|
Actually, I think the Canon shoots in 30fps too. I didn't realize the 5100 had been upped to 30fps from 24fps on the D7000, so I stand corrected!
Thanks for the compliments on the photos in my gallery. Just a case of being in the right place at the right time for the most part and having photogenic nephews, lol. They were taken long before the 5D was purchased. I also have a much greater selection of lenses for the D90 (7 at last count I think) than the Canon, although I primarily used the 50mm f/1.8D for those shots, with the odd one or two on the 28mm f/2.8 AI-s.
To be honest, the only time you would take "better" images with the 5D MKII, would be in low light situations. As its a full frame sensor it has improved ISO/noise capabilities and so you would be able to use higher ISO's than the D90 would, before artifacts started creeping in and ruining the image. The other time would be landscape photography as there is no crop factor to factor in. With the 16-35mm f/2.8 USM II lens, 16mm is 16mm. I'd have to get a Sigma 10-20mm or Tokina 11-16mm to be able to get as wide as that on the D90.
Under decent lighting conditions, whether that's natural or artificial/flash, you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between something shot on the 5D MKII and an old D40, in terms of image quality (without lens consideration). The only difference would be if you were blowing the photo up to A3 size and beyond, which is when having the larger megapixel count would be more important. I think the Canon has 1/8000 shutter speed, which is higher than the D90 at 1/4000 and probably has a higher FPS count too but, for portraiture, which is what I mainly do, its of no real benefit to me.
Some of the most impressive photos I've seen have been landscapes taken on an old 8x10 plate camera which was over 100 years old lol. You wouldn't think it for such an old piece of technology but, they contain so much more detail that even the best full frame DSLR wouldn't come close in megapixel terms. I doubt even the medium format Hassleblads and Mamiyas would either and those can be upwards of £40k. Imagine an 8"x10" sensor in your DSLR, compared to the tiny little things in their at the moment. That should give you some idea!
Needless to say, the image quality taken on those old plate cameras is fantastic and is why they are still used today by some professionals. You certainly have to know what you're doing though, having to compose the photograph upside down. Then comes the developing of the image too. You also have to hump the huge thing with you and you only have as many shots as you have plates to insert. If you know what you're doing, then they will deliver results that will surpass what a £5k digital body can deliver, which is why I have a D90 lol.
|
17-08-11, 07:30 PM
