# Buying New- Sony A700 or Cannon 50D



## fragged3d (Feb 15, 2009)

I have a Sony A100 at the moment but I only have 2 lenses for it so I'm not that finantialy into it. I am looking to buy a new camera in the next week and I have been looking at the Sony A700 but I see so much more support for the Cannon cameras. I don't care for Nikon so it's not a choice, I don't care for the way they feel. What are your thouts?


----------



## Mgw189 (Feb 15, 2009)

I also own the A100 and have the kit lens and the 75-300 if I could jump ship Canon and had the cash to do so I probably would.  The only reason being is that I see (as you said) more support/products for Canon.  The lens prices are more reasonable as well.  Sony is still a really new product line.  Although for being such a new line they do have some great glass once you get into the CZ line of lenses.


----------



## fragged3d (Feb 15, 2009)

Yes, Sony glass gets outrageous compared to cannon. I will say I like some features Sony offers on thier camera though, but Cannon has thier own as well! I am having a hard time because both of those models are almost exactly the same price! Every tutorial you see uses a Cannon and most photographers I have seen in a professional setting use Cannon.


----------



## Mgw189 (Feb 15, 2009)

fragged3d said:


> Yes, Sony glass gets outrageous compared to cannon. I will say I like some features Sony offers on thier camera though, but Cannon has thier own as well! I am having a hard time because both of those models are almost exactly the same price! Every tutorial you see uses a Cannon and most photographers I have seen in a professional setting use Cannon.



Canon and Nikon do make up the majority of the professional equipment out there right now.  Sony still needs to make a name for themselves.  The CZ lenses are the eqivilent to an L series lens I believe.  They also have a G series lens which is a little better than base glass.  I have yet to find a place near by that has anything other than the 75-300 and the kit lens for sale.  Then again I live in a very small city with no real camera store other than a Ritz Camera that is inside a department store.  I would really like to get my hands on some of the lenses and play around some.  I know renting can get pretty expensive but it may be worth a shot as well to see which you like better.


----------



## Harmony (Feb 15, 2009)

I'm unfamiliar with Sony lenses but from this thread alone it seems as if they can hold their own. My choice was Canon for two reasons: lenses and feel. If they lenses are the same, then it all comes down to what you really prefer...


----------



## fragged3d (Feb 15, 2009)

I do not doubt the quality or features of Sony but whether to move into the Cannon camp. The prices for the 2 cameras I'm looking at are the same, but which will I grow into more? I wonder if I get the 700 if I will want to buy the 900 when the time comes or if I buy the 50D go into a Mark? I know the camera does not make the photographer but I wonder which path is the greater?


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 16, 2009)

Think about the lenses.

I have the Sony A100.
I am fine with what the camera produces ... granted I do not shoot at high ISO.

I invested my money on lenses ... which I feel is more important.

Sony currently does not have the same range of lenses that Canon or Nikon have ... so that is a bit of a limitation.
Optical quality of the Sony G and CZ lenses are excellent and comparable to those by Canon/Nikon.

I do not buy new lenses ... I pickup Used (Minolta/Sigma) ... so my range of higher quality lenses did not cost me an arm and a leg. 

Other than comparing the camera bodies ... make sure you also compare the lenses you possibly may want to use with it.


----------



## Early (Feb 16, 2009)

As far as used Maxxum glass is concerned, there are some older zoom lenses that would give even Leicas a run for their money.  Where Sony misses out is at the long end, the 300's, 400's, etc.


----------



## fragged3d (Feb 16, 2009)

I am really leaning toward the Cannon camp at this point. I think if I go the Sony route I might as well save a little more and invest in the A900. Although I think the glass for Cannon is more reasonable and there is more of it because of Cannon's popularity.


----------



## Mgw189 (Feb 16, 2009)

fragged3d said:


> I am really leaning toward the Cannon camp at this point. I think if I go the Sony route I might as well save a little more and invest in the A900. Although I think the glass for Cannon is more reasonable and there is more of it because of Cannon's popularity.



More doesnt make better really.  If you really sit down and look at the lenses that are out there most of them are repeats of the same focal length just in different good, better, best catagories.  The advantage of going with the A700 or A900 is that you could purchase the body only since you already have two lenses for your Alpha series.  I would think that the A700 would be a little less expensive since it has been out a while longer.


----------



## EhJsNe (Feb 16, 2009)

If you have the money, go canon. 

Im unfamiliar with the lenses available for sony, but I know canon has a huge range of lenses along with a ton of 3rd party lenses of pretty darn good quality.

Also, if photography fizzles out for you, the Canon cameras and glass (as of now) will be worth a lot more.


----------



## fragged3d (Feb 16, 2009)

Sounds like a plan then, now I'm doubting my choice, is the 50D really the one I should go with? Will the 50D grow with me or should I be looking at a different Cannon model?


----------



## Harmony (Feb 16, 2009)

I really hate to break in with something that seems pretty useless but just a note: "Canon". One n. 

And the 50D will most definitely grow with you.


----------



## zioneffect564 (Feb 16, 2009)

I started out with the a100 and i was in the same predicament as you are. I just got my tax return back and i was looking at the canon 50d, a700, and the d90. i was pretty sure i was going to go with the d90 and then i shot the 50d and i loved the speed and the feel of the camera compared to the d90. I thought really hard about the a700 because all of my lenses but I couldnt get over how cheap it felt, I also didn't like the way that sony was going with there cameras. The 50d seemed like the most logical choice. Then I looked at the d300 even though it was a little more expensive it out performed the canon in every way. I'm not sure why you dont like the nikons but i would check it out unless it's just too expensive.


----------



## fragged3d (Feb 16, 2009)

It's not the expense because I have been thinking about skipping the middle and going higher end and not worry about it. I held and shot a Nikon at bestbuy and I did not care for it one bit! I just want this purchase to last me a while and keep up. I want to invest more money in this part of what I do.


----------



## ANDS! (Feb 16, 2009)

Get the Canon.  Don't just look at the new lenses.  Look at lenses, and accessories in the used market as well.  If you plan on buying everything new - get what you want.  If you want to buy used - get the Canon.


----------



## Harmony (Feb 16, 2009)

If you held a Nikon at BestBuy, it was probably a D40 or D60, and they feel like toys. Go to a camera store and hold a higher end Nikon - they feel extremely solid, and _very_ different from the lower end models.


----------



## zioneffect564 (Feb 16, 2009)

Harmony said:


> If you held a Nikon at BestBuy, it was probably a D40 or D60, and they feel like toys. Go to a camera store and hold a higher end Nikon - they feel extremely solid, and _very_ different from the lower end models.



yeah my d300 feels very solid, more than a 50d. If you say you didnt like the feel of a nikon you couldnt have been holding a d300 because my a100 feels like a toy after i've held my d300.


----------



## fragged3d (Feb 16, 2009)

It was a D40, there are no camera stores anywhere near me, I live in a pretty rural area and we dont have that stuff here.


----------



## zioneffect564 (Feb 16, 2009)

fragged3d said:


> It was a 40D, there are no camera stores anywhere near me, I live in a pretty rural area and we dont have that stuff here.



a d40? a 40D is a canon.. and yeah the d40 is the smallest nikon they have and it doesnt even have an af motor in it. I wouldn't write off nikon just yet if you've only held a d40.


----------



## fragged3d (Feb 16, 2009)

Sorry, I fixed it, easy to get mixed up when you try to research so much at once. 

All this just makes my decision harder.


----------



## anubis404 (Feb 16, 2009)

Don't worry about the bodies. You'll be happy either way. Worry about the line of lenses. Canon offers a much larger selection, and (i believe) Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina make more lenses compatible with Canon than Sony. If I were you, I would go Canon.


----------



## fragged3d (Feb 16, 2009)

I think I have made the first decision to go with Canon, now which model I should go with is the last choice! I am torn here, do I go with the 50D, 5D, 5D Mark II, or 1D Mark III?


----------



## ANDS! (Feb 16, 2009)

Do you have the money for any one of those cameras?  If so, go nuts and get the best one if money isn't an option here.  If it is, the 50D will do just fine.


----------



## Mgw189 (Feb 16, 2009)

If you are going to go with Canon then you need to think about what type of photography you want to do.  All of the bodies you listed have their strong points.  The 5D MK II is a really nice camera but will cost you a small fortune.


----------



## ANDS! (Feb 16, 2009)

The 5D is actually pretty affordable for a full frame camera.  2700 bucks at BH - no tax, free shipping.


----------



## fragged3d (Feb 16, 2009)

I am very close to the price of the 5D Mark II, so yeah I have the money. I have a friend that wants my A100 so that gets that out of my office and helps soften the blow! 

I want to shoot mainly studio stuff right now, I have a ton of women that are willing to help me get experience taking those kinds of photos. I started looking at the 50D because I knew glass was going to be pricey! I know that I am trying to setup a little studio and strobes aren't cheap, but I'm willing to go slow if it means saving me a ton of money in the end!


----------



## zioneffect564 (Feb 16, 2009)

fragged3d said:


> *I am very close to the price of the 5D Mark II*, so yeah I have the money. I have a friend that wants my A100 so that gets that out of my office and helps soften the blow!
> 
> I want to shoot mainly studio stuff right now, I have a ton of women that are willing to help me get experience taking those kinds of photos. I started looking at the 50D because I knew glass was going to be pricey! I know that I am trying to setup a little studio and strobes aren't cheap, but I'm willing to go slow if it means saving me a ton of money in the end!



So you're saying that you don't even have enough money for the 5D yet? If so I wouldn't look into getting the 5D because right now the glass is going to be the most important thing and if you buy a camera but you dont have a lens it's just going to sit there and do nothing.


----------



## ANDS! (Feb 16, 2009)

If you're trying to set up a studio I would get the 50D and spend the rest on a studio set up.  What exactly do you need the 5D to do that the 50D can't?


----------



## fragged3d (Feb 17, 2009)

I am not worried about not being able to do anything, I don't want to buy another camera for a couple of years. I also see that the 5D has a full frame sensor where the 50D has a crop sensor.


----------



## fragged3d (Feb 18, 2009)

I'm set on the 5D MKII, what lense do you guys suggest for shooting portrait shots?


----------



## Mgw189 (Feb 18, 2009)

50mm or 85mm are very popular prime lenses for portraiture.


----------



## sultan (Feb 18, 2009)

I still don't get why you chose to skip Nikon. Nikon D40s are cheap low end cameras. You can't say that Nikon sucks because you held a $400 Nikon and it felt like crap next to a $1500 Canon. Hold a D300 or D700 if you want a feel for a Nikon. The better Nikons feel more solid and comfortable than Canons in their class.

If you still prefer Canon, that's fine too. Its all a personal preference.


----------



## zioneffect564 (Feb 18, 2009)

Yeah i don't understand why you're throwing nikon out the window. A D700 in my honest opinion is far better than the 5D Mark II and that's only if you can get one of those within a couple of months. They have been sold out for forever and its just because of that HD video which really who needs that? You have to focus manually yourself anyways. I could see the 5D if you're shooting landscapes and needing to crop but other wise you have excessively large files on your computer. The nikon is actually cheaper but it's whatever feels best in your hands. Nikon also makes all of their own glass but canon doesnt.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 19, 2009)

zioneffect564 said:


> Yeah i don't understand why you're throwing nikon out the window. A D700 in my honest opinion is far better than the 5D Mark II and that's only if you can get one of those within a couple of months. They have been sold out for forever and its just because of that HD video which really who needs that? You have to focus manually yourself anyways. I could see the 5D if you're shooting landscapes and needing to crop but other wise you have excessively large files on your computer. The nikon is actually cheaper but it's whatever feels best in your hands. Nikon also makes all of their own glass but canon doesnt.


 
Far better? The 5D MKII almost matches the D700's high ISO performance, and when you do down size a 21mp 5D MKII RAW file to 13mp (or whatever the D700's size is), it looks better at the same ISO. Plus, I can print off 30"x45" prints and not have to edit it to hell in back for sharpness in the up size.

Who really needs HD video? Ask the people that bought the camera for it.

What's excessive? 1tb of storage says that my files aren't excessive in size. Plus excessively large files are great to work with. If something happens like an image turns out soft or a lens front focuses or back focuses, then I can fix it with a bit of sharpening and down sizing and it looks perfect.

I mean, the 5D MKII does has a slightly different version of a sensor found in a $7000 camera, so for the price, it's a good deal.

Please point out where you've seen that Canon doesn't make all of their own glass and Nikon does?

I got my 5D MKII in December about two weeks before Christmas. I could point you at several different sites that have them in stock. You should check before making statements like that.

http://www.adorama.com/ICA5DM2.html
[ame]http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B001G5ZTLS/ref=pd_bbs_olp_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1235056546&sr=8-1[/ame]


----------



## inTempus (Feb 19, 2009)

zioneffect564 said:


> A D700 in my honest opinion is far better than the 5D Mark II and that's only if you can get one of those within a couple of months.


Far better, eh?  According to who?  There are people ordering and getting 5DMK2's all over the place.  At the most you'll wait a week or so, depending on where you order it.



> They have been sold out for forever and its just because of that HD video which really who needs that?


Really?  Who told you this?  The same guy who said the D700 is "far better" than the 5DMK2?  The D90 has this feature as well, is this the only reason people buy D90's?



> I could see the 5D if you're shooting landscapes and needing to crop but other wise you have excessively large files on your computer.


Excessively large, eh?  That's pretty funny.  Maybe if you're running a P90 wih 512k memory and a 10GB hard drive.  :mrgreen:


----------



## fragged3d (Feb 19, 2009)

File size is the least of my worries, I have the computer to handle them. I took a pan shot last year and it was 16 shots long, I couldn't wait to get home so we tried processing it on my works most powerful computer, c2d with 2gb ram. The shot took an hour and a half to process and after it crashed, did the same thing on my computer at home and it took seven and a half minutes and was successful.

I have a huge computer I built specifically for web design and photoshop. It has a 2.66ghz quad, 8gb ram, 1tb in raid, 2 8800gts 512mb video cards and 4 22" Dell monitors.

I have not made a commitment yet but I'm sure in my mind, I still want to read and compare. This is an expensive investment to just buy on impulse.


----------



## fragged3d (Feb 19, 2009)

Mgw189 said:


> 50mm or 85mm are very popular prime lenses for portraiture.


 
I ask because all of the tutorials I have seen the guy used a 70-200mm and reccomended that size.


----------



## Tayfun (Feb 20, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> Far better? The 5D MKII almost matches the D700's high ISO performance, and when you do down size a 21mp 5D MKII RAW file to 13mp (or whatever the D700's size is), it looks better at the same ISO. Plus, I can print off 30"x45" prints and not have to edit it to hell in back for sharpness in the up size.


 
According to dpreview.com's 5D MKII camera review and comparison by D700, up to 800 iso there seem to be no difference. But after that level of iso, 5D MKII begins to make more noise reduction (loss of detail begins) and the advantage of 21 MP goes away, D700 takes the lead. But actually at 21 MP up to 800 iso good noise performance is great. You mensioned that, if you down the MP to 13 MP, the iso performance gets better. Are you sure because as I know, the iso performance is involved by the light collectors' size of the sensor.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 20, 2009)

Tayfun said:


> According to dpreview.com's 5D MKII camera review and comparison by D700, up to 800 iso there seem to be no difference. But after that level of iso, 5D MKII begins to make more noise reduction (loss of detail begins) and the advantage of 21 MP goes away, D700 takes the lead. But actually at 21 MP up to 800 iso good noise performance is great. You mensioned that, if you down the MP to 13 MP, the iso performance gets better. Are you sure because as I know, the iso performance is involved by the light collectors' size of the sensor.


 
If you down size the photo. Like in Photo Shop. 


Shooting JPEG with Noise Reduction on:


			
				dpreview said:
			
		

> Compared to the Nikon it is harder to call, with the 5D Mark II having almost double the pixel count of the D700. At the pixel level there is very little difference in noise up to ISO 800, but you can see Canon applying increasingly high noise reduction from then on, meaning that by ISO 3200 the 5D Mark II's resolution advantage has been wiped out and the the D700 steps into the lead, albeit by a whisker. The fine grained noise produced by the D700 is less objectionable in pictures than the rather more processed looking noise and noise reduction of the 5D Mark II, but in truth at normal enlargement sizes the difference between these two cameras will be minimal. Of course you can also turn down the noise reduction a little on the 5D Mark II if you prefer - see the next page.
> 
> What this means is that Canon has managed to walk the tightrope between high resolution and manageable noise pretty successfully, retaining a good balance of detail and noise in the most commonly used ISO range, and providing usable output at higher settings through heavy - but not excessive - noise reduction. While it may not the first choice for users who need the best high ISO performance (and over 6400 it's really 'emergency use only'), it is still a very good option that will produce comparable results in the same circumstances as the D700 - certainly at normal enlargement sizes.


 
Shooting RAW:


			
				dpreview said:
			
		

> In this RAW comparison you get a better idea of how noisy these three cameras actually are without the veiling effect of in-camera noise reduction. As seen earlier, the Sony A900 is quite a noisy camera compared to the 5D Mark II and the D700, which are suprisingly similar (we'd expect the Nikon to be less noisy, but the difference is actually very small). All the way to ISO 25,600 the D700 and 5D Mark II are very close in terms of noise and fine detail retained, with the D700 slightly better at all settings. These results, especially at the top two ISO settings illustrate how much in-camera noise reduction is applied to JPEGs, and that both the 5D Mark II and D700 have very effective noise reduction algorithms.


 
Of course the D700 is less noisy because of the larger pixels, but not by much and the resolution advantage of the Canon means you can down size the photos in post processing to help get rid of noise.

100% crop of an image shot at 4000 ISO:




That shot resized for web use to 800x533:




Practically 0 noise in the resized shot.


----------



## Tayfun (Feb 20, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> If you down size the photo. Like in Photo Shop.
> 
> 
> Shooting JPEG with Noise Reduction on:
> ...


 
Of course such noise management by 21MP is great as I mensioned before and up to 800 MP the same noise level by 12 MP camera and 21 MP camera is likely unbeleivable, thats ok. But on your downsize sample, does it give lower noise or by downsizing is it more difficult to see the same noise? I think on the %100 crop photo and the resized one have the same noise but it is difficult to see it on the smaller one. But by this I don't want to mean "Nikon is far better or the opposite". Yes as my opinion video is not necessary but it is a plus of course.

I am satisfied with my equipment but one day if a have to change system, my preference will be Nikon D700 probably. Because I won't need such resolution, but will need water proof body and durability where Nikon wins here. Expecially I hear a lot of Err99 issue for 5DMKII but none for Nikon. I gave the link where a few bodies compared on an Antartica trip.
Antarctica 2009 - What Worked

But let me say; we are talking about 5D MKII, or D700. It sounds to me funny to call any of them bad, or net enough :lmao:. As my opinion for an amateur shooter any of the DSLR on the market will be more than enough :mrgreen:
Best
Tayfun


----------



## inTempus (Feb 20, 2009)

We've been playing with sRAW and high ISO noise over on the Canon forums for a while and it would appear that images shot in sRAW do in fact display noticeably less noise.

Keep in mind that the 5DMK2 has less space between its microlenses than the D700 does and this helps to reduce noise.  The engineers at Canon were trying to cheat physics which dictate the higher the MP the higher the noise levels.  It would seem they've done a pretty good job of doing that.

With the 50D they actually achieved a "gapless" microlense array on the crop sensor to help control noise.  It's pretty darn impressive they packed 15MP into a 1.6x sensor.  I think Canon has pushed the 1.6x sensor to the limits of what's doable.  I suspect their next xxD body will use a 1.3x because as we all know, the marketing people demand more MP's with each new release.

Here's a sample of the noise differences on the 50D going between RAW and sRAW at 3200 ISO (which is very high for the 50D).

First, here's what the original shot looked like at 3200:






Here's a 100% crop from a RAW file:






Here's a 100% crop from a sRAW file:






As you can see, the CA noise levels in the sRAW appear to be reduced pretty noticeably.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 20, 2009)

Tayfun said:


> I am satisfied with my equipment but one day if a have to change system, my preference will be Nikon D700 probably. Because I won't need such resolution, but will need water proof body and durability where Nikon wins here. Expecially I hear a lot of Err99 issue for 5DMKII but none for Nikon. I gave the link where a few bodies compared on an Antartica trip.
> Antarctica 2009 - What Worked


While this story is concerning, it's purely anecdotal.  70% of the people (77 people total) on the trip where shooting Canon.  26 of those shooters were carrying new 5DMK2's.  6 of those had various failures, 3 died permanently and 3 had hiccups but continued to work.  The sample size is totally skewed, there were FAR more Canons onboard.

