Looking to get into photography

koffiejunkie said:
That's a bit harsh, isn't it? It's not like you bought only the one 400D body...
Click to expand...
No - I dont think it is harsh knowing my penchant for losing interest in things. :o

The second body was a replacement to use while I was waiting for my 400D to be repaired. I may have wanted a full frame body but at that time I couldn't have justified it's expense.
 
mercurial said:
So what's gonna happen to your 2 x 400D's once you get your 5D?
Click to expand...
At the rate I'm going I'll probably wear one of them out by then :D.

I'll definitely keep one - all my lenses are compatible with both sensor types so it makes sense.
 
mercurial said:
Better hide the 5D's receipt from the missus :D
Click to expand...
Actually its not so much of an issue now that it's generating income. :)

I am hoping that the current 5D pricing comes down significantly when canon releases an update.
 
bwana said:
The second body was a replacement to use while I was waiting for my 400D to be repaired. I may have wanted a full frame body but at that time I couldn't have justified it's expense.
Click to expand...

I wasn't just referring to the bodies - you've invested quite a bit in glass fairly early on, flash, software, etc.

My point is (and this is the way I look at things) if you derive anything from it, it's money well spent.

And it's not like you can't sell it again if you lose interest.
 
koffiejunkie said:
I wasn't just referring to the bodies - you've invested quite a bit in glass fairly early on, flash, software, etc.

My point is (and this is the way I look at things) if you derive anything from it, it's money well spent.

And it's not like you can't sell it again if you lose interest.
Click to expand...
All the expensive accessories acquisitions were gradual, purchased with full frame in mind, and largely made after my interest was renewed and cemented.

Also TBH me being the hoarder that I am selling the stuff second hand would have also been unlikely esp knowing I'd be taking a bath on it.
 
bwana said:
lso TBH me being the hoarder that I am selling the stuff second hand would have also been unlikely esp knowing I'd be taking a bath on it.
Click to expand...

He he, not the camera's fault then :)

I tend to hoard as well. But before I came to the UK, I threw away/gave away/sold almost everything I owned. Felt good!
 
bwana said:
It means the image sensor is the same size as a 35mm camera. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-frame_digital_SLR

You dont suffer from the crop factor the APS-c cameras use.
Click to expand...
I'm still confused about that. I've been doing quite a bit of reading and I might be mistaken, But I think thats where the 4:3 system is different even though its still explained like that. The problem with the cropping is when using lenses designed for 35mm Film... Currently most lenses are designed to work like this. Except the 4:3. Which has reworked the entire design of the lens, meaning the lenses are made to fall on a smaller size thereby still giving a simular sized image? and allowing smaller sized lenses by adjusting the focal plane. Your DOF is also greatly enhanced. SO again it depends on what you want to do with the camera?

Or have I missed the plot somewhere :confused:
 
bwana said:
However many there are +1 :D

Seriously though - you lose some of the functionality by using the adaptor right? I'd be more concerned about 4/3rds smaller, more densely packed
sensor.
Click to expand...
You would lose auto focus/aperture adjustment.. Which doesn't completely bug me, since right now with the film I shoot.. I have to do that anyway, so nothing different really. The difference comes in the fact that the IS is in the Housing as well so that will be retained even with older lenses

Here is comparison side by side of the 40D compared to the E3. Notice the difference in the photo "sizes" ie: 4:3 compared to 2:3
 
Kalvaer said:
You would lose auto focus/aperture adjustment.. Which doesn't completely bug me, since right now with the film I shoot.. I have to do that anyway, so nothing different really. The difference comes in the fact that the IS is in the Housing as well so that will be retained even with older lenses

Here is comparison side by side of the 40D compared to the E3. Notice the difference in the photo "sizes" ie: 4:3 compared to 2:3
Click to expand...
You mean aspect ratio? . . . and you forgot the link. :)
 
Kalvaer said:
I'm still confused about that. I've been doing quite a bit of reading and I might be mistaken, But I think thats where the 4:3 system is different even though its still explained like that. The problem with the cropping is when using lenses designed for 35mm Film... Currently most lenses are designed to work like this. Except the 4:3. Which has reworked the entire design of the lens, meaning the lenses are made to fall on a smaller size thereby still giving a simular sized image?
Click to expand...

Well, yes, but that's not the point in the APS-C vs FF debate. The big advantage of FF is that the photosites (the thingies that capture light) has a larger surface, which mean the can capture more light. So to get the same sensitivity, less gain is required, resulting in a better SNR (signal to noise ratio). 4/3 has that counting against it.

Kalvaer said:
Your DOF is also greatly enhanced.
Click to expand...

That could count against you, depending on what you do. If you do portraits or macro where you want shallow DOF, you need an f/2 lens to get the same DOF that you would get on an f/2.8 FF lens. This drives up cost quite a bit if you want to compete with say, a f/1.4...

mercurial said:
Next time you throw your goodies away, throw your 40D my way mkay :D
Click to expand...

Ha ha. Things I kept: Mac Mini, Laptop, Camera, a few changes of clothes, and some stuff that has sentimental value.
 
koffiejunkie said:
He he, not the camera's fault then :)
Click to expand...
What camera? :confused:
Kalvaer said:
I'm still confused about that. I've been doing quite a bit of reading and I might be mistaken, But I think thats where the 4:3 system is different even though its still explained like that. The problem with the cropping is when using lenses designed for 35mm Film... Currently most lenses are designed to work like this. Except the 4:3. Which has reworked the entire design of the lens, meaning the lenses are made to fall on a smaller size thereby still giving a simular sized image? and allowing smaller sized lenses by adjusting the focal plane. Your DOF is also greatly enhanced. SO again it depends on what you want to do with the camera?

Or have I missed the plot somewhere :confused:
Click to expand...
Many manufacturers make lenses designed specifically for the cropped sensors.

An advantage however to using a full frame lens on a cropped sensor is that you tend to get the best the lens has to offer (iow the sweet spot) in the centre and vignetting is less likely to be an issue.
 
koffiejunkie said:
Well, yes, but that's not the point in the APS-C vs FF debate. The big advantage of FF is that the photosites (the thingies that capture light) has a larger surface, which mean the can capture more light. So to get the same sensitivity, less gain is required, resulting in a better SNR (signal to noise ratio). 4/3 has that counting against it.
Click to expand...
That I have heard. Still not sure about the Nmos sensors which I am trying to find more about with regard to the SNR. But at hihger ISO ratings I have read that the E3 & E520 suffer a bit more than the Canon's or Nikons

koffiejunkie said:
That could count against you, depending on what you do. If you do portraits or macro where you want shallow DOF, you need an f/2 lens to get the same DOF that you would get on an f/2.8 FF lens. This drives up cost quite a bit if you want to compete with say, a f/1.4...
Click to expand...
Ayup.. My brother-in-law mentioned the same to me. Especially with portraits. Of course with landscape though it would be an advantage, Also since most photo's now days would be photo shopped anyway.. that can be removed in portraits.. Its easier to remove something though, than to put something in place that wasn't there to begin with
 
bwana said:
What camera? :confused:
Click to expand...

The one you didn't buy :) (tongue in cheek - don't take me too seriously)

Kalvaer said:
Canon's or Nikons
Click to expand...

Completely off-topic: I'm amazed that you got the use of the apostrophe both wrong and right in the space of three words...

Kalvaer said:
Ayup.. My brother-in-law mentioned the same to me. Especially with portraits. Of course with landscape though it would be an advantage, Also since most photo's now days would be photo shopped anyway.. that can be removed in portraits.. Its easier to remove something though, than to put something in place that wasn't there to begin with
Click to expand...

Well, the thing with landscapes is, you will probably be using a wide lens. Wider lenses have more DOF. On my sigma 10-20, at f/5.6 at 10mm, infinity starts something like 1m away. I'm guessing bwana's 16-35 will be similar on a FF body, just stepped down lower (you'll be using a tripod anyway, won't you?).
 
koffiejunkie said:
Completely off-topic: I'm amazed that you got the use of the apostrophe both wrong and right in the space of three words...
Click to expand...
Hang around.. I do it often and don't think I'll ever get it right :rolleyes:



koffiejunkie said:
(you'll be using a tripod anyway, won't you?).
Click to expand...
Usually.. unless its underwater.. then I have no choice. There the DOF will again be an advantage as its not always easy to make sure your target is in the right spot with wave movement or that it wont swim away before you can catch it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X