whipspeed 16 4.2k 22 United Kingdom
3 Jan 2010 11:19AM
Ok, I'm in the happy position at the moment, when I can consider adding another body to my kit. I have the 1D MkIII which is spot on for the main work I do, cycle sport & still have my old faithful 20D as a backup. Now I have previously completed work for a local jeweller (fairly high end) who is more than happy with what I produce (although I know I can improve) and who wants me to do all the photography for his new website and keep updating it on a permenant basis, I've also done a bit more portrait work this year and produced a calendar for charity and have been booked for at least one more next year, possibly 2. Now for the jewellery in particular, would I see a big difference in the quality of studio macro shots?
Hubby says buy it, but I just need to be sure. I'm a bit of a worry weed when it comes to spending Smile
cambirder 16 7.2k England
3 Jan 2010 12:35PM
Before I would make a decision on the camera I would be looking at my lenses and lighting set up for studio macro work. I would have thought the 1D Mk 3 capable of delivering excellent results under such controlled conditions, so I don't see changing the camera will have a huge difference on the results unless you are producing very large images.

If you do need the extra resolution you can achieve that without going full frame , so going for a 7D and spending the savings on a new lens / lighting set up might be a better option.

Edit - Forget the lens bit I see you already have the Canon 100nn f2.8.
MadTrace 16 268 United Kingdom
3 Jan 2010 1:11PM
Agree with Cambirder Sara, you should look at set up etc as not sure getting the 5D MKII will make a massive improvement, if it is about the full frame then go halfway at a 5D you can pick them up as new for about 700. Or check out the 7D??? But in my opinion I think you have the body you need. What about the Canon mp-E lens for the macro work instead?
newfocus 14 647 2 United Kingdom
3 Jan 2010 1:37PM
Depending on how small scale you're going on the jewellery, full frame isn't necessarily an advantage (e.g. at 1:1 magnification, a 35mm object fills a full frame sensor, whereas a smaller 22mm object fills a 1.6x crop sensor). High pixel density can be a help though and you might see some benefit from higher megapixel cameras in that respect.

I'd be inclined to agree with the above though - good quality lenses, lighting and props are going to make a more noticeable difference if you don't already have everything you need in that respect, particularly at typical web and A4 printed brochure sizes.
whipspeed 16 4.2k 22 United Kingdom
3 Jan 2010 1:55PM
Well, I've got a light tent & some lights (daylight and flash guns with remotes also access to studio lights should I need them), so you could be saving me some money here. I'm not having to produce huge images, just for web use and maybe some A4 prints for the shop/catalogue.
I'm doing some shots of my own stuff this afternoon, so will post the results later.
Dave_Canon Plus
14 1.8k United Kingdom
3 Jan 2010 2:55PM
I have a 5D MK II and I can certainly see a significant difference from my 20D but that is for A3 prints. The 5D2 is very good for landscapes, portraits, architecture and general photography. It is particularly good for low light photography (available light or night). However, it is not the ideal camera for sport or wildlife. If you are using controlled lighting and web output then I doubt that you will see any difference from your other cameras for the jewelry. However, it could be good for you portrait work. As others have said, I would be inclined to ensure that ther is no other equipment or lens that is more pressing than a new camera.

whipspeed 16 4.2k 22 United Kingdom
3 Jan 2010 7:02PM
Lenses are ok at the moment, I've gradually been collecting & upgrading to L lenses. I've not got room for dedicated studio equipment either, so it was sort of the next step to get a new body. But the 20D still works as an emergency back up.
Now the other thing I wanted to do for myself this year was a project to shoot Northamptonshire churches, both inside and out and at day and night, so the ISO capabilities for that would be good, but do I spend the money just for that ...... I'm very easily swayed not to spend money Smile
I do admit, I can be very indecicive.
Dave_Canon Plus
14 1.8k United Kingdom
4 Jan 2010 9:32AM
For the churches both inside and out, the 5D2 would be very good. I have taken a few church shots since getting my 5D2 and have much better results than for the 20D. For inside, I always take multiple exposures, normally use a tripod and nearly always use HDRtechniques. You can sometimes get away with 3 exposures but usually need 5 as the inside of a church can be up to 20 stops dynamic range. I also shoot in Raw.

A short while back a group of us at the Club visited several Cotswold Norman churches on Sunday mornings. Nowadays there is usually 1 vicar for about 3 churches so they move the service each Sunday. We found that by contacting the Vicar or Warden in advance, they were happy for us to take photographs in the church for a couple of hours (obviously one that is not holding a service). We always made a donation and were careful not to disturb anyone entering the the church to pray. We also supplied the church with a few nice pictures. They were usually fascinated with HDR images which can really show off the inside.

whipspeed 16 4.2k 22 United Kingdom
4 Jan 2010 10:54AM
Thanks Dave. I've got photomatix now, so am looking forward to trying that.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.