EOS 5D mkII - Worlds most pwoerful SLR

[pat_ernzen]

Frame your pictures correctly.

What a stupid comment. Some times that's not an option (rolling, lens not long enough, awkward position, etc). There are plenty of situations that don't allow you to "correctly" frame your photos.

[Lagonda]

What a stupid comment. Some times that's not an option (rolling, lens not long enough, awkward position, etc). There are plenty of situations that don't allow you to "correctly" frame your photos.

Not really, but that's my opinion. Lens not long enough ? Get closer, put on a longer lens or don't take the shot.
I don't see awkward positions as being limiting to composition but, again, that's just me.
Don't know what you mean by rolling.

I don't mind a little cropping (maybe 1-2cm max) but there are people out there that just cut away huge parts of the image. That's a no-no IMHO.

[pat_ernzen]

Not really, but that's my opinion. Lens not long enough ? Get closer, put on a longer lens or don't take the shot.
I don't see awkward positions as being limiting to composition but, again, that's just me.
Don't know what you mean by rolling.

I don't mind a little cropping (maybe 1-2cm max) but there are people out there that just cut away huge parts of the image. That's a no-no IMHO.

So because you're unable to get closer to a subject or don't have the ability to use a longer lens you should just not take the shot? How is significant copping possibly a "no-no"? If you don't see how being in an awkward position could limit you from getting the shot you want to get, you haven't been in many awkward positions. By rolling I mean hanging out the side of a car taking a shot of another car that's moving at close to the same speed as you. Funny, I thought the idea of a photo, like all art, was to capture a moment/object the way you envision it (exceptions for things like photojournalism)... but that's just me.

[John Thawley]

The design of the Mk2 has been, yet again, completely done by the marketing dept. More pixels = more noise, same old crappy AF with all the focus points around the middle, mediocre weather sealing (build seems to better compared to the Mk1 though), low fps, still pretty crappy ergonomics, etc.

All in all it's a meh update. It can't touch the D700 by a mile.

It's a "meh" update? Obviously, you're a Nikon user... that's fine. But it's not an excuse to make ridiculous statements.

Your description flies in the face of everyone in the industry. So, I trust you've had a hands on go with both of these cameras?

C'mon... let's keep it real.

JT

[John Thawley]

Not really, but that's my opinion. Lens not long enough ? Get closer, put on a longer lens or don't take the shot.
I don't see awkward positions as being limiting to composition but, again, that's just me.
Don't know what you mean by rolling.

I don't mind a little cropping (maybe 1-2cm max) but there are people out there that just cut away huge parts of the image. That's a no-no IMHO.

Though I disagree in establishing a "specific" rule of what you can/should crop, I do agree with you in concept.

All the discussion of use a longer lens, get closer etc. etc. is all well and good, however both of those decision will change the shot... possibly dramatically. I have often chosen to shoot a shot with my 500mm as opposed to my 200mm.... even though I'm "framing" the shot exactly. Yes I move back, but the look of the photo is entirely different.

Regarding cropping.. I prefer to use the "print" benchmark. If you can't provide a glorious print of the image, then it's a screen saver... nothing more, nothing less. If someone goes crazy over one of my images, I want to be sure I can deliver a print they can hang on the wall.

To put specifics on the size is a bit of a misnomer. What if I made the shot with an older 1D. It's only 3.2 megapixels. So, in some way's Pat makes a point... that's part of shooting with a larger sensor in the same context that studio shooters shot with medium or large format film cameras. After all, the finished work is NOT presented as a negative. The negative is just a stop along the way of MAKING a great picture.

But, I do think it's a fair statement to get it right in the camera. With respect to Pat's defense of "what if....", well I guess that's valid in journalism or news type reporting. But, my work lies in between. I have to "get the shot" and I have to make it look good. So, I struggle with the "what if" excuse.

Get it right in the camera... finish it in the darkroom. Strengthening the shot in the "darkroom" is one thing. Creating the shot in the "darkroom" is an entirely different discussion.

JT

[Bleeding Heart]

I though they were talking about an Mercedes SLR... Now I know youra talking about a camera

[Lagonda]

So because you're unable to get closer to a subject or don't have the ability to use a longer lens you should just not take the shot? How is significant copping possibly a "no-no"? If you don't see how being in an awkward position could limit you from getting the shot you want to get, you haven't been in many awkward positions. By rolling I mean hanging out the side of a car taking a shot of another car that's moving at close to the same speed as you. Funny, I thought the idea of a photo, like all art, was to capture a moment/object the way you envision it (exceptions for things like photojournalism)... but that's just me.

Call me old fashioned, I just don't cut my negative. I take pictures untill I get the one I want. That way I don't need to slice and dice my negative. I can understand cropping to a square format or something like that.
And I can understand that it all somewhat depends on what you shoot. For example: you shoot a lot of racing cars on a track but sometimes they're a bit far away. You can either shoot them with your 200mm and crop out or you can do the investment and get a 400mm which will yield a full-size higher quality picture... If that's what you do (shooting racing cars), then I would think that an investment in a long lens would be worthwhile and that cropping a 200mm would be the cheapskate option, no ?
It somewhat boils down to having the right equipment for the job. And with the right gear and experience you don't need to cut up your negs afterwards.
I've been in plenty of awkward positions but I somehow always manage to get something decent out of it, without cropping.
As for that rolling, I don't really see why it would be that hard to compose properly in that kind of situation, once you get the hang of it. Especially if the other one is moving at the same speed. Granted, I have no experience with that kind of photography.

As for the photojournalism... that kinda explains my point of view. I take all of my pictures with a certain photojournalistic view. The way things are. And photography being an art...I have mixed feelings about that. But that's somewhat complicated matter for some other time. For me photography is primarily a source of income and I tend to do what the paying client wants (while obviously including my personal style into the pic).

It's a "meh" update? Obviously, you're a Nikon user... that's fine. But it's not an excuse to make ridiculous statements.

Your description flies in the face of everyone in the industry. So, I trust you've had a hands on go with both of these cameras?

C'mon... let's keep it real.

JT

Lots of people are complaining, I'm not the only one. They put the emphasis on MP yet again instead of improving other things (like the AF!).
And yes I've shot with both (not the new Mk2 obviously). And since the Mk2 is somewhat identical to the Mk1 except for the sensor and digic4 my statement does apply.
The 5D produces great image quality (I've even contemplated switching for the 5D once) but on other areas it's really not that great.
I'm just afraid that they will lose on the IQ in exchange for more MP. You'd hear me bitching in the same way if it were Nikon. I'm not a fanboy.

Though I disagree in establishing a "specific" rule of what you can/should crop, I do agree with you in concept.

All the discussion of use a longer lens, get closer etc. etc. is all well and good, however both of those decision will change the shot... possibly dramatically. I have often chosen to shoot a shot with my 500mm as opposed to my 200mm.... even though I'm "framing" the shot exactly. Yes I move back, but the look of the photo is entirely different.

Regarding cropping.. I prefer to use the "print" benchmark. If you can't provide a glorious print of the image, then it's a screen saver... nothing more, nothing less. If someone goes crazy over one of my images, I want to be sure I can deliver a print they can hang on the wall.

To put specifics on the size is a bit of a misnomer. What if I made the shot with an older 1D. It's only 3.2 megapixels. So, in some way's Pat makes a point... that's part of shooting with a larger sensor in the same context that studio shooters shot with medium or large format film cameras. After all, the finished work is NOT presented as a negative. The negative is just a stop along the way of MAKING a great picture.

But, I do think it's a fair statement to get it right in the camera. With respect to Pat's defense of "what if....", well I guess that's valid in journalism or news type reporting. But, my work lies in between. I have to "get the shot" and I have to make it look good. So, I struggle with the "what if" excuse.

Get it right in the camera... finish it in the darkroom. Strengthening the shot in the "darkroom" is one thing. Creating the shot in the "darkroom" is an entirely different discussion.

JT

I think that people are misunderstanding me a little bit. I'm not for a hard rule on what you can and can not crop. What I meant was that you can't just go ahead and replace the act of properly framing by just thinking "oh well, that wasn't great I'll just crop that when I get home". It's a new habit that has become pretty popular with the advent of digital photography. And I don't like it one bit. What I'm seeing a lot these days is indeed, like you said, creating the shot in the darkroom.

phew long post

[John Thawley]

Call me old fashioned, I just don't cut my negative. I take pictures untill I get the one I want. That way I don't need to slice and dice my negative. I can understand cropping to a square format or something like that.

I understand what you are saying... unfortunately, and I realize it's your opinion, but you're grossly misinformed. Today's full frame sensors with 20+megapixels are no different that shooting with Mamiya or Hasseblad medium format camera. In studio work or static shooting the "framing" is often done WELL INSIDE the parameters of the the viewfinder. Who has never seen a contact sheet with tape cropping out what the art director wants to use? C'mon.

And I can understand that it all somewhat depends on what you shoot. For example: you shoot a lot of racing cars on a track but sometimes they're a bit far away. You can either shoot them with your 200mm and crop out or you can do the investment and get a 400mm which will yield a full-size higher quality picture... If that's what you do (shooting racing cars), then I would think that an investment in a long lens would be worthwhile and that cropping a 200mm would be the cheapskate option, no ?

It somewhat boils down to having the right equipment for the job. And with the right gear and experience you don't need to cut up your negs afterwards.
I've been in plenty of awkward positions but I somehow always manage to get something decent out of it, without cropping.

Again, you're misinformed. I believe, I KNOW motorsports. The choice of lens isn't about closer or cropping. If it was, you'd be right. But it isn't. I use my 500mm for long, loose shots all the time.

Investing in equipment is a challenge for everyone ... however, I always coach people to shoot shots that work with the equipment they've got. I will grant you, shooting with a 200mm and cropping to 400mm is not a good practice.

As for that rolling, I don't really see why it would be that hard to compose properly in that kind of situation, once you get the hang of it. Especially if the other one is moving at the same speed. Granted, I have no experience with that kind of photography.

You have OBVIOUSLY never done a car-to-car or rolling shot. If you think you can keep all your shots in frame while lying on your stomach in the back of an open van doing 65mph over shooting at 1/40th sec. you ARE the man. LOL - When I do a rolling shot (and you can see mine going down the highway on the side of Mazda's racing transporters) I'll blow off about 250 frames in one lap. I PRAY I get a dozen or so out of that 250. The variables are endless... cluttered backgrounds, camera shake, car out of frame, back lit, side lit, shadow from the van's tailgate... and on and on.

I think that people are misunderstanding me a little bit. I'm not for a hard rule on what you can and can not crop. What I meant was that you can't just go ahead and replace the act of properly framing by just thinking "oh well, that wasn't great I'll just crop that when I get home". It's a new habit that has become pretty popular with the advent of digital photography. And I don't like it one bit. What I'm seeing a lot these days is indeed, like you said, creating the shot in the darkroom.

You may think you're being a purist, but honestly, you're sounding like a naive elitist. Again... I agree with you're saying "in theory." It the shot's not there... it's not there. But you can't throw a blanket statement on cropping the way you're suggesting.

I just want to understand; You are claiming that if your client wanted head shots for a corporate publicity brochure, and you shot the chairman at his desk with 20mp full frame camera, and the art director came back and said,"great shot.... but we only wanted head and shoulders... not the desk and surrounding backdrop," you'd tell them "sorry, I can't crop it?" That makes no sense.

I think we're saying the same thing... but I think you're overstating the circumstances.

JT