Which camera for upgrade.
Jun 10, 2012 10:58:49 #
I have been using a canon xti 400 for the past few years and I'm looking to upgrade. Can't seem to decide on ff canon 5D II or the 7D. I mostly shoot nature, landscapes and architecture. Decisions, decisions. Any thoughts.
Jun 10, 2012 11:33:40 #
The mark 5d2 would be the ultimate choice between the two due to the full frame advantage in my opinion.
Jun 10, 2012 11:52:33 #
That's where I think I'm leaning to. I would love the new Mark III But of course money is a factor. Even with the II I'll have to get some sort of flash due to no built in flash. Thanks for commenting.
Jun 10, 2012 17:59:33 #
the mark 2 does show some chromatic aberation that software can fix which the mark 3 automatically fixes.
Jun 10, 2012 21:25:16 #
The mark 3 is a little pricey for me and I didn't know that about the mark two. Thanks for the input.
Jun 11, 2012 05:49:48 #
From another Vietvet...I am happy with the 5D MarkII so far .Have added it to my Nikon systems and now shoot both. Lived in Williamsburg Brooklyn and was in Nam 1966-1968. Thanks for your service !
Jun 11, 2012 07:05:58 #
Jun 11, 2012 07:09:49 #
deej wrote:
the mark 2 does show some chromatic aberation that software can fix which the mark 3 automatically fixes.
Can you elaborate? I've never heard of a camera having CA....only lenses.
Jun 11, 2012 07:10:59 #
VietVet wrote:
That's where I think I'm leaning to. I would love the new Mark III But of course money is a factor. Even with the II I'll have to get some sort of flash due to no built in flash. Thanks for commenting.
I'd go for the MK II myself; money being a concern.
Also, with a really nice camera, it's good to learn how to use off-camera flash anyway...so not having a built in is no biggie...in my mind they are worthless.
Jun 11, 2012 07:15:47 #
VietVet wrote:
I have been using a canon xti 400 for the past few years and I'm looking to upgrade. Can't seem to decide on ff canon 5D II or the 7D. I mostly shoot nature, landscapes and architecture. Decisions, decisions. Any thoughts.
Here are some links.
Camera Reviews
http://www.kenrockwell.com
http://www.dpreview.com
http://www.snapsort.com
http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equipment.html
Jun 11, 2012 07:50:28 #
I was born and raised in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, got married and moved a few blocks which put me in Greenpoint. You wouldnt recognize the area with all the building and influx of people, it the new bohimia. Thank you too for your service hondo-rei and thank all others for commenting. Your right CA IS a lens problem "isn't it" rapavich. Thanks Jerry for the links, very helpful.
Jun 11, 2012 07:53:59 #
I too had the same decision and I went with the Canon 5d Mark II and haven't looked back ... it is an awesome machine! The 7d is awesome but lacks the full frame feature! I also bought a Canon 430EX II. Now I just have to learn all the features, tips and tricks for both the camera and speedlite.
Good luck...you won't go wrong with the 5D Mark II.
Good luck...you won't go wrong with the 5D Mark II.
Jun 11, 2012 07:59:08 #
rpavich wrote:
Can you elaborate? I've never heard of a camera having CA....only lenses.
deej wrote:
the mark 2 does show some chromatic aberation that software can fix which the mark 3 automatically fixes.
Can you elaborate? I've never heard of a camera having CA....only lenses.
Exactly, my bad. The mark 3 auto corrects these CA issues in body whereas the mark 2 does not. "Ken Rockwell" states this as well in his review.
Jun 11, 2012 08:00:46 #
rpavich wrote:
I'd go for the MK II myself; money being a concern.
Also, with a really nice camera, it's good to learn how to use off-camera flash anyway...so not having a built in is no biggie...in my mind they are worthless.
VietVet wrote:
That's where I think I'm leaning to. I would love the new Mark III But of course money is a factor. Even with the II I'll have to get some sort of flash due to no built in flash. Thanks for commenting.
I'd go for the MK II myself; money being a concern.
Also, with a really nice camera, it's good to learn how to use off-camera flash anyway...so not having a built in is no biggie...in my mind they are worthless.
I tend to agree with the on camera flash, its not necessary and results are better using an off camera flash.
Jun 11, 2012 08:23:37 #
deej wrote:
Exactly, my bad. The mark 3 auto corrects these CA issues in body whereas the mark 2 does not. "Ken Rockwell" states this as well in his review.
rpavich wrote:
Can you elaborate? I've never heard of a camera having CA....only lenses.
deej wrote:
the mark 2 does show some chromatic aberation that software can fix which the mark 3 automatically fixes.
Can you elaborate? I've never heard of a camera having CA....only lenses.
Exactly, my bad. The mark 3 auto corrects these CA issues in body whereas the mark 2 does not. "Ken Rockwell" states this as well in his review.
Are we having a terminology misunderstanding?
Ahh...
Here is what Ken says:
Quote:
There are three qualities for which the 5D Mk III can correct in-camera: darkened corners (vignetting or peripheral illumination), corner color fringes (lateral chromatic aberration) and distortion."
The CAMERA doesn't have these issues....the lenses do.
The 5DIII has the software to correct them before post...but the 5DII doesn't.
They are a lens issue.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.