Leaked Canon 5D spec sheet..

[Mark D Segal]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[Ray]

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   .

[Nick Rains]

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.

[Ben Rubinstein]

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.



Not what I had in mind at all. It's nice but nowhere near as powerful.

[61Dynamic]

The pee break indicator will be a life saver in the field if you use the beer button too much. :laugh:



Gotta love Photoshop.

[Jonathan Wienke]

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.

[61Dynamic]

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.

[Ray]

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   .

[Ben Rubinstein]

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.

[Paul Sumi]

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

[Ben Rubinstein]

D-amn, I keep looking at it and thinking....

but I still think the horizontal is more dynamic.

[TeddyLoves]

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?

[Ray]

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   . 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   .

[Mark D Segal]

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?

[its_tom]

deleted, doublepost

[Big Bird]

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.  

[etmpasadena]

>>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!