Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on August 10, 2005, 01:00:38 am
-
Canon should better hurry, because the D200 is just around the corner, and many a fortune teller are predicting that it will feature the same sensor as the D2x in a sub 3000 US$ package...
More seriously, the new Canon will probably not be FF. It will more likely be 1.6 crop factor so as to be compatible with the latest APS Canon lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
So what's the problem? You don't shoot portraits with a wide angle lens, do you?
No, neither do I have the room to stand back enough to use a 85/100mm portrait lens when the camera is cropping it for me. I don't want the DOF of a 40mm lens (long end of 17-40) eventhough it's pretending to be a 70mm! 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!!!
No major disadvantage? How can you qualify that statement over the entire spectrum of photography? If FF really wasn't an advantage then the 1Ds mkII wouldn't be selling, instead of still being waiting list and the D2X would have taken over the market which it has completely failed to do, whatever the praise.
There is no wide angle 24-70L equivalent in the canon lineup, the 17-40 isn't as long or wide and is a stop slower, the 16-35 is even worse for the long end. The 24-70 range is there for a reason, it is an incredibly versatile 'normal' zoom. No wide angle equivelent is as versatile, as sharp and as flare free to carry out the same job.
That's not including the crop viewfinder, however bright, the far too big AF points that don't allow precise AF (Canon admit to using the same size AF sensors in the 1D as the 1Ds, hence the sensor is covering a larger area).
Is Edge Sharpness really an excuse? I would put my 24-70L on FF against the 16-35 on a 1.6X crop, same FOV, any day. I can garuantee you which will win sharpness wise, if you take it outdoors on a sunny day then you might as well not bother.
I'll repeat, the nearest equivelent to the 24-70L in 1.6X crop is a 17-40L. Eventhough the long end 'looks' like a 70mm, I couldn't use that for portraiture or pictures that need shallow DOF , period. That to me is an incredible disadvantage.
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.
-
I like to do alot of candid photography.
Fair enough! No need to get your knickers in a twist. :)
-
I'd be nice to shoot with it handhold with a heavy telephoto lense in portrait-orientation. You'd be flushed with liquids, sex money and pizze. :p :D
-
As indicated in my post, I was talking about only the professional and prosumer DSLR market, not the "average consumer". All kinds of stuff will be made for "average consumers" because there is such a large diversity of taste around the "average".
-
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.
I understand your point completely. A full frame D2X would be a 28MP camera and the only advantage the cropped 12MP version would have would be with regard to weight and portability. The 28MP version could never produce worse image quality under any circumstances with the same lenses, but could and would most of the time produce superior image quality.
Ultimately, the larger the format the greater the potential for higher image quality. But at what cost?
-
Sorry! I've spoilt it for you. This film raised the hackles on my neck, which is why I mentioned it.
-
I would say that the rumoured 5D price of around 3,600 euro (about Au$6,000 for Ray's benefit), would still leave 24x36mm digital format solidly in the realm of "the professional and ... the most enthusiastic and well-heeled amateur".
Welcome back BJL :) .
I would say a drop in price from A$14,000 for the original FF (1Ds) when it first arrived on these shores, to A$6000 for the third Canon FF model represents a 'crumbling' :D .
-
Gee, what a surprise! Canon is coming out with a new DSLR!
Like this should be a surprise to anyone? It'a about out engineering and out producing the competition (Nikon et. al.)
I pesonally love being a longtime Canon devote. My first camera was a Canon TLb back in the early 1970's. It took about 12 years for them to come up with a significant model change, the switch to the "AE" series bodies with auto exposure.
I just got my 1Ds MkII to compliment my 20D. I'm taking them both to Ireland this weekend for 10 days of shooting. I cna't wait.
Bud James
North Wales, PA
-
Why step backwards to less than half the megapixels (big groups at weddings + big prints for walls), supposedly not great noise characteristics and lose money on all my canon gear. Plus my one remaining Elan II would cease to be my backup camera, can't use the lenses.
I don't like 4/3rds anyway, give me a 7X5 sensor now....
NPS 35mm film printed well and assuming good technique comes close to the 1Ds resolution wise on a 18X12" print, nevermind the unobtrusive grain. My 10D was incredibly clean but couldn't out resolve Provia from my experience. An E-1 would not be good enough I'm afraid.
-
Just got a chance to see the DPreview of the D2x, d-mn, I didn't realise that they have a dial or switch for every single important function, I absolutely hate Canon's reliance on buttons that need you to take your eye from the viewfinder. With the 1 series they say it's for waterproofing but there is no excuse for needing two hands (unless your very supple) to change to AI Servo while looking away from the viewfinder on the other bodies. The 5D having a mode dial is very welcome after the two handed 'button press twiddle dial 3 times' to change from 'M' to 'Av'.
My film backup is an Elan II which has a dial or switch for almost every function, I really loved using that camera....
-
A copy of the Canon 5D spec sheet has been leaked on the NET at http://alex.netfun.ro/Canon5D-specs.pdf (http://alex.netfun.ro/Canon5D-specs.pdf) .
The document properties for that PDF in Acrobat Pro 7: show
Author: Jim Bowes of Cayenne Communications
Manager: Mariska van Geel
Creation Date: 8th August @ 11:49:13+02:00 (that matches NL where Cayenne are based - http://www.cayenne.nl) (http://www.cayenne.nl))
Modification Date: 8th August @ 11:50:52+02:00
Keywords: D92 DVD Recorder (huh?)
Cayenne communications created the European marketing materials for the EOS 20D.
and
If you go to http://www.gepir.org/client.htm (http://www.gepir.org/client.htm)
and do an EAN13 GTIN lookup on the 5D code from the brochure (4960999295770) it will give you the address of the company that owns that particular barcode. It's in Japanese, but here is Canon Japan's address in English:
CANON inc. Shimomaruko. 3-302,. Ohtaku, Tokyo 1468501, Japan.
Very interesting...
-
I'm a bit skeptical, the body could very well be a lightly-Photoshopped 10D; the only thing that looks different is the nameplate and the flash shoe area. The whole English/Spanish mix is simply bizarre, a real document would not have the tech specifications in English and the headings in Spanish, it would all be one or the other. There may be something of the sort in the works, but I highly doubt this is any kind of official spec document.
-
BTW, I have no doubt that Micheal is finding this stuff highly amusing. Whatever camera is to be announced on the 23rd has probably already had its writeup done....
-
Pom,
I just wanted to compliment you on your photo of Dettifoss. I have seen many pictures of it and yours is the only one I´ve seen that makes it look attractive.
It´s a grim old place most of the time, but you had luck with the light, and clearly applied good technique to it.
W
-
Ray, I still don't understand how this camera is in any way a comparison to the D2X. It's a 20D body with a bigger chip and spot metering. It's not dust or water proof, it doesn't have a top level AF, a strong 'take anywhere' body, etc, etc. If people are going to compare and contrast these two bodies based on chip size and noise levels alone then they are seriously missing the point of what a pro level body is meant to be. Even if this body was to have 16 megapixels I doubt the majority of of 1Ds mkII shooters would swop unless they bought that camera for pixel count only and shoot tethered to a studio and nowhere else.
-
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.
I understand your point completely.
I also understand the point (I think), but I don't agree.
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!
A full frame D2X would be a 28MP camera and the only advantage the cropped 12MP version would have would be with regard to weight and portability.
And price, I suppose.
The 28MP version could never produce worse image quality under any circumstances with the same lenses, but could and would most of the time produce superior image quality.
No, that doesn't make sense. Why would it produce superior image quality? It would produce images with greater FOV at the same focal length, but I don't see how that equates to "higher quality".
With the same lens, it changes what you see and how you compose, just like it would if you simply changed lenses. But that doesn't translate to "higher quality", either.
-
I don't agree that smaller sensors will only be a part of a small niche market in the future. While I agree and hope that full frame sensors will be commonplace eventually I am pretty confident that there will continue to be a large market for cameras with the smaller sensors. The average consumer has no clue about the different sized sensors and wouldn't care anyway. They will still want compact cameras and many will still want the compact super-zoom cameras. These can only be achieved by using the smaller sensors. I imagine it will settle into only two or three sensor sizes, basically small, medium, and full frame.
T
-
Lord of the Rings (LOTR) is actually chock-full of interesting perspective effects. It had to be, in order to to make Gimli the dwarf (the actor is actually over 6 feet tall) and the hobbits look much smaller than they are in reality. They used trick set constructions to reinforce the illusions of scale, as well as wide angle lenses. The extra material in the fancy DVD editions goes into a lot of detail on the post processing involved. Imagine doing PP on 24 frames per second for 12 hours of film.
scott
-
Pom, I did some homework on eBay and found that since last October the average value of a used 1Ds has declined from the 4500 USD range (+/- a few hundred) to 3800~4000USD; there has not been much momentum over the past couple of weeks and not many cameras listed or sold - in fact the data sample is rather thin. I think the value of the camera was expected to start falling from the time 1DsMk11, then Nikon D2X hit the market, so no surprises, and the value drop has not been all that remarkable over the 9 month period.
No matter how good they are, all these cameras will devalue given the high rate of technical change in this still maturing product line. I think when we buy them we resign ourselves to the facts that better ones are around the corner and the value of legacy models will drop, but we buy anyhow thinking it will be good enough for our purposes over some indeterminate time into the future. (Perhaps the time gets more "determinate" as the new stuff starts tempting us!)
People who buy a 5D may not GENERALLY be in the same market niche as people who buy a 1Ds, and the supply of used 1Ds bodies on the market seems to be less copious now than it was at the time the 1DsMk11 came out and 1Ds owners immediately up-graded, hence the rate of value decline may not accelerate very much with the new non-1D series models coming onto the market - but that is a hypothesis - it could be wrong.
All that said, you are generally pointed in the right direction assuming the sooner you sell the more money you will get for it. I'm waiting for that wished-for future model that doesn't need an AA filter. Then I move real fast.
-
I don't like 4/3rds anyway, give me a 7X5 sensor now....
I'd like a 1:1 sensor, the lens is round. Let me do my own cropping.
-
Wow, you sure are serious with the 5D Pom. Again, if the "still hypothetic" 5D can serve your needs, go and buy it, but I'd rather wait for the official announcement to be made first. You're probably right with 1Ds, the price of the used bodies will drop dramatically, if the new model will be announced.
How about the new lens that is suposed to be announced? 24-105 f4 L IS. Looks good, but also looks very expensive :(
-
If they are now bringing out two lines of FF sensors it may be time for them to update the 16-35L with something better, maybe PMA?
-
Andy over on digitalgrin says he has spoken with Bowes and got a confirmation.
-
Very true, Dark Penguin. But many people were hoping for a Pro 1.6x crop camera, and at the same time, many wanted a high-res, full-frame camera without the bulky Pro body of the 1Ds series. Oh well. I'm still looking forward to this camera.
T-1000
-
There's something a bit unsatisfactory about a 12.8MP FF sensor. This would be hardly better than the old 1Ds.
My origional entry criteria to digital was an afordable (<£4K) full frame >10 Mp sensor.
I changed my mind when I saw results from the 20D and decided 1.6X crop sensors were OK for now.
So this product (if not vapourware) may appeal to many.
For me now with a 20D I would wait for a full frame 16Mp or more as I would not want to reduce the sample rate even for the larger sensor and higher overall pixel count.
-
Seriously, now. I think some of those buttons could be difficult to access with gloves on :: .
-
I try not to. Have often draped my waterproof over the camera at the expense of myself! That said, unless someone could show me just how waterproof the 1Ds is, I wouldn't go out of my way to let it get rained on either so I'm more or less in the same boat.
I once got malfunction in the middle of a wedding due to rain at the ceremony, flash got wet and needed half an hour to dry out, luckily I carry backups but I lost 6 frames in the film days where you couldn't rescue a 2 stop underexposed image so easily.
-
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.
-
Mark, I'd love to wait but because of these rumours the price of 2nd hand 1Ds's is already dropping, when it gets announced I could have serious difficulty trying to change for the 5D without making a loss. The idea of playing the upgrade game sucessfully is to have the previous camera pay for the next one, if I am going to make a loss then I might as well stick with the 1Ds.
-
OK, my 1Ds is up on the bay, anyone want a RRS 'L' bracket almost new for £90 after the 28th?
If this camera turns out to ba a 1.3X crop then I will be well pi**ed. Then again I could buy a 1Ds back in December and still make profit...
-
... and just how bleeding heavy that beast is with a 24-70L and flash after 4 hours.....
And the 24-70 f/2.8 is still going to be as heavy with the 5D, as are any of the longer, "fatter" lenses needed to get any high speed/low noise advantage out of using 35mm format instead of a smaller DSLR format. ("Fatter" meaning with larger front elements to provide the larger effective aperture diameters which are physically essential to get increased total light gathering speed and better high speed/low light performance, regardless of sensor size.)
If you have much need to use that lens wide open at the highest ISO with acceptable noise levels, you are stuck with that weight. Otherwise, you might well be better of with a smaller format DSLR with shorter, "slimmer", lighter zooms (e.g. 20D if Canon offers a fast enough EF-S standard zoom, D2x with 17-55 f/2.8, the expected new higher resolution Olympus E model with 14-35 f/2).
Remember that as soon as you stop down for the sake of adequate DOF, the low noise advantage of a larger sensor disappears: DX or 1.6x formats can then get the same DOF at a bit more than one stop faster, and so at about half the ISO needed with 35mm format; Four Thirds can be used about two stops faster and so at one quarter of the ISO speed.
-
Also the 24-105L, a new 75-300IS and the 430EX flash.
The 430ex looks very interesting, if only canon's flash system matched their excellent flash units!
-
Frankly, I'm finding it hard to believe that Canon would release a full-frame DSLR at that price point. It'd be as big a price point breakthrough as the intro of the D30 and the original Digital Rebel.
But if this is correct, then all the new owners will be complaining that the edges of their wide angle lenses are soft, which will put pressure on Canon to finally make WA's worthy of their full frame DSLR's. That's got to be a good thing.
Paul
-
This isn't meant to be a small version of a 1 series camera. This camera sits in a whole different line. Why should you expect it to have weather sealing, faster FPS, and 45 AF points? I think the specs are fantastic in my opinion.
T-1000
I was hoping for a pro version of a 1.6 crop camera. I would rather have IS in body and weather sealing than FF. My 20D feels remarkably fragile compared to any camera I've ever owned. (Including my 300D.)
-
I rarely shoot portraits/event work at more than f4/5.6 and I want a portrait shot wide open to look like it!
So what's the problem? You don't shoot portraits with a wide angle lens, do you? The excellent Canon 50/1.4 on a D2X size sensor becomes an 80mm f2. Isn't this an excellent portrait lens? So you want a bit wider. The Canon 30mm f1.4 is a good lens, equivalent to a 45mm f2 on the D2X. I see no major disadvantage of the cropped format unless you want a field of view wider than the equivalent of 15mm on full frame.
I want my lens to work as it was made
You mean you want all the bad bits of the lens plus 3/4trs of the good bits instead of 100% of the good bits and none of the bad bits? ???
If you ever had occasion to look at some of Photodo's MTF charts (when they were still available), you'd get the feeling you were standing on the edge of a precipice about 15mm from the centre of the lens, which is the corner of a 20D sensor. Slight exaggeration maybe, but I'm sure you get the point .
-
Michael will still hate it - no MLU button!
-
Ray, I think the issue isn't so much extreme events, but just day-after-day and month-after-month of near-total mechanical and electrical reliability through a wide variety of stressful weather and other environmental conditions. Some people need that, others do not.
And it isn't just what people usually think of as "stressful conditions", e.g. a 20D will probably have a far shorter life if used in the rain than if it's well protected, used in good weather or indoors only. Ditto for dust.
So if people are thinking of using their DSLR in the rain, they'll either need a 1-series body if they're buying Canon, the D2X if they're buying Nikon, or a similar product to the Kata rain cover.
And as you say, some people will need that, some not. pom probably doesn't stand in the rain when he's taking wedding pictures.
-
Fair enough. I'd say it's most likely due to differences in the lenses involved in the comparison.
-
... the prevailing wisdom that full frame cameras will always be aimed at the professional and be too expensive for all but the most enthusiastic and well-heeled amateur, is beginning to crumble.
I would say that the rumoured 5D price of around 3,600 euro (about Au$6,000 for Ray's benefit), would still leave 24x36mm digital format solidly in the realm of "the professional and ... the most enthusiastic and well-heeled amateur".
-
I think that the price is going to plummet, maybe due to perception rather than slowing down and looking at the facts. The price is looking to be around $3500 or so list.
-
Michael is unusually quiet......
And for whoever may be interested in yet another opinion, here is mine
I have been long considering the purchase of a 1dMKII/1dsMKII, but have , for some reason stayed with my trusty 20D. The introduction of the APS sized sensor only made our "consumer" life yet a bit more complicated, and I think everybody agrees there are benefits and limitations to every system. For me the 5D (if existent in the rumoured configuration)is a God send. My 24-70 will,once again, be a 24-70 ( and God knows how I love this lense). I have found difficulties using it with the 20D (due to my needs/style). I dont care for a big , heavy and watersealed body. A small body where my 50-1.8 is again a 50, will make a fantastic street-shooting option. My 24-70(I hardly ever need to go any wider), my 70-300 DO, and throw in the 50 if you feel like it, and you have a powerfull and very compact travel kit(difficult to surpass in my opinion). And ,hey, 13Mp. will be wellcome as well!!
I bet many buyers(like myself) will be keeping the 20D as well.
On the other hand, I dont believe in Web-leaks. I cant believe anybody in a responsability position can be so clumsy or care-less. If this rumour of the 5D and the 24-105-L turn out to be true, I will regard this as a very clever and calculated strategy on behalf of Canon.Keeping the interest and the attention....
Waiting for monday (to see if anything happens...)
Happy shooting, wether FF, APS or film is your choice
Erik.
-
Well, now it's official.
The leak probably was a marketing ploy.
EOS 5D preview:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/ (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/)
EOS 1D MkII N blurb:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082208...neos1dmkiin.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082208canoneos1dmkiin.asp)
-
If this isn't a hoax, then I'm thoroughly disappointed with the following:
- No water/dust resistance
- No ISO display in the viewfinder.
- Same antiquated AEB
- No hint of improved MLU handling
The following are only minor disappointments to me:
- Only 3 fps
- Worse battery life than the 20D?
- Worse flash X-sync than the 20D?
But there are some noteworthy pluses:
- Full frame (as pointed out)
- 12.8 Mpx
- RGB histogram
- 2.5" 230k pixel LCD
- Can shoot continuously at full speed for more frames than the 20D
- Interchangeable focus screen
If it hadn't been for the lack of water/dust resistance, I'd be at least somewhat interested.
I'll wait for the official word, though.
Frankly, I'm finding it hard to believe that Canon would release a full-frame DSLR at that price point. It'd be as big a price point breakthrough as the intro of the D30 and the original Digital Rebel.
3459 whatsits? Euro?
If it's Euro, then it's aimed square between 20D and 1D MkII.
I'd have called it a price point breakthrough of that magnitude if it included dust/water resistance and cost something closer to the 20D.
-
Sync speed is incredibly important. Anyone here use Hi-Sync here regularly, do you know what the working range of hi-sync flash is and why is a 'maybe' solution? Apart from that, what about studio settings, if you're handholding a telephoto (portrait) lens in studio you need every bit of speed you can get, both for sharpness and to negate any background light.
BTW it's the flash that has the hi-sync capability, not the camera.
My 1Ds syncs at 1/250 but my alien bees lights need a slower 1/200, so I wouldn't be losing.
If the FF thing isn't true them I'm cancelling the order, on the other hand if they wanted a camera that would knock Nikon far, far back, a FF body at that price would be it.
Think about it, the D70s is better than the D100 in almost every way, what would a D200 have to sell itself? More Megapixels of course!
-
There's something a bit unsatisfactory about a 12.8MP FF sensor. This would be hardly better than the old 1Ds. According to the late Didger and other reports, the 12MP Nikon D2X is actually sharper than the 1Ds, although I wouldn't expect there's much in it. But the fact that one can make such a claim, however marginal the difference might be, would indicate that Canon is just playing catch-up with this rumoured new camera. Not even that. A 35mm camera with a crop factor is, on balance, preferrable to a full frame camera of the same resolving power, except for those for whom the widest posssible angle is a goal.
The advantages of not having to worry about resolution fall-off at the edges and corners; not feeling driven to buy yet more lenses and/or more expensive lenses because of this edge fall-off in performance, makes a camera that directly competes with the D2X the more desirable option for me.
(And I didn't even mention increased DoF for the same FoV and f stop :D ).
-
This shop in the Netherlands (where I live) says that the new Canon 5D is soon available.. same price tag and pixel count!
www.japancamera.nl click on 'Canon', then on 'autofocus' and you see it right there announced in the list.
-
Ray, I think the issue isn't so much extreme events, but just day-after-day and month-after-month of near-total mechanical and electrical reliability through a wide variety of stressful weather and other environmental conditions. Some people need that, others do not. As for the D2X, regardless of all the great things we hear about it for the price point, and I am a former Nikon owner, I would not contemplate buying into Nikon again until I can be assured of the best possible RAW conversions normally achievable with Adobe Camera Raw when Adobe has more adequate open access to code than Nikon is now willing to provide.
-
If full-frame means little to you then the D2x is an option. However, if full-frame is very important the D2x is not an option.
Full frame appears only to have relevance in terms of wide angle shots and shallow DoF. With lenses such as Canon's EF-S 10-22, this wide angle advantage is eroded. How many photographers are searching for shallower DoF?
-
how bad can it be, seriously. Can it have:
Worse image noise than the 1Ds?
worse resolution than the 1Ds?
worse screen than 1Ds?
worse startup time and review time than 1Ds?
worse ergonomics than the 20D?
worse battery time than 1Ds?
worse AF than the 20D?
I just can't see it.
If it is _exactly_ like the 20D with FF and 12 megapixels then that is good enough for me. If it's better in any way then I'm not complaining.
If canon has made a dog then I'll still be able to buy another 1Ds, probably at profit.
-
Just called up the local store, for a D2X with 17-55 and 70-200 with VR (I couldn't handhold that thing for portraiture otherwise) - instead of 5D with my 24-70L and 70-200 f4L, I would be losing £2500+, just not worth it. I was trying to be open minded though...
EDIT: I just tried ebay, still over £2000 difference.
-
Pom, I think you've hit the nail on the head - what one gets depends on what one needs, and that depends on the kind of work one does. I must say, however, I haven't experienced troublesome levels of noise and banding with my 1Ds, except under pretty unusual shooting conditions, and the battery is good for a few hundred shots, which is fine for me. I also think one can overdo the issue of comparative build quality unless one is specific about the conditions the camera will be expected to live through!
-
unfortunately everyone else seems to be waiting for Monday. My 1Ds is on the bay with a Buy it Now about £500 less than it's selling in 2nd hand shops. I thought it would be snapped up and am really worried that it won't make it...
BJL, I can't see any one reason to switch to Nikon and lose money, not one. The 17-55 would be useless as a portrait lens, my 24-70L at the long end is pretty good for portraiture. I don't like the big focus points, the awkward rear control wheel, the less than smooth ergonomics (am I the only one?), the crop viewfinder, the RAW encryption games (who knows what's next) and the sluggishness in updating to new technology.
-
Seems like an odd set of specifications, in two languages.
-
Ok.. personaly I don't care, as I just got 20D and it's wonderful. Here are some "odds" I find about the specs:
1. Full frame in a non 1-D body? They must be joking. I think if it turns out to be real, it will have a 1.3 crop factor sensor
2. DIGIC-II. I think Canon will introduce a new version of it's processor with new pro body (1-D Mark III perhaps?). It's 1,5 year old technology and it still does it's job wonderfuly, Canon will replace this in a near future IMO
3. Quick return half mirror (bla bla).. no cut off with 600 mm f4.0 or shorter.. Now I think every other Canon D-SLR can do this with their mamoth 1200 mm f5.6 - without a cut off. Sounds a bit strange to me.
4. 60 image buffer with a 3fps body? Clearly a joke. What for? 1-D mk. II, which is a 8.3 fps camera has 40 image buffer, Nikon D2Hs, which is 8 fps camera has 50 image buffer.
5. X-sync 1/200 s... It doesn't have onboard flash (it looks like it doesn't). So you have to use external flash, which can be set to high speed sync mode on most of Canon's D-SLR's (if not all, I don't know if it's possible on 300/350D, but I think it is on 350D). And there is not a single word in the speclist about hs x-sync.
Just my thoughts, again, if it turns out to be real, then it's ok. Besides 3500 dolar(euro) camera is not for me.
PS: D200 is just around the corner? People, get use to the fact that Nikon replaced D100 with D70. It lacks some features of D100, but they added some D100 did not have. Just buy D70/s and take picutes, don't wait for D200. And if it's around the corner, in what Nikon segment would it be? 4mpix (2 cams already), 6 mpix (4 cams), 12 mpix (1 cam)?
-
Ray, that you like a crop sensor is the reason why the 1D mkII will still sell. I hate the things, I want my lens to work as it was made, a 24-70L that isn't wider than 30.5mm is no use to me, and no I don't want to have to change lenses in the middle of a moment. I know you are all landscape people but keep in mind that the majority of non landscape photographers need shallow DOF often. I rarely shoot portraits/event work at more than f4/5.6 and I want a portrait shot wide open to look like it!
Canon is not trying to compete with the D2X, that will come soon with a 1 series body. The 5D is aimed at the pro-am or semi-pro market where it will sell faster than hot cakes. It is not by any means a pro body, it looks far more like a 20D than a 1Ds and that is closer to what it's target market will be.
Heck, I'm shooting a 1Ds and it has all the resolution I can handhold. I just don't print bigger than 18X12". A 12.8 megapixel sensor will probably be all that anyone could want for a 35mm camera, you want med format quality, pay for the 1Ds mkII.
-
Assuming the 5D is no hoax, and it now seems likely that it isn't, it'll be competing head on with the D2X at a similar price/performance ratio. Because the 5D's pixels will be larger and the sensor possibly a later design, I'd expect this camera to outperform the D2X by a noticeable margin, in particular with regard to resolution and/or noise at high ISO's.
The D2X produces remarkably noise-free images at ISO 3200, but only with noise reduction in high mode, which softens the image quite noticeably. I'd expect the EOS 5D to produce similarly noise-free results at ISO 3200 (and lower ISOs) but without the resolution loss. This is most important because there are lots of ways of reducing noise if one is prepared to suffer a loss of fine detail. Luminance Smoothing in ACR is very effective at this, for example.
I'd also like the facility to autofocus at f8.
-
I would not contemplate buying into Nikon again until I can be assured of the best possible RAW conversions normally achievable with Adobe Camera Raw when Adobe has more adequate open access to code than Nikon is now willing to provide.
Of course. This is all part of the equation; the pros and cons; factors to considered when buying a camera. The durability issue I'm not particularly paranoid about. Probably because I'm an amateur who was brought up to handle cameras with kid gloves. On the rare occasions I've dropped a camera or lens, I've always been amazed at how robust the equipment has proved to be. It's a matter of expectations.
If money was no issue and I needed the maximum reliability, then of course I'd pay a premium for that extra robustness. If I was tossing up between the 5D and the D2X, I wouldn't even need to pay a premium. That's my point. If the D2X offers more robustness and better focussing, the 5D's got to offer something else desirable at the same price point. The consumer then gets a real choice.
-
the 5D's got to offer something else desirable at the same price point.
Ray, why didn't you say so! I in all seriousness could not work out why people would be comparing these two cameras
I was once married to a Chinese lady. I'm very price conscious.
-
Pom, strictly within the realm of the hypothetical - because after all, for most of us it is still a paper camera - you are probably right about all of that. I guess I'm just a bit more conservative, and put more value on the "bird in hand" versus "bird in bush" than you do. It is a hassle changing stuff like this so I like to leave well enough alone until I'm quite sure that all said and done it is really worthwhile. But to each his/her own!
-
Mark, I'm a wedding shooter who regularly shoots with my camera in hand or on strap for 12-13 hours straight. I don't have to worry about rain, I only ever use the center focus point, try not to drop it and shoot 95% of the time in manual with auto flash. For me the 5D, as long as it has FF and at least 11megapix of resolution, is a better solution than the 1Ds, ####, until I went digital I was shooting weddings with two Elan II's and that was good enough. Weight matters.
For me it's an ideal solution, however it is kind of stupid that a pro body like the 1Ds could be considered inferior to a 20D like body just because of the chip, didn't work that way in the film days and is still topsy turvy.
I seriously wanted the 1Ds to be my camera body for the next 5+ years. I thought I would be getting at least a 10D but with higher res and FF.
It was really hurting to find out just how bad the noise was, how slow and unclear the review was, how bad the banding in the blacks, how bad the battery life and heavy the batteries and just how bleeding heavy that beast is with a 24-70L and flash after 4 hours.....
But, I learned to get my exposures right each time, to trust my meter and not need the review and I was ok with everything but the weight. The resolution was not a factor, I wish my technique matched what that beast can do (it can't).
This 5D could be the camera that gives me the next 5+ years.
That said, if I was primarily a landscape or wildlife shooter, if I needed to trust my body implicitly wherever I go, be it to the football game or to Nambia I wouldn't think twice, the 1Ds would be it. Luckily wedding shooting is far more 'civil' to camera gear.
I was shooting pics of the 1Ds for ebay in a friends office earlier. He's a journalist shooting with the D70s and Fuji S2. He has pictures in national newspapers about 3-4 times a week as well as shooting more weddings than I do. He tried my 1Ds with lens and flash in his hand, gave it back and said that he would go mad having to hold that for even an hour of straight shooting....
BTW I was using his D70s to take the pictures @ 400iso, the noise on that thing is worse than my 1Ds and the camera seems to be sharpening the RAW's slightly as well, oh and my eye is hurting from squinting down that really tiny viewfinder, hey ho for FF!
(http://www.bphotography.co.uk/ids2.jpg)
Bye Bye.....
-
Michael is unusually quiet......
Quiet?
I'm just resting. ::
Michael
-
OK, Bernard, I'm open minded about it, lets see if it's worth the change compared to the 5D.
Price: ~$3500 list to approx $4500 street
Weight: 850g to 1000g without batteries but I would use the BP so probably the same.
Crop: FF to 1.5X but you say that the viewfinder is just as good.
Flash: best in the world + includes auto flash, compared to awful ETTL. I use auto flash mainly anyway.
Lenses: I would need a 17-55 f2.8 instead of the 24-70L (I'm assuming it's AFS otherwise forget it) and an 80-ish mm portrait lens. I would also need something to replace my 70-200 f4L. This could get expensive. The 17-55 is 200 grams lighter.
Iso: useable 50-3200 compared to 100-800
Feel and Ergonmics: I like canon, could get used to the Nikon, don't like the rear wheel placement on the Nikon as opposed to Canon.
Pricewise I would probably lose quite a bit on the switch, weight would probably be the same give or take. I would get far better fill flash, indoors I'm happy with auto. I would have to go back to carrying more than one lens which I hate, plus when I need shallow DOF for portraiture I'll need more working room which I also hate. I haven't the two here so I'll have to take your word for it about the viewfinder.
TBH, if the price were the same and I could swop my lenses for the equivelent Nikon then I would do it for the flash system alone. I would also have a steep 'nikon' learning curve which I wouldn't have time to work out as I need to earn my living.
When the time comes I will take both cameras side by side, compare how they feel, how the shots come out using the lenses and get a feel for the lenses and how ETTL II compares in the field to iTTL. If I can work the price levels around then as I said, I'm open minded. As I said, it's the flash that will sell it for me, if there isn't enough difference then I'll save my money and stick with what I know, if it is and I like the lenses then I may switch.
-
It'd be as big a price point breakthrough as the intro of the D30 and the original Digital Rebel.
3459 whatsits? Euro?
If it's Euro, then it's aimed square between 20D and 1D MkII.
I'd have called it a price point breakthrough of that magnitude if it included dust/water resistance and cost something closer to the 20D.
Not to be contrary , but a Canon FF DSLR for 1/2 or 2/3rds the price of the 1D2s ISN'T a price breakthrough? I don't remember for sure but wouldn't that be even lower than the Kodak DSLR (which was built on a Nikon prosumer SLR chassis)?
Unless the cost of FF sensors has come down dramatically, then the only way for the price of the camera to come down is with economies like lesser autofocus, slower FPS and not having weather sealing. Besides, Canon has to reserve some goodies for their flagship 1Dx cameras.
-
Absolutely perfect, I called up my dealer and am top of the list if it exists!
I'm having an operation in the beginning of September and will be out of photography for up to 3 months, selling my 1Ds (which I only bought for the FF sensor) in September and getting the 5D in December means that I shouldn't lose any money and get a lighter, smaller, faster, ETTL II, more noise free body while losing the 45AF sensors that I never use and weather proofing that I wouldn't rely on anyway, oh and a bunch of weight.
Every time I get back from a job with the 1Ds I have a thick red mark on my neck from the weight of that beast + flash + L lens for 5+ hours at a time (even with my op-tech strap).
I wish I wasn't so dependant on the RRS 'L' brackets though, first the 10D then 1Ds now this, they are making money out of me...
-
Don't get me wrong. I'm not into Canon-Nikon war, because I think theese 2 companies are the best we have. You cannot make a mistake buying either of them. But Niknon threw 4, no, 5 cameras on the market in 1 year (D70, D70s, D2Hs, D2X, D50). Why not D100 replacement, which is a 3 year old camera now? Personally, I will be waiting for this D200, or whatever it will be called, because it will force Canon to do upgrades (not just adding 1 or 2 megapixels) on the next generations of 20D (as D70 forced them to produce such a fantastic camera as 20D is).
Well.. I will not upgrade 20D it until it wears out.. so I could take a while (about 600 pics taken so far :D )
-
One of the ironies of the DSLR environment is that professional photographers highly value virtually unbreakable camera bodies that will endure indefinitely but house technology that becomes dated within 12 to 24 months. And there is good reason for both.
For "prosumers" like me who can't write off the investment against our income taxes and don't intend to invest $8000 every two years in a new camera, if we buy a built-to-last-forever camera body, we do so for a model whose embodied technology we believe will meet our needs for the time we intend to keep the camera, regardless of what gets developed in the interval. But of course there is no peace of mind in that because - witness this discussion thread - "the time we intend to keep the camera" just gets challenged all over again when something that may be better in this or that respect threatens to or actually does hit the market.
My wish list in a DSLR hasn't been mentioned yet - so I'll table it now - it is very short - I'd like to see a full frame 35mm sensor design 11+ MP that doesn't need anti-aliasing. When that happens the images will be crystal sharp in RAW format and sharpening algorythms will be a thing of the past. If that hits the market for a reasonable price I may be prepared to trade-in the 1Ds for whatever it may worth then.
-
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ho!Ho! Ho! Hee! Heee! hee! . I still can't stop laughing 10 minutes later.
-
While technical change is notoriously hazardous to predict, I think there is logic to a view that because cropped sensors first appeared for "techno-economic" reasons, over time as sensor manufacturing technology advances and volume production increases even more, the cost of producing "full frame" sensors with ever greater resolution will keep declining to the point that cropped sensors will occupy an ever declining share of the professional and prosumer DSLR market. The evolution of this general tendancy may be protracted over some years and some cropped sensor models will remain available, because they do have several advantages that a certain market niche will continue to appreciate. But longer term, I would place my bets on FF in the prosumer/professional DSLR market.
-
When you compare a 5D with a 1Ds you may be comparing apples and oranges. Yes, the stated specs of the rumoured 5D are an evolution compared with the 1Ds, but what do we know about the build quality? If the rumoured 5D becomes a real camera, then we will know whether Canon is maintaining a build quality differential between the 1 series and everything else they make. It would make commercial sense for them to do so. Until we know more, it is premature to talk about anything crumbling.
The 'crumbling' in my original comment refers to the concept that full frame cameras will always remain too expensive for anyone except the professional photographer and the wealthy amateur. In other words, there would be little downward pressure on prices of FF cameras because the amateur market is adequately served by cropped format cameras.
I think it unlikely that I'll be buying this camera if it's as high as A$6000, although I did pay A$5,100 (without flash card and spare battery) for my first digital camera, the D60.
I've never had any problems with build quality with any of the cameras I've ever owned. They all seem to be far more robust in practice than I imagine them to be.
-
OK, I've given up any doubting at all, anyone want a boxed 1Ds, #16,663 shutter thingys, few tiny scratches on hotshoe, £2400 ONO from the 29th of this month? includes 2 extra batteries.
I'm keeping my 24-70L though. A 24-105 f4L, although the IS would seriously tempt me, would not I feel be good enough for landscape work where technically primes are the best solution. Now if I could afford both...
-
The new Nikon D2X is able to switch to a higher magnification by using less than all of the sensor. This can be assigned to a function key, which makes the switch almost instantaneous. Anyone know if the Canon 5D will have this very useful capability? It would seem even more advantages - with less loss in quality - when starting with a full frame sensor like the 5D's.
Thanks, Dan
-
Bernard, I thought it was the other way around - that the lenses had to catch up with the sensors, because the sensors have such fine resolution that they are merciless in showing the limitations of the lenses - whether it is Canon or Nikon - same principle.
-
This isn't meant to be a small version of a 1 series camera. This camera sits in a whole different line. Why should you expect it to have weather sealing, faster FPS, and 45 AF points? I think the specs are fantastic in my opinion.
T-1000
-
Keep in mind that we're discussing a ghost here.
Not to be contrary , but a Canon FF DSLR for 1/2 or 2/3rds the price of the 1D2s ISN'T a price breakthrough?
Yes, it is, but not like the D30 or the 300D. That was my point.
I don't remember for sure but wouldn't that be even lower than the Kodak DSLR (which was built on a Nikon prosumer SLR chassis)?
The Kodak Pro SLR/c with nearly 14 Mpx costs about USD 4500, which is almost exactly the same price.
Unless the cost of FF sensors has come down dramatically, then the only way for the price of the camera to come down is with economies like lesser autofocus, slower FPS and not having weather sealing.
The cost of FF sensors with nearly 13 Mpx is necessarily lower than FF sensors with nearly 17 Mpx; there is a lower risk of significant errors in the production process, simply because of the reduced complexity.
The prospect of mass production can also reduce the necessary profit margin per chip, if any.
By how much? Hard to predict for someone not working with the real numbers for the 17 Mpx chip.
Besides, Canon has to reserve some goodies for their flagship 1Dx cameras.
Oh, absolutely, I'm not saying that they shouldn't.
Just like I have to reserve my enthusiasm for something better.
But see boku's posts in another discussion thread here, mentioning similarly weighted rumours about the 3D.
-
I wondered about this, and this is why a different body like this rumored 5D makes more sense. What exactly does the 20D lack that it needs an overhall in the shape of a new update so soon? Remember it is the digital equivelent of the EOS 30N not the 1V.
The resolution is pretty #### good, still the head of the field and it beats the D70s which is its competitor by a fair margin with a bunch of other points excepting flash. I think that the 20D is feature wise reaching very close to saturation for it's position in the canon line-up.
The D200 would be a competitor of the 5D, i.e. 'semi-pro' bodies, like the F100/EOS 3 whose position they would be taking. The price/features war of fall 2005 will be in that zone, not the 20D/D70s zone.
Canon said a while back that they are seeking to amalgamate the 1D/s bodies, now with the D2X they will be trying to impliment that fast. The D200 will occupy a market position unfilled by canon which is why a 5D, especially with the wow factor of FF makes sense, Let battle be joined!
-
Some problems with that:
1. The 10-22 is an EF-S lens : It's limited to EF-S capable bodies. Of which there are none that excede 8mp.
2. That lens is a zoom. There are those who prefer primes.
3. people who already have wide-angles need a full-frame camera.
4. A 24mm Zeiss lens is not 24mm on a APS-C camera and last I checked, Zeiss (or other 3rd parties of equal caliber) is not making a 15mm wide for the Canon EF-S mount.
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).
6. Shallow DOF, yes please.
7. FF D-SLRs have better viewfiders.
My point is, despite wether you may think it makes sence or not, there are people who need/want a full-frame camera and there is no croped camera that fits their needs. There also seem to be enough of a demand for it for Canon to develop another FF camera (assuming the 5D is legit).
Personaly, I work in the wide to normal range (mostly normal) and the crop-factor is nothing but an obnoxious hinderance for me.
-
5D MkII??
-
As someone else mentioned earlier, are you going into a war zone? The more robust the body and the more waterproof the better, but most camera users are not in the habit of dropping their camera on concrete or in a river. If you are, then of course that might be a good reason to opt for the D2X.
I've used my 20D in the desert in Dubai, by the way. No dust problems so far :D .
-
pom, do you seriously think you should put your 1Ds up for sale before the new model is even on the market, tested by the usual gurus and you have examined it yourself?
-
The 1Ds has been on the market for about three years. It started new at about 8000 USD and now markets second hand for about 4000 USD, so it has lost 50% in 3 years. For a digital camera at this stage of technological change I think that is entirely within reasonable expectations - par for the course.
When you compare a 5D with a 1Ds you may be comparing apples and oranges. Yes, the stated specs of the rumoured 5D are an evolution compared with the 1Ds, but what do we know about the build quality? If the rumoured 5D becomes a real camera, then we will know whether Canon is maintaining a build quality differential between the 1 series and everything else they make. It would make commercial sense for them to do so. Until we know more, it is premature to talk about anything crumbling.
Pom - best of luck selling your 1Ds - you'll most likely get good money for it.
I'm holding off - different philosophy. If the rumoured 5D hits the market - let us say something below USD 5000, it too will depreciate within a year and continue to do so thereafter as technical change moves onward and upward. I'm planning to keep using my 1Ds until there is a quantum leap in technology to replace it - and I expect by then the 1Ds will be worth considerably less than it is worth now, so I'll have to pay to up-grade - but it will be a while and it will be major.
-
I don't like the big focus points, the awkward rear control wheel, the less than smooth ergonomics (am I the only one?), the crop viewfinder, the RAW encryption games (who knows what's next) and the sluggishness in updating to new technology.
Pom,
Whatever works for you is good, and I wouldn't waste time trying to convince you that the D2X is the better camera, but writing "less than smooth ergonomics" about the D2X is really surprising to me.
Besides, the viewfinder is extremely close to that of the 1Ds, a bit narrower, but probably slightly brighter from what I could see.
Finally, the 17-55 on the D2X becomes a 25-82, which is actually longer than your 24-70 on the 1Ds, it should therefore be completely usable for the kind of portrait work you seem to like.
Have you actually used a D2X for more than a few seconds?
Regards,
Bernard
-
Pom,
Fair enough, that's obviously a very steep price.
Again, I was not really trying to convince you that the D2X is a better camera, I just had the feeling that some of your comments were a little bit harsh on a camera that I feel is great.
I have no doubt that the new 5D will perform very well in your hands, although Canon seemingly still hasn't come up with anythings new lenswise on the wide end. Let's hope that the sensor of the 5D has been designed in such a way that wide performance with existing lenses will be better. That could convince me to look into the next generation high end Canon, who knows.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Unless the cost of FF sensors has come down dramatically, then the only way for the price of the camera to come down is with economies like lesser autofocus, slower FPS and not having weather sealing. Besides, Canon has to reserve some goodies for their flagship 1Dx cameras.
Exactly! If this info is true, Canon are aiming the camera at a market segment (people like me) that can't afford or justify the $8000 for a 1DsMkll, but would like the extra resolution benefits of a larger sensor with a higher pixel count.
What's interesting here, is that the prevailing wisdom that full frame cameras will always be aimed at the professional and be too expensive for all but the most enthusiastic and well-heeled amateur, is beginning to crumble. And about time too :D .
-
Michael, you are a tease...:-)
On the subject of FF, I reckon it's a pointless Holy Grail. I recently tested the 1Ds2 and the D2X side by side and the differences were almost insignificant as far as print quality was concerned. The Canon was indeed slightly better but not by an amount related to the price difference.
What was interesting was that for the same FOV the Nikon using the 12-24 was better at the edges than the Canon with either the 17-40 or the 24TS.
This is significant. The Nikon has all the advantages for birders of the 1.5 crop and can still do good W/A with the excellent 12-24. if I wasn't already a Canon man I would be looking seriously at the D2X...
THIS is what I want from my next Canon. The so-called advantages of FF are meaningless if the available W/A lenses are not up to the task.
Give me a high density, smaller chip anyday. This new camera, if the rumours are true, is a step backwards in many ways. If it's 12Mp then that is less pixel density than the 350D!
Guys, it's not about FF or not, or even how many Mp. It's about convenience and cost.
You can get as much 'quality' as you like. Just shoot 8x10 film, or bigger. Or shoot complex multi stitches like Jonathan. Time consuming and fiddly, but the pure quality will be amazing.
Quality, convenience and affordability - pick any two.
-
Straight from the RAW, one of the horizontal compositions that didn't make it cropped to a square. Huge amount of DR needed there as you can see.
(http://www.bphotography.co.uk/haf.jpg)
Not what I had in mind at all. It's nice but nowhere near as powerful.
-
The pee break indicator will be a life saver in the field if you use the beer button too much. :laugh:
Gotta love Photoshop.
-
I've also used my 1Ds in the rain with sealed L glass with no ill effects, though the flash units are not sealed and I'd put a small plastic bag over them if using flash in the rain.
-
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.
Ray is absolutely correct here. Perspective is directly related to subject distance and nothing else. If you're 6 inches away from someone's face, their nose is going to look unnaturally large in relation to other facial features regardles of the focal length of the lens used. Don't confuse that with barrel/pincushion distortion which is completely different and has nothing at all to do with subject distance. A 15-degree FOV at a distance of 10 feet is always going to exhibit the same perspective characteristics regardless of the focal length and camera format used to achieve it. But the barrel/pincushion characteristics wull change from lens to lens, even ones of the same focal length on the same camera; for example, the Canon 50mm f/1.4 and the 50mm f/2.5 macro lenses will have identical perspective, but different barrel/pincushion characteristics.
I could be mistaken on that point. However (here it comes), there is just something about the images I take with a wide on a croped camera that feels amis. Something about it just doesn't feel as natural as images I've taken and seen from full-frame sensors (or film). Can't put my finger on it exactly.
Without a full-frame D-SLR to compare to I can't narrow it down. The perspective distortion thing seemed the most logical.
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.
-
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.
All lenses are different, even 2 lenses of the same model. There's a difference between my Sigma 15-30 at 28mm and my Canon 28-135 IS at 28mm. Such differences will also be compounded by the fact that a 28mm lens on a 10D is slightly shorter than 50mm; probably closer to 45mm, and the 50mm lens slightly shorter than an 85mm lens that you might have used for portraiture with your film camera.
The quality differences amongst lenses is probably the strongest argument for sticking with the full frame format. If you have a very expensive 85/1.2 it effectively becomes a 130mm lens on a Canon D2X equivalent and you simply might not have much use for a 130mm lens, which is a great pity because that lens was expensive. On the other hand you get another bargain 80/2 lens in the form of the 50/1.4 which is still a very good lens but not quite the same quality.
And as you've already pointed out, the situation gets worse towards the extreme wide angle end. But I'm an optimist in this regard. If Canon wanted to get serious about marketing an upgrade to the 20D with image quality on a par or better than that of the D2X, they would simultaneously release some new lenses to address concerns of people like yourself :) .
-
Nope, but my hand didn't seem to fit as easily as with the 1Ds, I'm entitled! ::
I'm not worried about perspective, I know that's good, it's DOF that's the problem.
-
What's interesting here, is that the prevailing wisdom that full frame cameras will always be aimed at the professional and be too expensive for all but the most enthusiastic and well-heeled amateur, is beginning to crumble. And about time too .
I'm always for more goodies for less cost. If the 5D is for real, I hope it also means the next gen 1Dx keeps the Series 1 quality but also comes down in price!
Paul
-
POM,
Not "done". Still working on it. ::
Michael
-
D-amn, I keep looking at it and thinking....
but I still think the horizontal is more dynamic.
-
to me this 5D is just a total hoax. maybe some company wants to play Canon (i.e. try to decrease their sales - by the mean of customers will hold back their purchases)
btw, what camera is this?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v480/teddyloves/1dmkiii_1791.jpg)
-
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.
Now that's a completely superfluous remark, Jani :D . There might be the odd occasion when one has to raise the camera above one's head (above the crowd) and point it in the general direction in the hope one catches something, but generally it's much easeir looking through the viewfinder :D .
-
Jonathan - do you know whether non-L IS/USM lenses are similarly protected from the elements, or is it prudent to be more careful with these?
-
deleted, doublepost
-
The Nikon D2x does not have a higher magnification mode, it is a crop, it does have a higher frame rate setting though. Every digital camera, or film camera for that matter has a "higher" magnification setting, as all of them can be cropped. :D
-
>>D200 is just around the corner? People, get use to the fact that Nikon replaced D100 with D70.<<
At PMA 2005 the president of Nikon stated in an interview that Nikon is working on a successor to the D100. Period. He asked customers, in typical fashion, to 'Please be patient.' So the D70 is the D100 replacement line is simply a defective narrative and not at all what Nikon has publicly said.
Having said that, I'm glad Canon might be following Kodak's example by offering a low priced FF camera!
-
I wish someone would objectively, definitively show/prove whether FF cameras have a problem with wide-angles.
FF Cameras can have a problem with W/A lenses.
However, there is enough variation in Q.C. that it is impossible to prove for ALL cases.
Whether this is in fact an issue for *you* depends on your actual lenses (lenses vary in quality) and your output requirements.
For me it's an issue, for a newspaper photographer it may not be.
Nick Rains
-
>>Assuming the 5D is no hoax, and it now seems likely that it isn't, it'll be competing head on with the D2X at a similar price/performance ratio. <<
I don't think so at all. The 1D and D2x series get you a much more bulletproof body and more robust AE and AF systems.
And the 5D (hopefully) gets you a full frame sensor with the potential for wider angle shots, comparable resolution and noise at low ISO's but better resolution/and or noise at high ISO's and presumably better compatibility with ACR.
Each camera has its pros and cons and their relative importance will vary amongst consumers. This is what choice is all about. The price and over all image quality place them in the same, very small ballpark. Ultimately of course, for probably most people, a choice between the two cameras will depend on what lens system they are locked into, but that doesn't stop the performance of the 2 cameras being compared, as the Kodak 14n was compared with the 1Ds despite the price tags not being in the same ballpark.
-
POM, your first choice was right on - the pen-ultimate one you showed (matted portrait shot) is definitely a superior photograph. So what if a bit of the bend to the right is left out - no harm leaving something to the imagination - the composition just works and the lighting/colour is superb.
Reverting to the subject matter of the thread, I do believe this image could have been made just as well with at least half a dozen digital cameras - the real value-added is the vision and technical skill.
-
The 50mm f/1.4 is no slouch. I don't have (or have access to) a 80mm f/1.2L to compare it to but I have yet to find any L lens that can match it's performance in sharpness, color reproduction, etc (although some come close in the mid-to-long range).
There probably wouldn't be much in it, but if you are after shallow DoF, then the 85/1.2 would have slightly better performance at apertures wider than f4. In fact the 80/1.2 has better performance at f1.2 than the 50mm at f1.4.
If we had a Canon version of the D2X it would be interesting to compare the 50/1.4 on the 1Ds with the Canon 28/2.8 and 35/1.4 on the crop camera. According to Photodo's tests the 35/1.4 also has slightly better performance at f1.4 than the 50 at f1.4 and the 28/2.8 is virtually as good at f2.8 as the 50 at f2.8. The Sigma 24/2.8 is also an excellent, good value lens which, on a crop camera of sufficient quality, should produce a result very close to the much more expensive 35/1.4 on full frame, except it would be slower, but would have better edge performance.
There are lots of trade-offs and the lenses you already own would have to influence any choice of camera body unless money is no object.
-
the 5D's got to offer something else desirable at the same price point.
Ray, why didn't you say so! I in all seriousness could not work out why people would be comparing these two cameras, I hadn't twigged to the price comparison. #### I hadn't put into perspective how cheap the D2X was till you said that.
Fair enough...
-
As indicated in my post, I was talking about only the professional and prosumer DSLR market, not the "average consumer". All kinds of stuff will be made for "average consumers" because there is such a large diversity of taste around the "average".
Oops, I missed that DSLR part. My bad. :p I do hope you are right as I would like to have a choice between many full frame sensor cameras.
T
-
Ok, I've always been one of the guys to say that 5D is fake but it seems I will have to eat my words. In the Dpreview Lens forum someone pasted a link to CPS Europe to a page that listed 5D and 1D mark II N and a 24-105 F4 IS Lens. The page is gone but someone managed to make a gif of it.
So be it. I guess Michael is not testing 1 but 2 cameras now and maybe a lens.
-
Pom, I reckon you'd be better off checking out Olympus. Plenty of wide angle lenses, not heavy, but built like a tank, ... and in its own logic, full frame.
If Elan IIs with 35mm film were good enough for you, so is an E-1 with 5 fully usable and visible megapixels....
-
I have to agree with milanissimo on this: 60 frame buffer for a 3FPS camera? Nice, but I'm not sure how much sense it makes.
-macgyver
-
I like to do alot of candid photography.
Fair enough! No need to get your knickers in a twist. :)
no knicker-twisting here
-
Are we SO obsessed by equipment that we can't just patiently wait and take things in stride........ ?
Absolutely! Yes we are! Isn't it fun :D .
This reality of things associated with computers getting simulataneously better and more affordable is of great interest, and rightly so. One needs also to prepare oneself for future purchases, sort out one's priorities and needs rather than be the victim of sales hype and impulsive acquiring of a new toy.
I pretty well know what I want and how much I'm prepared to pay for it. I resisted the D30 because the price was just ridiculous for a 3MP camera. The D60 had that performance/price ratio which was right for me. I knew I was going to buy the D60 before it existed, I just didn't know it would named the D60.
The 10D was too marginal an improvement to interest me, so I skipped that, but the 20D fits the bill.
Will the EOS 5D fit the bill? I doubt it unless Canon pulls a rabbit out of the hat. The standard has been raised by the D2X in that price range and this is the standard against which the 5D will be compared. If the D2X has a waterproof body, 5 frames/sec, autofocussing at f8 etc., and the 5D doesn't, then the 5D will have to offer something else. Just being full frame is not enough.
-
I wish someone would objectively, definitively show/prove whether FF cameras have a problem with wide-angles. Some say they do, some say they don't. Some say it's the lenses. Everyone's opinions seem tainted by the equipment they have (Nikon vs Canon) and it doesn't help that these two companies appear to be taking such divergent approaches to the same problem. It makes it very hard when you're a keen amateur on a very tight budget trying to make good long-term strategic buying decisions on lenses...
-
the 5D's got to offer something else desirable at the same price point.
I think you're missing a sigificant element of the suposed 5D. It's full frame. That is something that is quite desirable amongst many people that the D2x can't touch.
The D2x may be at the same price point as this suposed 5D but it's still a croped sensor and as we all know, big sensors are very expensive.
If full-frame means little to you then the D2x is an option. However, if full-frame is very important the D2x is not an option.
-
1. The 10-22 is an EF-S lens : It's limited to EF-S capable bodies. Of which there are none that excede 8mp.
I understood this to be a hypothetical discussion about a 12MP camera that doesn't officially exist yet and whether or not full frame is the way to go. A canon equivalent of the smaller format D2X would of course fit all EF-S lenses.
2. That lens is a zoom. There are those who prefer primes.
3. people who already have wide-angles need a full-frame camera.
4. A 24mm Zeiss lens is not 24mm on a APS-C camera and last I checked, Zeiss (or other 3rd parties of equal caliber) is not making a 15mm wide for the Canon EF-S mount
Primes would be provided if Canon were to do the sensible thing and produce a serious competitor to the D2X. If they can produce a 10-22 zoom do you think they are incapable of producing an EF-S 10mm prime for less than the difference in price between the D2X and the 1Ds2?
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.
-
No, that doesn't make sense. Why would it produce superior image quality?
Not superior image quality with the same lens from the same distance to subject. In that scenario you would have different FoVs and essentailly different images.
Superior in the sense that a 28MP image with an 80mm lens would be higher resolution than a 12MP image with a 50mm lens. How much higher, we'll have to wait and see :D .
-
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.
On the other hand you get another bargain 80/2 lens in the form of the 50/1.4 which is still a very good lens but not quite the same quality.
The 50mm f/1.4 is no slouch. I don't have (or have access to) a 80mm f/1.2L to compare it to but I have yet to find any L lens that can match it's performance in sharpness, color reproduction, etc (although some come close in the mid-to-long range). If Canon gave it ring-USM, basic weather sealing and a red ring they could sell it as an L. There are definatly no lenses in the 24-35mm range that can remotely match it (24-70 maybe). Small viewfinder issue aside, if there was a lens that existed that could come close to matching what I get from my 50 then I wouldn't mind crop-factor cameras so much.
I would love to have a small 4-6mp camera with a lens at normal FOV that handles as well as the 20D with a quiet mirror for candid photography stuff. Unfortunatly no Canon like that exists (Canon: pay attention: Since I really only use one or two lenses switching to a new camera platform is not out of the question...as if they'd care about little 'ol me lol). Since Canon doesn't seem too interested in building a great cropped camera (better viewfinder and quieter miror is all the need...) my only hope is in the FF area. The current choices sucks pretty hard in one area or another; especially when it comes to the optical perfomance of the lenses.
10D: useable shutter volume, sluggish performance. Not much of an improvement over my hacked 300D.
20D: Great performance all around, loud-a** shutter
300D/350D: tiny viewfinders hurt my eyes
1D/1D Mk II: Too big (nothing agianst it there, just not useable for me)
Since the possability of the 5D is getting even more likely that it's legit I'm heavily considering it for my next camera. It just apeals to my needs in almost every way. Full frame letting my use my 50 as intended, 13mp out-resolves 35mm film and allows for big prints, 3fps is all I need, no built-in flash, large viewfinder, not as large as a 1 series, certainly to have equal or better optic and handling performance as the 20D.
If this is real, it's a good move for Canon as I was heavily considering going the rout of a Minolta 7D or Epson RD-1. If Canon keeps the mirror noise at acceptable levels, they will have earned a pruchase from me. Of course, once I can afford it...
-
I went back to an old image that I'd taken with the 10D in the Lake District, UK. When I first printed the image there was a very slight amount of camera shake, as you can see, with a picture this detailed it was enough to jettison it. I went back to it out of interest a couple of weeks back and realised that having used two images for added DR, only one of them had the camera shake. In the folder was the other of the three bracketed shots and hey presto.
Anyway, why the blurb? I came to sharpen the image, sharpened on two layers, one for the sky one for everything else. I'm at 200% painting out the sky in a mask so that no sharpening was applied to the sky. WOW, I'd forgotten how noise free the 10D was. In comparison, the sky in the dettifoss picture a few pages back had noticable and annoying noise in the sky at 100%, Both shots were 'expose to the right' iso 100. The difference was astounding. Still beats the cr-p out of film though....
(http://www.bphotography.co.uk/fineart/pics/troutbeck.jpg)
Troutbeck farm on the top of a hill with a cloud passing behind it in the early morning light. Some people love it (me), others don't like it, oh well.
-
I noticed the images didn't show a MLU button so mabye this is the real thing. I'd be more suspicious if it did have a MLU button.
In the image of the back there is a button above the LCD that looks like it could be a print button. Humoring the idea that this could be real for a moment...
What photographer does Canon actually think would spend nealy $4K on a camera and then plug it directly to a printer? What would make them think that it is worth the time and effort to design, build and program a dedicated button for that??
Mabye there are people out there that would use that BS Button ™ but it can't be nearly as many as there are of those longing for a MLU button.
Anyway, if this camera is in fact true (and Michael's tease that I just now read hints towards that), I'll definatly consider a purchase of this camera.
However, if the shutter is as inexcusably loud as the 20D then no purchase will be made.
Guys, it's not about FF or not, or even how many Mp. It's about convenience and cost.
I thought it was about pixel quality. Convenience and cost, yes. I could care less about the MP number though. This 5D could be only 5MP and I'd still consider it if it could resove a good amount of detail. The advantages of FF that have been mentioned already are the exact reasons why I'd consider this camera. The possable 13mp (not a camera for superstitious people) rating is just icing on the cake.
-
OH MY G-D MICHAEL REICHMANN CONFIRMED IT, LETS RUN AND ANNOUNCE IT ON DPREVIEW!!!!!!
Ray, if it's good enough for me then I'm happy...
I upgraded from the 10D because I wanted a full viewfinder, FF for my lenses and about 3 more megapixels of resolution. The nearest camera, infact the only one was a 2nd hand 1Ds.
What I don't like (most of all) is the weight, the buttons instead of dial for shooting modes (means I have to look up instead of one click to the right, etc), I still hate the button for shooting mode for the same reason. I don't like the oversize batteries or their cost, the slow review screen and it's awful colour and lack of sharpness.
What I don't need is 45 AF points (I only ever use the center), weather proofing, multi spot metering and the weight!
If the 5D is true, it looks like a 20D with FF + Digic II, instant wake up/review, far better noise control, ETTL II and give or take all the resolution I can use, which is all I ever wanted or needed at half the weight, hence my instruction to the store that the moment this camera is announced to put my 1Ds up for sale to get as much as I can before the 5D comes out. I'm out of photography till early December anyway from the 28th.
Of course if it ain't true then my 1Ds still takes some incredible pictures once you learn that you cannot underexpose, period!
-
Digi, I agree with you about the discussion being civil and informative - it just struck me it would be a whole lot more so once the camera hits the market and there is really a live, breathing animal out there to stroke and talk about in depth. But hey, it's a free enclave - within the usual bounds of decency we can write as we please - and comment on what is written. No harm even musing a bit at the risk of sounding "critical" (oneself included) - is there?
And talking about your wish list, interesting - I was just surfing the web yesterday to see whether there is a digital panorama camera out there one can buy without mortgaging one's house, and of course there isn't - but it would be nice if one of the big name manufacturers produced an affordable digital panorma maker - something dedicated to that one purpose with enough basic features to provide adequate quality that it could sell in the 1 to 2 thousand dollar range. It came to mind when I saw a friend's output - quite remarkable - from a trip to China using a fairly inexpensive film pan camera.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
I hate to bust your bubble, but parallax has nothing to do with composing images with any SLR
Bubble? ??? 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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
Thanks Wysmington, you should have seen what was going on about 500 meters behind half an hour before...
(http://www.bphotography.co.uk/fineart/pics/hafragilfoss.jpg)
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!
-
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
-
I'll try to make a nice field test of that Kata rain cover one day.
My camera is insured ... :cool:
-
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
-
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.
-
Perhaps this has been posted here but....
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/266621 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/266621)
-
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 ...
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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? :D
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.
-
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? ???
-
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" ?
-
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.
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 :D .
-
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.
-
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.
-
Plagiarism is rife in the world of art, whether it's camera technique or theme similarity. How many movies have a similar theme to the Bruce Willis film "The Sixth Sense" where a dead person walks around under the impression he is still alive? Quite a few.
Crap, and I was just about to watch "The Sixth Sense" for the first time. :p
T
-
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.
) and may well suit you down to the ground. That there are these choices out there means that we can get the best camera for our needs, competition is good, long may it continue
-
I know what you mean, it would have been better with that curve included. Problem was that it stretched too far to the right for it to be sucessfully included without ruining the look of the flow of the river, though I tried it at the time. I was going for a very dynamic look, square would not have done it at all.
-
>>Assuming the 5D is no hoax, and it now seems likely that it isn't, it'll be competing head on with the D2X at a similar price/performance ratio. <<
I don't think so at all. The 1D and D2x series get you a much more bulletproof body and more robust AE and AF systems. A better analogy is that Kodak demonstrated there is a huge demand for a lower feature (less bulletproof) and lighter body in a full frame high resolution package.
For the past three years Kodak users have been saying that we don't need high fps and a bulletproof body only to be shouted down by everyone on those 'other' boards. (You know what I'm talking about.) who keep saying that anyone who is a pro *must* at times need to pound nails with their camera body. Yea, right. Like Mamiya was ever weather sealed-not!
I'm glad Canon now has a reasonably priced FF camera for those who don't need to take their cameras to sporting events or war zones.
-
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? :D
-
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.
Ray is absolutely correct here. Perspective is directly related to subject distance and nothing else. If you're 6 inches away from someone's face, their nose is going to look unnaturally large in relation to other facial features regardles of the focal length of the lens used. Don't confuse that with barrel/pincushion distortion which is completely different and has nothing at all to do with subject distance. A 15-degree FOV at a distance of 10 feet is always going to exhibit the same perspective characteristics regardless of the focal length and camera format used to achieve it. But the barrel/pincushion characteristics wull change from lens to lens, even ones of the same focal length on the same camera; for example, the Canon 50mm f/1.4 and the 50mm f/2.5 macro lenses will have identical perspective, but different barrel/pincushion characteristics.
-
I could be mistaken on that point. However (here it comes), there is just something about the images I take with a wide on a croped camera that feels amis. Something about it just doesn't feel as natural as images I've taken and seen from full-frame sensors (or film). Can't put my finger on it exactly.
Without a full-frame D-SLR to compare to I can't narrow it down. The perspective distortion thing seemed the most logical.
Yes, I think you are.
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.
No, this has nothing to do with parallax, just that the viewfinder does not see 100% of the image cast on the sensor with the 20D.
-
Plagiarism is rife in the world of art, whether it's camera technique or theme similarity. How many movies have a similar theme to the Bruce Willis film "The Sixth Sense" where a dead person walks around under the impression he is still alive? Quite a few.
-
What I don't get is if it isn't going to be weather sealed - why no built in flash? WHat is the point in leaving it out? Is it so the dpr masses can pretend it's a more serious camera whereas a small flash for some fill in from time to time is really useful!