[crossover37]

Give your gear to your brother in law for a week or two and see what he comes up with. Maybe borrow his gear at the same time to see what you can come up with.

No offence, but the problem might be behind the viewfinder... and different gear won't change that.

No offense either but I am not that bad of a photographer

http://www.flickr.com/photos/48244452@N06/5779984930/in/photostream

My brother in law just started, he's good but what I'm trying to convey is there is a film movie look to his images, just like there is with 24 frame per second video...it looks a certain way. His lens isn't the best ($125), the 43mm f1.9 has a similar look I guess but that would be too bad to have to spend $600 on a lens to get the same look as a $125 Canon lens on a full frame.

Maybe it's the field of view when shooting at a large aperture...

[TaoMaas]

Something that nobody has mentioned is that you seem to be comparing results from a prime lens to those produced by your zooms. That might be part of what you're seeing.

[RonHendriks1966]

Is it foolish to go back in time? No not at all. I used last years summer a Samsung GX-1L and that was a fine camera, that worked well with my DA40 or DA21. Gave me different feeling and that is what you cherrish.

Is it smart to throw out your K-5? I don't think so. What do those two things cost?

[dgaies]

Try it first. Personally I hate the feel of Canon bodies. But the IQ would be significantly better in general with 5D, of course.

Depends what iso you're shooting at. At 1600+ (which I personally use a lot), the K-5 easily outperforms the 5DMkI.

[benhai]

No offense either but I am not that bad of a photographer

Project 52: Week 11 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

My brother in law just started, he's good but what I'm trying to convey is there is a film movie look to his images, just like there is with 24 frame per second video...it looks a certain way. His lens isn't the best ($125), the 43mm f1.9 has a similar look I guess but that would be too bad to have to spend $600 on a lens to get the same look as a $125 Canon lens on a full frame.

Maybe it's the field of view when shooting at a large aperture...

I think it is a good idea to try Canon 5D2 if you have the budget and desire. I prefer Nikon but due to budget short I still use pentax. The taste of pictures from different cameras are different. I mostly take snap shots. To me I don't need to worry too much about PP with my Nikon. General I only need to do batch PP and they are normally satisfying to my eyes. With Pentax I have to tune many things and still may not able to make my eyes happy. Now I'd try raw and hope things can easier to make my eyes happy.

One thing I don't like 5D2 and Nikon D700 is they are too big and heavy for me.

[jonny1986]

i suggest you post some photo s u are talking about and we see.

maybe is just a pp that con vey that effect, or more easly more shallow depth of field. personally i'm a bit full of those flickr photos full of shallow depth of field. really full. but with an apsc lens you can reach a lot of depth of field, actually the difference would be minimal or less than you expect.
try the 55 1,4 for example.
betwen this and the 50,18 there is half stop of difference.

[Ryan Trevisol]

It's hard to tell what about the 5D is producing the effect you want if you can't quantify it more.

You mentioned that you liked his results "right out of the camera". Is he shooting RAW or JPEG? Because I came from Canon, though not a 5D of either generation, and I have to say the JPEG processing on Canon cameras is very different. The colors are rendered differently, and it is quite a bit more forgiving. In fact, prolonged Canon JPEG use can lead to very sloppy photography.

I shoot raw now, and I think I take better pictures with my Pentax, but I'm not a big fan of the JPEG processing in-camera.

Again, I have no firsthand knowledge of the 5D but I would imagine some of the image processing presets in the camera have something to do with how his pictures have whatever intangible quality that your're looking for.

[asdf]

I would sell the K5 and lenses and would get a 5D (not Mark II) a Canon 50mm f1.4, a Tamron 17-50mm, and maybe a Tamron 70-200mm.
.

Are you sure you know what you're doing?

[crossover37]

He shoots RAW and I was using a prime the same day when we were taking pictures at this park. I was using the 50mm f1.4.

I don't mind the heavier cameras, I like the weight and size since I have big hands.

Asdf - oh, that lens doesn't work on a full frame, my bad. Scratch that then.

Check out these shots with the 5D, they all are not the best but they look interesting because of that look I can't pin point.

Flickr: Discussing 5D Gallery: Portraits in Canon EOS 5D Series

[asdf]

He shoots RAW and I was using a prime the same day when we were taking pictures at this park. I was using the 50mm f1.4.

I don't mind the heavier cameras, I like the weight and size since I have big hands.

Asdf - oh, that lens doesn't work on a full frame, my bad. Scratch that then.

Check out these shots with the 5D, they all are not the best but they look interesting because of that look I can't pin point.

Flickr: Discussing 5D Gallery: Portraits in Canon EOS 5D Series

Get yourself a 5D and an 85mm lens. Post some comparison shots after you're done.

[WerTicus]

I saw an image he took straight out of camera on his camera screen.

Yeah, so? Knock up your contrast and saturation and voila, you too have 'the look' right on your camera screen!

I have shot extensively with 5d and 5d mk2 side by side with the k-5 and the k-5 destroys both of them.

You wont get better results out of the 5d because, as harsh as it sounds, the problem is your (lack of) skill. Maybe try tweaking your default settings to get the images more to your liking to start with.

The K-5 has the most film like 'response' of any of these cameras, the 5d mk2 has some terrible banding in its noise where as the k-5 has none.

If the issue is depth of field then buy a 85mm f1.4 and I think you'll find the problem solved. If you must go full frame then at least buy a good camera, like a Nikon d700... the 5d mk2 leaves a lot to be desired.

[crossover37]

Ok enough about the skill...obviously people aren't understanding that when he takes a picture, it be of his nose hairs, it has a different look than an aps-c image. I seem to notice this with cameras that are full frame. I can't be the only one noticing this. I will bring my k5 to his house tonight with my 50mm f1.4 and I'll compare images taken with his camera with his 50mm f1.8 with the same settings. I hope there won't be a big difference between the images, I'm really hoping to be wrong about my assumptions.

[Ryan Trevisol]

Okay, here's a question, do cameras in general apply JPEG processing to RAW Files for display on screen? Because White Balance settings have an effect on shots when I'm reviewing them on my screen but when I load them up into aperture, you can lift off all adjustments, and they look different than what I remember on the screen. Could be what you're seeing here.

What kind of Post Processing are you each using?

The thing that strikes me about the pictures in the link you posted is good low-light performance. In particular these two pictures:
Protester | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
SB | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
They have high contrast while retaining detail in shadow. That to me was impressive, but nothing I saw on that page looked different from any other dslr shot I've seen. Additionally, most of the images aren't posted in full resolution, so you can't really examine them in detail.

Another thing that might've been overlooked here, is that you're shooting APS-C with zooms and a 50mm prime, and he's shooting FF with a 50mm prime. To even up the playing field photographically you need a 35mm prime. And seeing as how you just posted what you did above, make sure to crop his images for equivalency.

In terms of detail, if you crop his images down to APS-C equivalent field of view, you'll wind up with an image of similar megapixel-age. I really think the field of view might be a bigger deal than you realize.

[crossover37]

Okay, here's a question, do cameras in general apply JPEG processing to RAW Files for display on screen? Because White Balance settings have an effect on shots when I'm reviewing them on my screen but when I load them up into aperture, you can lift off all adjustments, and they look different than what I remember on the screen. Could be what you're seeing here.

What kind of Post Processing are you each using?

The thing that strikes me about the pictures in the link you posted is good low-light performance. In particular these two pictures:
Protester | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
SB | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
They have high contrast while retaining detail in shadow. That to me was impressive, but nothing I saw on that page looked different from any other dslr shot I've seen. Additionally, most of the images aren't posted in full resolution, so you can't really examine them in detail.

Another thing that might've been overlooked here, is that you're shooting APS-C with zooms and a 50mm prime, and he's shooting FF with a 50mm prime. To even up the playing field photographically you need a 35mm prime. And seeing as how you just posted what you did above, make sure to crop his images for equivalency.

In terms of detail, if you crop his images down to APS-C equivalent field of view, you'll wind up with an image of similar megapixel-age. I really think the field of view might be a bigger deal than you realize.

Maybe you're right. Maybe it is the field of view. The thing that sucks is that in order to get an equivalent field of view of his 50mm i would have to get a 31mm f1.8 which is $1,000. I could get a 35mm f2.4 but the aperture isn't as large so my dof wouldn't be the same to the 5D.

[RyanW]

On IQ alone, yes. Considering the MANY other factors, body ergonomics, weather seals, weight size, crop factor, file maleability, etc; maybe or maybe not.