Gadget creeps

I know that I'm not a great photographer and ought to be very happy with making more from my current setup (7D plus half a dozen decent lenses) but I've recently become obsessed with the apparent benefits of full-frame. It's got to the point where I can look at a picture and predict whether it's taken with a 5D or not. Or maybe I'm imagining it? Maybe it's the dark side of my subconsciojus pursuading me that if I upgrade to full-frame I'll instantly become a better photographer (obviously rubbish)!

Right now, my dream setup would be a 5D MkII (or maybe wait for the MkIII) + 24-105mm L. This will transform my portraits and landscapes overnight. Apparently.

Does anyone else have the same 'grass is always greener' syndrome with their kit, however good it is?

AC1 said:

I know that I'm not a great photographer and ought to be very happy with making more from my current setup (7D plus half a dozen decent lenses) but I've recently become obsessed with the apparent benefits of full-frame.

Click to expand...

I have the 5D2 and the 60D - I use the 60D far more often than the 5D2 these days - more because of the Flip Screen and AF speed and "reach" than quality of pictures though. The 5D2 can produce stunning photos, but so can the 60D/7D sensor. So it really will depend primarily on your subject and shooting style. I even use the 60D for still life now, when I would reach for the 5D2 before:

AC1 said:

It's got to the point where I can look at a picture and predict whether it's taken with a 5D or not. Or maybe I'm imagining it? Maybe it's the dark side of my subconsciojus pursuading me that if I upgrade to full-frame I'll instantly become a better photographer (obviously rubbish)!

Click to expand...

I too can discern between my 5D2 and 60D shots, but I lean more towards the 60D captures because I find the 5D2 shots are often "too sharp, too saturated" - even if I do shoot RAW. I guess it's a matter of taste.

AC1 said:

Right now, my dream setup would be a 5D MkII (or maybe wait for the MkIII) + 24-105mm L. This will transform my portraits and landscapes overnight. Apparently.

Click to expand...

You don't really need a FF camera for those shots, do you? A wider lens, maybe.

AC1 said:

Does anyone else have the same 'grass is always greener' syndrome with their kit, however good it is?

Click to expand...

I happens to all of us every now and then

Regards,

Bobby K.

--
To God be all the Glory!

Hah, good insights!

I really should be OK with my setup, in addition to a EX580 (which I've barely learned how to use) my lenses include:

10-22
50 1.4
70-200 F4 IS
15-85
18-135

So what am I complaining about?!

One thing, I've not touched on post processing at all and maybe I could create some more of the sharpness and saturation that I like about the 5D with some tweaking to my 7D RAW output? So I've downloaded a trial version of LR3 and I'll give it a go - trouble is I'm a bit impatient and hate being at the bottom of any learning curve - I like to get up to a decent level of competence pretty quickly!

Oh well, here goes (grabs camera, lenses and car keys)...

"Gadget creeps" is a good name for the condition; I call it 'consumeritis'. One way of dealing with it is to stop reading fora that are equipment oriented and only read ones that are concerned about photography - ie. the images, not the equipment used to make them. There is a subtle corruption of the mind that sets in when you read about equipment - you end up with an urge to buy more stuff. You need to buy stuff if and only if you know that your abilities are greater than those of the equipment you already have. Otherwise, if you really need to spend money, consider doing something useful with it like giving it to a charity. We have so much and others have nothing, surely we don't need to buy more stuff just for the sake of doing so.

Lots of luck,
Peter

--
Steve Leibson

Shooting with Canons for 35+ years

When I first got LR3, I used the lynda.com tutorials to get me up to speed, and found them very helpful.

When I fist got my 5DII, the difference between the files of it & my 40D were very noticeable. The 5DII was in a different league you might say. Color, Contrast, noise was every way better.

Now with the 7D as my crop body I find it's files when properly exposed to be equal in quality at 400 ISO and below. At ISO 800 & above the 5DII hands down has better control of noise & thus better IQ. However when shooting raw and using the ETTR principles, LR 3 does a good job with the 7D noise and either camera with well exposed images rocks. It is hard to pic a favorite.
--
Warren

The 5D is a great lens for landscapes. I have the 24-105 and love it but I don't use it for landscapes unless I really have to. Distortion, CA, soft corners. The first two are fixable but I still would have a dedicated landscape lens for it. I got spoiled when I rented the 24 TSE II and Zeiss 21.

I am really looking forward for the new Samyang 24 release. This may be the one.

yep. always.

that's why you see people griping about one product, or switching to another.

Look - its great to get new gear. For me, it gets me excited to go out & shoot. But new stuff doesn't always mean better photos.

Now as far as ditching your 7D, I currently shoot with a 5DII and 60D (and have owned-shot with many other non-1D series Canon DSLRs including the 7D.) I earn a living doing product photography almost exclusively with the 60D and much prefer the way it handles-performs compared to the 5DII. The 5DII does have a slight edge IQ-wise, but nothing like the people on this forum make it out to be. IMO 90% of the people 90% of the time could not tell the difference in images from these two cameras, esp at low ISO. I personally don't think your landscape images will be much better with equivalent lenses on a 5Dii. But you may need to find out the hard way (like me).

If you haven't already, rent a 5DII. But I think the whole "gotta have FF" is purely psychological for most shooters.
--
View my photo galleries here: http://imageevent.com/24peter
Model Mayhem: http://www.modelmayhem.com/93181

AC1 said:

Right now, my dream setup would be a 5D MkII (or maybe wait for the MkIII) + 24-105mm L. This will transform my portraits and landscapes overnight. Apparently.

Click to expand...

Yes it will transform your landscapes into a mush of CA and blur anywhere near the edges at 24mm hah! (at least the two copies I tried were a mess near the edges even stopped way down, on FF) Of course a 24mm T&S II + 5D2.... better start saving hah. Or a 24 1.4 II or Zeiss 21 + 5D2....

I agonised for a while over my 400d purchase. 18 months later the upgrade to 40d seemed to take longer for me to reach the decision. I took 2 months to make my mind up about the upgrade to 7D as the question of 5DII or 7D really made me think about what i would use the cameras for and eventually I realised that I'd miss things like 8FPS, the extra reach i get out of my lenses... and the fact that 5DII is now quite old and possibly soon to be replaced - well sooner possibly than the 7D (or not as the case may be).

what would the 5DII give me? well FF benefits, wafer thin DOF, when i need it, wider angles, slower FPS, less money in my bank.

in the end my original decision a few years ago (at 400d time) was to buy some L glass and change bodies every few years. that has made me happy and if i ever go FF ( the next logical upgrade (when a 5DIII arrives)), then my lenses should still be fine to keep and i'll get the benefits of FF and probably miss the 7Ds special things... or I may just see the 7DII as the obvious choice....

it's fun thinking about the dilemas we face and makes the selection procesd both an agony and a pleasure...

AC1 said:

One thing, I've not touched on post processing at all and maybe I could create some more of the sharpness and saturation that I like about the 5D with some tweaking to my 7D RAW output? So I've downloaded a trial version of LR3 and I'll give it a go - trouble is I'm a bit impatient and hate being at the bottom of any learning curve - I like to get up to a decent level of competence pretty quickly!

Click to expand...

There is a big part of the difference. People that invest more and more in photography tend to invest more and more in technique, getting the shot, experience, and post-processing. There is a lot to gain from that. More than from chaning cameras or lenses.

And about lightroom: the beginning will be time consuming, it has a learning curve, but once you "get it" you can create standard presets that do 90% of the postprocessing to your taste!

--
Regards,
Gravi

AC1 said:

Right now, my dream setup would be a 5D MkII (or maybe wait for the MkIII) + 24-105mm L. This will transform my portraits and landscapes overnight. Apparently.

Click to expand...

5D2 is sort of OK by today's standard.. IQ wise it is not huge leap over the 18mp aps-c sensor, though DOF effect is significant. AF wise 7D is way more advance than 5D2, feature wise it is beaten by both 7D (AF customisability) and 60D (LCD, Video).

24-105 is some what below average from a performance/price point of view, IS is old, not particularly great IQ.

if you really wanted something that vastly improve your landscape, you would need nikon 14-24 or16-35, for portrait you would need 85L and 135L, especially since you dont do much PP.

AC1 said:

Does anyone else have the same 'grass is always greener' syndrome with their kit, however good it is?

Click to expand...

I do, and I see a lot of other do too, wither it is hi-fi, guns, cameras, or cars. it is part of the fun though!

AC1 said:

Does anyone else have the same 'grass is always greener' syndrome with their kit, however good it is?

Click to expand...

Yes! Always looking, doubting, trying, and restraining myself. I've been down that path several times.

But when I look back at older pictures, IQ wise, I always am surprised about how good they actually were. The lesson I learned is that even though I have upgraded much of my gear, the most significant difference in my pictures is not IQ, but PQ: photographer quality.

So I decided to invest more in that because increasing the PQ is much more fun than increasing the IQ. I take regular photo trips with other photographers, to learn, experience and share.

--
Regards,
Gravi

Hello Ppage,

Just a minor quibble: perhaps "Gadget creep" for the condition aka "equipment lust" and "Gadget creeps" for a multiplicity of persons suffering therefrom?

But I have to agree with your observations.

Alistair

ppage said:

"Gadget creeps" is a good name for the condition; I call it 'consumeritis'. One way of dealing with it is to stop reading fora that are equipment oriented and only read ones that are concerned about photography - ie. the images, not the equipment used to make them. There is a subtle corruption of the mind that sets in when you read about equipment - you end up with an urge to buy more stuff. You need to buy stuff if and only if you know that your abilities are greater than those of the equipment you already have. Otherwise, if you really need to spend money, consider doing something useful with it like giving it to a charity. We have so much and others have nothing, surely we don't need to buy more stuff just for the sake of doing so.

Lots of luck,
Peter

Click to expand...

So true, we're all become puppets on a string dancing to the whims of Canon
and other marketing divisions. Fair enough for Canon, they exist to make a buck.
This has nothing to do with photography.

There was a post saying that 18mpx was rubbish and needed more pixels.

I thought if you gave a starving child in Somalia 10mpx and 18mpx photos
of a sizzling steak, which one would he prefer ?

A guy recently posted some shots taken with a 6mpx 10D, just stunning, pure art.

The economy is having a hard time, people aren't buying enough, but how many
mobile phones, TVs, Ipods, cameras, cars do you need. I have several of each, I
just don't need any more.

What I want is air that you can't see, space and to live somewhere where mobiles don't work, or less RF pollution.

peter

--

In the beginning was the rhythm but I had forgotten and was waiting for the beat.

AC1 said:

Hah, good insights!

I really should be OK with my setup, in addition to a EX580 (which I've barely learned how to use) my lenses include:

10-22
50 1.4
70-200 F4 IS
15-85
18-135

So what am I complaining about?!

One thing, I've not touched on post processing at all and maybe I could create some more of the sharpness and saturation that I like about the 5D with some tweaking to my 7D RAW output? So I've downloaded a trial version of LR3 and I'll give it a go - trouble is I'm a bit impatient and hate being at the bottom of any learning curve - I like to get up to a decent level of competence pretty quickly!

Click to expand...

Yes, you can gain a lot by shooting RAW and using LR (or DPP for free).

Only two of your lenses are EF, which is a bit of a limitation or added cost if you add FF. Buying a used 5D (I) could be a cheaper way to settle that itch to see what you're missing. But overall, since you're just really starting out, you'd be better off doing more with what you have and waiting to see if that 5D III ever gets released.

Get a flash diffuser (like the Fong lightsphere) on that 580 and use it more.
Spend more time on raw - I don't think the 5D should look that different.

Think about lenses - the 17-55 2.8 might be an improvement on the 15-85, definitely would be over the 18-135. Maybe the 85/1.8 or the 100/2.0 as another prime. But even here I think you have too many new toys already. Many, if not most of us went through that gadget buying craze. It can easily distract from the actual photography. I've already sold 4 lenses and given 2 others to my mother. Thankfully, canon lenses hold their value pretty well.

I'm a big fan of the UK photo magazines, notably Digital SLR and Practical Photography. Like the US ones, they cycle through the usual topics (focus, exposure, B&W, animals, landscapes, etc). The difference is that they present workshops with exact detail of execution that you can follow. They also do critiques of reader submissions, and they seem a bit more willing to evaluate product, rather than just put in the advertorial. They run $100/year to mail out to the US, but worth it. Or you can get them from the better magazine stands for 11-13$ per issue.