A question for the people out there who know these things. xD
I currently own a Canon EOS 500D and shoot widest at 18mm (18-55mm).
I'm looking (as ever) to purchase the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. And a 5D Mark II to go with it. When I can afford it. xD So I'm just curious...
Which gives a wider-angle shot when shooting at the widest?
Canon 500D at 18mm, or
Canon 5D Mark II at 24mm?
I am reluctant to lose the wider angle at 18mm if it actually confers a wider angle. However I understand that the 500D is a 1.6x cropped sensor, and that the full frame of the 5D probably more than makes up for it.
I am pretty sure your 18mm on the crop sensor would be comparable to a 30mm so the 24mm on a full frame would be wider.
Someone else might pop in with more technical terms :)
The Canon 500D is a 1.6x crop sensor camera, i.e. the sensor is 1/1.6 the size of the sensor on the 5D MkII. (Actually it's 1.61 and a bit, but we'll say 1.6 as it's close enough!)
Therefore you need to multiply your crop-sensor lens focal length (the 18-55mm) by 1.6 to find the equivalent focal length on the 5D MkII. So if you wanted exactly the same focal range on the 5D, you'd need a 28.8mm-88mm lens.
Therefore the 24-70mm when fitted on the 5D will give you a wider field of view, but not as much telephoto range. If you wish to think about it the other way, 24mm on the 5D would be equivalent to a 15mm lens on your 500D, which is a fairly significant increase in wide-angle capability.
24-70L is slightly wider ive done a test with the set up ur looking at and what u have , well ive got the 450d but will be the same ..
Not alot of thought went into these two shots , just thought if ur looking at them u should see the difference . Hope this helps
@pocketmouse there can be more vignetting and distortion with a wide angle on full frame but you can correct that to a degree in lens correction in lightroom :)
My dream is to go full frame one day too! The 24-70 is a beautiful lens!!
If rumour are right.. Nikon, Pentax and Canon are all dropping their cropped sensor'd DSLRs and leaving that for mirrorless cameras.
So we should see a wave of prosumer 'full' frame cameras this fall at or after the camera shows... Pentax has already discontinued all of its crop sensored DSLRs (well not the 645D, but that is MF so not really part of this 'full'...)
The camera companies need something besides MPix to convince people to spend 1000s on new bodies... so it should be interesting... Nikon has gone forever since its last full frame...
@pocketmouse How define the gap between prosumer and pro is actually not based on specs.... rather it is durability, product support (ie if my camera breaks how quickly can I get a new one (thinking a few hours tops for a real pro, as time is money)), finally a complete system... for indoor shooters that might be teather, flash systems support and remote fire. For a wedding photog it might be off camera flash and great zoom lenses (many wedding photogs know you don`t need perfect images of weddings so any 2.8 zoom in the range you need is good enough for image quality, but gives you options.)
personally, provided you are in a town or city big enough to support it... I would only consider the 1d X as a pro camera... it is more durable (fact/opinion) it has a slighly great ability to interface with other equipement, etc...
Now since I am professional accoutant and really not much of a photog... if someone came into my shop and asked what they needed to be a pro photog, I would likely point them at the 5d classic... why?!?! because you can pick-up 4 cameras for about $2100 total cost... so you have your two mains and two back-ups... great lenses/flashes doubled as well and you could shoot almost any event... barring a need for video or lowlight/high ISO (which is mostly why they invented flash IMHO)....
so to me you would have a great 'pro' set-up, cheapest (which means more money in your pocket, something most pros like) which could be upgraded when you have the time and money (from your profit)
wow that was a lot of ramble... I am scanning negs... 30 mins each... LF photography sucks.... unless you love 200-400mb image files, stunning clarity and unreal tricks with DOF....
@pocketmouse ok looked up specs... mark iii 150k shutter clicks... 1d x 400k... so unless you destroy cameras (I know a outdoor shooter for some mags that basicly calculated the cost of 1.5 bodies and a lens or two into each shoot as he killed them on the cliff sides, bouncing off rocks well climbing ect)... the 1d x is 'more pro' less summer in my mind...
@icywarm Fantastic - thanks for explaining all that! :) I guess I was wondered if it was based on specs because of the fact that if a client wants to print a huge poster-sized version of a photo, my 500D probably couldn't go bigger than say 36 inches for a 200dpi print, whereas the 5D could, obviously, given the greater number of pixels. Also specs in terms of the sensor quality and how it renders high ISOs - i.e. more grain or less grain - and with that comes the notion that more "pro" cameras are more versatile i.e. can shoot better in the dark or whatevs.
Where do you see 5D Mark II fitting in? Prosumer or just plain pro?
@pocketmouse As I am sure you know MPix means nothing when it comes to making enlargements. Well not nothing but less than people think. Both Nikon and Canon are moving in different directions in this regard... here is a summary of a pop photog article on them... http://www.pentaxforums.com/news/megapixel-race-pentax-full-frame.html
Things like noise and aberration speak far more to the size you can upsize to... remember the larger the image... often the further back you view it from... therefore it is the same size on your eyeball so you don't notice the small resolution... have you ever noticed... on a 1080 screen on a computer (not common, but work with me) or a 1080 72 screen the image has the same "MPix" but the 72 doesn't look worse from your chair... but if you move up close it is gross... same thing for most images... you can google PPI PDI and print size for tons more info.
than sensor size is important... my wifes cell phone is 10 Mpix+ but my KX takes better pix, not because of the 1 or 2 more Mpix rather there is more space of the pixels meaning there is less noise transferred between pixels... I could spend a long time talking about sensor noise... if anyone wants...
High ISO is not a pro feature per say... many pro shooters add light... therefore don't need anything much over iso 400 or 800... look at the specs for many Med Format cameras... $10K + used to the cover of vogue, but they are teathered to 4, 5... 10 lights... sometimes a reflector of a light could be several feet wide... now if you are shooting the average wedding, maybe not a option... pro sports... need higher ISO so you can have a faster shutter speed... but that is when the lens is important... 600mm F2.8 $10K likely (does one even exist)
I saw a lighting diagram for a first dance at a big wedding... 6 strobes... GREAT photos... take a poll of wedding photogs... not often you can use strobes, never mind 6... but GREAT photos...
so in summary... 5D is a prosumer camera... but pros can/do/should use it... there is a guy using 3 olympus P&Ss... canon only sells the 1D X as their 'pro' camera... maybe pro is the wrong word... maybe Flagship is a better term... maybe instead of using pro, prosumer, entry level, bridge, mega zoom, P&S, Cell Phone... we could use Flagship, Less Expensive, Affordable, Night-at-the-bar, Case-of-beer and came-free-with-my-phone.
@icywarm Ahaha yes true - the bigger the image, the further you stand from it, the less you notice!
I didn't mean high ISO itself being a pro feature - more that the higher-end cameras with their superior sensors render high ISOs better with less grain and noise, so you can go higher if you want to with fewer ramifications. I probably wasn't clear on that the first time - having difficulty articulating myself lately haha. xD
I mean yeah, I can shoot some pretty decent photos with my 500D and it's probably at the lower end of prosumer cameras (aka "affordable" :P). I'm not saying at all that the camera makes the photo (... lenses do :P). I'm merely curious/asking because I'm looking to expand/go more professional, and I'm just wondering whether my current equipment supports that (maybe not xD). I guess the next step for me is to go full-frame - i.e. the "less expensive" 5D!
Also I'm really lazy/uneducated when it comes to lighting. Also poor so I can't afford strobes. Also small so I can't carry strobes around. Unless I take up weightlifting. Hmmm...
@pocketmouse post an ad on kijiji looking for Prographer Assist... Pay them in experience... they can carry the lights... and you look more pro...
ok the account in me... examing which camera you want may not be the way to look at it... define your needs... I need a camera that has to do X, would be nice if it did Y, don't care about Z...
Take your needs, wants and don't care to a camera store... find out which camera that has X... if more than one... buy cheaper one... unless one has way more Y than the other and the cost difference is worth it...
If you are going pro... cost of equipment is not a concern it is an item in your costing strategy.... ie if you need to spend 10k on equip and the payments are 1000 a month... you need to book enough work at a price to make sure you make enough to pay for your mortgage, food and loan payment... that makes you a working camera shooter, which through in some ethical standards and personal responsiblity makes you a professional...
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Someone else might pop in with more technical terms :)
18 x 1.6 = 30, versus
24 x 1 = 24
Have I got it? :D
Therefore you need to multiply your crop-sensor lens focal length (the 18-55mm) by 1.6 to find the equivalent focal length on the 5D MkII. So if you wanted exactly the same focal range on the 5D, you'd need a 28.8mm-88mm lens.
Therefore the 24-70mm when fitted on the 5D will give you a wider field of view, but not as much telephoto range. If you wish to think about it the other way, 24mm on the 5D would be equivalent to a 15mm lens on your 500D, which is a fairly significant increase in wide-angle capability.
Not alot of thought went into these two shots , just thought if ur looking at them u should see the difference . Hope this helps
@liipgloss Thanks for that! I can definitely see the difference - more vignetting with the bottom one too, which is interesting (not a bad thing!) :)
My dream is to go full frame one day too! The 24-70 is a beautiful lens!!
So we should see a wave of prosumer 'full' frame cameras this fall at or after the camera shows... Pentax has already discontinued all of its crop sensored DSLRs (well not the 645D, but that is MF so not really part of this 'full'...)
The camera companies need something besides MPix to convince people to spend 1000s on new bodies... so it should be interesting... Nikon has gone forever since its last full frame...
It'll be interesting to see what the future holds with mirrorless photography!
personally, provided you are in a town or city big enough to support it... I would only consider the 1d X as a pro camera... it is more durable (fact/opinion) it has a slighly great ability to interface with other equipement, etc...
Now since I am professional accoutant and really not much of a photog... if someone came into my shop and asked what they needed to be a pro photog, I would likely point them at the 5d classic... why?!?! because you can pick-up 4 cameras for about $2100 total cost... so you have your two mains and two back-ups... great lenses/flashes doubled as well and you could shoot almost any event... barring a need for video or lowlight/high ISO (which is mostly why they invented flash IMHO)....
so to me you would have a great 'pro' set-up, cheapest (which means more money in your pocket, something most pros like) which could be upgraded when you have the time and money (from your profit)
wow that was a lot of ramble... I am scanning negs... 30 mins each... LF photography sucks.... unless you love 200-400mb image files, stunning clarity and unreal tricks with DOF....
Where do you see 5D Mark II fitting in? Prosumer or just plain pro?
Things like noise and aberration speak far more to the size you can upsize to... remember the larger the image... often the further back you view it from... therefore it is the same size on your eyeball so you don't notice the small resolution... have you ever noticed... on a 1080 screen on a computer (not common, but work with me) or a 1080 72 screen the image has the same "MPix" but the 72 doesn't look worse from your chair... but if you move up close it is gross... same thing for most images... you can google PPI PDI and print size for tons more info.
than sensor size is important... my wifes cell phone is 10 Mpix+ but my KX takes better pix, not because of the 1 or 2 more Mpix rather there is more space of the pixels meaning there is less noise transferred between pixels... I could spend a long time talking about sensor noise... if anyone wants...
High ISO is not a pro feature per say... many pro shooters add light... therefore don't need anything much over iso 400 or 800... look at the specs for many Med Format cameras... $10K + used to the cover of vogue, but they are teathered to 4, 5... 10 lights... sometimes a reflector of a light could be several feet wide... now if you are shooting the average wedding, maybe not a option... pro sports... need higher ISO so you can have a faster shutter speed... but that is when the lens is important... 600mm F2.8 $10K likely (does one even exist)
I saw a lighting diagram for a first dance at a big wedding... 6 strobes... GREAT photos... take a poll of wedding photogs... not often you can use strobes, never mind 6... but GREAT photos...
so in summary... 5D is a prosumer camera... but pros can/do/should use it... there is a guy using 3 olympus P&Ss... canon only sells the 1D X as their 'pro' camera... maybe pro is the wrong word... maybe Flagship is a better term... maybe instead of using pro, prosumer, entry level, bridge, mega zoom, P&S, Cell Phone... we could use Flagship, Less Expensive, Affordable, Night-at-the-bar, Case-of-beer and came-free-with-my-phone.
I didn't mean high ISO itself being a pro feature - more that the higher-end cameras with their superior sensors render high ISOs better with less grain and noise, so you can go higher if you want to with fewer ramifications. I probably wasn't clear on that the first time - having difficulty articulating myself lately haha. xD
I mean yeah, I can shoot some pretty decent photos with my 500D and it's probably at the lower end of prosumer cameras (aka "affordable" :P). I'm not saying at all that the camera makes the photo (... lenses do :P). I'm merely curious/asking because I'm looking to expand/go more professional, and I'm just wondering whether my current equipment supports that (maybe not xD). I guess the next step for me is to go full-frame - i.e. the "less expensive" 5D!
Also I'm really lazy/uneducated when it comes to lighting. Also poor so I can't afford strobes. Also small so I can't carry strobes around. Unless I take up weightlifting. Hmmm...
ok the account in me... examing which camera you want may not be the way to look at it... define your needs... I need a camera that has to do X, would be nice if it did Y, don't care about Z...
Take your needs, wants and don't care to a camera store... find out which camera that has X... if more than one... buy cheaper one... unless one has way more Y than the other and the cost difference is worth it...
If you are going pro... cost of equipment is not a concern it is an item in your costing strategy.... ie if you need to spend 10k on equip and the payments are 1000 a month... you need to book enough work at a price to make sure you make enough to pay for your mortgage, food and loan payment... that makes you a working camera shooter, which through in some ethical standards and personal responsiblity makes you a professional...