have a shallower DoF than a crop.
>> Anonymous
>>280986

Now that i think about it, you're right (that's gotta be a first in 4chan history). But still, with a reasonably open aperture, I would think that the difference in DOF is not all that apparent.
>> Anonymous
>>280978
larger sensors have an inherently shallower DOF

this is why lenses for large format cameras have comparably small apertures
>> Anonymous
>>280988
Sorry bro, but it's substantial
FF: 50mm @ F/4 focused at 1m has a .091m DOF
1.6: 28mm @ F/2 focused at 1m gives .092m DOF

Yeah, that's a 2 stops wider. So just think about that for a sec. Don't even compare MF to crop.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>280978
>Don't worry about full frame, its nice, but its expensive.

In this case it's cheaper.
I went 5d, so that's what i would recommend.

Inb4
"blagh blagh blagh $19.99 is stupid for buying a shitty used 5d"
>> M?e?e?s?e??? !iZn5BCIpug
>>281017
in b4 5dmarkII.jpg
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)
>>281029
close enough
>> Anonymous
>>280978
most pros I know shoot D200/D300's or 40D's.

i see a lot with those expensive shitty point and shoot's
>> Anonymous
I almost got in a fight with a photographer at a concert that had a point and shoot.
>> Anonymous
>>281045
I hope you beat his ass with your takumar lenses
>> Anonymous
>>281070
If OP combined that with a Nikon body that guy would be fucked.
>> Anonymous
>>281076

Hammer the opposition like nails.
>> Anonymous
>>280828
Yeah, I downloaded 3 X 1Ds mk III last week. Just waiting for seeds to come back online for some lenses and a tripod and I'll be all set to go.
>> Anonymous
>>281183
i am so looking forward to affordable home prototyping machines
>> Anonymous
>>281032
lol silver bodies are so amateur
>> Anonymous
ugh, If I get a 5di, am I going to regret not having any L lenses?
>> Anonymous
>>281445

nah, just get the 16-400mm lens.
>> Anonymous
>>281209
Relevant to my interests, I dont think there's such a thing, but is there actually something you have in mind?
>> Anonymous
>>281445
What you're looking for is lenses with good corner performance, especially very low light falloff. Digital sensors handle light differently than film, only taking light that hits them straight on, so lenses whose design depended on light coming in at an angle to get acceptable corner performance on film don't perform as well on digital. So not necessarily L lenses; likely they'll be non-L lenses that will stack up and L lenses that don't. But that's obviously a personal, subjective call; look at tests.
>> Anonymous
Yeah, but if you get crop sensor, where else are you going to get fast wides?

All the 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 35/2, etc, there's no crop equivalent,
>> Anonymous
>>281463
Sort of.

There is no 15/1.4, of course. But very few people have reason or skill to be messing with a 24, or a real need to have nothing in focus.
There's a 24/2.8 Canon, good enough for most uses, and a 24/1.8 Sigma, better than a 35/2 and close enough to a 35/1.4.

Canon did fuck up by going with a 1.6x crop factor; everything's a touch longer than it should be. A 14 isn't a 21, a 24 isn't a 36, a 28 isn't a 42, a 35 isn't a 50. Instead they're kinda wonky 22, 38, 44 (okay), 56.
>> Anonymous
>>281466
I have a 35/2 on crop, and it's way too long for me. I liked it better on film.

What do you think of sigma 24/28/1.8 lenses? There's supposed to be optimized for digital sensor, albeit slow af.
>> Anonymous
>>281470
I've heard good things about both of them, the only big cons being the slowish focusing and the fact that they're pretty big lenses.

Burt has a 28/1.8, if you could get him to post samples, and you can always go around to Flickr, PBase, etc.
>> Anonymous
burt?
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>281445
>ugh, If I get a 5di, am I going to regret not having any L lenses?

nope
>> Anonymous
>>281477

The 24-105 is a greaaaat lens, it also doubles up as a moth cage!
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>281526
It does.