best canon lens eos image
Joshua
I basically mean the canon eos 5d sensor or 7d sensor.
Answer
I'll second Dr. Iblis' observation on the larger viewfinder. Also, the Canon 7D has a larger than usual viewfinder that covers 100% of its 1.6x sensors but, it is not a full-frame camera. That said, it is noticeably larger than the viewfinder of the Canon 40D/50D bodies that preceded it. The 7D easily has the largest and best viewfinder of any of Canon's 1.6x crop-bodies but again, it isn't a full-frame camera.
As someone who grew up shooting 35mm cameras and then spent three years stuck on 1.5x/1.6x crop bodies because it was all I could afford, I forgot what it was like to shoot full frame...Until I got a 5D Mark II. Personally, I find manual focus MUCH easier with a full-frame camera and its larger viewfinder. When you spend all day shooting, there's a great deal less eye-strain and I think you have a much better sense of depth of field while looking through the viewfinder. You don't realize how much you've missed these things from the days of film cameras until you move back to a full-frame viewfinder.
Beyond these basic observations, the big pluses are better image quality at any given ISO, narrower depth of field, and a wider field of view at any given focal length (this is a big deal for wide-angle lenses). Where's as a 16mm lens offers only a moderately wide field of view on a 1.6x crop-body, it's a huge field of view on a full-frame camera. Depth of field at least "looks" thinner at any given focal length/aperture so lenses like the 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 really shine on full-frame models like the 5D Mark II. And then there's the high ISO advantage (often one or two full stops) over APS-C models like the 7D.
To be fair, the advantages of full-frame cameras have been reduced from what they once were. Canon's EF-s 10-22mm zoom gives their 1.6x crop bodies the same field of view as the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L mounted on the 5D Mark II. And Canon now offers the EF 8-15mm f/4L Fish-eye zoom that largely eliminates any wide-angle advantage that full-frame cameras held over the 1.6x crop-bodies. And it should be noted that while full-frame cameras are advantages for ultra wide-angle images, the opposite is true on the telephoto end because the "crop-factor" creates greater perceived reach with a lens like the 300mm f/4L which with the 7D, gives a field of view similar to that of a 480mm lens on the 5D Mark II. Go price the 500mm f/4L IS and 5D Mark II and tell me you wouldn't like to be able to reproduce that image with a 7D and the 300mm f/4L IS at less than half the price.
The 18mp sensor found in Canon's 7D, 60D, and the newest Rebels (T2i, T3i, T3), is actually pretty close in high ISO performance to the 21mp sensor of the 5D Mark II in terms of noise (within 2 stops). That said, the crop-body sensors have a significantly higher pixel density and a much stronger anti-alias filter that robs them of the ability to render images that are as sharp as those found in the 5D Mark II when the image is viewed at 100%. In the real world however, you'd be hard pressed to tell whether an image was shot with the 5D Mark II or any of the current 18mp Canon APS-C models without looking at the EXIF data attached to the file.
At the end of the day, moving to the 5D Mark II is mostly a luxury for those who can afford it. There are some who really do need it but, I'd argue that most don't. Given today's lenses, there's not much you can do with the 5D Mark II than you can't do with the lowly Rebel T3 and some well chosen lenses at a fraction of the cost. Fact is, there are a great many working pros shooting the 7D and earlier models like the 40D and 50D while producing spectacular results that are as good or better than anything I've been able to shoot with my 5D Mark II so far. I would submit that if you can't render a great image with the Rebel T3, no amount of money you spend on full-frame camera bodies and L-series glass will help. All that said, I don't plan to give up the 5D or L-series lenses any time soon.
I'll second Dr. Iblis' observation on the larger viewfinder. Also, the Canon 7D has a larger than usual viewfinder that covers 100% of its 1.6x sensors but, it is not a full-frame camera. That said, it is noticeably larger than the viewfinder of the Canon 40D/50D bodies that preceded it. The 7D easily has the largest and best viewfinder of any of Canon's 1.6x crop-bodies but again, it isn't a full-frame camera.
As someone who grew up shooting 35mm cameras and then spent three years stuck on 1.5x/1.6x crop bodies because it was all I could afford, I forgot what it was like to shoot full frame...Until I got a 5D Mark II. Personally, I find manual focus MUCH easier with a full-frame camera and its larger viewfinder. When you spend all day shooting, there's a great deal less eye-strain and I think you have a much better sense of depth of field while looking through the viewfinder. You don't realize how much you've missed these things from the days of film cameras until you move back to a full-frame viewfinder.
Beyond these basic observations, the big pluses are better image quality at any given ISO, narrower depth of field, and a wider field of view at any given focal length (this is a big deal for wide-angle lenses). Where's as a 16mm lens offers only a moderately wide field of view on a 1.6x crop-body, it's a huge field of view on a full-frame camera. Depth of field at least "looks" thinner at any given focal length/aperture so lenses like the 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 really shine on full-frame models like the 5D Mark II. And then there's the high ISO advantage (often one or two full stops) over APS-C models like the 7D.
To be fair, the advantages of full-frame cameras have been reduced from what they once were. Canon's EF-s 10-22mm zoom gives their 1.6x crop bodies the same field of view as the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L mounted on the 5D Mark II. And Canon now offers the EF 8-15mm f/4L Fish-eye zoom that largely eliminates any wide-angle advantage that full-frame cameras held over the 1.6x crop-bodies. And it should be noted that while full-frame cameras are advantages for ultra wide-angle images, the opposite is true on the telephoto end because the "crop-factor" creates greater perceived reach with a lens like the 300mm f/4L which with the 7D, gives a field of view similar to that of a 480mm lens on the 5D Mark II. Go price the 500mm f/4L IS and 5D Mark II and tell me you wouldn't like to be able to reproduce that image with a 7D and the 300mm f/4L IS at less than half the price.
The 18mp sensor found in Canon's 7D, 60D, and the newest Rebels (T2i, T3i, T3), is actually pretty close in high ISO performance to the 21mp sensor of the 5D Mark II in terms of noise (within 2 stops). That said, the crop-body sensors have a significantly higher pixel density and a much stronger anti-alias filter that robs them of the ability to render images that are as sharp as those found in the 5D Mark II when the image is viewed at 100%. In the real world however, you'd be hard pressed to tell whether an image was shot with the 5D Mark II or any of the current 18mp Canon APS-C models without looking at the EXIF data attached to the file.
At the end of the day, moving to the 5D Mark II is mostly a luxury for those who can afford it. There are some who really do need it but, I'd argue that most don't. Given today's lenses, there's not much you can do with the 5D Mark II than you can't do with the lowly Rebel T3 and some well chosen lenses at a fraction of the cost. Fact is, there are a great many working pros shooting the 7D and earlier models like the 40D and 50D while producing spectacular results that are as good or better than anything I've been able to shoot with my 5D Mark II so far. I would submit that if you can't render a great image with the Rebel T3, no amount of money you spend on full-frame camera bodies and L-series glass will help. All that said, I don't plan to give up the 5D or L-series lenses any time soon.
I have a Canon EOS Rebel XS and was wondering what the best lenses are for Long exposure photography?
Megan
I have a Canon EOS Rebel XS and was wondering what the best lenses for Night Time Long exposure photography are ?
Answer
The lens has little to do with the practicalities of taking long exposures in general. You could use any lens. The one you choose will depend on little more than the field of view you need.
Long exposures are achieved by setting slow shutter speeds, several seconds, to several minutes - it's determined by the camera setting, not the lens. The shutter itself is located inside the camera, not in the lens. The camera is always on a tripod, use a shutter release cable to avoid camera shake. Use the lowest practical ISO available to avoid as much noise as possible.
The lens has little to do with the practicalities of taking long exposures in general. You could use any lens. The one you choose will depend on little more than the field of view you need.
Long exposures are achieved by setting slow shutter speeds, several seconds, to several minutes - it's determined by the camera setting, not the lens. The shutter itself is located inside the camera, not in the lens. The camera is always on a tripod, use a shutter release cable to avoid camera shake. Use the lowest practical ISO available to avoid as much noise as possible.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment