advertisement


Canon 5D MkII

Biggus-Dickkus said:
Yes, but the 1Ds MkII is so big and heavy, which in my opinion takes all the fun out of photography. I certainly don't want to be carrying something as big as that around with me when I am on holiday in Italy for example, whereas a 5D would be a much better size/weight etc. At the end of the day it depends what you want out of photography. I currently use a D200 and 18-200mm lens and it is almost perfect for what I need. It could do with better low light performance but then it has integrated flash. However if you are a Pro then it won't be good enough and a 5D MK II might be the answer. I thought the ISO performance was supposed to be very good in the 5D MK II. I would have though it better than my D200.
Click to expand...

Graham,

If you want a LIGHT high quality travel camera, then get a rangefinder. It doesn't matter whether you get a Leica or a Voigtlander (film only), but that's the lightest kit you'll get.

I have a big DSLR (Leica R9 plus DMR digital back) and that weighs the same as 1DS MkIII. But that's a work camera. For travel, then it's my Leica Ms and just one or two lenses, You don't need a zoom, if you use your feet!

With the £650 cashback from Leica a M8 is only £2350 new, not far off the 5D MkII (if you can find one).

Best wishes,

Charlie

My travel kit is a Leica M2 and 35/1.4 summilux plus lots of film. If I want to travel heavy, I take my M6 as well plus another lens.
 
With the £650 cashback from Leica a M8 is only £2350 new
Click to expand...

The "only" bit of this is kind of funny! I always think Leica's are aimed at rich professionals (ie doctors dentists), not professional photographers, the pricing of M6's and such has always been way to high, much to the annoyance of many photographers who really could make the most of what a rangefinder had to offer.
 
My M2 cost me £275 with a Luigi case (worth £150) and a recent service. That's a whole lot cheaper than the 5D or 5D MkII. The 5D MkII is almost two grand (ie nearly the price of a M8), but it's heavier than the Leica. If you want low light capability and light weight, then a rangefinder is the way to go. You don't have to spend Leica money, Voigtlander (as I said) will give you just the same experience.

Charlie
 
Thanks Charlie

I already own an M6 with 35mm & 90mm lenses. It takes nice pictures but since I got the D200 + zoom lens the Leica hasn't come out of its case. I woundn't sell it but I am not sure I will ever use it again. My Dad has the R9 and although a lovely camera even he is struggles to use it nowadays due to its size and weight. More often than not he uses my Mum's Leica compact. As you know I love German engineering and the feel of a Leica but the usability and ease of use of the modern DSLR is very hard to beat.
 
BD

I use a Leica M8, Voigtlander R2A (uses the same lenses) and a Nikon D3. They all have their plus points. The big advantage of the Leica gear is its small size and quality optics.
 
Mousey said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

I am guessing the resolution would not be high enough for Pro use. I suppose Pro use would need to be defined, but I was thinking of high quality magazine photography. You could use the D200 for sports photo use, say at football matches etc, but you may need something with a faster number of frames per second for this application.
 
Biggus-Dickkus said:
I am guessing the resolution would not be high enough for Pro use. I suppose Pro use would need to be defined, but I was thinking of high quality magazine photography. You could use the D200 for sports photo use, say at football matches etc, but you may need something with a faster number of frames per second for this application.
Click to expand...

Shhhhhh! Don't tell my magazine clients that I use a D200 ;)

If you like night photography, have a look at these - http://www.flickr.com/photos/snapperz/sets/72157603414780713/ (mostly shot with a D300 - DX format camera)
 
"For travel, then it's my Leica Ms and just one or two lenses, You don't need a zoom, if you use your feet!"

Not for me when I fly off to South Africa tomorrow on safari / great white shark expedition lol! I will stick to a 100-400 zoom with 1.4x converter to keep the big 5 at bay!
 
I am guessing the resolution would not be high enough for Pro use. I suppose Pro use would need to be defined, but I was thinking of high quality magazine photography.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Alex Majoli who won Magazine photographer of the year 2004, using and 5MP Olympus compact camera, shooting for Newsweek and Vanity Fair.
Or all the National Geographic stories that were shot on Canon 10 and 20D's;)

Here's a couple of magazine centre spreads both taken with a 350D and that cheap lens that comes with the camera, they looked way better on the page than any 35mm camera could do.

350d.jpg
 
Is it me or is the D3 slightly better or is that just a focus issue?
To an inexperienced digital eye that is
 
confession time - I forgot to check what the "in camera sharpening" was on either camera which could account for the D3 looking slightly sharper. The lenses were also slightly different (24-70 f2.8 on the nikon) and (24 to 105 f4 IS on the canon). I think both are resolving astounding detail at 6400 iso. The canon is obviously outputing a larger file, yet still keeps the noise down.

philip
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top