The Photography Thread

[Fader209]

Ah ha camera talk! Just what I needed.
Is the Canon EOS 5D Mk II any good? I saw there was a link by Ampanman with a newer version EOS and wondered what the differences would be.
Girlfriend wants to make a purchase and thought I better do some research myself so thanks for any advice guys.

[egparadigm]

Is your girlfriend a professional? If not then the 5D Mk II would be overkill ? that's the equivalent of Nikon's Semi-Pro, full frame camera the D700. Albeit the 5D Mk II is a slightly newer design.

It gets more economical like this: 5D Mk I ? full frame but older tech ? 7D, which is a halfway house sensor between full and smaller frame ? and then I think it's the 50D.

If you get a full frame camera bare in mind that you'll also need the more expensive, full frame compatible lenses to make the most of the camera. Otherwise you'll have to crop all the pictures down.

[EvilBoris]

That one that ampanman posted will probably be ?5000+!

5D mark ii is ?1500+ for just the body.

People often say it, but the lenses are far more important than the body. I recently bought a 50mm prime lens which I've used on odd occasions over the very general purpose zoom lens I normally have attached, the improvement in the quality of some of the images I was able to take was huge.

[Spatial]

Walkies by Jamie-Davies, on Flickr

[Taka]

The Canon 5D MkII is a very fine camera indeed. I'd say you don't have to be a professional to appreciate its merits and abilities and even a keen amateur would get loads from it. It is a big and heavy camera though and I rarely see women toting one around, much more common to see them with a 500D or 60D at a snip of the price for a 5D MkII.

[Anpanman]

That one that ampanman posted will probably be ?5000+!

5D mark ii is ?1500+ for just the body.

People often say it, but the lenses are far more important than the body. I recently bought a 50mm prime lens which I've used on odd occasions over the very general purpose zoom lens I normally have attached, the improvement in the quality of some of the images I was able to take was huge.

Aye, should have mentioned it was their top o'range, anyway I've amended the post.

You are spot on about lenses and primes are better than zoom's. I'm lucky enough to have one of the 'exotics' and it's far, far too good for my Fuji S2 6mp, I really need FF so am saving up for a D700 or similar, in fact according to the photozone test it out resolves the sensor on a D3!
Only problem is weight - 3 kilos.

[MartyG]

Nice to get one of them, to be honest i'd be happy with 2nd or 3rd at AP so I can get a mug!

Muhahahaha ...

5D Mk I – full frame but older tech.

You can get the Mk I for as little as ?600 now second hand, the saving there will get you some very nice L glass - definitely nothing wrong with that camera at that price.

[Rossco]

Not posted in here for a while but I've been taking my camera with me up the hills alot lately so get some shots. By no means amazing but I think some are nice. Too many to post them all obviously but here are a few at random. I've started shooting in RAW format too and doing a bit more post process on them. While I'm still quite clueless with it all, I can see the benefits it gives to someone who knows what they are doing.

And I've suddenly went over my Flickr photostream limit of 200. Might need to start paying for it now. I guess all you guys are pro account holders?

[MartyG]

What are you shooting with? You might perhaps want to consider a little bit more DoF for landscape shots - although it depends on what you were trying to pull the eye to focus on. I like the framing on that last shot of yours, it would be interesting to see that same shot with a greater front-to-back sharpness.

[EvilBoris]

That first one is lovely, shame the sky is a bit overexposed there. last one is good too

[Rossco]

Thanks for the advice Marty. I see some peoples images of this type of thing and it amazes me so I do want to get better. I use a Sony A200 with the standard lens, got a 75-300mm lens for it too but rarely take it with me. The problem is though, I'm primarily out hillwalking and not doing photography so don't like to sit for ages getting the perfect shot so will shoot on auto most of the time to save time.

Not ideal obviously but better than nothing. I would like to spend more time doing it properly though and get better.

[MartyG]

A 75-300mm won't help you with landscape stuff generally, you'll get less DoF. The shorter your focal length as a general rule gives you greater DoF. There's absolutely nothing stopping you from using longer length lenses for landscapes - breaking the conventional rules sometimes produce results that are fabulous, but there are more convenient lenses that'll help produce what would be considered classic landscape shots.

An 18mm will give around a 35mm film equivalent on the Sony and you'll be getting a greater DoF, most standard kit zooms provide this. Look up hyperfocal distance, this will maximise your DoF.

As I said though, it depends what you're trying to get out of your landscape shots - there's nothing wrong with going shallow if you're trying to highlight a particular aspect of what you're framing.

Buy this week's Amateur Photographer issue, there is a fantastic booklet about "advance photography", but actually, it's just about stuff you really should know.

[Rossco]

That first one is lovely, shame the sky is a bit overexposed there. last one is good too

Thanks, yeh I had a play about and struggled to get anything decent with it because the sun was so low and really piercing through the image.

A 75-300mm won't help you with landscape stuff generally, you'll get less DoF. The shorter your focal length as a general rule gives you greater DoF. There's absolutely nothing stopping you from using longer length lenses for landscapes - breaking the conventional rules sometimes produce results that are fabulous, but there are more convenient lenses that'll help produce what would be considered classic landscape shots.

An 18mm will give around a 35mm film equivalent on the Sony and you'll be getting a greater DoF, most standard kit zooms provide this. Look up hyperfocal distance, this will maximise your DoF.

As I said though, it depends what you're trying to get out of your landscape shots - there's nothing wrong with going shallow if you're trying to highlight a particular aspect of what you're framing.

Buy this week's Amateur Photographer issue, there is a fantastic booklet about "advance photography", but actually, it's just about stuff you really should know.

Cheers for the advice, I'll see if I can find the mag then and hopefully come back with some better results.

[koopatroopa90]

Is that a dam in the 3rd photo? Is that house in the 4th derelict/abandoned?
Sorry, off topic but I find buildings like that fascinating.

[Rossco]

Spot on koopa! The dam is at Loch Sloy Hydro-Electric power station. And the building is an old abandoned house miles up the middle of Glen Fyne at a place called Inverchorachan.