Customer Discussions > Photography forum

Canon t2i vs 5d mark ii


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 59 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jun 29, 2011 11:59:52 AM PDT
Need to know the difference in image quality using L-series lenses for both camera. Please help!

Posted on Jun 29, 2011 12:17:08 PM PDT
T. Campbell says:
Well... one is an APS-C crop-frame size sensor... the other is a full-frame (35mm film-size) sensor. The 5D has higher resolution but on a MUCH larger sensor. The T2i has a 60% crop-factor (all Canon APS-C size sensor bodies do) which means when you put the same lens on both bodies and shoot the picture using the same focal length, the picture from the T2i will appear to be just the center area of the image on the 5D.. with the edges cut out, and then enlarged to the same size. The full-frame camera gives a better field of view -- and particularly helpful when shooting wide angle.

The T2i is an entry-level consumer model body made out of plastic (polycarbonate). The 5D mark II is a pro-grade body made out of metal (magnesium alloy).

The 5D has pixels which are physically larger and render better and have less noise at high ISO. Enlargements look better (e.g. printing gallery-size prints to frame and hang on the wall.)

The 5D is weather sealed (as are most L series lenses). The 5D supports lens AF calibration (tune the camera to each individual lens for sharper images... especially when using very narrow depth-of-field.) The 5D does not have a built-in flash (but no pro shooter will use a built-in pop-up flash... they'll use a dedicated speedlite such as the Canon 580EX II or they'll use studio flashes.)

There is really not much of a comparison... the 5D is a better camera in every way except for the price tag.

Posted on Jun 29, 2011 7:39:09 PM PDT
illy480 says:
5D Mark II and the T2i don't even belong in the same sentence together.

The T2i is a entry level camera for people that want something more then a point and shoot. The 5DMKII is a pro level camera that produces some of the best IQ of any camera body on the market.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2011 12:28:42 PM PDT
EdM says:
I agree with both above posters. OTOH, for what purpose are you talking about ultimate image quality? Is this about low light image quality? Is it about the dynamic range, to better get detail in both white wedding dresses and black tuxes at weddings?

IF you were a pro, you wouldn't be asking the question at all. For most amateurs, the T2i is a fine camera. The 5D II is 3-4 times the price. The quality of the 5D II is notably better, BUT at a real price.

Plus, if you like to shoot telephoto, the T2i has the crop factor multiplier for the focal length of any lens. Also, the weakest part of any lens is in the corners, and APS-c sensors automatically crop out the far corners of the view for a lens due to the smaller sensor. In at least some cases, getting a T2i with a higher quality lens [for the same dollar price] will yield just as good or better photos, than a 5D II with cheaper lenses to meet the same price point.

IN other words, the body alone does not control ultimate IQ, the lens is quite important also. Perhaps most important in the ultimate photo IQ, is the skill with which the gear is used.

Today, you can buy a large format setup like Ansel Adams used for less than the price of a 5D II and quality lens. The large format photo will be better. OTOH, with today's 5D II, Ansel Adams would still have made great photos. The general rule for IQ is, the photographer matters most, the lens is second, and the camera body matters least.

Posted on Jun 30, 2011 1:31:57 PM PDT
T. Campbell says:
Ed makes a good point... it's generally well understood that if you invest in a full-frame camera (such as the 5D) then you're also resigning yourself to the fact that you wont be skimping on lens quality either.

Glass performs both diffraction (which optical engineers love) and dispersion (which optical engineers hate). It's diffraction that bends the light to focus it. But it's dispersion that splits the light, like a prism, into it's constituent colors. The dispersion problem causes different wavelengths of light to diffract by different amounts, and thus cause the various wavelengths (colors) to not focus at the same distance from the lens. This not only causes a blurry picture... it causes "chromatic aberration" (color fringing where you can see the colors bleeding out and separating on what should be well-defined edges in your image.)

If a ray of light passes directly through the very center of the lens, then it wouldn't be noticed because all the light was traveling straight anyway (hence there is neither much diffraction nor dispersion -- even if it's cheap glass). But as you leave the center area and get to the edge of the glass, the light needs to be diffracted more and more to focus the image but it also means the dispersion problem is also amplified.

As a result, crop-frame cameras, which don't even capture the parts of the image out at the edges are just collecting the image from the middle area -- so even relatively low quality glass might not look so bad. A full-frame camera would definitely notice the low-quality glass with image quality problems out at the edges of the frame.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2011 3:07:37 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 30, 2011 3:11:09 PM PDT
"""
Glass performs both diffraction (which optical engineers love) and dispersion (which optical engineers hate). It's diffraction that bends the light to focus it.
"""

I think you meant "refraction" -- and dispersion is just a case of differential refraction (different frequencies of light are refracted at different angles).

Diffraction is unwanted too (ever run into the phrase "diffraction limited" in an telescope review). Diffraction is the bending of light over sharp edges, and is why one starts to lose sharpness even while gaining a wide depth-of-field when using apertures narrower than f8-f11. At f16-f32 the aperture is so small that diffraction effects start to swamp the clear image. On the other hand, with the lens wide open, one has shallow depth-of-field AND may be encountering aberrations caused by the pressure of the support/clamp rings on the lens elements. This is why the common recommendation that a lens will be at its sharpest ~2 stops down from wide open -- two stops down means the aperture has occluded the lens edge aberrations but has not yet reached the point where aperture blade diffraction becomes a noticeable fraction of the light.

"""
As a result, crop-frame cameras, which don't even capture the parts of the image out at the edges are just collecting the image from the middle area
"""
This applies if one is using a "full frame" rated lens. The various lenses optimized for APS-C sensors (Canon EF-S, Tamron Di II [the Di just meant digital optimized lens coatings, the Di II meaning APS-C only image circle]) have also reduced the output image circle so they again are seeing the "edges" of the circle on the corners.

Posted on Jun 30, 2011 8:09:40 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 30, 2011 8:23:16 PM PDT
Neo Lee says:
L lenses, all EF lenses in general will produce shallower depth of field on full frame cameras like 5D Mark II. Fundamentally, DoF gets shallower as the camera gets closer to the subject, and since EF lenses on a FF DSLR would need to get ~40% closer to the subject so that the subject will appear at the same size as taken with a crop DSLR. You should however note that getting closer will also change the optical perspective. Not that changed perspective is anything wrong. It's just you need to be aware of it.

And some people say on a crop body, the focal length will be multiplied by the crop factor, 1.6 for Canon, saying the focal length of 200mm would have an equivalent FoV at 320mm, and that would get shallower depth of field. That's not entirely true, because DoF doesn't get shallower when FoV gets narrower; it only makes background blurrier in relation to the foreground due to the image being cropped and thus enlarged. It's explained more at http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm

To iterate, putting on an EF lens on 5D Mark II will not automatically get you shallower DoF. It is the need to walk closer to the subject that gets you shallower DoF.

Posted on Jul 1, 2011 1:17:21 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 1, 2011 1:36:32 AM PDT
Neo Lee says:
Take a look at the following photos if you don't know what I was talking about:
http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/3986/aps-c-vs-full-frame-why-should-i-care
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8413680@N08/4096725884/in/photostream/

I'm not too sure if others would agree on this notion of mine, but the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens on Rebel T2i is visually comparable to 80m f/2.8 on 5D Mark II. And in other words, for Canon T2i to reproduce photos taken with 50mm f/1.8 lens on 5D Mark II, you would need a lens of ~31mm f/1.1.

Posted on Jul 1, 2011 10:16:57 AM PDT
T. Campbell says:
Dennis I think you're right... my "someheimers" disease has got me using bad terminology. Although EF-S lenses are using what is, effectively, the "sweet spot" out of the optics.

A point & shoot camera where the maker will state a claim about the lens focal length being (and I'm making this up for an example) "20mm-200mm zoom" and they put the little splat next to the numbers, and when you search for the footnote it'll tell you that's a "35mm equivalent" (i.e. it's not really 20-200mm... it only seems like it.) However... crop-frame optimized lenses aren't sold as "equivalents"... they're sold based on their true focal lengths. If you want to calculate the "35mm equivalent" then you need to multiple by the crop factor (and technically it's not the same because the "angle of view" is different -- but it's close.)

Posted on Jul 9, 2011 10:53:57 PM PDT
I read blogs and articles for two months before I ran across this very important difference between the t2i and the 5d. The 5d, because of the sensor and design, has a depth of field TWO AND A HALF TIMES SHALLOWER than the 7d, 60d, T3i or T2i. If you're shooting video, the 5d produces truly cinematic images the lesser cameras can't capture, though many video shooters use any of them for a backup. If the 5d is actually in your budget, I suggest you rent both bodies and give them a shot. FYI, the 5d is due to be upgraded, and there are running bets and arguments on when the replacement will hit the market. Good luck

Posted on Aug 18, 2011 12:32:39 PM PDT
C. Smith says:
The 5D is great, but it's depth of field can be TOO shallow with video and low F stops. Most of cinema is NOT that shallow. I mean there are times when depth of field on the 5D is so razor thin that a nose can be in focus while the cheeks and eyes completely out of focus. People get too carried away with shallow depth of field since it became available to the masses. The T2i and 7D provide more than enough shallow depth of field at low F-stops.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 18, 2011 2:57:32 PM PDT
You're supposed to focus on the eyes!

And I doubt the people using the 5D for video have a problem with depth of field... They're the ones most likely using full cinematic lighting kits (keeping the dynamic range down to 3 or 4 stops) and probably can't shoot wide open. {"The Man with No Name" didn't squint to look menacing... Eastwood squinted because Sergio Leone had banks of flood lights shining in his face to cancel out the extreme shadows of the sun when shooting in a Spanish desert at noon}

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 19, 2011 12:54:15 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 19, 2011 12:56:50 PM PDT
Actually there are several TV shows and music videos being produced on the 5D: for its compatibility with all EF lenses and compatibility with professional edition software. In a broadcast situation, or cinema, the cinematographer would light the scene appropriately for there to be enough DOF for the given aperture. The last season of House, for example, was entirely done on the 5D.

To get to the topic, the main disadvantage of a FF sensor is that you'd need a longer and more expensive lens for telephoto work. If you're trying to film wildlife, you'd have to be prepared to spend several thousand dollars on an adequate L long telephoto. However, if you're used to film SLRs, I believe you'd appreciate the FF aspects of the 5D. Since it doesn't have an internal flash, it has a larger and brighter viewfinder (like the old film SLRs). Its high ISOs stay very competitive with even the most recent camera generations, since having a larger sensor, it's more sensitive to light. For these reasons, I decided to get the Mk I 5D when I first got a DSLR...and I have shot with a Rebel. I think one huge difference between them is something that has not been brought up: that's the interface. I don't like the Rebel interface much....but then it has a whole bunch of programmed modes to let you use it as a more advanced P&S. The xD/x0D series bodies are so much better from an ergonomic standpoint IMO: you get two real dials for being able to set manual controls and all the important settings are easily accessible.

But to reiterate what has been said: these are two classes of cameras. The 5D is good for serious hobby photographers or professional portrait artists. If you're used to film SLRs, then there's some comfort in getting prime lenses that coorelate exactly to what you're used to with film. The Rebel is for someone who considers themselves a more casual photographer, or someone who wants a better camera then a run of the mill P&S.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 22, 2011 6:59:14 AM PDT
The rebel is also useful for the beginning enthusiast who either can't afford a more expensive camera, or has not developed their skills to a point where they know which one to get. Great results can be accomplished with a rebel, with some effort, in the right setting. Just don't depend on it to get that critical once in a lifetime shot.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 22, 2011 8:36:50 AM PDT
can you maybe help me? I just got my new t2i with the kit lens and i want to make picutres of clothing to sell on my online store. can someone tell me what setting are best:

I want the pictures to be very very clear with every little detail even when i will zoom the picture on the computer I should be able to see the seems of the garment clearly. also I want it to be true color.

please help,
thanks

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 22, 2011 9:54:06 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 22, 2011 9:57:43 AM PDT
WARNING -- my response is a worst case scenario of what you'd want to do.

"""
I want the pictures to be very very clear with every little detail even when i will zoom the picture on the computer I should be able to see the seems of the garment clearly. also I want it to be true color.
"""

"every little detail" could be ambiguous. Someone selling T-Shirts with graphics transferred to them doesn't want the shirt to overwhelm the graphics. For them, a flat stretcher and a "copy stand" to reduce shadows/glare on the graphic is primary.

But you mention the "seems" ("seams", is the word). That means you want the Fabric to show. For the fabric, you do not want a light source too close to the lens axis (no macro ring light, no built-in flash, and even a bounced shoe flash [430EX II] may not be quite right). These light will end up reducing shadows, and it is the shadows that make texture details show up (a flash bounced off a white ceiling may work, but the light is going to be top down, and the dynamic range may be a touch too high)

You may want to obtain a book on photographic lighting since what you want is directional lighting, but balanced so that you don't have too much dynamic range between highlights and shadows -- in other words, a main light about 45 degrees to the side and up, and a fill light near the camera on the other side to reduce dynamic range (the fill light gives you a smooth illumination over the subject, the main light gives you the highlights and shadows for details).

"true color"
You'll have to define what you mean... You'll have to match the white balance to the lighting -- obtain an 8x10" Kodak Grey-Card, and check your camera manual for how to use a custom white balance (I think for Canon, you need to fill the frame with the card -- in the set-up lighting you are using -- and take a shot, then you tell the camera to use custom white balance and select the shot of the card; the camera then figures out what adjustments are needed to make the card standard grey tone){The grey card can also be used to set a manual exposure, if using hot-lights; adjust shutter/aperture until camera says the exposure is correct, then use that exposure for the subject}

Set the camera (if using JPEG mode, if shooting RAW you can set it in the RAW converter) to "faithful" color -- no enhanced saturation, brightness, contrast, sharpness [you'll adjust sharpness in photo editing software when you have the image sized for use]

BUT; you also will need to calibrate your computer monitor. Most monitors, as shipped, are set for high brightness (9300degK white -- which is rather bluish) and some unknown saturation. You'll need to set it to around 6500degK white (overcast sunlight), 5500degK (clear sunlight -- yellowish), or even 3200-3400degK (incandescent lighting -- reddish) depending on needs [I run 6500]. AND THEN adjust contrast/brightness of the monitor and the RGB Gamma.

Essentially, where the first concern was supplying external lighting on the subject, the second is setting up the computer for photo processing. Also note that you've adjusted YOUR computer -- you have no control over what the viewer's computer is configured, so "true color" on their units is a meaningless term.

Last -- you mention zooming in to see the seams. Do you really expect to post 8-15MP images on your web site? Customers aren't going to hang around waiting for for images that are OVER NINE times the size of their monitor? I'm using an out-of-date 4:3 (NTSC aspect) ultrasharp monitor that shows 1600x1200 pixels; the T2i takes images 5184x3456 (1600x1200 * 3 => 4800x3600 [9 times the monitor size in area]).

Web sites typically max images out at 800x600, and 640x480 is more common.

Posted on Aug 24, 2011 3:08:39 AM PDT
Henry Qiu says:
"The 5d, because of the sensor and design, has a depth of field TWO AND A HALF TIMES SHALLOWER than the 7d, 60d, T3i or T2i. If you're shooting video, the 5d produces truly cinematic images the lesser cameras can't capture, though many video shooters use any of them for a backup. "

This is an example of how totally wrong and misleading information gets distributed over the Internet.

"can someone tell me what setting are best:I want the pictures to be very very clear with every little detail even when i will zoom the picture on the computer I should be able to see the seems of the garment clearly. also I want it to be true color. "

The short reply is: such settings do not exist.

Just to use the notion of "true color" as an example: what is the true color of my white shirt? Do you think white is its true color? Well, under different lighting, my shirt may nor may not look white to your eyes. Think about red, blue, purple, yellow... lights. If you take a photo of my white shirt, do you think on the photo my white shirt should look white? Not necessarily. You can look at it on a computer monitor. However, on one monitor it may appear yellowish. On another monitor, it may look blueish. On a black white monitor (like a very old TV), it may very well seem to be just a light gray shirt. So, what's the true color of my white short from the point of view of photography? It's not white. Its color really depends on how human eyes (not just your eyes, but most humans' eyes) perceive it. A 100% white shirt virtually never exists in reality.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 24, 2011 7:01:10 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 24, 2011 7:11:06 AM PDT
Neo Lee says:
Technically speaking, 5D Mark II will not get a shallower depth of field *unconditionally*. To get a shallower DoF as compared to that of crop DSLRs, one of these conditions must be met:

* Using the same lens on 5D Mark II will require you to get about 40% closer to get the similar framing of the subject. Getting closer to the subject gets shallower DoF.

Proof: http://www.flickr.com/photos/svolto/3700766791/in/photostream/

* If you prefer to stay in one place, which keeps the perspective, you need to use a lens with 1.6x the focal length, meaning if you use 50mm lens on a crop DSLR, you'll need to use a 80mm lens on 5D Mark II to get the same framing at the same distance. Longer focal length at the same f-stop = Larger absolute aperture size = Shallower DoF.

Proof: http://www.flickr.com/photos/8413680@N08/4096725884/

The rule of thumb: For either condition aforementioned, 5D Mark II gets shallower depth of field as if produced by one stop of larger aperture, meaning f/2.8 on 5D Mark II will yield DoF like that produced by f/1.8 on a crop DSLR.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 24, 2011 7:08:55 AM PDT
Neo Lee says:
@Best B clothing

If you create your own discussion, more people will answer. Your question is completely irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 24, 2011 10:50:32 AM PDT
EdM says:
Best B clothing - "can someone tell me what setting are best"

Your concerns do not relate to camera settings. Your question seems to say that you believe that if only you choose the right settings, the camera will make great shots. This is a false premise. It takes a photographer of some skill to do that.

Getting very clear photos implies using the best photographic technique for sharpness, and choosing the right lens(es). Zooming on the user's computer implies aspects of your online storefront programming. The concept of "true color" implies using a color correct work flow. This .PDF document from Adobe is a start on being color correct.

http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colormgraw.pdf

Your camera is the least important aspect of accomplishing your goals. The lens used is somewhat important, but the photographer's skill is the most important. Lighting the product is very important. So, take the next few months or a year or so of your life, and learn how to be a photographer, maybe by assisting a professional who does commercial clothing or product advertising. Here's a bit of a start:

http://www.tabletopstudio.com/documents/clothing_photography.htm

Note that this clothing photography article is all about the lighting and how to set up the shot. Nothing about the camera is mentioned at all. You may think me harsh, but the truth is important. You don't know the questions you need to ask. If you know a student photographer of some skill, you might be able to hire one and learn a bit along the way. Otherwise, resign yourself to a time of trials and learning by doing.

Posted on Aug 24, 2011 7:17:06 PM PDT
T. Campbell says:
@ Best B: By now, you might have realized that you opened a can of worms. Although it might seem as if the responses are trying to make things seem complicated, to the contrary... they're trying to make it easy, but the subject actually is a bit complicated. Don't' lose hope.... it's not THAT complicated. It's just not totally "automatic". You need to know a few things in order to accomplish what you want, but while you WILL have to learn a few things (no camera will just do what you want without you helping it and anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.)

In order to faithfully produce images in their "true color" requires a that you use a color-managed workflow from the point of taking the photo all the way through to the point where you publish it. There are rules of physics that simply do not allow a camera to just "know" the true color of a thing.

Light is really comprised of several color wavelengths. When combined they appear as "white" to us, but there is no such color as "white". The "additive" colors of light are "red", "green", and "blue" (and when combined in equal parts, you will see "white" light.) Objects which don't really emit light of their own (such as paper, fabric, etc.) appear in different colors because they "subtract" light and you see the light that reflects off (what's left of it after the subtraction.) The "subtractive" colors are "cyan", "yellow", and "magenta" (which is why printer inks come in those colors.)

The "problem" (and why a camera can not just "know" what color a thing really is) is that different light sources put out varying amounts of the color wavelengths and this creates a color cast on your subjects. The camera would need to know exactly what type of color cast the "light" source is emitting in order to correct for it.

While this might sound complicated... it turns out there's a very easy answer. Just give the camera a sample of color where the precise color value of the item is a "known" quantity. Any deviation in the color (from the known color) must be the color cast created by the light source. Once the camera knows what sort of color cast that light source is creating, it can then apply a correction to ALL objects in the photos. The result is that you get "true" colors in your images.

The "reference" color is something called a "gray card". It's a object colored in a perfect neutral gray. If the light source is also perfectly neutral than the card will appear to be perfectly gray. Any color cast on the card (if there's the slightest color tint) than that cast would have to have been caused by the light source.

My gray card is really fabric... I use one of these: Lastolite LL LR1250 12-Inch Ezybalance Card (Grey/White) and it's not particularly expensive. I would not advise finding your own piece of gray cardboard or fabric... a gray card needs to be a "perfect" gray. If you were to use a random item that happens to be "gray" you'll likely find that there's really just a slight favoring toward some color... it's not really a perfectly neutral gray.

It's probably easier to see how it works (like I said... it's technical and it does require that you know how it works... but it turns out it's easy to understand once you see it.) Here's a link showing how to use the gray card (this site is trying to sell their brand... but the technique is the same regardless of which gray card you use): http://www.lastoliteschoolofphotography.com/tag/ezybalance (just watch one of the videos displayed on that page... the first one is probably best.)

BTW, this gray card is an "18% gray card" because in addition to doing white balance, it also helps you find the correct exposure (the light meter in a camera is easily fooled because it "assumes" that the average scene will reflect 18% of the light. The problem is... white clothing reflects more than 18% and black clothing reflects less than 18%. This will cause the camera's light meter to either over-expose or under-expose the scene. By metering the camera on a reference point where the reflectance level is KNOWN to be a perfect 18%, you can be sure that you've locked in the correct exposure. Then use those same settings (as long as you're shooting in the same lighting) even when you ditch the gray card and start photographing your real subjects and you can be sure that you're exposures will be correct.

The gray card is most important for helping the camera and/or computer software get the color and exposures right. But if your monitor isn't adjusted correctly then even the monitor will create a color cast. There are devices that calibrate the monitor. I use a device that can calibrate my monitors, printers (and every ink and paper type is different so I have to calibrate each type), or projectors. Since you're not worried about printing or projecting you might not need one quite like mine. Here's the one I use: ColorMunki Photo - Monitor, Printer & Projector Profiler (there are some less expensive models that might be better for you... like I said, mine does monitors, printers, and projectors. You might just need one that only does monitors and would be less expensive.)

As for the photos being really sharp. This will depend on the lens you use, and your skill at techniques to ensure that you're not introducing some blur. A "prime" lens (a lens that does not "zoom" is called a "prime") will almost always create a sharper result than a zoom lens (unless it's a very poor lens or you happen to get a 'bad copy' ... every so often the 'new' lens turns out to have a defect which causes the images to be less-than-spectacular.)

Web-sized images are usually not very big and it'd be difficult to represent all the detail in an item at those sizes even if the lens optics were absolutely amazing. If you really want to show close-up detail then you might want to take some overall product photos as well as some photos of areas with detail (tight close-up shots that don't show the whole item... just the detail.) I've seen websites that show an overview of the item but allow you to zoom in to a fairly decent level of detail (the detail image usually isn't loaded until the shopper asks to see it.) and this is all done in the software that runs the shopping site (although someone would need to shoot the images with that high degree of detail.)

A tripod will keep the camera steady so you don't get "motion" blur (blur because the camera moved while you were taking the shot.)

You will want to experiment with lighting. Textured fabrics will show contrast in them and the detail will be easier to see with a light source off to the side (because the textures will cast tiny little shadows). If the light source is at the camera then you'll get "flat" lighting with no shadow... no shadow means any detail created by the fabric texture will be nearly invisible to the viewer (and you probably don't want that.) Bottom line is that you will want to experiment with the light positioning to find the position that best shows off the detail.

You probably do not want a wide-angle lens. A 'normal' point of view is created by any lens which has the same angle of view as the human eye. The lens on an APS-C size sensor camera should probably have a focal length of roughly 35mm or higher if you don't want to see the wide-angle distortions in your results. My favorite lens for tack-sharp images and the ability to show tight close-up detail is this one: Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM Digital SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLR Cameras but there are lots of lenses from which to choose and I don't want to imply that anything else is "wrong" or "worse". But if the lens has lousy optics then it'll produce a slightly 'soft' image no matter how hard you try to create a sharp image.

Posted on Aug 24, 2011 8:24:59 PM PDT
Just to muddy up things a bit, while a grey card will give you a correct grey they do not allow you to calibrate your camera to read different colors properly. If you want true color reproduction, you need to use one of these or something similar:
X-Rite ColorChecker Passport

I've noticed big color shifts in two of my bodies by using this, on the third one not so much, but you just don't know until you do it.

Posted on Aug 28, 2011 6:46:36 PM PDT
Henry Qiu says:
Quote: "The rule of thumb: For either condition aforementioned, 5D Mark II gets shallower depth of field as if produced by one stop of larger aperture, meaning f/2.8 on 5D Mark II will yield DoF like that produced by f/1.8 on a crop DSLR."

=> There is NO such rule of thumb! It is totally untrue!!

The so-called "either condition aforementioned" in the above "rule of thumb" refers to 1) moving your camera 40% closer to the subject, 2) extending your lens focal length by 60%. Of course, in either case, the depth of field is typically reduced. But this is a common sense that applies to ALL cameras as long as the hyperfocal distance is not reached. How can someone jump from the applicable-to-all-cameras thing to a conclusion applicable to only a larger-sensor camera in comparison to a smaller-sensor camera?!

Logically, only one counter example is needed to refute a general truth statement. Here's one such counterexample:

You shoot a subject 10 feet away with Canon 5D mark II + 50mm/f1.2 at f1.2
=> depth of field = 0.86 feet

You now shoot the same subject 10 feet away with Canon 7D camera + 50mm/f1.2 lens at f1.2
=> depth of field = 0.54 feet

By switching from a larger-sensor camera 5D to a smaller-sensor camera 7D, you have effectively reduced the depth of field from 0.86 feet to 0.54 feet.

Another example:

You shoot a subject 10 feet away with Canon 5D mark II + 50mm/f1.2 at f2.8
=> depth of field = 2.06 feet

You now shoot the same subject 10 feet away with Canon 7D camera + 50mm/f1.2 lens at f2.8
=> depth of field = 1.29 feet

By switching from 5D to a smaller-sensor camera 7D, you have effectively reduced the depth of field from 2.06 feet to 1.29 feet.

Either one of the above counter examples is sufficient to demonstrate that using a larger-sensor or full-frame camera does not necessarily reduce the depth of field. In order to achieve shallower depth of field, you have to follow the general rules applicable to ALL cameras in the world: get closer to your subject, switch to a longer focal length, use a wide open aperture, etc. None of those general rules is particularly associated with the size of the sensor. In fact, switching from a smaller-sensor camera to a larger-sensor camera, you may very well actually greatly increase the depth of field. That means: the opposite of the above so-called "rule of thumb" is the truth in reality.

FYI: If you use f1.8 in the above examples: with 7D, the depth of field = 0.81 feet, about 40% of the depth of field with f/2.8 on 5D Mark II. Now, do you still believe the 2nd half of the so-called "rule of thumb" that "f/2.8 on 5D Mark II will yield DoF like that produced by f/1.8 on a crop DSLR"?

@To all reading this:
The Internet is filled with misleading information everywhere. Using due diligence when sifting through the plethora of the information is strongly advised.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 28, 2011 7:39:06 PM PDT
Henry Qiu says:
Quote: "Need to know the difference in image quality using L-series lenses for both camera. Please help! "

There is NO material difference in image quality using L lenses on ANY cameras that are fully compatible with those lenses.

Lenses are independent of SLR cameras. All cameras (bodies only) are merely tools for capturing/recording images through the lenses.

Good lenses are always good. Crappy lenses are always crappy. Cameras come and go, as technology evolves fast. Lenses evolve slowly. Good lenses remain good even 10 or 20 years later (whether or not later generations of cameras will still support those lenses is a completely different issue). And crappy lenses are crappy forever.

Mount the same lens on T2i and on 5D2, and you'll see obvious differences. That's because T2i and 5D2 are two different image capturing tools. And thanks to the price of 5D2, the two tools have to be different enough to justify their steep price difference. However, the lens mounted, the quality of it, and the optical attributes of it, are always the same, independent of the camera body it's attached to. An L lens is always an L-quality lens.

If you do see a difference in image quality with the same L lens on different camera bodies, that cannot be because of the lens. That can only be because of the camera bodies being different. So, your question (request) can effectively be changed to knowing the difference(s) between 2 camera models as different image capturing tools. Of course, not all tools are made equal. There are many differences, and the differences must be sufficient to justify their price difference. But keep in mind: all those differences between cameras have nothing to do with the quality of lenses.

Regarding T2i and 5D2, both are good cameras that can capture beautiful images through quality lenses. All professionals and amateurs can use them for professional work and family photography. However, if you don't make money with your photos or SLR video footage, you may find it hard to justify the price of 5D2. That's about the only real difference between them. If their retail prices are the same, who would still buy T2i?

Always invest more on quality lenses. Your 5D2 or T2i will become obsolete in no more than another couple of years from now. But a L lens will continue to serve you just like a brand new one many years down the road, provided you take good care of it.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 28, 2011 8:33:25 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 28, 2011 9:25:08 PM PDT
Neo Lee says:
@Henry Qui

Geez... You need to read my previous post again and correct your numbers from there. Obviously you didn't read the part I said "get the similar framing of the subject".

1. Same focal length on 5D and 7D, varying distance to get the similar framing of the subject.

DoF of 5D with 50mm f/1.2 at 6 feet from the subject: 1.106 feet
DoF of 7D with 50mm f/1.2 at 10 feet from the subject: 1.928 feet
Photographic proof: http://www.flickr.com/photos/svolto/3700766791/in/photostream/

2. Varying focal length on 5D and 7D, same distance to get the similar framing of the subject.

DoF of 5D with 80mm f/1.2 at 10 feet from the subject: 1.195 feet
DoF of 7D with 50mm f/1.2 at 10 feet from the subject: 1.928 feet
Photographic proof: http://www.flickr.com/photos/8413680@N08/4096725884/

It's beyond proof that DoF from 5D in both scenarios is shallower.

DoF calculators used:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

"@To all reading this: The Internet is filled with misleading information everywhere. Using due diligence when sifting through the plethora of the information is strongly advised."

Internet Rule #1: RTFM before talking trash.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Photography forum
Participants:  19
Total posts:  59
Initial post:  Jun 29, 2011
Latest post:  Oct 26, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions