The DSLR thread

[Orange Cola]

I recall the FF cameras I used on the training courses were very sharp, but I’ve noticed that improvement already from my 90D. Reading reviews a lot of people talk about soft images with the 90D (and other APS-C’s) but digging into it and reading reviews from pros in the industry it’s more down to the lens quality being used and of course, FF’s only generally come with respectable lenses and I don’t think I’ve shot without a decent lens on a FF.

I’ve just ordered a EF 24-105mm F4 IS II USM lens. Gulp

[KiwiDave]

What GG said - the main difference is typically that a FF camera gives you less depth of field and a more three dimensional look to the shots. It steps up again when you go to medium format sensors which is like a big jump again in costs. Any if you ever get to use or see the results from 5x4" film it's an exponential jump again.

Also used to be that a FF sensor handled low light better. If you can imagine 20MP spread out on an APS-C sensor and again on a FF sensor, the pixels on the FF sensor have to occupy a physically bigger space, which usually had the effect of lower signal noise and less grainy appearance in low light. These days where pixel counts are all over the place that's a bit more difficult to track but some reviews do quote the size of the pixel site to show this. As an example our 50MP EOS 5Ds are fucking woeful in low light compared to a 5D3 or 5D4 with their much lower pixel counts (23 and 30 from memory? I don't bother looking any more) but we don't care in our work as it's almost all lit using studio lights and shot at ISO 100 anyway, so the impact doesn't exist for us. We have 5D4s for field work for this reason.

[JonMad]

My 40D is crap at anything higher than 400 ISO. Luckily I prefer doing studio shots but it is annoying. My Ricoh GRII (also APS-C) is way better and has some very handy features: TAv mode which fixes shutter speed and aperture and auto adjusts the ISO; fixed distance focusing at various distances that can be set with a jog wheel - really handy for capturing the kids running around.

Is the 5D mk3 significantly better than the mk2 then, in terms of high ISO performance, and generally?

[KiwiDave]

I'd say the sensor performance is close, for a given amount of noise, you get maybe like 2/3 to a whole stop. It's no sharper. It's just the camera around it is actually good. It's something I think many people forget, look at reviews and see pages of tech specs and think that's it. I'd wager most people buying one brand or another (or worse still switching and making a performance out of it) actually have shit technique and can't actually shoot that well - I'd say now 98% of camera buyers use the camera as a crutch as opposed to learning technique. Same for cars - most people won't get why we buy sports cars when a Corolla will do. But if you do get it, you'll appreciate a camera not for what tech spec it has but how it actually works as a tool and with you.

I'm a big advocate of photographers at any level buying a shit old film camera and shooting a few rolls to remind yourself you can, you ought to and often need to make the choices yourself not let the camera do it. Everyone's eye gets so much better for it. And you can buy a film camera second hand for like a tenner now.

I still have a first gen 5D and I fucking rave about it as a camera. It had nothing whatsoever on it that a decent photographer wouldn't need to shoot. Bare bones functionality, but it did it really well, it was an ergonomic delight and built like a tank. (We won't talk about its dust issues.) For me the MkII moved the game on so much by blowing apart what cameras could do, it came with an epic sensor and more options than you could throw a stick at, but the camera itself didn't feel in the same class as an OG 5D or any of the genuinely good cameras (Leica, Hasselblad 500/Xpan, RB67, the fucking amazing Minolta Dynax 9 (that Sony somehow butchered in one go), Nikon FM3, Canon T90, Nikon D700 (the first one of their 5D style cameras - fuck me that rocked).

MkIII came out and put a marginal move forward in tech inside a camera worthy of it finally. The internet moaned how they'd lost it and couldn't produce meaningful cameras any more and it was a sack of shit and yet almost everyone I know personally who bought one still owns it. Mine is like a good 8yrs old and I see zero reason to change it. The 5Ds, 5Ds R and 5D MkIV use almost exactly the same camera and menu system because it needs almost nothing. As a tool to use as opposed to wank over tech specs with it's almost flawless - if they don't make a Mk5 and stick to going mirrorless, I might even buy a MkIV and stay in DSLRs for another ten years.

[JonMad]

Thanks Dave, £800-900 for a decent used mk3 then, hmm...
https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equipmen ... os-5d-iii/

[KiwiDave]

I've got to assume that's a decent going rate - I've no idea on UK costs now, but if you double it to get NZD that's a decent deal yes. Awesome cameras. Make sure they're spotless inside.

[GG.]

Thanks Dave, £800-900 for a decent used mk3 then, hmm...
https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equipmen ... os-5d-iii/

If I were spending near a grand I'd buy a brand new 5DS for £1,050 with a year warranty (even if you'd have to send back to Hong Kong) from here:

https://uk-store.digitalrev.com/product ... 43EALw_wcB

If you add on MBP's third party warranty for £80 you're basically at the same price.

[Brannen]

I'm using a mirrorless camera mainly as I wanted a lighter, smaller body and lenses. I also got a really good deal on it when I bought it from Jessops. I traded in an old Canon and got £250, Sony had a cash back offer of £300 for the kit I bought and Jessops had a January Sale. What was a £1500 set cost me £750 in the end I think..

Sony Alpha A6500 with a 24 - 135mm Sony Lens and a 30mm Sigma prime lens. It's a cropped APS-C sensor rather than full frame, but the Sony Full Frame cameras weren't cheap when I got mine last January. I still use it fairly frequently, but haven't been as active since the lockdown. I did take it out whilst riding my bike last weekend and got a couple of pictures. I did get this for video as well, as it had really good video options, 4K and 1080p 120 fps etc.

I know the phones are getting really good, but they don't offer as much flexibility especially when editing in Lightroom and Photoshop for me. Quick shots will tend to be phone, but I still try and use the Camera as much as I can.

I wouldn't discount mirrorless if you're looking at new cameras.

[dinny_g]

Thanks Dave, £800-900 for a decent used mk3 then, hmm...
https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equipmen ... os-5d-iii/

If I were spending near a grand I'd buy a brand new 5DS for £1,050 with a year warranty (even if you'd have to send back to Hong Kong) from here:

https://uk-store.digitalrev.com/product ... 43EALw_wcB

If you add on MBP's third party warranty for £80 you're basically at the same price.

Tempting...

[Orange Cola]

I’ve just checked the 5D price new vs used and older models. I’ll definitely be going second hand for full frame

[KiwiDave]

I’ve just checked the 5D price new vs used and older models. I’ll definitely be going second hand for full frame

Imagine buying dozens of them at once

[KiwiDave]

Thanks Dave, £800-900 for a decent used mk3 then, hmm...
https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equipmen ... os-5d-iii/

If I were spending near a grand I'd buy a brand new 5DS for £1,050 with a year warranty (even if you'd have to send back to Hong Kong) from here:

https://uk-store.digitalrev.com/product ... 43EALw_wcB

If you add on MBP's third party warranty for £80 you're basically at the same price.

Fair points - as mentioned I've no idea really on UK costs of stuff any more. Certainly if it's new and about the same price you've got the same camera with more life in it - just remember the 50MP sensor largely makes the 5Ds a studio biased camera. Certainly low ISO as opposed to shooting the mily way in pitch black at night. It also REALLY shows up your lens choices.

[Orange Cola]

And now I see why people have multiple DSLR’s

I am happy sticking to scenery, cars, architecture, occasional wildlife and stars. I am keen to see what difference a decent lens makes to my camera after this discussion

[GG.]

Decent lenses are gamechangers. Fast ones even more so.

The old adage is you buy camera bodies but you invest in glass.

[GG.]

Fair points - as mentioned I've no idea really on UK costs of stuff any more. Certainly if it's new and about the same price you've got the same camera with more life in it - just remember the 50MP sensor largely makes the 5Ds a studio biased camera. Certainly low ISO as opposed to shooting the mily way in pitch black at night. It also REALLY shows up your lens choices.

Yes that would make me slightly nervous as I do like shooting in low light with fast lenses. I never usually stray about ISO 2000 though so it may be ok. Ideally I'd go for a 5d IV but not for nearly £700 more. Its not top of my priority list at the moment anyway.

[dinny_g]

Decent lenses are gamechangers. Fast ones even more so.

The old adage is you buy camera bodies but you invest in glass.

I've certainly followed that adage...

However, I still use an ES-f 15-85 f3.5-5.6 IS USM lens (Kiwi Dave recommendation ) regularly and for the price point, it's a cracking utility zoom. Gets used as much as a EF 35-135 I have.

[JonMad]

Fair points - as mentioned I've no idea really on UK costs of stuff any more. Certainly if it's new and about the same price you've got the same camera with more life in it - just remember the 50MP sensor largely makes the 5Ds a studio biased camera. Certainly low ISO as opposed to shooting the mily way in pitch black at night. It also REALLY shows up your lens choices.

Yes that would make me slightly nervous as I do like shooting in low light with fast lenses. I never usually stray about ISO 2000 though so it may be ok. Ideally I'd go for a 5d IV but not for nearly £700 more. Its not top of my priority list at the moment anyway.

I can't help thinking 24MP from a 5D mk3 would be, dare I say it, enough, for the added flexibility/bit of leeway it may give you in lower light. With relatively smaller files to deal with as well. Coming from 10MP APS-C and 16MP APS-C, a 24MP full frame should be a decent jump in image quality/ability to crop, low light performance, shallow DoF.

[GG.]

Oh yes it would be I don't disagree. I'd just struggle to buy a second hand camera with unknown provenance for the same price as a brand spanking new one, even if grey market. The low light capability of the 5DS will still blow the 40D into the weeds. The jump in low light / high ISO capability between 20-30-40-50D (I owned all of them - was fortunate to be living in Hong Kong at the time with a massive wealth of used kit to choose from) was exponential and the 6D was light years on again.

[Beany]

You bastards, I've just spent the last hour looking at used Canon DSLRs.

Don't think I can justify it yet, although it's nice to see that some of the older full frame jobbies have come down in price really nicely if you just want to snap in full frame.

[Mito Man]

I’d say keep practicing on a smartphone before spending any money on a camera Beany