Leaked Canon 5D spec sheet..

[Nick Rains]

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

[Ray]

>>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.

[Mark D Segal]

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.

[Ray]

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.

[Ben Rubinstein]

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...

[Digi-T]

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

[its_tom]

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.

[David Mantripp]

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....

[macgyver]

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

[61Dynamic]

I like to do alot of candid photography.

Fair enough! No need to get your knickers in a twist.  

no knicker-twisting here

[Ray]

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   .

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.

[Christian]

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...  

[61Dynamic]

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.

[Ray]

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.

[Ray]

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   .

[61Dynamic]

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...

[Ben Rubinstein]

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....



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.

[61Dynamic]

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.

[Ben Rubinstein]

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!

[Mark D Segal]

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.