Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Your experiences with the EOS 5D  (Read 8665 times)
Nicolas86152
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« on: October 04, 2005, 06:35:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, after all I red about the 5D I am not that shure to buy one.
There are several postings about the "vignetting-problem".
What are the real facts about 5D and vignetting.
If I could I would take some of my lenses (24TS, 90TS, 2,8/200 prime are my most used) and test it by my own, but there is no local dealer who has one to test ore to buy (and test before).
So this question is put to the persons who own already a 5D (I am not interested in speculations nor in getting teached optics): Is vignetting more visible than with film cameras?

Regards

Nicolas
Logged
yoni
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2005, 09:13:05 AM »
ReplyReply

I can't think of any reason to expect that the problem is any greater than it would be with film. Correcting it using PS RAW reader is straightforward.

I upgraded from a 10D and am pleased. Mind you, its an incremental improvement even from a 10D. At this stage of the evolution of the technology, I believe it is hard to pull a slam dunk, better than slice-bread, gotta have 3 of them kind of camera. Bottom line? FF is wonderful for macro and WA, large files are great for printing larger prints but a drag when it comes to workflow, extra stop of sensitivity is much appreciated, color fidelity slightly better, ergonomics is better, and viewfinder is bigger but not brighter. Come to think of it, maybe I will get 2 more!
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2005, 10:00:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is vignetting more visible than with film cameras?
No. Vignetting will be exactly the same with a full-frame camera as it is with 35mm film. In the absence of film grain, you will find it easier to spot lens flaws such as chromatic aberration when shooting digital, but the degree of vignetting will not change. In any event, vignetting is easily corrected in any decent RAW converter, so it's really not an issue.
Logged

Nicolas86152
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2005, 10:37:13 AM »
ReplyReply

@ Yoni
I would like to use a FF because mainly I am doing portraits. Pictures arent the same when I have to use 50 or 70mm instead of my 2,0/100-normal-lens with my 10D.
So FF at a moderate price is what I am looking for - there´s no need to convince me.

But for me it is important not to become a PS-artist. Hence there shouldn´t be too much manipulation needs.

@ Jonathan
"In the absence of film grain, you will find it easier to spot lens flaws such as chromatic aberration when shooting digital,..."  Yes Jonathan, this could be a very important point to think of. The better the quality gets, the more obviouse become "not corrected things".

Could we bring your statement to the point "if vignetting is your only concern, don´t worry any longer and pull the bucks put of the pocket"?
Logged
drh681
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2005, 06:06:14 PM »
ReplyReply

since vingetting is a function of the lens, not the camera, you only need to be cognizant of what the lenses you have do. this can be this can be shrewdly guessed by looking at the MTF charts for any given lens.
as was noted it is the nature of the full frame sensor to make any optical compromises in a lens more apparent. It is up to you to decide if those compromises are too much or negligable.
Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2005, 12:57:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
since vingetting is a function of the lens, not the camera, you only need to be cognizant of what the lenses you have do. this can be this can be shrewdly guessed by looking at the MTF charts for any given lens.
as was noted it is the nature of the full frame sensor to make any optical compromises in a lens more apparent. It is up to you to decide if those compromises are too much or negligable.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51039\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's not quite right. There can be vignetting from the light hitting the sensor microlenses at an angle rather than head on. That is why some people think Nikon might have trouble with FF (the lens throat is smaller than the Canon EOS one).

There was a lot of hoo ha about sensor vignetting from the 5D but it looks as if it was in fact the 24-105 zoom that had severe vignetting wide open at 24mm.

Leif
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #6 on: November 13, 2005, 12:09:09 PM »
ReplyReply

I wonder if they are fixing that while sorting out the flare problem, would be nice to dream...
Logged

Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1087



WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 13, 2005, 12:48:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
since vingetting is a function of the lens, not the camera,

Up to a point, but you will likely see more vignetting on a full 35mm size frame camera like the 5D than you will on a DX size sensor camera.  Vignetting is a problem with full-frame dslr's because of the angle the light hits the wells in which each photosite sits.  This wes never much of a problem with film.  Its one of the advantages DX sensor cameras have, along with better edge of frame sharpness.

Quentin
Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 13, 2005, 05:28:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Up to a point, but you will likely see more vignetting on a full 35mm size frame camera like the 5D than you will on a DX size sensor camera.  Vignetting is a problem with full-frame dslr's because of the angle the light hits the wells in which each photosite sits.  This wes never much of a problem with film.

I've seen this statement made ever since the original 1Ds was announced, but I have yet to see a side-by-side comparison between a lens mounted on a film body and a full-frame digital body that actually showed more vignetting on the digital body than the film body. As far as I can tell, it's nothing more than an urban legend. Do you actually have a side-by-side comparison to support your statement?
Logged

DiaAzul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 777



WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 13, 2005, 06:26:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've seen this statement made ever since the original 1Ds was announced, but I have yet to see a side-by-side comparison between a lens mounted on a film body and a full-frame digital body that actually showed more vignetting on the digital body than the film body. As far as I can tell, it's nothing more than an urban legend. Do you actually have a side-by-side comparison to support your statement?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51201\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would go one step further than GI Jo and state that the vignetting due to sensor design is a none issue and can be easily supported by looking at Phil Askey's review of the 5D in which he specifically tests for vignetting compared with a cropped camera. If the sensor was a source of vigentting in the image then it would still be apparent even when stopped down to f/11. As this is not the case we can argue (till we are blue in the face?) that the modern day sensor (can't speak for ancient Kodak SLRs) doesn't contribute to light fall off at the edges.

[Edit: Wanted to inlcude quentin's quote, but I am still struggling to understand the new forum software - aaaaaaaaagggghhh, is there more help than that included in the help file on the site? Like - what does the 'quote+' button do?]
« Last Edit: November 13, 2005, 06:28:48 PM by DiaAzul » Logged

David Plummer    http://photo.tanzo.org/
Slough
Guest
« Reply #10 on: November 14, 2005, 03:29:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I would go one step further than GI Jo and state that the vignetting due to sensor design is a none issue and can be easily supported by looking at Phil Askey's review of the 5D in which he specifically tests for vignetting compared with a cropped camera. If the sensor was a source of vigentting in the image then it would still be apparent even when stopped down to f/11. As this is not the case we can argue (till we are blue in the face?) that the modern day sensor (can't speak for ancient Kodak SLRs) doesn't contribute to light fall off at the edges.

[Edit: Wanted to inlcude quentin's quote, but I am still struggling to understand the new forum software - aaaaaaaaagggghhh, is there more help than that included in the help file on the site? Like - what does the 'quote+' button do?]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51209\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There are in fact cameras that demonstrate sensor vignetting. I am not sure if I remember the name right, but I think the 6MP Voigtlander rangefinder with interchangeable lenses that was introduced a year or so ago was found to suffer particularly badly. (Or was it Panasonic? Sorry to be so vague.)

But it does not seem to be an issue for the 5D.

It would not surprise me if Nikon unofficially encouraged such rumours.

Leif
Logged
Zuikoholic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13



« Reply #11 on: November 29, 2005, 06:37:33 AM »
ReplyReply

There is some vignetting, but I don't think it's excessive really.
This was taken on a 5D with a 16-35mm f/2.8 L, set to: 16mm @ f/4.
Logged

So many lenses; so little time!
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5120


« Reply #12 on: November 29, 2005, 12:50:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If the sensor was a source of vigentting in the image then it would still be apparent even when stopped down to f/11.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51209\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not true: at larger apertures, the broader light cone means that some of the light reaching the corners of the frame strike the sensor at a more off-perpendicular angle than the principle ray, potentially producing more microlens vignetting than at small apertures. About an extra 10º at f/2.8 and an extra 21º at f/1.4.

Also, shifted lenses are mor prone to this than any normal lens, as they increase the off-pependicular angles. That is probably why most sensors for MF and LF backs continue to omit microlenses: to accomodate camera/lens motions like shift.

The trouble in detecting this is that there are three factors producing fall off at the corners: true vignetting, microlens vignetting, and "geometric fall off" with wide angle lenses.

- True vignetting is partial shading of the frame corners by the lens barrel, filters etc.

- Microlens vignetting is my name for the reduced sensitivity of sensors with microlenses to off-perpendicular light

- geometric fall-off is the fact that with almost any wide angle lens design and any sensor including film, light travels significantly further from the exit pupil to the corners of a wide angle frame than to the center, diminishing its intensity by the inverse square law. Near telecentric lens designs have no effect on this.

It might be that digital scrutiny has enabled detection of geometric fall-off that mostly went unnoticed with film. The Olympus E system includes software options for correcting "corner light fall-off" which is probably aimed at this effect, not microlens vignetting.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5120


« Reply #13 on: November 29, 2005, 04:44:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There can be vignetting from the light hitting the sensor microlenses at an angle rather than head on. That is why some people think Nikon might have trouble with FF (the lens throat is smaller than the Canon EOS one).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51105\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Irrelevant, and in fact the Nikon mount (along with Pentax and Minolta and Leica R mounts) is probably less prone to microlens vignetting than Canon mount, if such vignetting is an issue at all. Microlens vignetting is avoided by having the exit pupil far enough from the focal plane, in proportion to sensor diagonal length. Nikon mount and all the others mentioned above have the lens mount flange further from the focal plane than Canon EOS mount, likely meaning that their wide angle lenses have rear elements and exit pupils further from the focal plane. In fact measurements I have seen show that Nikon lenses in general have high enough exit pupils that microlens vignetting would not be an issue with a 35mm format sensor. From a collection of lens designs I saw in an optics text book, it seems that Canon stayed with more traditional near-symmetric lens designs for moderate wide-angle focal lengths while most others were using retro-focus (inverse telephoto) designs with higher exit pupils for almost everything wider than normal, but that information might be out of date.

Sigma lenses tend to have quite high exit pupils, so it might be interesting to compare Canon mount Sigma wides to Canon wides for evidence of microlens vignetting.


P. S. It continues to amaze me the number of easily refuted explanations going around for the decision of Nikon and their sensor partner Sony (along with Pentax and Konica-Minolta and Olympus and soon Panasonic and Samsung) to choose formats 16x24mm or smaller for their DSLRs. The obvious explanation it seems to me is an industry-wide consensus that the price/size/weight/performance trade-offs favor these new "digital specific" SLR formats for all but some relatively low sales volume, high end niches.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2005, 04:49:42 PM by BJL » Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5120


« Reply #14 on: November 29, 2005, 04:54:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think the 6MP Voigtlander rangefinder with interchangeable lenses that was introduced a year or so ago was found to suffer particularly badly.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51302\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It was the Epson rangefinder, and yes, rangefinder wide-angle lenses often use symmetric designs with far lower exit pupils than is possible with SLR lenses, making microlens vignetting a clear issue there. Note that this problem occurs even though the Epson's sensor is only about 16x24mm; vignetting would have been vert noticable with a 35mm sized 24x36mm sensor.
Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #15 on: December 01, 2005, 01:19:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It was the Epson rangefinder, and yes, rangefinder wide-angle lenses often use symmetric designs with far lower exit pupils than is possible with SLR lenses, making microlens vignetting a clear issue there. Note that this problem occurs even though the Epson's sensor is only about 16x24mm; vignetting would have been vert noticable with a 35mm sized 24x36mm sensor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52438\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes that's the beasty. Vignetting was seen to be serious IMO. Leif
Logged
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 02, 2005, 12:03:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There is some vignetting, but I don't think it's excessive really.
This was taken on a 5D with a 16-35mm f/2.8 L, set to: 16mm @ f/4.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52388\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would call that pretty excessive compared to my 16-35L on my 20D.
Logged

Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #17 on: December 02, 2005, 07:18:09 AM »
ReplyReply

vignetting at f4 on my new 24-105L is bad compared to my 24-70L, showing at all focal lengths. The 24-70L clears up completely by 50mm, the 24-105L doesn't clear up at any aperture. Of course it's not comparing like to like, the 24-105 is wide open, the 24-70 is stopped down, but as I shoot at f4 as a standard for my wedding work, this is relevant for me.  From 35mm on the 24-105 the vignetting seems uniform so I'll probably set up a profile in ACR for the vignetting and apply it to all the photos as standard, tweaking just the 24mm pics. The clarity and lack of any corner shading on my 85mm 1.8 at the same aperture makes me want to cry!

Here are two images shot at 50mm (the best focal length on the 24-105, for sharpness/contrast as well), the one with more vignetting is the 24-105.

   

« Last Edit: December 02, 2005, 07:19:46 AM by pom » Logged

LeifG
Guest
« Reply #18 on: December 02, 2005, 07:31:42 AM »
ReplyReply

The only way to prove it would be to take photos of the same subject using the same lens, and both FF digital and film. Then compare the amount of vignetting in each case.

Leif
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5120


« Reply #19 on: December 02, 2005, 12:13:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I wonder if this can prove that vignetting is a function of the lens not the sensor ... Or does the amount the lens is stopped down make a difference to the sensor?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52673\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
To separate lens effects (god old fashioned vignetting and geometric fall off with wide angles) from sensor effects ("microlens vignetting"), you should compare at equal focal length and aperture. 85mm probably gives less of every kind of "corner fall off" than 50mm.

Yes, microlens vignetting can in principle get somewhat worse at larger apertures, when some light from the edges of the aperture reaches the corners at even more oblique angles.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad