Considering Canon

Started Jun 4, 2013 | Discussions thread
photonius
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,136
Like?
Re: Considering Canon
In reply to Colin Franks, Jun 8, 2013

Colin Franks wrote:

AlterHase wrote:

Are you looking to take pictures that your current setup isn't able to (e.g. ultra-thin DoF)? Just in case your answer is "better image quality": can you describe in what way your current setup is not meeting your needs?

I suppose that my main disappointment is with the 100-300 lens. The other day I was shooting a Blue Heron at the beach, and took many shots at myriad settings (tripod).  Granted, this lens is known to be a little soft on the far end, but none of the images were tack sharp, and I wasn't happy with 'em.

That may not just be an issue with the lens, the lens is not that bad (see photozone de results), and the Pan G3 is a good 16MP sensor. It could also be an issue with autofocus precision etc. Also, how does the lens handle OS on a tripod? Did you turn it off? With Canon, IS often should be turned off on a tripod, otherwise you can get actually interference.

For your wild-life shots, a Canon 7D could be the right compromise, many people prefer the crop cameras for the better reach. I.e. a 7D with a 100-400 could perform better than your Pana set-up.

My 20mm/1.7 is an impressive little lens, and does well for its uses, but tell me if I'm incorrect in the following:
It seems that I see sooo many images (on the 'net) from the big bad-boy Canikons that just flat-out have an IQ that a M4/3 cannot achieve.  Yes, the M4/3s are a good little camera, but their sensor is considerably smaller.  And isn't there something to be said about the fact that Canon & Nikon are "camera" companies, and all the rest are "electronics" companies; or is that just not the case now-a-days?

The smaller sensor has nothing to do with IQ (resolution) per see. The bigger sensor will give you more (thinner) DOF, i.e. more possibilities for creating out of focus blur, and the bigger sensor should give you better (lower) noise at higher ISO.

First, let's just take your words literally and assume that you want the exact same number of lenses covering the same (or similar) focal lengths. Let's assume you're not often print larger than 11inx14in.  I think in this case the Canon FF setup will mainly be larger, heavier, and more expensive than your current.

I have a rather large printer. It accepts 54" wide rolls of media in the back, so I print some large canvas.

Ah, so high resolution is useful for you.

You could of course go for something like a Nikon 800, but be aware, that to really get these high resolution shots, it's going to be very difficult.

You have to have absolutely stable tripods to avoid the minutest shakes (add mirror-lock up etc.). You have to have the best lenses that you can use wide-open, because already going for an aperture like f11 (on FF), diffraction starts to kick in. Have a look at the reviews here on dpreview where they compare some of the newer cameras with no anti-aliasing filter. To really get absolute ultra-high resolution, you need lenses that are very sharp across the frame at f4 or f5.6, but then you have the conundrum that for landscape, often you want to stop down more to get everything into focus.

There are a bunch of comparisons out there that show the Canon 5DIII compares well with the Nikon, also because Canon has now a bunch of new high-resolution lenses.

The point of my comments: Do not automatically expect super resolution by going FF, it needs a whole lot of things to work together.   And another aspect is pixel density. Let's say you have the 400mm f5.6 lens, a common birding lens. If you have a FF camera, and you need to crop to get your bird bigger, the 7D has a higher pixel density (per square mm), so you will get a better picture of the bird with less cropping. The Panasonic G3 should have an even higher pixel density, so a good shot with a 300mm lens should be the same - I can't judge where your system fails - operator error, lens quality, AF issues, the sensor itself should be quite good.

The other solution you mention consider is buying bigger lenses:

i.e. a 5D III with a 600mm lens   vs

a 7D with a 400mm lens  vs

a G3 with a 300mm lens

I guess it's really a question of a) how much money you want and can spend

and b) how much size/weight you want to lug around.

A bird shot with the G3 and 300mm is still a shot, while a 5DIII and 600mm left at home because it's too cumbersome is no shot at all.

So, give it some serious consideration what you want to do. Nice high resolution landscape with a 5DIII and say a 17mm TS, 24 TS and 24-70 f2.8 II lens. Or for wild-life, where you are focal length limited, a 7D, which should give you much better AF than the G3, with say a 400mm lens, which is still hand-holdable.

Thanks for the replies.

-- hide signature --

*** Life is short, time to zoom in *** ©

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow