Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Your experiences with the EOS 5D  (Read 8497 times)
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1707


« Reply #20 on: December 03, 2005, 03:33:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Both those shots showed 50mm in the Exif, here is the 24-105 with a similar field of view to the 85mm though in actual fact the Exif show that it is at 105, The distortion is interesting too. All shots were made from a tripod, same distance, etc. satisfied?  



I use these lenses in the real world not on a test bench, no they arn't showing the same FOV even though they should, who cares, the 24-70 vignettes less than the 24-105 and the 85mm beats them both for the same FOV. So why is it now the microlenses, looks to me that it is the amount the lens is stopped down....
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5079


« Reply #21 on: December 05, 2005, 04:46:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
All shots were made from a tripod, same distance, etc. satisfied?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52765\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think so: the zooms compared at 50mm is fine, and 24-105 @ 85 vs 105 sounds fine. (But are you really saying that the 24-105 at maximum focal length is really only 85mm? Zooms often overstate their maximum focal length a bit, but that 20% gap sounds extreme.)

Anyway, I would agree that from your experiments and at those focal lengths (and f/4), "microlens vignetting" is unlikely to be the culprit. The place that "MLV" is most expected is wide angles.

If you really want to do the experiment, I am afraid you must acquire a good 24mm prime, for comparison to the 24mm end of each of your zooms! Better yet, a 17-40 and 16-35, and a Zeiss or Nikon 20mm prime to compare to, since I believe that those ultra-wide zoom lens designs are more likely than the 24-70 or 24-105 to have a low exit pupil height, risking MLV, while the Zeiss and Nikon are likely to have a higher exit pupil than a Canon 20mm prime, minimizing MLV. (This is getting a bit like hunting the snark.)
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1707


« Reply #22 on: December 05, 2005, 06:21:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been shooting with the 5D and both the 24-105L & 24-70L, don't care about exacting tests, it's blindingly obvious that the 24-105L vignettes at all focal lengths until f8 and pretty horribly at 24mm f4.

The 85mmvs105mm also shocked me, didn't think that the difference would be so drastic. It was a subject at a distance of a meter and since the focal lengths are based on infinity it probably doesn't get much worse than that, I hope!

You did point out the difficulties with making a proper scientific test. it is worse than that as I've been finding out comparing the two 24-XL zooms. For a start the 24-70L backfocuses and the 24-105L front focuses slightly. Therefore for an accurate test you would need manual focus using a magnifier and even then, who is to say that your manual focusing is spot on? The focal lengths don't match up making getting equal FOV to be a nightmare, especially with the added distortion of the 24-105L, in other words, I give up!
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 05, 2005, 07:33:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Isn't that when those nasty D2x nightmares start to haunt you again?...

Just pulling your leg.

How do you like the 5D otherwise?

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Zuikoholic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13



« Reply #24 on: December 06, 2005, 06:43:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I would call that pretty excessive compared to my 16-35L on my 20D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52659\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Indeed, I have no problems believing you!! OTOH, on your 20D, 16mm is like 26mm and would therefore be much less prone to vignetting - that's one way to look at it. Another would be that your 20D discards the edges of the image and only records the middle, so you do not see the vignetting. Eitther way, what are we talking about here?

In fact, vignetting is not even an issue with a 20D... is it? So your comparison is meaningless! Now, comparing what this lens looks like on a 5D to what it looks like on film would be a comparison worthy of interest!
Logged

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

Posts: 1707


« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2005, 06:52:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
How do you like the 5D otherwise?
First canon camera I owned (D60,10D,1Ds,5D) that exposed properly in Av mode. My auto flash is also spot on which makes me think that the iso is accurate for once! The WB is also the best I've ever seen from a canon camera, even ambient+flash is spot on. I would trust this camera to shoot JPG if I had to and I'm a hardened RAW fanatic! The DR is much better than I've seen, I'm not having to compress highlights to get a film like response for portraiture which is unusual. The colours are also far better for me than with the 1Ds, I don't see a need to custom profile which was a necessity with the 1Ds.

My complaints:

Jaggies are visible on angled lines when viewing at 100% in either ACR or DPP, quite annoyed about that, hopefully the fully supported next version of ACR will deal with that.

To make the most of the noise advantages you still need to expose to the right, the noise is similar to my 10D, BUT, the 100% of the 10D and  5D are vastly different, i.e. you would need to print much bigger to notice noise you would have seen on a small print from the 10D. There is thank G-d no banding in the blacks like the 1Ds was plagued with if you underexposed even slightly.

RAW images still take about 2 secs to come up for review though they are instantaneous in playback. Bit disappointed in that. Zoom is smooth and fast and the joystick is a pleasure to use for playback. Writing to the Sandisk Ultra II is so fast I hardly notice it.

The AF points are far too close together and could be marked better, in low light it's hard to diffrentiate between the thin squares. I'm seriously thinking of marking the center one with a pencil if I can confirm that it won't screw up the metering. AF is fast though for low light I've never noticed a difference between the 1Ds and 10D, the D2X defines what fast low light AF is! Choosing AF points with the joystick is easy enough. Press once for center point, again for auto choosing, wiggle to choose an individual point.

Battery life is disappointing, I'm not counting on much better than the 1Ds/10D which isn't good, no doubt the huge screen takes its toll, ditto the larger mirror. Still no excuse though.

Viewfinder is a FF viewfinder, can't say it's noticeably any better than on my Elan II, eye relief is crap for glasses wearers like me (isn't that all modern SLR's?). Lot better than a crop viewfinder though.

The resolution is absolutely fantastic but at higher iso's make sure the exposure is correct as the resolution goes down hill very fast with underexposure from iso800+

Other than that, it's a 20D with FF and better ergonomics, nuff said.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2005, 06:55:23 AM by pom » Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2005, 03:06:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
First canon camera I owned (D60,10D,1Ds,5D) that exposed properly in . . . SNIP . . . .

Pom. Great information, eventhough I own a 20D and have no plans yet to upgrade. Just wanted to say nice info.
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5079


« Reply #27 on: December 06, 2005, 05:18:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Pom,

   well, after some detours, someone finally gave a good answer to the original question of this thread!

Onto another detour, about VF magnification and image size. Maybe it is time for Nikon to follow Olympus in offering an auxiliary VF magnifier of 1.2x or 1.4x. Just 1.2x would bring the D2X and D200 VF magnification up to about 1.1x@50mm and thus bring their VF image size up to that of Canon's 35mm format SLR's like the 5D, with its 0.71x@50mm. (DX format needs 1.5x more VF magnification for the same VF image size.) Lenses used would need to be adequately bright to handle the dimming effect extra magnification, about one stop brighter than 35mm format lenses, so this could be too much magnification with f/5.6 lenses or low light conditions. That is why an auxiliary magnifier might be better than having a built-in magnification of 1.1x.

Strangely, the D200 has a distinctly higher magnification (0.94x) than the D2X (0.86x).  The sub-35mm format DSLRs now seem to be settling in the range 0.9x-1x; maybe that is as high as it is safe to go without getting too dim, at least with slower lenses.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2005, 05:19:38 PM by BJL » Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1707


« Reply #28 on: December 06, 2005, 06:19:16 PM »
ReplyReply

I suppose it depends on the dimming effect but if someone made after market VF's that did this, like a slide on diopter eye shade, they could make a killing selling to the 1.5/6 crop market. The wow effect should outway the realisation of the dimming. Evenso, the trade off between straining your eye to see the postage stamp, and straining to see a darker screen though much larger might be worth it, bit like accepting f4 lenses over f2.8 for the weight gain.

BTW I didn't want to be a naysayer over this camera, it's certainly a good picture making machine and the wow reviews are all over the internet, mostly justified. I just wanted to point out a few niggles that I've noticed as a working pro. There are still some things about the whole canon system that I would love to see addressed. In corespondence with Chuck Westfall on Rob Galbraith he admited that the tying of exposure to the active focus point was a pain for us wedding photographers and hinted that a new CF could be along in the future which would give focus and exposure lock, in all modes with a half shutter press. He also told me that canon were looking for ways to impliment MLU in a more user friendly fashion and that my suggestion of putting it in the 'drive' menu would be passed along to the techs.

I'm looking forward to the grip and grid focus screen (the outer lines of the grid are perfect framing lines for a 8X10" + the grid is great for landscape work!), I can't say I enjoy shooting with two fingers hanging in space. My RRS L bracket is on the way as is a 580ex flash as I finally try ETTL again, I've only had ETTL I cameras till now hence the dependance on auto flash.

I have the 24-105L, if anyone wants to know, this lens is a huge bundle of compromises compared to the 24-70L but still has its niche.

Pros: Its lighter and smaller, it has IS.
Cons: Its f4 but still the same price, it's slightly less sharp at f4, the hood is nowhere near as good as the shading is less and the barrel is unprotected, the vignetting is not a joke and only clears up by f8 at all focal lengths, the distortion is also not nice at all, including at 50mm, the IS is a step back with no panning mode and no tripod auto sensing.

For me the IS is the reason I'm replacing my 24-70L for it (anyone want it? mint boxed 680 UK) It's also probably the reason I stayed with canon instead of going Nikon with the D200 (or two at that price!). In that I am somewhat disappointed in that the IS seems to have digressed with no panning mode (I pan a lot when shooting wedding work, dancing, etc), and canon is not clear whether IS will still work on a tripod. You don't want to come back from a trip abroad to find out that for all your tests, your best pics got screwed up because IS went slightly haywire. The IS is also not particularly fast to spin up. According to my tests, if you focus recompose then the lens needs 2 secs after recompose for IS to engage fully. Not that great if you shoot for the 'moment'.

Oh well, I saw a quote that said that photography is the art of the compromise...
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad