Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Leaked Canon 5D spec sheet..  (Read 21648 times)
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #120 on: August 14, 2005, 04:58:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Every nook and cranny of a 1Ds is lined with seals or designed to trap the elements before they get into the camera. My 1Ds has been rained on (not pouring rain yet) and absolutely nothing happened to it. I have been told of instances of 1Ds cameras being submerged in water (lens attached) for a very short time and emerging with no damage. By habit, I too over-protect mine relative to what it is designed to withstand, but it is truly a remarkable piece of equipment.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #121 on: August 14, 2005, 11:42:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
5. A 50mm may be the equiv. to 80mm on a APS-C camera but the DOF and distortion is not the same as a 80mm. Another example: I'd like to shoot a normal lens (50mm) without having the perspective/barrel distortion of a 28mm lens (not to mention the optical quality and speed differences available between the two focal lengths).

Distortion? Where did you get this idea from? Does a 50mm standard lens have significant distortion?

It's true that wide angle lenses (wider than 50mm, that is) generally suffer from more distortion, but that seems to be mostly towards the edges of the frame which are cut off by the crop format camera in any case.

One should bear in mind that however good or bad one's lenses are, they are made better on a cropped format camera because the camera is excluding the worst part (outer part) of the image circle. Canon's 35/1.4 is not quite as good as their 50/1.4 but on a crop camera it would be very close to a 50/2 on FF in all respects. If it lacked just a bit of sharpness in the centre, it would make up for it at the edges.

The bottom line as I see it, whatever lenses you have, they are all upgraded when you use a crop format camera provided the cropped sensor has sufficient pixel density and pixel quality. I'm basing this assertion on the fact that the 12MP D2X resolves at least as much as the 1Ds.

The one drawback that Canon can't do much about without replacing the entire lens range, is that 'effective' loss of 1.5 f stops for shallow DoF, so yes, if the shallowest of DoF is your aim, a full frame is the way to go, but I would think in general that that small disadvantge is far outweighed by the huge benfits at the telephoto end.

Consider what happens when you put a 400/2.8 prime on a D2X. It becomes a 600/4.5 with regard to FoV and DoF but it's still got the speed of f2.8.
The 50mm (f/1.4) doesn't have much barrel distortion but my concern is with 28mm lenses which are more likely to have distortion. To gian a normal FOV on a APS-C camera a wide must be used.

Also I'm talking about more than barrel distortion. There is also perspective distortion otherwise known as compression. A 50mm on a FF camera will turn out different perspective distortion than a 28mm or 35mm on a APS-C camera.

Quote
Consider what happens when you put a 400/2.8 prime on a D2X. It becomes a 600/4.5 with regard to FoV and DoF but it's still got the speed of f2.8.

Well that's just Jim-spiffy but not everyone uses long lenses. There are quite a few who shoot with the wides and cropped cameras are just plain lacking in that department.
Logged
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #122 on: August 15, 2005, 02:45:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I hate to bust your bubble, but parallax has nothing to do with composing images with any SLR
Bubble? Huh  I was in a hurry this morning and used the wrong term. My ego is certainly not tied to that. My statement has been corrected as needed.

Quote
What I was trying to point out, was that I hope that photographers base their composition on what they see through their viewfinder, not what a full-sized sensor could have captured.
In that regard, stating that the image is "cropped" is meaningless.
Sure, it's "cropped", but from the photographer's point of view, it's not. And that's what should count.

Fully agreed.


____--

As to the issue of perspective distortion, well that's probably also the wrong term to use. Strike two!

Whatever the heck the correct term is is besides the point. Fact is, I notice a difference in the feel of the images. Wether it's from some form of distortion, abberation or just plain part of the  character of the lenses used there is something there.

It's a (very) minor quibble and the other points I made are far more important and relavant.
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #123 on: August 15, 2005, 10:47:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
A home exercise in what happens when you change the distance to the subject, but keep the relative size of the subject the same (by changing the focal length), can be seen in many movies, since it's often used as a dramatic effect.

If it's a person, then you'll often see how the person in front suddenly seems a lot larger than the people in the back, or vice versa.
Alfred Hitchkock is credited for creating that technique in the movie Vertigo.
It's also used in one of the early scenes of Fellowship Of The Ring, just prior to the first appearance of the Black Riders, and again in the Shelob's lair sequence of Return Of THe King IIRC.
Logged

Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #124 on: August 22, 2005, 08:00:47 AM »
ReplyReply

The interface is far far better on the canon 580ex than the two Metz 54 MZ-4's that I have. The metz 'thumb' wheel is more  like a fingernail wheel and difficult to use, especially in a hurry.
The lack of auto flash is still a big no no in my book, it's far more reliable than ETTL indoors especially when I'm firing radio slaved strobes for background lighting in dark wedding halls.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8908


« Reply #125 on: August 11, 2005, 10:15:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
Ray, what the h-ell, I found that I couldn't work with the crop, I yearned to use the lenses I had for the purposes they were bought for, I could not go back to small dim viewfinders or inaccurately large AF points. My 24-70L is incredibly sharp, including the corners and certaily good enough for the 18X12" prints I make.

Nice shot of the waterfall, Pom. It's clear we're talking at cross purposes. I know you've tried the 10D and upgraded to the 1Ds, so your yardstick for a 'crop' camera is the 10D and you obviously and understandably find the 1Ds better in so many respects. I'm not arguing with that.

I'm really talking about what is possible with a crop format camera and making the point that at this stage of development the advantages of a camera such as the D2X probably outweight any disadvantages it might have as a result of not being FF. Nick has also expressed this point very well in his post.

For me, the arrival of the D2X on the scene was quite an eye opener. I'd read so often from owners of the 1Ds that this camera was capable of resolving everything that any good lens could throw at it and that there was therefore little point in going beyond 11 or 12MP. We now have a camera such as the D2x that can grab as much detail (and more) from the centre portion of a lens as the 1Ds can grab from the whole lens (read image circle or frame).

We should not forget that a full frame D2X sensor of the same pixel density would be 28MP.

Quote
Dettifoss, Iceland, only picture taken there with a 24-70L that I'm selling, the rock in the bottom left is so sharp it hurts.

It's a fact of life that most 35mm lenses fall off quite significantly in performance in that region between 15mm and 21mm from the centre, especially zooms. The 24-70 and 70-200 are no exception. There are exceptions such as the very expensive Canon 200/1.8.

The fact that your Icelandic shot is adequately sharp at the edges indicates the performance of this lens at the edges is probably as good as it needs to be in relation to the performance of the 1Ds. It does not indicate the lens itself is as sharp at the edges as it is at the centre.

It seems clear to me, despite many comments to the contrary, the 1Ds is 'outresolved' by many fine 35mm lenses in that centre portion of the image circle up to about 25 or 30mm in diameter. Were it not so, then it would not be possible for a camera such as the D2X to exceed the performance of the 1Ds and come as close as matters to that of the 1DsMkll.

If you were to reshoot that waterfall using the same lens but a futuristic 28MP FF 1Ds MKlV, you'd probably find the edges would be just as sharp as in the old 1Ds shot but the centre of the scene would be noticeably sharper.
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #126 on: August 12, 2005, 04:06:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Wysmington, you should have seen what was going on about 500 meters behind half an hour before...



The waterfall just after Dettifoss, Hafragilfoss, seen from behind (the spray is from the waterfall) and backlit by the  sunset. I tell you that place is straight out of the Lord of the Rings!
Logged

Digi-T
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


« Reply #127 on: August 13, 2005, 03:54:21 PM »
ReplyReply

What I personally find amazing is when someone pops up and criticises everyone for a particular discussion.  ::  I personally found this discussion interesting and I learned several things from it. This discussion is much more than whether or not this particular camera is going to be marketed but about what types of features people would like in their cameras. Considering how different people's wants and needs are I think this discussion has been quite civil. I can't afford any of these cameras that are being discussed but I enjoy learning about them and even doing a little speculation myself. Eventually I will get a good DSLR that I will have for a long time and I want to be as informed as I can.

On the topic of wanted camera features I wonder about the possibility of a sensor that can rotate 90 degrees so you don't have to physically rotate the camera. It may not be worth it but I thought it was interesting to consider.

T
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #128 on: August 14, 2005, 04:41:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I'll try to make a nice field test of that Kata rain cover one day.

My camera is insured ... :cool:
Logged

Jan
jcarlin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #129 on: August 15, 2005, 01:16:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Consider what happens when you put a 400/2.8 prime on a D2X. It becomes a 600/4.5 with regard to FoV and DoF but it's still got the speed of f2.8.

I think that it's worth pointing out that with a FF sensor you can achieve a cropped result, while on a cropped sensor you can't recover the lost data.  What do I mean by this?  I was recently talking to a D2X owner who was touting the benefits of the cropped frame button on the front of his camera, claiming that it effectively doubled the focal length of a lens.  I pointed out to him that all he was doing was throwing away half of the pixels that his camera was generating, and that unless he was in need of extremely high frame rates or low on memory he would be equally well served by cropping the resulting picture in software later.

What I'm trying to get at, in a round about way, is the in field costs of shooting with a physically larger system.  Well there are some mechanical issues that are present regardless of capture medium, for example on SLRs you have mirror size translating into lower frame rates.  For film it was the size, weight, and inconvenience (fewer frames per roll as you got larger).  For digital you have nothing (other than the mechanical issues).   For the nit-picky physically larger generally means more pixels, for which one has storage time and space requirements.
 
Assuming similar pixel densities, say 8MP cropped vs 16MP FF, there would be little benefit of the smaller frame, and certainly none of it coming from this 400mm becomes 600mm junk that people keep tossing around because the 16MP already captures that central 8MP, and who knows you might end up wanting some bit of the image that was outside of the cropped portion later on.  I'm aware that much of the current debate centers around the different densities of the various sensors involved.

As a side note to where this all might be leading in terms of the FF vs cropped sensors, what I think is likely in the future is variable density sensors and file formats.

John
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #130 on: August 15, 2005, 11:27:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
The image is in no way cropped on my 20D; in fact, the image that's stored has a wider FOV than what I see through my viewfinder. I hope most competent SLR photographers base their composition on what's in the viewfinder!

That's a paralax issue with the viewfinder. The image is in fact cropped. The full image come from the image circle the lens is designed to create. The smaller sensor only captures the very center crop of that.
I hate to bust your bubble, but parallax has nothing to do with composing images with any SLR; it has to do with the differences in view when comparing images from multiple viewpoints, like a TLR or rangefinder camera. Parallax is the difference between the viewfinder image and the recorded image due to the viewfinder lens being offset from the lens that records the image. With an SLR, the same lens is used for composition and image recording, and therefore there is no parallax. The difference between the FOV of the viewfinder and the recorded image is something else entirely.
Logged

ddolde
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 341


« Reply #131 on: August 15, 2005, 10:26:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps this has been posted here but....

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/266621
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #132 on: August 22, 2005, 07:51:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Also the 24-105L, a new 75-300IS and the 430EX flash.
Yes, I'm looking forward to seeing reviews of these.

If only someone could pick up the remains of photodo.com and test more recent lenses with the same methodology ...

Quote
The 430ex looks very interesting, if only canon's flash system matched their excellent flash units!
An acquaintance of mine swears by Metz flash units for use with his 20D and 1D Mk II, and having borrowed one briefly, I'm not so sure that it's just Canon's flash system that's the problem.
Logged

Jan
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8908


« Reply #133 on: August 11, 2005, 01:24:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
When I'm shooting with a 50mm lens at f4 I get the same DOF of a 50mm lens at f4 eventhough it's pretending to be a 80mm. If I want the DOF and look of an 85mm lens at f4 I don't want to be forced to step backwards!!!

A 50mm lens on a D2X at f2.8 will give you approximately the same look, same DoF and same field of view, from the same distance as your 85mm lens on your 1Ds. I say approximately because the exact DoF equivalent might be closer to f2.5 and the exact equivalent focal length closer to 75 or 80mm, but that's neither here nor there.

However, I'll grant you that Canon's wider angle lenses are not of the same quality as their standard 50mm lenses and  the 16-35 is probably not as sharp as the 24-70, although I've got no experience of either lens. There's a lot to be said for choosing your lenses first and a body to fit them.

Quote
A crop sensor may be better for landscapes though I don't buy it coming from Med Format, but for me and apparently hosts of photographers still shooting film or using FF cameras, the crop is more bother than it's worth.

All the finest digital cameras are crop cameras, that is, MF cameras with 16, 22 and 25MP digital backs. They all crop the medium format frame to a similar degree as a 20D does to 35mm.
Logged
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #134 on: August 12, 2005, 01:39:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
However, if the shutter is as inexcusably loud as the 20D then no purchase will be made.
Because it might frighten the wildlife, or degrade the image. Which?  Cheesy
How about drive me nuts.

I like to do alot of candid photography. My 300D which is alot quieter than the 20D is already too loud in some cases. The 20D is unuseable for what I do due to the mirror (more accuratly speaking) "KA-Klacking" it makes.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8908


« Reply #135 on: August 12, 2005, 04:34:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Loverly shot, pom! But I think I'd like to see just a little more on the right. Do you think perhaps a square format might have been better?  Huh
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #136 on: August 13, 2005, 01:53:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I can't but marvel that otherwise intelligent people have consumed FIVE PAGES of this website SPECULATING about a camera that hasn't even been released and for which NO tests results are publicly available yet. Are we SO obsessed by equipment that we can't just patiently wait and take things in stride, or is this supposed to be just for the intellectual fun of "futures forecasting" ?
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8908


« Reply #137 on: August 15, 2005, 02:00:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
There is also perspective distortion otherwise known as compression. A 50mm on a FF camera will turn out different perspective distortion than a 28mm or 35mm on a APS-C camera.

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you referring to the 'big nose' effect when shooting portraits up close with a wide angle lens? Surely this is dependent on distance to subject. For the same FoV you'd be further away using a 28mm lens on a crop camera than you would using that same lens on a full frame. If the 'field of view' is the same, the perspective is the same. A 28mm lens is not a wide angle lens on a 20D. It's a standard lens, just as a 7mm lens on a small P&S camera is a standard lens.

Quote
There are quite a few who shoot with the wides and cropped cameras are just plain lacking in that department.

My point exactly! We need more of them. The D2X is really the first off the rank. We need Canon to follow suit and at the same time produce some really high quality, affordable wide angle primes, maybe even as wide as 8mm. Would that be possible I wonder  Cheesy .
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #138 on: August 15, 2005, 11:08:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That's a paralax issue with the viewfinder. The image is in fact cropped. The full image come from the image circle the lens is designed to create. The smaller sensor only captures the very center crop of that.
I think my point just didn't make it through.

What I was trying to point out, was that I hope that photographers base their composition on what they see through their viewfinder, not what a full-sized sensor could have captured.

In that regard, stating that the image is "cropped" is meaningless.

Sure, it's "cropped", but from the photographer's point of view, it's not. And that's what should count.
Logged

Jan
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8908


« Reply #139 on: August 16, 2005, 08:40:40 PM »
ReplyReply

As soon as the details of the 5D are confirmed, I'd expect the second hand value of the 1Ds to plummet to well below its current price. Do we know how much the 5D is likely to be? I get the impression it's somewhere in the region of US$4000-5000.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad