F5 vs 1v

I need a high end SLR. So it looks like the 1V, or the F5. I don't
have a big investment in Canon glass, just one 85mm f/1.8 lens so I'm not
glued to the Canon side.


I've been shooting weddings, mostly with the Olympus E1, and what I've
come to realize that, for the reception, AF speed and low light AF
capability is king, and AF on the Olympus DSLR is not fast enough, nor is
AF on my Elan 2e fast enough for that matter (not bad, but I need lighting
quick).

I'm ruling out Nikon or Canon DSLRs, since there is just too much back
focusing issues being complained about, which includes D70 users, 10D
users, as well as Mk11 users. Sure, a majority of these owners do not
have a problem, but NO ONE should have a problem, save for the rare lemon
that any manufacturer can make, occasionally.

I only trust Olympus on DSLR (not fast, but flawless) focusing insofar
as no one is posting backfocusing issues. Though the D100 users aren't
complaining about backfocusing, it is too old, and not enough buffer, and I
don't like the colors it puts out. D2h, yes on that one, but it is too
pricy. But I'm planning on relegating the E1 to portraiture, wedding
formals, etc., for which it is outstanding -- sharp and beautiful images,
color and WB is the best I've tried, anyway, that plus the fact that there
is minimal cropping on 5x7 and 8x10, and none on 8x6 with the 4/3 system.

I tried an F100, and man, Nikon is fast. But I can afford and F5 or 1v,
and two pro lenses, and maybe a fast 50mm lens, so I might as well go for
the best (of Canon or Nikon). Another thing is metering, low light, etc.
I haven't tried the 1V, yet, so I'm wonderingt if 1V metering and AF speed
is as good as, or better than the F5.


So on the issues of low light capability, flash metering, AF speed and
accuracy, how to the F5 and the 1V compare?

I know about Canon glass, and if I go with the 1v, I know which lenses I
want. I know very little about Nikon glass. What are the best pro grade
Nikon zooms lens convering from 24 or 28mm to 100mm (or thereabouts, maybe
a little longer would be nice)? VR? How do they stack up? Oh, and
which is the top flash unit for the Nikon?


Other issues, annnoyances?



Patrick

"Patrick L." wrote in message
...
I need a high end SLR. So it looks like the 1V, or the F5. I don't
have a big investment in Canon glass, just one 85mm f/1.8 lens so I'm not
glued to the Canon side.


I've been shooting weddings, mostly with the Olympus E1, and what I've
come to realize that, for the reception, AF speed and low light AF
capability is king, and AF on the Olympus DSLR is not fast enough, nor
is
AF on my Elan 2e fast enough for that matter (not bad, but I need lighting
quick).

I'm ruling out Nikon or Canon DSLRs, since there is just too much back
focusing issues being complained about, which includes D70 users, 10D
users, as well as Mk11 users. Sure, a majority of these owners do not
have a problem, but NO ONE should have a problem, save for the rare lemon
that any manufacturer can make, occasionally.

I only trust Olympus on DSLR (not fast, but flawless) focusing insofar
as no one is posting backfocusing issues. Though the D100 users aren't
complaining about backfocusing, it is too old, and not enough buffer, and
I
don't like the colors it puts out. D2h, yes on that one, but it is too
pricy. But I'm planning on relegating the E1 to portraiture, wedding
formals, etc., for which it is outstanding -- sharp and beautiful images,
color and WB is the best I've tried, anyway, that plus the fact that there
is minimal cropping on 5x7 and 8x10, and none on 8x6 with the 4/3 system.

I tried an F100, and man, Nikon is fast. But I can afford and F5 or 1v,
and two pro lenses, and maybe a fast 50mm lens, so I might as well go
for
the best (of Canon or Nikon). Another thing is metering, low light,
etc.
I haven't tried the 1V, yet, so I'm wonderingt if 1V metering and AF
speed
is as good as, or better than the F5.


So on the issues of low light capability, flash metering, AF speed and
accuracy, how to the F5 and the 1V compare?

I know about Canon glass, and if I go with the 1v, I know which lenses I
want. I know very little about Nikon glass. What are the best pro
grade
Nikon zooms lens convering from 24 or 28mm to 100mm (or thereabouts,
maybe
a little longer would be nice)? VR? How do they stack up? Oh,
and
which is the top flash unit for the Nikon?


Other issues, annnoyances?



I shoot weddings and it's nothing but manual focus for me--don't trust AF to
hit it right on when I need it to...
I use an F100 with an 8008s backup. My main lenses are 35.70 f 2.8 D and
80-200 f2.8 D.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"Patrick L." wrote in message
...
I need a high end SLR. So it looks like the 1V, or the F5. I don't
have a big investment in Canon glass, just one 85mm f/1.8 lens so I'm not
glued to the Canon side.


I've been shooting weddings, mostly with the Olympus E1, and what I've
come to realize that, for the reception, AF speed and low light AF
capability is king, and AF on the Olympus DSLR is not fast enough, nor
is
AF on my Elan 2e fast enough for that matter (not bad, but I need lighting
quick).

I'm ruling out Nikon or Canon DSLRs, since there is just too much back
focusing issues being complained about, which includes D70 users, 10D
users, as well as Mk11 users. Sure, a majority of these owners do not
have a problem, but NO ONE should have a problem, save for the rare lemon
that any manufacturer can make, occasionally.

I only trust Olympus on DSLR (not fast, but flawless) focusing insofar
as no one is posting backfocusing issues. Though the D100 users aren't
complaining about backfocusing, it is too old, and not enough buffer, and
I
don't like the colors it puts out. D2h, yes on that one, but it is too
pricy. But I'm planning on relegating the E1 to portraiture, wedding
formals, etc., for which it is outstanding -- sharp and beautiful images,
color and WB is the best I've tried, anyway, that plus the fact that there
is minimal cropping on 5x7 and 8x10, and none on 8x6 with the 4/3 system.

I tried an F100, and man, Nikon is fast. But I can afford and F5 or 1v,
and two pro lenses, and maybe a fast 50mm lens, so I might as well go
for
the best (of Canon or Nikon). Another thing is metering, low light,
etc.
I haven't tried the 1V, yet, so I'm wonderingt if 1V metering and AF
speed
is as good as, or better than the F5.


So on the issues of low light capability, flash metering, AF speed and
accuracy, how to the F5 and the 1V compare?

I know about Canon glass, and if I go with the 1v, I know which lenses I
want. I know very little about Nikon glass. What are the best pro
grade
Nikon zooms lens convering from 24 or 28mm to 100mm (or thereabouts,
maybe
a little longer would be nice)? VR? How do they stack up? Oh,
and
which is the top flash unit for the Nikon?


Other issues, annnoyances?



I shoot weddings and it's nothing but manual focus for me--don't trust AF to
hit it right on when I need it to...
I use an F100 with an 8008s backup. My main lenses are 35.70 f 2.8 D and
80-200 f2.8 D.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"Patrick L." writes:

I need a high end SLR. So it looks like the 1V, or the F5. I don't
have a big investment in Canon glass, just one 85mm f/1.8 lens so
I'm not glued to the Canon side.

I've been shooting weddings, mostly with the Olympus E1, and what
I've come to realize that, for the reception, AF speed and low light
AF capability is king, and AF on the Olympus DSLR is not fast
enough, nor is AF on my Elan 2e fast enough for that matter (not
bad, but I need lighting quick).

The way to go is prefocus, and use your feet

I'm ruling out Nikon or Canon DSLRs, since there is just too much
back focusing issues being complained about, which includes D70
users, 10D users, as well as Mk11 users. Sure, a majority of these
owners do not have a problem, but NO ONE should have a problem, save
for the rare lemon that any manufacturer can make, occasionally.

I've used Canon EOS for 15 years, and *MY* pick would be a 1Ds with a
1v or RS as a back up, with a big Metz flash. A 1D or MkII would be
fine from an AF point of view, but bottom line is that you CAN'T rely
on it due to the available darkness of some churches and halls. That
also rules out the 50 f1.8 II, you need the original version or a f1.4
so you have the scale to focus with.

The cost of volume work with a film body are VERY grim compared to
digital now. And time.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

"Patrick L." writes:

I need a high end SLR. So it looks like the 1V, or the F5. I don't
have a big investment in Canon glass, just one 85mm f/1.8 lens so
I'm not glued to the Canon side.

I've been shooting weddings, mostly with the Olympus E1, and what
I've come to realize that, for the reception, AF speed and low light
AF capability is king, and AF on the Olympus DSLR is not fast
enough, nor is AF on my Elan 2e fast enough for that matter (not
bad, but I need lighting quick).

The way to go is prefocus, and use your feet

I'm ruling out Nikon or Canon DSLRs, since there is just too much
back focusing issues being complained about, which includes D70
users, 10D users, as well as Mk11 users. Sure, a majority of these
owners do not have a problem, but NO ONE should have a problem, save
for the rare lemon that any manufacturer can make, occasionally.

I've used Canon EOS for 15 years, and *MY* pick would be a 1Ds with a
1v or RS as a back up, with a big Metz flash. A 1D or MkII would be
fine from an AF point of view, but bottom line is that you CAN'T rely
on it due to the available darkness of some churches and halls. That
also rules out the 50 f1.8 II, you need the original version or a f1.4
so you have the scale to focus with.

The cost of volume work with a film body are VERY grim compared to
digital now. And time.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

"Paul Repacholi" wrote in message
...
"Patrick L." writes:

I need a high end SLR. So it looks like the 1V, or the F5. I don't
have a big investment in Canon glass, just one 85mm f/1.8 lens so
I'm not glued to the Canon side.

I've been shooting weddings, mostly with the Olympus E1, and what
I've come to realize that, for the reception, AF speed and low light
AF capability is king, and AF on the Olympus DSLR is not fast
enough, nor is AF on my Elan 2e fast enough for that matter (not
bad, but I need lighting quick).

The way to go is prefocus, and use your feet

I'm ruling out Nikon or Canon DSLRs, since there is just too much
back focusing issues being complained about, which includes D70
users, 10D users, as well as Mk11 users. Sure, a majority of these
owners do not have a problem, but NO ONE should have a problem, save
for the rare lemon that any manufacturer can make, occasionally.

I've used Canon EOS for 15 years, and *MY* pick would be a 1Ds with a
1v or RS as a back up, with a big Metz flash. A 1D or MkII would be
fine from an AF point of view, but bottom line is that you CAN'T rely
on it due to the available darkness of some churches and halls. That
also rules out the 50 f1.8 II, you need the original version or a f1.4
so you have the scale to focus with.

The cost of volume work with a film body are VERY grim compared to
digital now. And time.

I think that if you like AF, and the new lenses that incorporate it, you
should go Canon. But if you can put up with non-AF glass, and you want a
camera that can take virtually all the glass made during the last 40 years
or so, you should buy an F5.

"Paul Repacholi" wrote in message
...
"Patrick L." writes:

I need a high end SLR. So it looks like the 1V, or the F5. I don't
have a big investment in Canon glass, just one 85mm f/1.8 lens so
I'm not glued to the Canon side.

I've been shooting weddings, mostly with the Olympus E1, and what
I've come to realize that, for the reception, AF speed and low light
AF capability is king, and AF on the Olympus DSLR is not fast
enough, nor is AF on my Elan 2e fast enough for that matter (not
bad, but I need lighting quick).

The way to go is prefocus, and use your feet

I'm ruling out Nikon or Canon DSLRs, since there is just too much
back focusing issues being complained about, which includes D70
users, 10D users, as well as Mk11 users. Sure, a majority of these
owners do not have a problem, but NO ONE should have a problem, save
for the rare lemon that any manufacturer can make, occasionally.

I've used Canon EOS for 15 years, and *MY* pick would be a 1Ds with a
1v or RS as a back up, with a big Metz flash. A 1D or MkII would be
fine from an AF point of view, but bottom line is that you CAN'T rely
on it due to the available darkness of some churches and halls. That
also rules out the 50 f1.8 II, you need the original version or a f1.4
so you have the scale to focus with.

The cost of volume work with a film body are VERY grim compared to
digital now. And time.

I think that if you like AF, and the new lenses that incorporate it, you
should go Canon. But if you can put up with non-AF glass, and you want a
camera that can take virtually all the glass made during the last 40 years
or so, you should buy an F5.

I have a D70. I have tested it for backfocus and it has no problems. And
I'm nearly ready to sell my F5, but I'm being sentimental and keeping it a
while longer.

Here's why I would part with the F5 and keep the D70.

1. Cost of film/processing. I recently hiked Mt. Rainier and the Olympic
Peninsula and took 900 images in the process. Of these, there are a dozen I
chose to send to others via email, two I printed at 36" wide, and a big
handful I am putting into a memory book. Not one of them cost me a penny
until I had the exact image I wanted. Do the math on 25 rolls of film and
processing - even slide processing, and you'll see the economic comparison
to be fairly stark.

2. The printed pictures, even when shot in JPG (not Raw) are nearly
indistinguishable from the best prints I've made with professional 35mm film
and processing. Quite simply, 6 MP is enough to do the job as well as 35mm
film.

3. Weight and battery consumption favor the digital camera.

4. Instant gratification (or instant re-shoot). With almost any inexpensive
printer, you can have that magical shot of the married couple's first kiss
at their table before they enter the reception.

5. No More Polaroids.

6. Easily backup or duplicate your "negatives" on CDs

I am not selling my medium-format equipment. I use my D70 for proofing
before I make MF portraits. I think 35mm film is right where the vinyl
record was in 1981 - the CD was such a popular and convenient format for
music that the 33RPM record suddenly became a thing of the past.

That's just my $0.02.

~Ray Paseur
www.non-aol.com/D70/

"Patrick L." wrote in message
...
I need a high end SLR. So it looks like the 1V, or the F5. snip

I have a D70. I have tested it for backfocus and it has no problems. And
I'm nearly ready to sell my F5, but I'm being sentimental and keeping it a
while longer.

Here's why I would part with the F5 and keep the D70.

1. Cost of film/processing. I recently hiked Mt. Rainier and the Olympic
Peninsula and took 900 images in the process. Of these, there are a dozen I
chose to send to others via email, two I printed at 36" wide, and a big
handful I am putting into a memory book. Not one of them cost me a penny
until I had the exact image I wanted. Do the math on 25 rolls of film and
processing - even slide processing, and you'll see the economic comparison
to be fairly stark.

2. The printed pictures, even when shot in JPG (not Raw) are nearly
indistinguishable from the best prints I've made with professional 35mm film
and processing. Quite simply, 6 MP is enough to do the job as well as 35mm
film.

3. Weight and battery consumption favor the digital camera.

4. Instant gratification (or instant re-shoot). With almost any inexpensive
printer, you can have that magical shot of the married couple's first kiss
at their table before they enter the reception.

5. No More Polaroids.

6. Easily backup or duplicate your "negatives" on CDs

I am not selling my medium-format equipment. I use my D70 for proofing
before I make MF portraits. I think 35mm film is right where the vinyl
record was in 1981 - the CD was such a popular and convenient format for
music that the 33RPM record suddenly became a thing of the past.

That's just my $0.02.

~Ray Paseur
www.non-aol.com/D70/

"Patrick L." wrote in message
...
I need a high end SLR. So it looks like the 1V, or the F5. snip

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 19:53:28 -0400, Ray Paseur wrote:

I have a D70. I have tested it for backfocus and it has no problems. And
I'm nearly ready to sell my F5, but I'm being sentimental and keeping it a
while longer.

I'll give ya $100 for it. Deal?

Here's why I would part with the F5 and keep the D70.

1. Cost of film/processing. I recently hiked Mt. Rainier and the Olympic
Peninsula and took 900 images in the process. Of these, there are a dozen
I chose to send to others via email, two I printed at 36" wide, and a big
handful I am putting into a memory book. Not one of them cost me a penny
until I had the exact image I wanted. Do the math on 25 rolls of film and
processing - even slide processing, and you'll see the economic comparison
to be fairly stark.

This is where I have found having a digital SLR with all its advantages to
actually work against good photographic habits. Had you gone up with your
F5 you would have maybe taken maybe 10 x 36exp rolls of film. I will
almost guarantee you that you would have had a lot more keepers if you had
shot on film. Time, patience and preparation are the hallmarks of good
image making and the rewards of that are mostly evident in good pictures.

You would also have had a lot less work to do when you got home.

2. The printed pictures, even when shot in JPG (not Raw) are nearly
indistinguishable from the best prints I've made with professional 35mm
film and processing. Quite simply, 6 MP is enough to do the job as well
as 35mm film.

There is no argument from me on that count. It's good for small prints (A3
maximum size)

3. Weight and battery consumption favor the digital camera.

Weight yes. Batteries no ways. I can get maybe 250 hi-res jpegs from the
two lithium ion cells in my D60 before it squeals for the mains.

4. Instant gratification (or instant re-shoot). With almost any
inexpensive printer, you can have that magical shot of the married
couple's first kiss at their table before they enter the reception.

Word of advice: never ever rely on the LCD playback screens of a DSLR to
see if you got a good shot or not.

5. No More Polaroids.

Who?

6. Easily backup or duplicate your "negatives" on CDs

Yes & no. Yes because it's easy to make back-ups of images, but it
certainly doesn't come without a bit of toil.

I am not selling my medium-format equipment. I use my D70 for proofing
before I make MF portraits. I think 35mm film is right where the vinyl
record was in 1981 - the CD was such a popular and convenient format for
music that the 33RPM record suddenly became a thing of the past.

I disagree with this. Vinyl was always a flawed medium on which to retain
recordings. It was actually crap, to be honest. Digital photography is not
even closely approaching the quality of film, so in this situation we have
a new entrant (digital) that is hoping to replace a superior medium.

Where digital is winning friends is with its convenience and unfortunately
there are far too many consumers out there who are helping it along its
way. As a photographer who uses both film and digital, my main concern is
that 35mm film will simply become an unfeasible product for the
manufacturers to continue serving a rapidly decreasing market.

If I was a marketing exec at Fuji, Kodak, Agfa and Ilford, I would be
looking at an angle to either bring the price of 35mm down to the point
where it is so cheap as to be unignored, or campaigning the superiority of
film over the current crop of 6MP digicams.

Sadly I see no such thing happening.


--
Dallas
Group guidelines on http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
Improve signal to noise ratio by filtering all crossposts.