If its any solace to anyone, I still feel good about a Canon 5D Mark II purchase with a 24-70mm f/2.8 L or the kith 24-105mm f/4 IS lens...
GTFO?
Full Version: Any 5D Mark ii Owners?
QUOTE (TriggerHappyDude @ Apr 8 2009, 09:33 AM) 
If its any solace to anyone, I still feel good about a Canon 5D Mark II purchase with a 24-70mm f/2.8 L or the kith 24-105mm f/4 IS lens...
your call..I personally got the 24-70 because of the 2.8...the 24-105 is nice cause it has IS..but also there is some barrel distortion at the 24mm end of it.
GTFO = get the F out
QUOTE (05XRunner @ Apr 8 2009, 09:10 AM)
LOL..Nikon has a FF 24MP camera compared to the 1DsMKIII that canon came out with about 3years ago and took them this long to catch up. I like How a link about the 1DIII focus added even though that has been sorted out already. Plus the D3x is what the 1DIII was priced at release..Now you can get the 1DIII for about $6000 so once again Nikon is behind the ball on that as well. I and MANY Nikon shooters I see think the D3x is a fail. It is basically nothing more then a D3 with a 24mp chip tossed in and added a $3500 price hike..GTFO
You can keep your Nikon
You can keep your Nikon
GTFO? Seriously? Are we this childish on this forum?
I saw that you had posted some information that to the best of my knowledge is factually incorrect. I was making no argument about Nikon being a better company than Canon, simply that Nikon's offerings at this point in time outperform Canon's in the categories where you said that the 5D Mk. II was top dog.
If I wanted to bash Canon I could talk about the 1D Mk. III, which you own and Canon's continuous problems with it. it is a camera that has been out for almost two and a half years (or nearly three depending on how you're counting
) and just last month another "fix" for the autofocus issues were released, that some users still feel did not solve their problems. This is YEARS after the release of a "flagship" top of the line professional cameras. The 1D Mk. III is the best thing to happen to Nikon in recent years.We could talk about the 25% failure rate of 5D Mk. II in the luminous landscapes Antarctic trip.
Yes Nikons cost more, but I feel (my own personal opinion, I am not claiming this as a universal truth) that they are a better product, at least at this point in time.
Canon is a very good camera maker and I fully expect them to release something that will surpass what Nikon has available. They have not done that yet so the statement I made about the D3 and D700 being better at high ISO and the D3x having higher resolution than the 5D Mk. II still stands (statements that you have not addressed in any way shape or form, unless saying something is expensive is saying it is technologically inferior).
QUOTE (wfournier @ Apr 8 2009, 09:46 AM)
GTFO? Seriously? Are we this childish on this forum?
I saw that you had posted some information that to the best of my knowledge is factually incorrect. I was making no argument about Nikon being a better company than Canon, simply that Nikon's offerings at this point in time outperform Canon's in the categories where you said that the 5D Mk. II was top dog.
If I wanted to bash Canon I could talk about the 1D Mk. III, which you own and Canon's continuous problems with it. it is a camera that has been out for almost two and a half years (or nearly three depending on how you're counting) and just last month another "fix" for the autofocus issues were released, that some users still feel did not solve their problems. This is YEARS after the release of a "flagship" top of the line professional cameras. The 1D Mk. III is the best thing to happen to Nikon in recent years.
We could talk about the 25% failure rate of 5D Mk. II in the luminous landscapes Antarctic trip.
Yes Nikons cost more, but I feel (my own personal opinion, I am not claiming this as a universal truth) that they are a better product, at least at this point in time.
Canon is a very good camera maker and I fully expect them to release something that will surpass what Nikon has available. They have not done that yet so the statement I made about the D3 and D700 being better at high ISO and the D3x having higher resolution than the 5D Mk. II still stands (statements that you have not addressed in any way shape or form, unless saying something is expensive is saying it is technologically inferior).
I saw that you had posted some information that to the best of my knowledge is factually incorrect. I was making no argument about Nikon being a better company than Canon, simply that Nikon's offerings at this point in time outperform Canon's in the categories where you said that the 5D Mk. II was top dog.
If I wanted to bash Canon I could talk about the 1D Mk. III, which you own and Canon's continuous problems with it. it is a camera that has been out for almost two and a half years (or nearly three depending on how you're counting
) and just last month another "fix" for the autofocus issues were released, that some users still feel did not solve their problems. This is YEARS after the release of a "flagship" top of the line professional cameras. The 1D Mk. III is the best thing to happen to Nikon in recent years.We could talk about the 25% failure rate of 5D Mk. II in the luminous landscapes Antarctic trip.
Yes Nikons cost more, but I feel (my own personal opinion, I am not claiming this as a universal truth) that they are a better product, at least at this point in time.
Canon is a very good camera maker and I fully expect them to release something that will surpass what Nikon has available. They have not done that yet so the statement I made about the D3 and D700 being better at high ISO and the D3x having higher resolution than the 5D Mk. II still stands (statements that you have not addressed in any way shape or form, unless saying something is expensive is saying it is technologically inferior).
I am looking for more test..But that D3 might look like it has better noise control but it loses details at High ISO vs the canon..That is the thing people miss..They think the Nikon has this great HIGH ISO ability but they are not seeing that it lacks the fine details compared to the Canon. They use alot more in cam process to smooth the image to appear that it has cleaner high ISO.
http://clublexus.com/forums/digital-photog...e-showdown.html
Dont worry i will find more there is one in particular I am looking for that shows the details better then this.
Oh and what about your D300 and the 14bit files..If you want to shoot at its full 6fps you can only shoot in 12bit color..But if you move it up to 14bit color that drops down to what 1.5fps burst. Yea thats useful...why even give the camera 14bit if it cannot use it at all times full speed?
I just like the feel of the Canon's in my hand a lot more than the Nikon's...before I did any initial research or holding of the camera's I thought Nikon was the only way to go, and was set on a D90 or D300. I've since held those two and a D700, and while they are awesome camera's they felt awkward in my hand. I'm sure if I just bought one over time I'd get used to it. But then I started liking the features of the 50D and almost pulled the trigger on that until I started seeing the buzz about, what I thought for sure I didn't want in my DLSR, HD video. Its not the reason I want a 5DMII, but it helps it out. While I can't sit here and argue with you two on the really technical details yet on the Canon and Nikon's...I just want to say both are really great brands, we can agree on that, I just feel more drawn to the Canon brand right now. I would love to be able to play with both for a week, and should maybe look to rent them for a true test, but I could go back and forth all week with them.
QUOTE (TriggerHappyDude @ Apr 8 2009, 10:22 AM)
I just like the feel of the Canon's in my hand a lot more than the Nikon's...before I did any initial research or holding of the camera's I thought Nikon was the only way to go, and was set on a D90 or D300. I've since held those two and a D700, and while they are awesome camera's they felt awkward in my hand. I'm sure if I just bought one over time I'd get used to it. But then I started liking the features of the 50D and almost pulled the trigger on that until I started seeing the buzz about, what I thought for sure I didn't want in my DLSR, HD video. Its not the reason I want a 5DMII, but it helps it out. While I can't sit here and argue with you two on the really technical details yet on the Canon and Nikon's...I just want to say both are really great brands, we can agree on that, I just feel more drawn to the Canon brand right now. I would love to be able to play with both for a week, and should maybe look to rent them for a true test, but I could go back and forth all week with them.
your also buying a system...If you are into prime lenses Nikon really doesnt have anything to write home about compared to Canon.
QUOTE (TriggerHappyDude @ Apr 8 2009, 10:22 AM)
I just like the feel of the Canon's in my hand a lot more than the Nikon's...before I did any initial research or holding of the camera's I thought Nikon was the only way to go, and was set on a D90 or D300. I've since held those two and a D700, and while they are awesome camera's they felt awkward in my hand. I'm sure if I just bought one over time I'd get used to it. But then I started liking the features of the 50D and almost pulled the trigger on that until I started seeing the buzz about, what I thought for sure I didn't want in my DLSR, HD video. Its not the reason I want a 5DMII, but it helps it out. While I can't sit here and argue with you two on the really technical details yet on the Canon and Nikon's...I just want to say both are really great brands, we can agree on that, I just feel more drawn to the Canon brand right now. I would love to be able to play with both for a week, and should maybe look to rent them for a true test, but I could go back and forth all week with them.
If the Canon feels better to you, than by all means get the canon. Something I hear people say a lot is get a chance to hold both cameras in your hand and pick the one that feels best. I think this makes a lot of sense. I came from Pentax and almost got a canon, the only thing that drove me to Nikon was that a friend shot Nikon and it meant that we could share lenses. What really matters is using the camera and if it feels good than you are more likely to use it.
QUOTE (05XRunner @ Apr 8 2009, 10:31 AM)
your also buying a system...If you are into prime lenses Nikon really doesnt have anything to write home about compared to Canon.
you are right Nikon is weak in terms of their prime lenses, this is an area where Canon has a big edge over Nikon. The new nikon 35mm f1.8 DX lens is really nice, especially for $200, but it is only a drop in the bucket.
Nice tank pics by the way.
Well check out this review. In summary the canon is clearly sharper in all of the images but the nikon wins the high iso test. Mostly because it has a "nicer noise pattern" (whatever that means 
) Honestly IMO i find looking at the raw files exhausting simply because the results are so similar. Not to mention the canon shots are clearly underexposed and thus the nikon shots appear cleaner noisewise. They also say the nikon was better in IQ when hes judging the two based on auto white balance??? The canon shots appears to be more red and sharper when looking at crops. While the nikon appears more yellow and softer.The reviewer prefers the more yellow look of the nikon. IMO opinion the nikon may have slightly won the high iso noise test although the difference is ever so slight especially when the shots are exposed correctly.The reason for this difference is that nikon prefers stronger noise reduction at the expense of image detail while canon prefers sharper detail at high iso at the expense of more noise. However the Canon was clearly the winner in terms of IQ. The canon is sharper in all of the shots posted. All in all you cant go wrong with either body because in real world application such as prints you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two. JMO
) Honestly IMO i find looking at the raw files exhausting simply because the results are so similar. Not to mention the canon shots are clearly underexposed and thus the nikon shots appear cleaner noisewise. They also say the nikon was better in IQ when hes judging the two based on auto white balance??? The canon shots appears to be more red and sharper when looking at crops. While the nikon appears more yellow and softer.The reviewer prefers the more yellow look of the nikon. IMO opinion the nikon may have slightly won the high iso noise test although the difference is ever so slight especially when the shots are exposed correctly.The reason for this difference is that nikon prefers stronger noise reduction at the expense of image detail while canon prefers sharper detail at high iso at the expense of more noise. However the Canon was clearly the winner in terms of IQ. The canon is sharper in all of the shots posted. All in all you cant go wrong with either body because in real world application such as prints you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two. JMO
I learned early on not to dive into these Nikon vs. Canon wars, they can get serious. Canon is going to be my path that I take, no only does it feel good in the hands, my family members have Canon and lenses we can share, so it only makes sense to me. Besides I've fallen head over heals in love with the 5D Mark II and will probably add a 50D down the road as a back up once I'm established and start shooting where I might need help at certain events. My wedding was all shot in the Canon 5D, so how can I go wrong? 
This was my guy...
http://www.paulriedl.com/
This was my guy...
http://www.paulriedl.com/
Hey check out this time lapse video shot with the 5D2.Its just amazing. Lets see the D3x pull that off....jk..not really 
. Im so glad i upgraded my pc so i can start editing video.
. Im so glad i upgraded my pc so i can start editing video.
QUOTE (Rehype @ Apr 8 2009, 04:55 PM)
Well check out this review. In summary the canon is clearly sharper in all of the images but the nikon wins the high iso test. Mostly because it has a "nicer noise pattern" (whatever that means ) Honestly IMO i find looking at the raw files exhausting simply because the results are so similar. Not to mention the canon shots are clearly underexposed and thus the nikon shots appear cleaner noisewise. They also say the nikon was better in IQ when hes judging the two based on auto white balance??? The canon shots appears to be more red and sharper when looking at crops. While the nikon appears more yellow and softer.The reviewer prefers the more yellow look of the nikon. IMO opinion the nikon may have slightly won the high iso noise test although the difference is ever so slight especially when the shots are exposed correctly.The reason for this difference is that nikon prefers stronger noise reduction at the expense of image detail while canon prefers sharper detail at high iso at the expense of more noise. However the Canon was clearly the winner in terms of IQ. The canon is sharper in all of the shots posted. All in all you cant go wrong with either body because in real world application such as prints you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two. JMO
) Honestly IMO i find looking at the raw files exhausting simply because the results are so similar. Not to mention the canon shots are clearly underexposed and thus the nikon shots appear cleaner noisewise. They also say the nikon was better in IQ when hes judging the two based on auto white balance??? The canon shots appears to be more red and sharper when looking at crops. While the nikon appears more yellow and softer.The reviewer prefers the more yellow look of the nikon. IMO opinion the nikon may have slightly won the high iso noise test although the difference is ever so slight especially when the shots are exposed correctly.The reason for this difference is that nikon prefers stronger noise reduction at the expense of image detail while canon prefers sharper detail at high iso at the expense of more noise. However the Canon was clearly the winner in terms of IQ. The canon is sharper in all of the shots posted. All in all you cant go wrong with either body because in real world application such as prints you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two. JMOInteresting review, to me the D3x looks a touch sharper in the ISO 100 shots, but not much. If I was looking to buy a 20+ megapixel camera, it would probably be the 5D Mk II. I don't think I could justify the added expense of the D3x over the 5D Mk II for minimal improvements in IQ. However personally if I were to buy a FF or FX (whatever you want to call it) camera it would probably be the D700 as it fits my needs better. The 5D Mk II meets other people's needs better. It's too bad you can't get a Canon with a (full functioning) Nikon mount of vice versa. It would make things so much easier.
As far as in camera noise reduction, I actually think that Canon tends to be more aggressive in this area. However Nikon in general tends to use stronger AA filters to deal with moir which softens the image. This is why Canon's tend to look sharper at low ISO's. Check out this company, there has been some debate about just how accurate their examples are but it is interesting to look at.
I like Canon...
QUOTE (wfournier @ Apr 8 2009, 06:01 PM)
Interesting review, to me the D3x looks a touch sharper in the ISO 100 shots, but not much. If I was looking to buy a 20+ megapixel camera, it would probably be the 5D Mk II.
I dont know about that look closely at the eyelashes as well as the eyebrows....The 5D is pulling in more detail
QUOTE (Rehype @ Apr 8 2009, 07:00 PM)
I dont know about that look closely at the eyelashes as well as the eyebrows....The 5D is pulling in more detail
I think the better WB on the D3x is reducing the contrast which is going to make it look a little sharper, however I am not sure that is all of it. I was looking at the mailbox(?) pictures where the D3x looks slightly sharper, but then again I am not convinced that both cameras are focused on the same spot.
for every photographer that you can find, who, on their death bed will admit that their career was a total failure, simply because they chose canon over nikon or nikon over canon, I will pay out $1,000
But I still like Canon...
We seem to get into a lot of these arguments when all we're really doing is splitting hairs 
PERFECT thread. I'm about to buy the 5D. I hate my 40D so much I wanna throw it out the window.
QUOTE (seahorsedreams @ Apr 9 2009, 07:24 AM)
PERFECT thread.
Until I read the whole thing and realized it was yet another offtrack Canon/Nikon debate.
To the OP, how are you finding it. Anything you don't like? Anything that is particularly nice?
QUOTE (seahorsedreams @ Apr 9 2009, 07:24 AM)
PERFECT thread. I'm about to buy the 5D. I hate my 40D so much I wanna throw it out the window.
why do you hate your 40D?
I use to get like 90% of my attempted shots.... now it's like 50 or 60% success. I've owned this line forever and this one just doesn't produce for me.
What's different about the 40D that made you think that it's the culprit? Not a criticism by the way, it's just that the 40D is likely my next upgrade (or at least that line is).
QUOTE (seahorsedreams @ Apr 9 2009, 09:24 AM)
PERFECT thread. I'm about to buy the 5D. I hate my 40D so much I wanna throw it out the window.
Are you going to sell the 40D? Just curious. I'm going to purchase the 5D Mark II, waiting on a connection with a quote...hopefully today!
Not taken as a criticism. I know how to handle this camera pretty well. I owned the Elan 3e and then the 7e which were the immediate versions prior to them going digital. Then I bought the 350D? ... the first in the series... and then to the 20D and then 40D. I got great shots on all except the 40D.
The first 40D I got I bought online and I couldn't get it to focus to save my life. But I really needed it and brought it to a local repair shop for them to look at. They refused to even touch it saying nothing shimmed like that should have come out of the factory and that it needed to be sent back on principle alone. I sent it back and got a replacement. STILL couldn't get it to focus. Sent it in to Canon's repair shop this time because I didn't want to take a chance on another new screwed up one. They said the focus was way off and they recabbed it.
It focuses great now...... if I go to the right of what I really want to focus on. And now I'm just generally cranky over the whole thing... others like theirs just fine.
If you're going that line, go with the 50D. I've heard less focus complaints with that body.
The first 40D I got I bought online and I couldn't get it to focus to save my life. But I really needed it and brought it to a local repair shop for them to look at. They refused to even touch it saying nothing shimmed like that should have come out of the factory and that it needed to be sent back on principle alone. I sent it back and got a replacement. STILL couldn't get it to focus. Sent it in to Canon's repair shop this time because I didn't want to take a chance on another new screwed up one. They said the focus was way off and they recabbed it.
It focuses great now...... if I go to the right of what I really want to focus on. And now I'm just generally cranky over the whole thing... others like theirs just fine.
QUOTE (VicSkimmr @ Apr 9 2009, 10:34 AM)
What's different about the 40D that made you think that it's the culprit? Not a criticism by the way, it's just that the 40D is likely my next upgrade (or at least that line is).
If you're going that line, go with the 50D. I've heard less focus complaints with that body.
QUOTE (seahorsedreams @ Apr 9 2009, 10:49 AM)
If you're going that line, go with the 50D. I've heard less focus complaints with that body.
this
The 5D Mark II users out there, wonder if any of you have used the HD microphones yet?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/newsLet...ounds-of-HD.jsp
http://dancarrphotography.com/blog/2008/11...-1-microphones/
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/newsLet...ounds-of-HD.jsp
http://dancarrphotography.com/blog/2008/11...-1-microphones/
QUOTE (seahorsedreams @ Apr 9 2009, 01:49 PM)
If you're going that line, go with the 50D. I've heard less focus complaints with that body.
The AF is practically identical between the 40 and 50D.
QUOTE (TriggerHappyDude @ Apr 9 2009, 02:01 PM)
The 5D Mark II users out there, wonder if any of you have used the HD microphones yet?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/newsLet...ounds-of-HD.jsp
http://dancarrphotography.com/blog/2008/11...-1-microphones/
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/newsLet...ounds-of-HD.jsp
http://dancarrphotography.com/blog/2008/11...-1-microphones/
Im probably going to order one next week ill let you know how i like it.
QUOTE (Rehype @ Apr 9 2009, 02:51 PM)
Im probably going to order one next week ill let you know how i like it.
Awesome, which one you leaning towards?
QUOTE (TriggerHappyDude @ Apr 9 2009, 04:16 PM)
Awesome, which one you leaning towards?
I was going to start out with the Azden ECZ-990 because ive heard good things about it.It will be my starter mic and if i decide to upgrade it will be to the rode stereo mic.
QUOTE (Rehype @ Apr 9 2009, 02:19 PM)
I was going to start out with the Azden ECZ-990 because ive heard good things about it.It will be my starter mic and if i decide to upgrade it will be to the rode stereo mic.
That one looks decent and not a bad price either...please let me know what you think when you get it up and running. The Rhode looks sweet too.
How long have you had your 5D Mark II?
Should I be excited the wife is letting me buy it?
QUOTE (TriggerHappyDude @ Apr 9 2009, 04:22 PM)
That one looks decent and not a bad price either...please let me know what you think when you get it up and running. The Rhode looks sweet too.
How long have you had your 5D Mark II?
Should I be excited the wife is letting me buy it?
How long have you had your 5D Mark II?
Should I be excited the wife is letting me buy it?
Ive had it for a few weeks. You should be pretty stoked. Its a great body. The video really takes it over the top IMO. The quality is Excellent.. It totally outperformed the Canon HG21 i used to own in video IQ and performance in low light.
Is the Canon 5D Mark ii truly worth the $2700 price tag for people are not professionals and take pictures casually or a little more than casual? But I guess if I had the money I'd buy it.
QUOTE (fastandsneaky @ Apr 9 2009, 03:40 PM)
Is the Canon 5D Mark ii truly worth the $2700 price tag for people are not professionals and take pictures casually or a little more than casual? But I guess if I had the money I'd buy it.
no different than wanting the best gear for the aquarium hobby
QUOTE (fastandsneaky @ Apr 9 2009, 04:40 PM)
Is the Canon 5D Mark ii truly worth the $2700 price tag for people are not professionals and take pictures casually or a little more than casual? But I guess if I had the money I'd buy it.
I am a casual shooter and make zero money off my photography..and see the gear I have in my sig..Making money off it or not doesnt dictate on what gear you should have..if you want it go for it.
QUOTE (fastandsneaky @ Apr 9 2009, 04:40 PM)
Is the Canon 5D Mark ii truly worth the $2700 price tag for people are not professionals and take pictures casually or a little more than casual? But I guess if I had the money I'd buy it.
Id say so. Considering other Full frame cameras cost considerably more.
Well I bet the Canon 5D Mark ii is a great camera but I guess I was trying to say that would the camera be worth it being that I'm a noon dslrs. I'm into film camera and love being to the blackroom for hours but I don't have a clue when it comes to digitals.
With that being said I just don't want to fall into the trend that more expensive makes things better. I bet if I gave a person a my leica film and I used a canon rebel film, and the person if with my expensive camera had no clue, I'm betting I'd take better shots and develop them better. It has even fallen to the reef world where a frag can cost hundreds of dollars. Just my .02
With that being said I just don't want to fall into the trend that more expensive makes things better. I bet if I gave a person a my leica film and I used a canon rebel film, and the person if with my expensive camera had no clue, I'm betting I'd take better shots and develop them better. It has even fallen to the reef world where a frag can cost hundreds of dollars. Just my .02
QUOTE (fastandsneaky @ Apr 9 2009, 03:44 PM)
Well I bet the Canon 5D Mark ii is a great camera but I guess I was trying to say that would the camera be worth it being that I'm a noon dslrs. I'm into film camera and love being to the blackroom for hours but I don't have a clue when it comes to digitals.
With that being said I just don't want to fall into the trend that more expensive makes things better. I bet if I gave a person a my leica film and I used a canon rebel film, and the person if with my expensive camera had no clue, I'm betting I'd take better shots and develop them better. It has even fallen to the reef world where a frag can cost hundreds of dollars. Just my .02
With that being said I just don't want to fall into the trend that more expensive makes things better. I bet if I gave a person a my leica film and I used a canon rebel film, and the person if with my expensive camera had no clue, I'm betting I'd take better shots and develop them better. It has even fallen to the reef world where a frag can cost hundreds of dollars. Just my .02
If you think your creativity and skill will be used and you will grow into the camera, I'd say go for it.
I am a noob, but I plan to learn about the DSLR world, and try to take advantage of the HD Vidoe as well.
Agh...guess it would make sense to buy a single camera rather than multiple cameras and move up. Guess I gotta start saving more LOL
QUOTE (fastandsneaky @ Apr 9 2009, 05:44 PM)
Well I bet the Canon 5D Mark ii is a great camera but I guess I was trying to say that would the camera be worth it being that I'm a noon dslrs. I'm into film camera and love being to the blackroom for hours but I don't have a clue when it comes to digitals.
With that being said I just don't want to fall into the trend that more expensive makes things better. I bet if I gave a person a my leica film and I used a canon rebel film, and the person if with my expensive camera had no clue, I'm betting I'd take better shots and develop them better. It has even fallen to the reef world where a frag can cost hundreds of dollars. Just my .02
With that being said I just don't want to fall into the trend that more expensive makes things better. I bet if I gave a person a my leica film and I used a canon rebel film, and the person if with my expensive camera had no clue, I'm betting I'd take better shots and develop them better. It has even fallen to the reef world where a frag can cost hundreds of dollars. Just my .02
Well in that case i would invest in a used 20 or maybe an xsi and try learning the camera first. Either camera is more than enough camera for someone new to digital photography. I would only recommend upgrading to another model if there was something you "needed" to do that your current camera isnt able to do.
QUOTE (Rehype @ Apr 9 2009, 05:21 PM)
Well in that case i would invest in a used 20 or maybe an xsi and try learning the camera first. Either camera is more than enough camera for someone new to digital photography. I would only recommend upgrading to another model if there was something you "needed" to do that your current camera isnt able to do.
Rehype,
Which camera did you upgrade from to the 5D Mark II?
How you done any testing and uploaded any HD video yet?
QUOTE (TriggerHappyDude @ Apr 9 2009, 07:00 PM)
Rehype,
Which camera did you upgrade from to the 5D Mark II?
How you done any testing and uploaded any HD video yet?
Which camera did you upgrade from to the 5D Mark II?
How you done any testing and uploaded any HD video yet?
I had a 50D prior. I have shot a few clips but i had to buy a new pc so that i could start rendering some of the video. I should be getting my new pc towards the middle of the week. So ill probably upload some video at that point.
QUOTE (Rehype @ Apr 10 2009, 12:27 PM)
I had a 50D prior. I have shot a few clips but i had to buy a new pc so that i could start rendering some of the video. I should be getting my new pc towards the middle of the week. So ill probably upload some video at that point.
Man I'm getting a new computer too, but its going to be a MacBook Pro. Looking forward to seeing the video.
You know of the cool sites for 5D Mark II video?
http://www.cinema5d.com/index.php
http://vimeo.com (do a search on 5D Mark II)
QUOTE (TriggerHappyDude @ Apr 10 2009, 02:44 PM)
Man I'm getting a new computer too, but its going to be a MacBook Pro. Looking forward to seeing the video.
You know of the cool sites for 5D Mark II video?
http://www.cinema5d.com/index.php
http://vimeo.com (do a search on 5D Mark II)
You know of the cool sites for 5D Mark II video?
http://www.cinema5d.com/index.php
http://vimeo.com (do a search on 5D Mark II)
Yep ive looked at alot of those videos even linked some of the ones i thought were exceptional.
QUOTE (Rehype @ Apr 10 2009, 04:16 PM)
Yep ive looked at alot of those videos even linked some of the ones i thought were exceptional.
Its your turn to start cranking out stuff like that!
What do you all think about this deal? I don't know about the e-tailer but the price seems awesome!
http://www.broadwayphoto.com/cat/DigitalCa...EOS-5D_Mark_II/
http://www.broadwayphoto.com/cat/DigitalCa...EOS-5D_Mark_II/
lol, broadway photo
1.18/10 rating
http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Broadway_Photo
if it sounds too good to be true...
1.18/10 rating
http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Broadway_Photo
if it sounds too good to be true...
Thanks for the info, I saw their ad in Shutterbug and thought maybe they were legit.
always check resellerratings.com especially for camera stuff
also check amazon.com if a price is a lot lower than amazon, its probably a scam
also check amazon.com if a price is a lot lower than amazon, its probably a scam
Will do, I thought I bookmarked that resellerratings.com site but guess not. Thank you.
QUOTE (latazyo @ Apr 11 2009, 12:42 AM)
also check amazon.com if a price is a lot lower than amazon, its probably a scam
^^ Always a good reality check. If Amazon doesn't have the lowest price, it's always in the ballpark.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.