Let's not mention that if you're going into adverse conditions, it's best to take the right tool for the job.  The Canon manual tells you the 5DMK2 is NOT weather sealed.  If you want a weather sealed camera, take a 1D.  Even though its not weather sealed 20 of the 5DMK2's functioned flawlessly.  More than the number of D700 that functioned flawlessly, because there were far fewer D700's.


----------



## Tayfun (Feb 20, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> We've been playing with sRAW and high ISO noise over on the Canon forums for a while and it would appear that images shot in sRAW do in fact display noticeably less noise.
> 
> Keep in mind that the 5DMK2 has less space between its microlenses than the D700 does and this helps to reduce noise. The engineers at Canon were trying to cheat physics which dictate the higher the MP the higher the noise levels. It would seem they've done a pretty good job of doing that.
> 
> ...


 
So it seems like that pixel binning works well. I know that they designed new type of small photosites which is able to collect more light. But it is said that 50D gave more noise than 40D. You wrote that 5DMKII had less space between its microlenses than D700 have and that helped to reduce noise? I couldn't understand that sorry. Should less space not make it hard to collect light so make it difficult to reduce noise?


----------



## inTempus (Feb 20, 2009)

Tayfun said:


> You wrote that 5DMKII had less space between its microlenses than D700 have and that helped to reduce noise? I couldn't understand that sorry. Should less space not make it hard to collect light so make it difficult to reduce noise?



Here's a blog that explains it in some detail.  I wasn't clear, it's not just the gapless (or reduced gap) design that helps to improve ISO performance, it's coupled with new photo diodes that are supposed to be able to gather more light.

Canon&#8217;s new sensor design « Mayank&#8217;s Viewpoint


----------



## Tayfun (Feb 20, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> Let's not mention that if you're going into adverse conditions, it's best to take the right tool for the job. The Canon manual tells you the 5DMK2 is NOT weather sealed. If you want a weather sealed camera, take a 1D.


 
That's the point I am talking about. If I am a studio shooter my tool would be 5D MKII because of high resolution. But for hard conditions 1D is also available but D700 is cheaper and a closer opportunity for me. D700 is perfectly wheather sealed, and robust camera.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 20, 2009)

Tayfun said:


> That's the point I am talking about. If I am a studio shooter my tool would be 5D MKII because of high resolution. But for hard conditions 1D is also available but D700 is cheaper and a closer opportunity for me. D700 is perfectly wheather sealed, and robust camera.


The D700 is a fine camera, no doubt.  Is it "far superior" to the 5DMK2 as someone else said?  Not even close.  If anything they are functionally dead even competitors with some ergonomic/cosmetic differences.

Given the choice, I would take the 5DMK2.  If someone gave me a D700 I would be happy as a lark.  But when it comes down to me spending my money, I can't resist the 5DMK2.  Truth be told, I'm thinking of ways to justify a 1DMKIII.


----------



## Tayfun (Feb 20, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> Here's a blog that explains it in some detail. I wasn't clear, it's not just the gapless (or reduced gap) design that helps to improve ISO performance, it's coupled with new photo diodes that are supposed to be able to gather more light.
> 
> Canons new sensor design « Mayanks Viewpoint


 
According to that blog 

"According to Canons Chuck Westfall, this new technology in the 50D, which features Canons highest pixel count (15 megapixel) APS-C sensor to date, will result in approximately 1-1.5 stop better high ISO noise performance as compared with the 10 megapixel 40D (Source: Rob Galbraith)"

But on dpreviews review, 50D has worse high iso performance than 40D.


----------



## Tayfun (Feb 20, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> The D700 is a fine camera, no doubt. Is it "far superior" to the 5DMK2 as someone else said? Not even close. If anything they are functionally dead even competitors with some ergonomic/cosmetic differences.
> 
> Given the choice, I would take the 5DMK2. If someone gave me a D700 I would be happy as a lark. But when it comes down to me spending my money, I can't resist the 5DMK2. Truth be told, I'm thinking of ways to justify a 1DMKIII.


 
100% agreed :thumbup:


----------



## inTempus (Feb 20, 2009)

Tayfun said:


> But it is said that 50D gave more noise than 40D.


The 50D is slightly more noisy than the 40D.  The 50D has 50% more pixels than the 40D.  The 50D does not have 50% more noise.  It has maybe 5-10% (10% being very high, I would say 5% or less) more noise.  It's very little which is quite an impressive feat for the Canon engineers.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 20, 2009)

Tayfun said:


> According to that blog
> 
> "According to Canon&#8217;s Chuck Westfall, this new technology in the 50D, which features Canon&#8217;s highest pixel count (15 megapixel) APS-C sensor to date, will result in approximately 1-1.5 stop better high ISO noise performance as compared with the 10 megapixel 40D (Source: Rob Galbraith)"
> 
> But on dpreviews review, 50D has worse high iso performance than 40D.


The blog talks about pre-release marketing hype.  I didn't post the link to start a debate between which has more noise, the 40D or the 50D.  It was posted only to explain the technology behind the new sensors.

On the Canon forums there have been countless exchanges (with lots and lots picture comparisons), and for the most part the noise differences between the 40D and 50D are slight, with slight advantage going to the 40D.

While Canon didn't achieve better ISO performance as they were claiming, they did bump the pixel count by 50% with only a marginal loss of high ISO performance.  That in and of itself is an amazing accomplishment.  Sure, it's short of what they were targeting, but hey... they were cheating the laws of physics.

The point is, the technology works.


----------



## ANDS! (Feb 21, 2009)

> I have not made a commitment yet but I'm sure in my mind, I still want to read and compare. This is an expensive investment to just buy on impulse.



If you have the ability to hold a PRO Nikon body - not the toy that the D40 is - do so.  You will be significantly shortchanging yourself by just going off the feel of one entry level body compared to the upper enthusiast bodies of the competition.  There are advantages and disadvantages to all systems.  For studio shooting, Nikon has the advantage of integrated CLS system, which esssentially removes the need for cumbersome "radio poppers" and "triggers" and cords and etc. etc.  Sure you can go with Alienbee strobes or continuous lighting, but there are folks out there creating incredibly portraiture with a few SB800's and their camera as a wireless commander.  You've also got the weather sealing, incredibly rugged body of the D700, and smooth high iso performance.  Cons are of course the price as compared to the competition.  In the similar Canon body you get HD video, larger pixel count (funny how this all of a sudden matters) at a lower price point.  I don't know the cons, but perhaps the Canon shooters can offer an HONEST critique of their system (for once).



> Let's not mention that if you're going into adverse conditions, it's best to take the right tool for the job. The Canon manual tells you the 5DMK2 is NOT weather sealed. If you want a weather sealed camera, take a 1D. Even though its not weather sealed 20 of the 5DMK2's functioned flawlessly. More than the number of D700 that functioned flawlessly, because there were far fewer D700's.



Oy vey.  Your math is right - your logic is wrong.


----------



## AlexColeman (Feb 21, 2009)

I went nikon, and never looked back. I love it.


----------



## fragged3d (Feb 22, 2009)

I'm just sitting on my hands and waiting, all this just makes it harder and more confusing. All the arguing and pointing flaws out makes me not to want a new camera! It seems like you have to spend $3000+ for a good one after you get past the entry level $1000 cameras. I looked at the Nikon D700 and it's 12.1mp, thats suppost to be better than 21.1 mp that the Canon 5D Mark II does? Yep, I think I'm going to wait until the dust settles, I find someone that has a Nikon of that caliber around me and I can shoot it, I find someone that has a Canon of that caliber around me and I can shoot it and I have done plenty more research. I never knew something so simple could be such a headache. Thanks guys for all the sdvice and opinions, I encourage more to help me learn.


----------



## LuckySo-n-So (Feb 22, 2009)

My head hurts after reading all of this.

This is kind of like PS3 v. XBox 360.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 22, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Oy vey.  Your math is right - your logic is wrong.


It's a statement of fact.  Logic has nothing to do with it.  I merely stated an indisputable fact (assuming the authors camera count is accurate) and drew absolutely no conclusions from it.

Fact:  There were more 5DMK2's than D700's present on the trip.
Fact:  20 5DMK2's functioned flawlessly, which is more than the total number of D700's on the trip.

That's all I stated.  For you to claim there's some faulty logic in a statement of fact is a bit perplexing.  Is it your contention that there were actually more than 20 D700's present?  Perhaps you think the D700 is superior to the 5DMK2 based upon this single story?

I make no statistical or scientific conclusions based on the anecdotal evidence found in the story.  I stated that right up front.  From that single event there is nothing to be concluded which would indicate one brand/model is superior than the other.  Apparently you disagree.

If we had 5 Toyota's and 1 Nissan and say we ran them up Pike Peak.  Of the 5 Toyota's, one failed while the other 4 functioned as expected.  The single Nissan also performed without any failures.  From that, would you conclude Nissan is superior to Toyota?  I would hope not.  If you did, then it is your logic that is faulty.


----------



## Tayfun (Feb 22, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> It's a statement of fact.  Logic has nothing to do with it.  I merely stated an indisputable fact (assuming the authors camera count is accurate) and drew absolutely no conclusions from it.
> 
> Fact:  There were more 5DMK2's than D700's present on the trip.
> Fact:  20 5DMK2's functioned flawlessly, which is more than the total number of D700's on the trip.
> ...



Let's make it clear.
First of all the story which you call as anecdotal is a real experience and IMHO is more valuable then a lab test. And that is not surprise because D700 is water sealed and 5D MKII is not (actually Sony A900 isn't either). This trip is made every year. In 2007 D200's gave no problem but Canon 5D's failed (I can find it too). 5D MKII shoots 3.9 per sec (because of high resolution) but D700 shoots 8 per sec (by battery grip). Now IMHO for adventure usage or under hard conditions D700 is the winner. But if we compare them under studio I guess 5D MKII takes the top. Both cameras have got their advantages to each other so none can be called as superior than the other. Or can be called that it depends on the users needs.

Errr Tharmsen, click the link for DxO test results.
DxOMark Sensor


----------



## inTempus (Feb 22, 2009)

Tayfun said:


> Let's make it clear.
> First of all the story which you call as anecdotal is a real experience and IMHO is more valuable then a lab test.


Your opinion is just that, an opinion.  If you want to learn something about Scientific Methods and Statistics,  these links should help.

With that being said, I made it quite clear that the 5DMK2 is not weather sealed and if you wanted such a feature on a Canon you should opt for a 1D.  So I'm not sure why you're arguing with me.

The OP more than likely doesn't care what our opinions are regarding the Antarctica trip.



> And that is not surprise because D700 is water sealed and 5D MKII is not (actually Sony A900 isn't either).


Oh, right.  You agree with me.  So why are you arguing this point again?



> Both cameras have got their advantages to each other so none can be called as superior than the other. Or can be called that it depends on the users needs.


I know, I've said as much.  So again, why are you arguing this with me?



> Errr Tharmsen, click the link for DxO test results.
> DxOMark Sensor


I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.  I've been to this site many times, and I'm 99.9% sure they don't have an Antarctica test category.  I'll double check though.

If you're trying to make the point that the 12MP sensor of the D700 has a slight advantage in various categories over the 21MP sensor of the 5DMK2, that's pretty much common knowledge.

I can assure you of this, if I were to show you two different images taken by two different professional photographers, one with a Nikon and one with a Canon - you would not be able to pick which image was shot with which camera (no cheating with the Exif data either).

So, if you have a point, feel free to make it.  Otherwise we're just bantering back and forth with no real purpose and wasting storage space.


----------



## Tayfun (Feb 22, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> Your opinion is just that, an opinion.  If you want to learn something about Scientific Methods and Statistics,  these links should help.



Not only my opinion, it is also the applicants of that trip opinion. Actually I buy a camera to take photos, not to tell people that my camera designers cheated technology (I think they cheat users) or not to show scientific or statistics techniques. Though don't worry I know what statistics or scientific methods are (maybe more than you), I am a mechanical engineer 



tharmsen said:


> With that being said, I made it quite clear that the 5DMK2 is not weather sealed and if you wanted such a feature on a Canon you should opt for a 1D.  So I'm not sure why you're arguing with me.



No there are better choices than 1D like D700, D3 or D3h  Yeah really arguing with a blind Canon fan seems to bring nowhere.



tharmsen said:


> The OP more than likely doesn't care what our opinions are regarding the Antarctica trip.



Be sure the OP will more care about a real trip results which ended with Canon's failure than lab results which does not make sense in real world. If your camera isn't robust enough, 21MP will give you nothing.


----------



## ANDS! (Feb 22, 2009)

> Apparently you disagree.



I disagreed with your statistical logic.  That's NOT how "sample sizes" and error rates work: "Oh well,  failed - yea but Y didn't!  WOOHOO!"  Qualifying that more of Product A survived than Product B even had available is not how you support Product A.  25% of the 5D's failed, along with the intermitent failures amongst the other Canon bodies.  0% of the Nikon bodies failed.  The sample size isn't small, and perhaps there would be a failure rate had their been more Nikon bodies, but anyone who has taken entry level stats should know that a sample size that small suffices (use your google-fu on T-scores).  

I'm still waiting for a Canon user to effectively critique their bodies.  We already know some of the limitations of Nikon's line, lets bring this back on track and help the OP with a critique on Canon's side.


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Feb 22, 2009)

Oh boy another "discussion"....  My opinion?

Get a D3, it looks coolest.

:mrgreen:


----------



## inTempus (Feb 22, 2009)

> Yeah really arguing with a blind Canon fan seems to bring nowhere.


You're hopelessly lost if you think I'm a blind Canon fan.  That's a baseless insult based on nothing more than your trying to be as insulting as you possibly can.  If that's what this conversation as degraded to, your trying to be the biggest ass you can be, then you win.  

I've said nothing about Canon being superior to Nikon, I have said they're dead even competitors. 



> Be sure the OP will more care about a real trip results which ended with Canon's failure than lab results which does not make sense in real world. If your camera isn't robust enough, 21MP will give you nothing.


How many Antarctica trips do you think the OP has planned?

On second thought, don't bother answering. I've had enough of your Nikon fanboy antics for today.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 22, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> I disagreed with your statistical logic.


I didn't draw any conclusions from the story - none.  I made no mention of anything statistical.  I stated a FACT, an observation, one which you can't dispute other than to put words in my mouth then argue with yourself.

Repeated:

Fact:  There were more 5DMK2's than D700's present on the trip.
Fact:  20 5DMK2's functioned flawlessly, which is more than the total number of D700's on the trip.

No conclusions.  No statistical logic.  Nothing.  A simple observation.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 22, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> We already know some of the limitations of Nikon's line, lets bring this back on track and help the OP with a critique on Canon's side.


Let's just get Ken Rockwell's perspective while we're at it.  Once you read this, you'll never seriously consider Canon.  

Nikon vs. Canon

That should have Tayfun doing back flips with excitement.


----------



## Tayfun (Feb 22, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> You're hopelessly lost if you think I'm a blind Canon fan.  That's a baseless insult based on nothing more than your trying to be as insulting as you possibly can.  If that's what this conversation as degraded to, your trying to be the biggest ass you can be, then you win.



Wasn't it you giving links to wikipedia to teach me meaning of statistics and scientific method? Check who was trying to insult and who is downgrading the conversation by nonsence Canon fanatic behaviour. Look who brought this conversation to this stage (and still you do so). Don't be so funny :lmao:



tharmsen said:


> How many Antarctica trips do you think the OP has planned?
> fanboy antics for today.



Are you serious :lmao: Do you think it only rains or snows in Antartica? :lmao:
Your geographic knowledge seems like the same level by your statistics knowledge



tharmsen said:


> On second thought, don't bother answering. I've had enough of your Nikon fanboy antics for today.



And this shows that you have nothing to write so try to insult but wrong place dude:thumbdown: Guess what, it is funny to hear this from a blind Canon fan. You don't worth to give answer more.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 22, 2009)

Tayfun said:


> Guess what, it is funny to hear this from a blind Canon fan. You don't worth to give answer more.


Thank God.


----------



## fragged3d (Feb 22, 2009)

LuckySo-n-So said:


> My head hurts after reading all of this.
> 
> This is kind of like PS3 v. XBox 360.


 
I couldn't agree more! I own both in that regard and prefer the 360, in this case it's kinda too expensive to have both!

I am not planning any trips guys, all I'm going to be doing is portraiture shoots for now. Don't get me wrong though, I want something I can expand on if I'm spending that much!


----------



## ANDS! (Feb 23, 2009)

fragged3d said:


> I couldn't agree more! I own both in that regard and prefer the 360, in this case it's kinda too expensive to have both!
> 
> I am not planning any trips guys, all I'm going to be doing is portraiture shoots for now. Don't get me wrong though, I want something I can expand on if I'm spending that much!



D700, spend the rest on a 85MM F/1.4 and studio equipment.  I would recommend a used or refurbished body to further factor in the savings.  However, realistically - if you are just doing portrait shooting ANY camera is going to work, even an entry level camera.  If you don't take it out of the studio, then you don't need the bells and whistles that a pro body offers because you will be in control of a very static environment.



> Let's just get Ken Rockwell's perspective while we're at it.  Once you read this, you'll never seriously consider Canon.



So essentially you are incapable of rendering an impartial critique of our camera body?  Sheesh.


----------



## fragged3d (Feb 23, 2009)

I have been reading up on portrait and glamour photography and I will say most of them guys use Nikon for whatever reasons. Still, I'm not rushing anything and I have started to buy studio equipment, being carefull in my purchases.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 23, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> So essentially you are incapable of rendering an impartial critique of our camera body?  Sheesh.









I see a dose of snarky comments but I'm still waiting on your critique of Canon.  You may not like Ken Rockwell, but his opinion on Canon vs. Nikon is far more comprehensive than anything you've posted in this thread.

How about a little less grudge and a little more substance?


----------



## ANDS! (Feb 23, 2009)

Why would I critique Canon - I DONT own one.  Do you even READ the threads, or just formulate responses based on how you want the conversation to go?  I gave my, so far, negative impressions of Nikon bodies because I - wait for it - have only used Nikon bodies. 

Man - its like I'm playing chess and you want to jump a pawn with your Knight.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 23, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> I didn't draw any conclusions from the story - none. I made no mention of anything statistical. I stated a FACT, an observation, one which you can't dispute other than to put words in my mouth then argue with yourself.
> 
> Repeated:
> 
> ...


 
Fact. The new guy cuts his own hair. Fact.



fragged3d said:


> I couldn't agree more! I own both in that regard and prefer the 360, in this case it's kinda too expensive to have both!
> 
> I am not planning any trips guys, all I'm going to be doing is portraiture shoots for now. Don't get me wrong though, I want something I can expand on if I'm spending that much!


 
Boo. The PS3 has been the best Blu Ray player I've ever owned.



fragged3d said:


> I have been reading up on portrait and glamour photography and I will say most of them guys use Nikon for whatever reasons. Still, I'm not rushing anything and I have started to buy studio equipment, being carefull in my purchases.


 
Doesn't really matter at all in those conditions. The Canon will have the obvious MP advantage and I think that may be the only advantage one has over the other unless you're planning on using speedlights and CLS for that type of shooting.

Basically, you need lights. That's what portraiture and glam/fashion photography is aboot. Quality of light affect the out come more than quality of camera in this case.


----------



## mosu84 (Feb 23, 2009)

What in the world is going on in this thread?

Do any of you even own (or have you extensively used) the cameras you're arguing about?


----------



## inTempus (Feb 23, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Why would I critique Canon - I DONT own one.  Do you even READ the threads, or just formulate responses based on how you want the conversation to go?


Oh, so NOW it's an issue...  LOL  It's never stopped you in the past.

Wasn't it you who posted this back on 2/9 regarding the 50D?  I think it was.



> *  High ISO performance worse than 40D
> * Reduced dynamic range in the shadow areas compared to EOS 40D
> * Per-pixel detail not as good as on good 10 or 12 megapixel cameras
> * High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera
> ...


What, you can't Google cons for Canon today?

Oh, lookie here.  More Canon critiques from the man who doesn't own one and refuses to comment... this time from 1/21.



> There are pros and cons to both brands. Generally Nikon will have that extra "oomph" as far as body design is concerned, but you are going to pay a damn sure steep premium for it. Canon on the other hand I think comes in second for "body" but first in bang for your buck. That you can get a full frame 21MP camera for 3G's or less on the camera side of things is. . .staggering. Feature wise, I've always been more prone to what Nikon can cram into their cameras, but then Canon usually has an answer waiting in the wings - and cheaper.
> 
> Then we get to lenses, and depending on your budget and what you want will determine the winner here.  The biggest pro in Canon's favor it seems is that Canon users don't have to worry about the AF-S bull**** that exists within Nikons entry-level line.  If you have a modern Canon lens and a Canon camera, autofocus is GO!  But then there is that catch - "modern" lens.  If I understand correctly, Canon users are borked on some old school lenses, as Canon changed the design or some sort, so not AI-S equivalent for Canon users; on Nikons side, you have to dig WAY back to find a lens not compatible Nikon's current lineup.


----------



## ANDS! (Feb 23, 2009)

Those aren't real world, USER BASED critiques.  Which I asked for.  In this thread.  As usual, you play the defensive "Oh hell naw!" poster.  

Jesus H Christ.  What the hell is wrong with some of you kit kats?

Any OTHER Canon user want to offer some REAL WORLD hands-on experience with their machine, as Tharmsen seems uninterested in actually contributing.  The OP is counting on you Canon users!


----------



## inTempus (Feb 23, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Any OTHER Canon user want to offer some REAL WORLD hands-on experience with their machine, as Tharmsen seems uninterested in actually contributing.  The OP is counting on you Canon users!


I guess VI's comments are worthless too.  No one contributes to the discussion except little old ANDS!.  You're such a narcissist.  

What does the OP need with our point of view when he has yours?


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 23, 2009)

mosu84 said:


> What in the world is going on in this thread?
> 
> Do any of you even own (or have you extensively used) the cameras you're arguing about?


 
No. I've been exposed. 

I found those photos on some one else's Flickr. The only camera I own is the iSight on my Macbook Pro.


----------



## mosu84 (Feb 23, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> No. I've been exposed.
> 
> I found those photos on some one else's Flickr. The only camera I own is the iSight on my Macbook Pro.



IMO, a Beginner's forum is not the place to be having a discussion.  The OP is trying to distinguish between $3k bodies and he's getting advice from people like tharmsen, who got his camera almost the same day as I got mine and only two months ago posted a thread titled "Where should a complete noob start?"  Now, I know tharmsen means well, but I highly doubt that in the past 2 months he has been exposed to all these different bodies that the OP is considering.  Moreover, the OP isn't expressing any interest in this little battle between Nikon and Canon users.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 23, 2009)

mosu84 said:


> IMO, a Beginner's forum is not the place to be having a discussion.  The OP is trying to distinguish between $3k bodies and he's getting advice from people like tharmsen, who got his camera almost the same day as I got mine and only two months ago posted a thread titled "Where should a complete noob start?"  Now, I know tharmsen means well, but I highly doubt that in the past 2 months he has been exposed to all these different bodies that the OP is considering.  Moreover, the OP isn't expressing any interest in this little battle between Nikon and Canon users.


Define "exposed".  If by "exposed" you mean "in the presence of", then yes - I have been "exposed" to them.  I am fortunate to live near a large city with tons of toy stores.  Not all of us live in the sticks.

If by "exposed" you mean owned for a year or more, then no.  

What I do have is access to Google, countless reviews and comments from users do own them or shoot them.  It doesn't take a genius to repost info from other sources or to point a user in the right direction.  Apparently you think this is voodoo.

Would you agree or disagree the debate between Canon vs. Nikon is for the most part pointless?  Can you prove to the worlds satisfaction that one is notably superior to the other?  I didn't think so.  I have not taken part in any battle between Canon and Nikon.  I find it funny so many people see these fictitious battles any time the two are mentioned in the same thread.  I don't believe one brand is superior to the other.  I think they are dead even competitors with slight advantages and disadvantages for both.  I've never said otherwise... as a matter of fact, I haven't seen anyone say otherwise in this thread.  Humm... so what gives with this imaginary brand war you speak of?

If you don't want to hear my point of view, kindly scroll by.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 23, 2009)

mosu84 said:


> IMO, a Beginner's forum is not the place to be having a discussion. The OP is trying to distinguish between $3k bodies and he's getting advice from people like tharmsen, who got his camera almost the same day as I got mine and only two months ago posted a thread titled "Where should a complete noob start?" Now, I know tharmsen means well, but I highly doubt that in the past 2 months he has been exposed to all these different bodies that the OP is considering. Moreover, the OP isn't expressing any interest in this little battle between Nikon and Canon users.


 
True, and I've mentioned this before.

It's simply retarded (no offense to those that are) that you have people dishing out advice in these threads because they own one of the cameras mentioned. There was one guy on here reccomending cameras that hadn't even bought one yet himself.

On another forum, one individual posted a reply that an xti with an 18-200 would be the perfect solution to the question "I want to eventually shoot weddings, portraiture, and fashion." The xti person had just got an xti and 18-200 about two weeks before the question was posed.

There are some stupid reccomendations on any photo forum of noobs tossing in their $.02 based on what camera they have. If some one wanted to shoot sports I wouldn't tell them to buy an xti with a kit lens, even though that's one of the bodies I've previously used/owned. I wouldn't even tell them to buy a 5DMKII. 

If you happen across the hockey pictures thread and the one linked in my post there, you'll see what I'm talking about.


----------



## ANDS! (Feb 23, 2009)

> Canon on the other hand *I think* comes in second for "body" but first in bang for your buck.





> Canon *usually* has an answer waiting in the wings - and cheaper.





> *If I understand correctly*, Canon users are borked on some old school lenses



I was going to ask if you could point out the qualifying statements, but then I thought "man, if he is that much of a troll that he willingly is obfuscating the conversation - then yea. . .lemme point it out for those late to the party.

And, if you were paying attention - which you aren't, as you're more interested in scoring the last word - Village's opinion is the EXACT SAME opinion I gave, which - and lemme type this slow - is that the camera, in this users case, is not as important as studio equipment.  

I just wanted to see if you are as much as a troll as I think you are.  Sadly, I'm usually right.


----------



## mosu84 (Feb 23, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> Define "exposed".  If by "exposed" you mean "in the presence of", then yes - I have been "exposed" to them.  I am fortunate to live near a large city with tons of toy stores.  Not all of us live in the sticks.
> 
> If by "exposed" you mean owned for a year or more, then no.
> 
> ...



1.  Take a look at the OP's computer setup and ask yourself if you think this is a kid who doesn't know how to google for reviews.   The OP would benefit from hands-on user opinions, which this thread sorely lacks by virtue of it being in the Beginners Forum

2.  Of course, Nikon and Canon are dead even in almost all respects, but it's your defensive attitude that often seems to overwhelm the point you are trying to make.

3.  I want to read threads like this for information, so it's tough to just "scroll by" your posts when you make 40% of the posts in a thread.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 23, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Sadly, I'm usually right.


I would agree with the sad part.  The rest is a hallmark trait of a narcissist.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 23, 2009)

mosu84 said:


> 3.  I want to read threads like this for information, so it's tough to just "scroll by" your posts when you make 40% of the posts in a thread.


You poor little thing.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 23, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> I would agree with the sad part. The rest is a hallmark trait of a narcissist.


 
Really? I often make mention to my friends that I'm, "an ****ing genius."

Or that the worst part about being smart is that you know what's going to happen next. That implies that I'm the smart one. 

:blushing:


----------



## mosu84 (Feb 23, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> You poor little thing.



You're coming off extremely well in this thread.  I'm done with it, but I hope you continue to embarrass yourself.


----------



## ANDS! (Feb 23, 2009)

Whats sad, is that you COULD summon your spirits and offer a valid critique of your camera body - but you wont, because you'll see that as giving in to the request that I made.

Tsk tsk.  

OP, just hop on Photography-On-The.net.  Primarily Canon based, but you'll get an honest answer there.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 23, 2009)

mosu84 said:


> You're coming off extremely well in this thread.  I'm done with it, but I hope you continue to embarrass yourself.


Tell ya what, why don't you point out where I went off the deep end with information I was not qualified to quote, repeat or otherwise offer in this thread.

We were talking about ISO noise and I posted images I took as test shots to help illustrate a point.  Did you offer any substance such as that in this thread?  No.  All you've offered is some half baked excuse as to why my posts are worthless in your view.

I commented on the story about Antarctica and said it's hardly a definitive commentary as to why Nikon is superior to Canon.  Some disagreed.  Would you agree or disagree that the story has little value when trying to decide of you want to buy a 5DMK2, D700, 1D or a D3?  I would rather hear a comment regarding this than an ad hominem attack on me because of my lowly status on the board. 

What exactly did you contribute to this thread?  Exactly.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 23, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Whats sad, is that you COULD summon your spirits and offer a valid critique of your camera body - but you wont, because you'll see that as giving in to the request that I made.
> 
> Tsk tsk.


Now THAT'S funny given our exchanges in the past.  The only guy here with an ego too big to admit fault is you.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 23, 2009)

Here's a simple test.

I apologize to the OP for my part in steering this thread off course.

ANDS!, you're up next.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 23, 2009)

I start a thread about being able to photograph soldiers coffins and some one decides to be a d bag and gets it locked after four posts (so much for freedom of speech) in a thread that had not once strayed from civility and this crap goes on for five pages?


----------



## tsaraleksi (Feb 23, 2009)

The blind leading the blind is probably the biggest problem that this forum has-- I hope to help a little bit though I won't claim to have all the answers.


----------



## fragged3d (Feb 23, 2009)

I think we are all looking for the perfect didigtal camera but everyone knows there is no 1 camera that will do it all perfectly. I understand that concept, I just want a camera that is an upgrade to my Sony A100 that has a lot of support not only user wise but lens wise as well. It doesn't have to be the best camera and it doesnt have to cost me a small fortune. In one post someone said it's about quality of light, I understand that concept as well, I am researching light and buying the equipment. I am still listening even though most of this is an argument, some of the info is top notch! The whole time I have had my A100 I have never shot above 400 ISO even when shooting motorcycle stunts, I don't know what this says about my shooting ability but I see most of you post in concern to high ISO's.

Examples:


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 23, 2009)

fragged3d - Bring your shutter speeds down a bit when shooting bikes. You'll get motion blur on the wheels and it will give it a sense of movement and speed but you can still capture the rest of the image without motion blur as long as you have a good balance of shutter speed.


----------



## stsinner (Feb 23, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> Let's just get Ken Rockwell's perspective while we're at it.  Once you read this, you'll never seriously consider Canon.
> 
> Nikon vs. Canon
> 
> That should have Tayfun doing back flips with excitement.



Just get a Kodak Easy Share and be done with it!  It's got a convenient docking station and its own printer!  Wow! Kodak, hands down!


----------



## ANDS! (Feb 23, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> Here's a simple test.
> 
> I apologize to the OP for my part in steering this thread off course.
> 
> ANDS!, you're up next.



OP I apologize for Tharmsen steering this thread off course.


----------



## stsinner (Feb 23, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> OP I apologize for Tharmsen steering this thread off course.



Sorry, Tim, but this was funny as hell, whether right or wrong!!!


----------



## inTempus (Feb 23, 2009)

stsinner said:


> Sorry, Tim, but this was funny as hell, whether right or wrong!!!


I fully expected that post, his narcissism makes his sophomoric antics easy to predict.  I must be a genius of VI proportions because I sooo saw that coming.


----------



## J Woz (Sep 4, 2009)

Not to bring up an old thread, but I find myself in a very similar situation as the OP.   I currently am an owner of a Sony A100 (my first foray into the DSLR world) and am looking at upgrading.   I primarily shoot landscape/cityscape photography, but will be shooting for a website at NCAA football games this fall.   Now I know the A100 isn't really suited for this type of shooting with high ISO noise (at higher levels) and a lower fps.   

Now I'm not too invested in lenses yet, but in addition to the kit lens have a SAL 50mm F1.4 and SAL 24-105mm lens.   

Torn at this point between the 50D and Alpha 700.  Really looking for a camera that will allow better sports photography while still being up to the task of landscape photography.  Would love the D300, but anywhere I look, its going for close to a $700-$900 more than the 50D/700 (looking at new or old) which puts it slightly out of my budget.   I plan on getting the Sigma 70200 F2.8 lens for either model (same cost).  Also plan on expanding my lens coverage eventually getting a f2.8 fisheye, as well as a solid f.28 short telephoto lens (in the Sonys case to replace my SAL 24-105).   

So basically I'm looking at: 

Alpha 700 + SAL 50mm F1.4(since I already own it)

or 

Canon 50D


----------



## Samanax (Sep 4, 2009)

J Woz said:


> Not to bring up an old thread, but I find myself in a very similar situation as the OP.   I currently am an owner of a Sony A100 (my first foray into the DSLR world) and am looking at upgrading.   I primarily shoot landscape/cityscape photography, but will be shooting for a website at NCAA football games this fall.   Now I know the A100 isn't really suited for this type of shooting with high ISO noise (at higher levels) and a lower fps.
> 
> Now I'm not too invested in lenses yet, but in addition to the kit lens have a SAL 50mm F1.4 and SAL 24-105mm lens.
> 
> ...


You really should start your own thread instead of hijacking this one. You'll get responses aimed at your specific questions.


----------



## Dao (Sep 4, 2009)

Yes ..  plus this thread is really old.


----------

