400D to 5D
- Thread starter theroo
- Start date
- Status
I see everyone has forgotten good cameras and lenses still need someone proficient to operate them in order to produce good photos...
agree with you
most important, is the user behind the camera
Lol absolutely. While I cannot say I have some of the best work out there, I can safely say most of my best personal work is done with two of my cheapest lenses: the 50mm f/1.8 II, and the 35mm f/2.
Did I say cheapest? Yes. No red ring, no USM, no internal focusing or weatherproofing. Only pictures.
jupiter - interesting, but is FF noticeably sharper with the L lenses for a 5D due to the FF? it always seems to me that detail, light sensitivity and all just are more prominent with the FF from what i've seen.
calebk - i don't want to come across as overreacting, and no offence to you, but that stance is pretty obvious and was already set out at the beginning of this thread. I already said that i want to upgrade from the 400D not because i thought i could take better pictures but because im rather tired of generally the poor noise handling of the 400D in general, so that's why i wanted the upgrade. Not because i think that buying a 5D will somehow magically make me a 'better photographer'. in addition, we've been talking about better IQ all along, and not the actual composition etc. etc. etc.
my fear of a 5D is how certain lenses will react to it, and whether IQ will suffer. Not in whether or not i will improve as a photographer. my question was merely to ask in the consequences of using lower quality lenses on a higher quality camera (which is undoubted).
after all, isnt equipment the exact same reason why you're using a dSLR and not a point and shoot? and im sure the same statement to you from a point and shoot user would be frowned upon.
by saying:
"I see everyone has forgotten good cameras and lenses still need someone proficient to operate them in order to produce good photos..."
you've firstly gone completely off topic, and secondly, are essentially insinuating that the people who have posted on this thread who use 5Ds or have said that 5Ds are better cameras and want to use a 5D are only doing so because they think that 'size matters' and in reality, cannot take good 'pictures'.
calebk - i don't want to come across as overreacting, and no offence to you, but that stance is pretty obvious and was already set out at the beginning of this thread. I already said that i want to upgrade from the 400D not because i thought i could take better pictures but because im rather tired of generally the poor noise handling of the 400D in general, so that's why i wanted the upgrade. Not because i think that buying a 5D will somehow magically make me a 'better photographer'. in addition, we've been talking about better IQ all along, and not the actual composition etc. etc. etc.
my fear of a 5D is how certain lenses will react to it, and whether IQ will suffer. Not in whether or not i will improve as a photographer. my question was merely to ask in the consequences of using lower quality lenses on a higher quality camera (which is undoubted).
after all, isnt equipment the exact same reason why you're using a dSLR and not a point and shoot? and im sure the same statement to you from a point and shoot user would be frowned upon.
by saying:
"I see everyone has forgotten good cameras and lenses still need someone proficient to operate them in order to produce good photos..."
you've firstly gone completely off topic, and secondly, are essentially insinuating that the people who have posted on this thread who use 5Ds or have said that 5Ds are better cameras and want to use a 5D are only doing so because they think that 'size matters' and in reality, cannot take good 'pictures'.
cheezycool
New Member
let's not start a war over whether the equipment makes a photographer.. i think that debate has been beaten to death over in other threads and forums.
so.. reverting back to the topic, as TS had indicated, i'm also interested in knowing how much more sensitive is the FF sensor with regard to the IQ? or even noise control at ISO 800 and above? and if so, would the marginal jump be justifiable in terms of cost? i think it'd be helpful if anyone could recommend specific lenses too, in terms of performance, for the FF body.
i should think many others are interested in upgrading their cropped sensor bodies to a FF one day in the future, so any insight by current FF users would really help
so.. reverting back to the topic, as TS had indicated, i'm also interested in knowing how much more sensitive is the FF sensor with regard to the IQ? or even noise control at ISO 800 and above? and if so, would the marginal jump be justifiable in terms of cost? i think it'd be helpful if anyone could recommend specific lenses too, in terms of performance, for the FF body.
i should think many others are interested in upgrading their cropped sensor bodies to a FF one day in the future, so any insight by current FF users would really help
While I realise it is not your intention to overreact, in this case, you have overreacted, because my writing was in response to Jupiter's stating that "lenses are still the most important".
I suppose in that case i'd ask why you said 'everyone'.
But anyway, as cheezycool said, this probably is not an argument worth continuing. Misinterpretations are inevitable. And i know that I, for one, can extrapolate indefinitely.
i apologise for overreacting if indeed everyone just meant Jupiter...
bernstein1234
Deregistered
Lol absolutely. While I cannot say I have some of the best work out there, I can safely say most of my best personal work is done with two of my cheapest lenses: the 50mm f/1.8 II, and the 35mm f/2.
Did I say cheapest? Yes. No red ring, no USM, no internal focusing or weatherproofing. Only pictures.
Ya... weatherproofing... When someone is a strong advocate of the build of 17-40 over the 17-55 when exposed to abuse... :think:
I see someone is trying to get personal here.
I shall choose not to retort. If my comments are of no value to you, move on; no need to dig up the past, particularly if you dug it up out of context. If you want clarification of the matter, feel free to PM me. If not, please get your source and context right.
bernstein1234
Deregistered
Well, that's because I realised you like to shoot down people using your personal opinion, and OT stuffs about you taking better pics with cheap lens etc.. While I applaud you for that, why don't you let your pics do the talking? Perhaps in Critique section?
Well, that's because I realised you like to shoot down people using your personal opinion, and OT stuffs about you taking better pics with cheap lens etc.. While I applaud you for that, why don't you let your pics do the talking? Perhaps in Critique section?
Feel free to click on my DeviantArt and Flickr and have a look for yourself. What's stopping you? Why do you think my signature is not a list of my gear? I used to do that, but now I let my pics do the talking.
It appears you have gotten me all wrong, and I suggest not prejudging based on what you know; as we all know, no one is omniscient, so based on whatever limited knowledge you have of me, drawing conclusions can possibly lead to, and have already let to, much misunderstanding.
I am purely stating my opinion against yours. If you feel that you are being shot down, more power to you (or me, or whatever). I have no insecurity issues, and do not have to resort to shooting others down to feel good; I get a kick from shooting photos, (and have far too many on my hard drive at the moment - more than I can put through post and put up as a final piece on dA or Flickr) not putting others down, and I certainly don't hold personal grudges against anyone based on their past posts. Let the past be past; we all move on, grow and learn more in this photographic journey.
This will be my final reply to you on this matter; if you so wish to carry this on, please carry it out in private, via PM.
:thumbsup:
bernstein1234
Deregistered
HelloSeattle
New Member
Relax dude your words make people react this way aye!HelloSeattle
New Member
Lol absolutely. While I cannot say I have some of the best work out there, I can safely say most of my best personal work is done with two of my cheapest lenses: the 50mm f/1.8 II, and the 35mm f/2.
Did I say cheapest? Yes. No red ring, no USM, no internal focusing or weatherproofing. Only pictures.
Agree yet disagree with cheap lens, they serve you well indeed but what are you trying to prove? :dunno:
- Status
Similar threads
