you don't know much about photography but simply want quality pictures of all your hunts?

Tough question, if you will spend some time learning and make use of it's potential then yes.
You never know once you use start using a serious camera you may really get into it.
I know guys that are just never going to get to grips with something like that and are better off with a Cannon G8 or something like that.

Save some money and buys a Cannon 7D. It is weatherproofed, 18 Mega pixels, prettey rugged. Then but a 70-200 F4 L and a 1.4 multilier along with a 15 -85 lens. If you ant a little more focal length get a 300 F4L and you are set with a nice system that will not weigh you down and work for 95% of your needs.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
you don't know much about photography but simply want quality pictures of all your hunts?

For landscapes, portraits, and wildlife? The answer is yes. However, the 5D II has a full-size sensor, so for wildlife shots of small subjects (birds, for example), you want the longest telephotos Canon has to offer, which in turn are the most expensive. But this is not a problem for portraits and wide landscapes (or cityscapes, architecture, etc). In general, what you are getting with the 5D II is better image quality.

Now, while the IQ produced by a 7D may not be as good as one from the 5D II, the 7D is a better choice for wildlife and action shots for the following reason:

a. It's a much faster camera, has a new and faster focusing system, and can take a burst of pictures nearly 300% faster then the 5D II (around 8 pictures per second versus 3 or so).

b. It has improved weather-sealing (but don't forget that not all lenses are wether sealed).

c. It does not cost as much as the 5D II.

d. The same lenses you will use on the 5D II will seem to have more reach on the 7D because of its 1.6x crop factor (around 1.3X for the 5D, I believe). It means that a 10mm lens on the 7D will be more like a 16mm lens, a 24mm lens like a 38.4mm lens, a 400mm lens more like a 640mm lens, and so forth (1.6 x focal length).

I use a 40D and have been thinking of a 5D II for the same reasons you have mentioned (IQ). The main reason for me to use a 5D II is because of landscapes, and portraits, but most of my shots have been of wildlife recently, so I may have to buy a new 7D when the 8D hits the market, followed by a 5D II when the new model hits the market.

For wildlife, taking pictures of the kids, pets, races, etc., the 7D is just about perfect. For better IQ, then the 5D II with longer lenses.

George,

For photos of hunts and trophies taken, a good point-and-shoot is better. It will be more portable, easier to use (especially for trackers) , and leave more money in your wallet for trophy fees.

George

I guess it depends on what you want to do with the photos you have taken. How large do you want to enlarge them?
If you want to enlarge up to 20x30 and hang the photo on the wall framed I do not see any advantage of using the 5D.
If you want to take many high quality photos while you are hunting or glassing then you want a camera that will fit into one of your pockets or that you can carry around your neck. Otherwise you will be like most people (myself included) and not take the time to dig it out and use it.

Don't forget, the quality of the lens has to equal or exceed the quality of the body otherwise it will be a waste of money either way.

Even a decent 8-11 megapixel body built today will give a more detailed photo taken 10 years ago with medium format 6x7 equipment.

I'd agree the D7 is probably a more sensible choice.

But I would be getting a Cannon G10 (not 8 oops).
If budget was no consideration then it would have to be the real thing ... a Leica M8.

There is a lot to consider.

The 5d is a flagship for quality, but because of what it can do in manual modes. You are buying into a system of lenses also - full frame versus 3/4 of the 7d.

If you have to have the best, pick up a fast 1.4 50mm lens and go for the 5d. You'll capture some great stuff, you can sell it easily if you change your mind, and you may even learn how to use it. I send new people to this guy to learn - karltaylor.com

Personally, I often take a Canon S90 for trophy shots. Just like rifles, it is a compromise and I don't want to carry anything bigger even though I own bigger.

This guy is useful for non bs camera reviews - kenrockwell.com

If you really want the BEST dslr, Nikon still rules.

D3 in Space ...

I still have time to think about it.I've read all your replies and found them all interesting and helpful.Thanks. It would be something taking the 5D to Makuti with all the nice scenary.

quote:

Originally posted by The Specialist:
If you really want the BEST dslr, Nikon still rules.

D3 in Space ...

So? You can watch a couple of "House" episodes filmed with a Canon 5D II, but that doesn't mean that the 5D II is the best camera for video. Besides, it's the person behind the camera who makes a difference. You can have a better camera than both Nikon and Canon (Hasselblad H3D, $40,000.), and somebody with a Polaroid, one who knows what to do, can take a better photo.

Shootaway,

The only advantages of a full-frame sensor such as that of the 5D are (1) at the same aperture the larger sensor gives a somewhat shallower depth of field, a feature some photographers value for portraits, or when using the video mode, and (2) when using wide angle lenses the full size sensor get the full field of view of the wide angle lens.

In terms of image quality the size of the sensor is one of the least important factors, far behind quality of glass, steadiness of the camera when shooting, the quality of the image processor, and the quality of the viewing system, whether monitor or printer.

It costs a lot more money to make a larger sensor equal the quality of a smaller sensor, much less exceed it. Any "advantage" in image quality of a full sensor camera exists primarily in the mind of those who paid more money for their cameras.

The Canon 7D is superior to the 5D in several ways (as listed by Ray above): faster and more accurate autofocusing (a system similar to what Nikon has been using), eight images/second capability, better sealing against moisture and dust, 1.6 factor sensor to extend the reach of long lenses.

I need versatility in a DSLR, for hunting/trophy shots, groups, landscapes, interiors, wildlife, action shots of competition shooters, and tabletop product shots. What I don't need, at least not often, is the wide angle/shallow depth of field features of a full-frame sensor camera.

The 5D, great and revolutionary camera that it was and is, has been around a long time (for a digital camera) and is probably due for replacement or a major upgrade soon (though Canon has done a great and commendable job of keeping it up to date).

The fact the 7D is nearly $1,000 cheaper is just a bonus, leaving more money available for top quality glass. Put it this way: I just bought a 7D. If the prices were reversed and the 5D was $1,000 cheaper I'd still get the 7D. in every way that is important to me it is superior to the 5D.

I may add a full-frame sensor Canon in future for the advantages mentioned (shallow depth of field and use of wide angle lens). I doubt very much it will be the 5D, at this point in time I'd rather wait and see what Canon has in mind next.

The first lens I bought with the 7D is the 24-105 f/4L. I do suggest getting the full-frame lenses (EF series) rather than the EF-S lenses, as they will work with the full-frame sensor if and when.

The other lenses I'll likely add soon are the 100-400f/4-5.6L and the 16-35 f2.8L. I think the extra cost for "L" lenses is always money well spent, and I always get image stabilization if it is available.

Of course if you don't need or want additional lenses there's little point in putting up with the bulk, weight, and complexity of a DSLR. Many non-SLR digital cameras are capable of making images of extremely high quality.

This from someone who's been (and still is) a Nikon man for over 35 years. The main reason I added a Canon now is the full 1080HD video capability. I still have a bunch of Nikon lenses just in case Nikon puts the feature set I want into a "D400".

We're living in an era in which a good set of lenses will outlast several generations of cameras.

Dave Anderson

Dave,

The 5D has been upgraded with the 5D II (maybe a year or two ago).

Also, its FF sensor does help with IQ compared to cropped sensors. It's hard to explain, but when you look at two photos of the same subject from the same location (and the same lens), one can clearly see a big difference in relation to clarity and color depth.

But I do agree with you about the 7D being a better all around camera than the 5D II, unless the OP can afford the best lenses. For example, I use a 200mmm prime, plus a 400mm one for my wildlife shots. But if I were to use a 5D with the same lenses, I would probably want to buy a Canon 600mm L lens. This lens could cost anywhere around 5K.

But lest say that I only want to take portraits with the same 5D II, and the same wildlife shots (just not as far). In this case, all I may need is an L lens or two, such as the 135L and the 400mm prime I already have.

Now, in my individual case, I am finding wildlife quite interesting, and I am sort of drifting into it. If this trend continues, the 7D is the right choice, and the 5D II my second choice. What I usually do is to wait until Canon releases the 8D to the market, and wait a little until the 7D price drops. I plan to do the same when the 5D II replacement hits the market (I am cheap, I guess)

Ray,

Well, I won't argue the point. If you say you can see a difference in a side by side comparison I believe you, as you obviously are an experienced photographer and know what you're talking about.

I really can't see a significant difference but it may be my HD monitor isn't good enough to make the difference apparent. My professional use of photos is primarily for magazine publication. As you know these are not very big enlargements (even for a full page photo) and most are 1/4 page or even smaller.

Unless the magazine is using "National Geographic" quality paper the limiting factor is the paper/printing process. In past I used a 5mp Nikon 5700 Coolpix and had no complaints.

I certainly would not claim sensor size makes no difference - as the cliche goes, if it made no difference we could all use cell phone cameras and there would be no need for $40,000 Hasselblads.

Between the two Canon sensors, in my view its more of a ".270 vs. .30-'06" argument. Other factors are more important to me, as I mentioned earlier. I'm not knocking full frame sensor cameras, I will likely add a full frame body before too long (either Canon or Nikon, depending on a bunch of factors).

In your last paragraph you mentioned waiting for the next model to be announced so you could buy the current one, ending in "I am cheap, I guess."

Not cheap, just smart. Not only do you save money but you get the last and likely best (as in most updated version) of the older model. In fact you have me half-convinced to do the same thing and grab off one of the last of the 5D IIs!

These days you cannot get too attached to specific camera models as they technology is still moving fast, and the advantages of new models are real, not cosmetic. For example, I was using a Nikon D200 and if I pushed ISO over around 400 at slower shutter speeds in low-light conditions my editors would complain about noise.

I started sending photos without telling them I was using a new D300. Even at much higher ISO levels they were sending emails about how much improved the photos were, with no noise problems. Nikon went from a CCD system to a CMOS on the D300 and it made a big difference.

Some of the earlier models were great in their day, like the Nikon D70 and 100, the Canon 10D/20D models. Today I wouldn't take one if it were free. If you want to get resale value out of your cameras you have to sell them before they get too far behind the technology curve.

This isn't to say older models won't still take good photos, just that the newer ones are better and people who buy photos recognize the difference. A major improvement is the ability to use high ISOs, and the amazing low light performance. The Nikon D3s, for example, can take pictures of subjects in light conditions so dim the human eye can't make them out.

I don't follow my own advice by selling cameras as I have a daughter who loves photography and she inherits my older stuff. So far she's got a Nikon 5700, a D70, and a D200 and I expect in a year or so she'll get the D300. She's supposed to buy her own lenses but I notice on her last visit she borrowed a Nikon 70-300 ED (one I seldom use since I got an 80-400).

That one I may have to borrow back once in a while as it is much lighter and handier than the 80-400 and is great for photos at practical shooting matches.

We probably agree a lot more than we disagree on most aspects of these tools. I think some of your wildlife photos were posted recently on another forum (at least they were under the same name), and those were darn good photos.

Dave Anderson

My girl watches "House" on the TV, I wondered why some of it looks like crap. I thought it was just soft focus on the aging women.

Now I know, Cheers.

quote:

Originally posted by The Specialist:
My girl watches "House" on the TV, I wondered why some of it looks like crap. I thought it was just soft focus on the aging women.

Now I know, Cheers.

There was one episode of House filmed with a set 5DII, but not the one you are talking about. This happened over three months ago:
http://www.petapixel.com/2010/...ark-ii-airs-tonight/

As someone who makes his living selling prints this topic is very interesting.
Have looked at 1,000's of framed images over the last couple of years up to print size 30x40. I have yet to see any differences between a prosumer body like the Canon 50D to their most expensive bodies or top if the line Nikon bodies.
Small differences are sometimes noticed based upon glass being used and shooters technique, but can you guys honestly tell me you can look at a FRAMED image and tell me what body it was captured with?
I sure as heck can't.

quote:

Originally posted by Snowwolfe:
As someone who makes his living selling prints this topic is very interesting.
Have looked at 1,000's of framed images over the last couple of years up to print size 30x40. I have yet to see any differences between a prosumer body like the Canon 50D to their most expensive bodies or top if the line Nikon bodies.
Small differences are sometimes noticed based upon glass being used and shooters technique, but can you guys honestly tell me you can look at a FRAMED image and tell me what body it was captured with?
I sure as heck can't.

Of course you are correct about that. It's impossible to tell with camera was used to take a photo.

FGor example, this guy (link below) took some outstanding photos of bears in Alaska. He uses a Canon camera, but I have no idea which one.

That said, just look at his amazing photos:
http://www.brettnickeson.com/

By the way, someone asked the photographer above what equipment he was using, and this was his answer: "a 300mm f/2.8 with or without a 1.4 converter on a 7D. For a few of the shots I was using a 70-300mm IS on a 30D."

quote:

Originally posted by The Specialist:
My girl watches "House" on the TV, I wondered why some of it looks like crap. I thought it was just soft focus on the aging women.

Now I know, Cheers.


There was one episode of House filmed with a set 5DII, but not the one you are talking about. This happened over three months ago:

That one hasn't aired over here yet, I imagine it will be unwatchable due to POS hand held camera work. The brain has AWESOME image stabilizing technology, so what makes "Directors" think that shaking a camera around and jumping about while filming will make a shot more Real. Sometimes I just despair.

Everything is relative I suppose.

I have tried several SLRs, from both Nikon and Canon, to shoot HD video.

Some are better than others, but ultimately they are no where near as good as a dedicated video camera.

In fact, for general daily use, I would pick a bridge camera - like the Sony HX1 - as having a much better video than any of the SLRs.

quote:

Originally posted by The Specialist:

quote:

Originally posted by The Specialist:
My girl watches "House" on the TV, I wondered why some of it looks like crap. I thought it was just soft focus on the aging women.

Now I know, Cheers.


There was one episode of House filmed with a set 5DII, but not the one you are talking about. This happened over three months ago:

That one hasn't aired over here yet, I imagine it will be unwatchable due to POS hand held camera work. The brain has AWESOME image stabilizing technology, so what makes "Directors" think that shaking a camera around and jumping about while filming will make a shot more Real. Sometimes I just despair.

I saw it and could hardly tell a difference, except for a lot of close-ups and blurred backgrounds. The latter is what the director wanted to do (blur the background), which in turn isolates and enhances the subject. The 5D's were used off hand as well as mounted on tripods when needed.

But the House finale has not been the only show filmed with a DSLR camera, and not all cameras are Canon brand. There have been several short movies filmed with digital cameras. Hand-shake is controlled by the IS in the lens, which mustr be turned off if the camera is then mounted on a tripod.

Again, film makers are also using DSLR cameras now:

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/c...leAct&articleID=2326
http://inform.premiaa.com/in1.php?n=1607101
Lucas Films
http://dslrfilm.com/

Interesting, but none of that stuff is shot in daylight or of anything that provides any reference. I imagine the biggest attraction is the fact you can buy a DSLR for what it costs to rent an HD pro movie camera for a couple of days.
As the bean counters now rule that is a BIG incentive to find cheaper ways to shoot.

Gentlemen,

You might wish to bear teh following in mind.

I have the chance to try practically any pro SLR, and some semi-pro video cameras, as well as the normal consumer cameras.

I am not a pro by any stretch of the imagination, but from a practical point of view, there is NO SLR, regardless of price, that comes even close to a cheap video camera as far as video is concerned.

I have also tried some of the higher priced video cameras that do take photos.

Again, their photos cannot even compare with cheap pocket cameras, regardless of how many megapixels they claim.

If one is interested in having just one camera for both video and stills, my suggestion is to use one of the bridge cameras that do shoot HD video.

These have very good stills quality, as well as very good video.

A better solution is to have a dedicated video camera, and a small pocket camera for stills.

It's mind blowing that you could even think about having a Camera that will shoot great photos AND HD Video good enough for Broadcast.
That is affordable to the common Man.
Fifteen years ago you'd have needed a Van full of gear and Two Burly Grips to set it all up, to compete with a Good Digital Camera.
And a tape machine with a sound man if you wanted decent audio as well.

5D II is a dinosaur and slated to be replaced very shortly ... possibly in the next few weeks according to my source. The 7 is a better prospect if you needed something today. For shooting safari candids, I'd buy a G10 or G11 or a Leica VX20 or D-Lux 4 or a Panasonic DMC-GF1 ... No way I'd tote a SLR monster that weighs almost as much as my rifle. Forget shooting video with these things ... follow Saeed's advice there.

I agree with Saeed. With the technology improvements made over the last year, the small affordable cameras do a great job. I found that the big bodied cameras tend to be left in the truck or camp no matter what continent. Take a look at the 2 cameras that have been developed specifically for the hunting and fishing industry at www.kodakoutdoors.com

I work for Kodak (Computer Jockey), I approached the COO of the company and said " Hey, we are really missing the boat here. We should really be working with the hunting and fishing industry and develop products that meet the needs of the people in the field"

Voila

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
you don't know much about photography but simply want quality pictures of all your hunts?

...you may want to consider a small, but very high quality (near professional) digital "point-and-shoot" camera such as the new leica x-1...

The Cannon G12 has just come out, that should make the G10 or 11 drop in price.
The x-1 is a fixed lens camera, as are most of the pro pocket cameras, also probably $5000 or something like that.
You really need a bit of a zoom for general use.

quote:

also probably $5000

It's $1995 but usually backordered.

I would opt for the 5D over the7D because I like FF. Why buy a camera that crops images for you when you can crop them yourself if you later think it is needed? Dr.C ps considering it is shootaway the best recommendation is by far the G series Canon. IMO

quote:

The x-1 is a fixed lens camera, as are most of the pro pocket cameras, also probably $5000 or something like that.
You really need a bit of a zoom for general use.

...yes, leica's are expensive, and are not for everyone...

...the x-1 is more or less the digital version of the film-era "cm" camera (a point-and-shoot near professional camera with manual capabilities, if one so chooses), and has a wide aperture (2.8) fixed lens (35mm equivalent)...

...that said, the leica lenses are of such high quality that post-production enlarging should provide one with "zoom-like" results, if one wishes...

...as a caveat, i only have experience with the cm and m cameras/lenses and the panasonic-made d-lux's, etc, the latter of which i have not been too pleased with, in general...

...the x-1 is a bona fide leica made in germany with a bona fide elmarit lens...

...but any of the other cameras mentioned - such as the canon g-10/11 would be fine choices as well...the best way to find out what works best would be to demo the choices, and to pick the camera best suited to one's interest, skill-level, patience, etc...

I asked the man at the local camera store. His response:
Assume you can go to Africa every other year for the next twelve years.

Assume you live to be eighty, and need to live in an assisted living center.

How many of your mounts are they going to let you put on the walls?

How many scrapbooks with real high quality pictures you took on your hunts will you have?


just something for the majority of us to mull over...

Rich

I've got a 50D which is a wonderful camera, but it's big enough that there's no way I would even consider packing that thing on a hunt. Get a G11 or similar and stick it in your pocket. You'll never see a difference in your pictures, and you'll actually have pictures cuz you'll carry the camera.

You summed it up there Idaho.
If I was on my way to Africa I'd sure want to be packing a serious DSLR and PLENTY of lenses, filters, a good tripod and a top quality flash.
And a good pocket camera, for when the big cam was impractical.

On our trip a year ago, I took a camera bag that contained a Canon 20D, Canon 70-200mm, Tamron 28-75mm, flash, and cleaning kit. It didn't cause any undo hassle and I was glad to have a quality camera and lenses with me. It just got put in the vehicle in the morning with everything else.

Also if you want to photograph local people the DSLR is quite intrusive, people usually spot you and react, but a good pocket camera lets you capture more natural life.

You want to get out of that truck and walk.
I can hardly remember all the time in Land rovers, but every footstep in Africa is sharp.

I speculate that with the Nikon D7000 coming out, you may see a drop in price or deals on the D90. A D90 and an 18-200mm lens is a great one body, one lens combo for Africa.

They have the D90 at Costco with an 18-55 and an 80-200 lens kit in a leather bag that holds everything. The current price is $1500, but I am waiting for it to drop, as the D7000 is arriving.

Costco makes the companies provide a 2yr warranty if you buy it there. Much of it adds a 3rd year if you use their AmEx card to buy it.

Thanks again for all the help.

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
They have the D90 at Costco with an 18-55 and an 80-200 lens kit in a leather bag that holds everything. The current price is $1500, but I am waiting for it to drop, as the D7000 is arriving.

Costco makes the companies provide a 2yr warranty if you buy it there. Much of it adds a 3rd year if you use their AmEx card to buy it.

Thanks again for all the help.

Rich

There's nothing wrong with the two lens combo but I think the 18-200mm single lens option is a lot more practical: no changing of lenses in windy, dusty conditions (not good for sensors), you can't go from wide angle to telephoto with just a turn of the lens ring, and you have to carry more stuff around. A look at Adorama shows it costing less than the price you quote as well. For the D7000, add about $300 over the D90, but it is a better camera body.

I've had a few days of brain damage over buying a DSLR ...
Got a D300s but it had a few missing pixels so it went back, nice camera but a big lump to carry around.
I really liked the 16 to 85mm lens, so tried to get a D7000 and the same lens ... all back ordered or sold out, found one on Amazon, ordered it, but then the seller couldn't supply it??
Now I've ordered a D5000 and 16 to 85mm.

I tried the 18 to 200, it's really good but I use wide a lot more than long.

Funny thing is I'll still probably be using my FZ18 most of the time as it is so brilliant.
But for some things it's just not enough camera.

I thought of getting the FZ100 but I couldn't find one to try out, so went for a DSLR

Nearly got the Pentax but it's not as easy to get bits for it.