Printable View
SLR- this thing looks badass
> Turns out that the 5D is real. This morning Canon officially announced
> what they claim is the world’s lightest and smallest full-frame
> digital SLR (the full-frame thing is a very big deal for anyone who is
> lots of people who are serious about digital photography), the new
> 12.8 megapixel Canon 5D. Should retail for under $3,300 when it hits
> stores later this year.
hmmm...that price is kinda badass for a serious amatuer, especially since it will be way obsolete in 4-5 years - not like an old film slr which would last forever. Nice, though, I covet it.
I'll stick with the Rebel XT.
holy poo!
The thing about how digitals are going to be obsolete in a few years is that at some point, the "next big thing" is going to be splitting hairs. I mean, how many of us really need to be shooting more than 12.8 megapixels anyways?
Maybe it's time to deep-six the Nikon stuff...
The 5D is not really aimed at the amateur or enthusiast market, but it does fill two needs among pro photographers:
1) As a second body for fashion/advertising photogs who live off high rez files but would rather not pay the big bucks for another 1Ds Mark II.
2) A more affordable full frame CMOS body for photojournalists who crave wide wide angle lens and more depth of field control.
Three grand is a nice price point, but anyone buying a 5D will need some quality glass to handle the full frame sensor.
rumored framerate sucks. 3fps is weak for a camera slated above $3000
Ouch. In that case, nevermind. I'm keeping my N90s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
>(the full-frame thing is a very big deal for anyone who is
> lots of people who are serious about digital photography)
Full Frame is a big deal if you have alot of $ invested in lenses or are mathematically challenged. Otherwise, big whop.
Nikon, in their usual pathetic oh shit Canon is going to beat us again - couldn't see that train coming manner, leaked (or was it the nikon board trolls who faked) a release on the D200. 12mps, 3 fps, DX sensor format.
[QUOTE=cj001f]>(the full-frame thing is a very big deal for anyone who is
> lots of people who are serious about digital photography)
Full Frame is a big deal if you have alot of $ invested in lenses or are mathematically challenged. Otherwise, big whop.
QUOTE]
Actually since there is no hi qulaity ultra wide lense for digis with a crop factor this IS a HUDGE deal. My 16-35 and my 15 would actually remain ultra wide, just like I want them to be.
Canon also released a new version of the 1D mark 2 however this was only a minor upgrade, and more than likely in a year or two it and the 1ds will be replaced by a single ff camera with a high FPS. When that hapens Im going go digi :)
There are decent quality lenses for both cropped Canon and Nikon that would give you similar focal lengths. For the dentists among us those will probably suffice.Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbakerskier
CJ your ignorance in the subject shows. There are no "Pro" level lenses I.E. L series lense that on a 1.3 or other "cropped" digi body that will give the same angle of view and quality as the L series 16-35 F2.8Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
For those of us that actually use this gear for a living, this IS very Important.
AMEN (or even those of us who are just verious serious about the craft)Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbakerskier
123456789Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbakerskier
You wish you were a dentist!Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
Your inability to read is showing again mbs. I never said there were any "pro" level lenses. I said there were quality lenses, like the EF-S 10-22 which supposedly uses L quality glass, gives you an equivalent range of 16-35 for the 1.6x crop factor Canon sensors (Rebel, 20D), and is a well designed lens. The increased resolution and error correction that the "pro" lenses produce don't matter as much on most of the current digital bodies because the sensor doesn't have the resolution of film.Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbakerskier
Sure some people need the increased resolution (pro photographers). If you need that resolution you probably aren't asking for camera advice on a ski board, if you are asking for camera advice on a ski board your money is better spent on shooting more pictures with a slightly inferior quality lens.
CJ, Your fingers seem to keep typing long after your brain quit thinking. I would hardly consider the EF-s 10-22 a "quality" lense it is a compromise to give the cropped bodies some resemblance of a ultrawide zoom. It is a light wieght build, with a variable aperature ( you do know what an aperature is dont you?)
Lets get back to the basics, the same old rule of thumb still apllies your better off spending money on good glass than an upgrade in a camera body, afterall the lense is actually what takes the picture the camera body just serve as a means to hold the medium and control the lenght of the exposure. That being said, if you used a L series lense on a digi, even one with a 1.6 crop you will notice a difference in pacture quality. Not to menion the extra stop of light (Last time I checked photography is all about the light) wich makes it more versatile, and provides a higher quality image at a simular F stop.
That brings up an important part of lense desing. Whenever possible when designing a zoom lense a single fixed fast aperature is always best (I.E. 70-200 F2.8 L) The next compromise is a slower fixed aperature (70-200 F4 L) the final compromise is the variable aperature (80-210 F4-5.6) Your EF-s lense is a compromise.
You should also realise that the crop factor does not increase your focal lenght since it does not increase the magnification of the lense used on the camer, all that it does is CROP the field of view. This is a very big deal.
With an entry level DSLR costing 4 times what an entry level film body used to cost, More people are starting to realise that to get the full value out of there new camera they need better optics, and spending the additional cash isnt that big of a deal to them. Just look at the number of F4 L series zooms canon is now selling.
Finally I'm sorry you invested in the EF-s system, but you should realise it is a compromise, and a temporary fix untill full frame sensors become more afordable and are used in all of the Canon digi bodies. Where do you think the EF-s mount came from????? Remeber Canon's aps only slr with dedicated lenses? The EF-s mount is a direct desendent of that crap. It's popular now, but it will probally dissapear in the next few years.
MBS is right on the money in all regards. You need to STFU until you know what you are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
Just to reemphasize...
The 10-22 3.5-4.5 is NOT an L quality lens, nor is it fixed aperture, and certainly not a fast f/2.8 (which is required on most bodies to get cross AF sensor function). This NOT a redline lens. It may have some fancy elements but if it gave L performance they would have given it a redline and upped the price.
It is sad that other companies like Tokina sell a higher quality wideangle for cropped sensors than Canon does. f/4 ATXPro 12-24 that comes to a 19-39 equivelent
I'd rather use it than the canon 3.5-4 http://www.thkphoto.com/products/tok...124afprodx.jpg
I design lenses for a living, what the fuck do you do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
If you'd bother to look at the MTF for the 10-22 @10mm:
http://www.pbase.com/amfibius/image/...0/original.jpg
vs. the 16-35 @ 16mm:
http://www.pbase.com/amfibius/image/...2/original.jpg
You'd see it is a good performing lens optically. In fact, it's better than the 16-35.
As for you MBS, please do tell me more about lens design. Like how stopping down a faster lens "provides a higher quality image at a simular F stop" Hint: it's a little piece of conventional wisdom that isn't always true. In fact if you stop the shit out of decent lenses they are pretty much the same. Or why a variable aperture is more of a compromise in a field that revolves around compromise (or why it compromises optical quality at all, since it's not an element), since it's impossible. Yes, impossible to design a perfect lens. I'd also like to here more about your EF-S theories. It's the same mount as the EF, in fact with modifications you could put an EF-S lens on an EF mount, execpt it'd bump into the shutter.
:: patiently waiting for MBS and Summit to stomp a mudhole in Cj001fags ass. ::
stop being such a bitch. CJ aparently designs the gear that summit and MBS use. Im sure he knows a thing or two about this shit just as Im sure MBS and Summit know thier shit. Aside from talking shit (your not even good at that) you dont seem to do shit or know shit. so sit down and shut the fuck up. I and Im sure others enjoy reading this shit casue we can learn from it. You add nothing to the equation, so please do us all a favor...fuck off.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlurredElevens
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...2mm-test.shtml
That's a decent overview of the EF-S 10-22 ... seems like it does a pretty good job if you don't mind incompatability with the high end FF bodies.
Back to the 5D, though... it might look more interesting if I had an extra $3000ish lying around collecting dust.
Do we forget so quickly that even the 5D's approximate film equivalent, the EOS-3, can only do 4.3 FPS out of the box without special batteries + power drive booster, etc (which gets it up to 7), and anything lower-end than that tops out at 4FPS period?
Obviously 3FPS isn't good enough for someone like MBS, but it's not exactly slow considering the amount of data being dumped and manipulated.
At any rate, it looks like another camera that I'll never so much as touch. If only I were a dentist and not a poor student. ;)
In other news, my G6 arrived from Canon repair today free of sensor dust! Woohoo! :) :) :)
While nobody generally takes the manufacturer provided MTF graphs for much... if he really designed lense he'd realize how moronic it is to outright compare MTF graphs of a lens designed to cover a 22.2x14.8mm frame versus a lens designed to cover a 36x24mm frame. Tell me which needs to resolve more lpmm? :p Guess what... a Canon 28-90 probably resolves as well as my Nikkor 210mm f/5.6 for my 4x5.
BWA!
But please continue to assert that a 3.5-4.5 lens is superior to 2.8 lens even if they had identical optical performance :wink:
Nobody needs the extra lowlight performance, autofocus performance, and flexibility for shallow DoF. If he does design lenses then he doesn't seem to understand the market he is designing for... or maybe he works at Eyemasters! :rolleyes2
Jeez... why don't we all use f/8 lenses... they would be smaller and cheaper :the_finge
-------
As far as the future, Canon and other companies are faced with the difficult decision of commiting to a small sensor DSLR line and developing a full lens lineup around it, alienating existing customers with professional lens lineups... or continuing two or three sensor designs splitting the market. Guess which one makes more money? In the short run it's the split line. Canon can charge massive amounts of money for the large sensor professional line cameras because more pros will buy it: it is more economical for pros to buy an expensive body than it would be for them to buy a whole new lens lineup (so some wouldn't switch over).
I think the future is a smaller sensor because it is cheaper, but the manufacturers are leery of alienating their customer base by changign lens mount/format as Canon did when they went from FL/FD to the EOS EF lens mount (all Canon pros found their old lenses incompatible, a fiasco, many switched brands). The path that Nikon chose by allowing old lenses to be compatible with new bodies while slowly over time limiting the functionality of old lenses on the newest designs (metering issues mostly) seems like the method that DSLR producers will persue in bringing the professional and serious film users over to digital. (just conjecture)
In the long run smaller sensors are cheaper and... SMALLER :-p (both on the camera size and the lens size).
I would say the 5D is closer equivelent to the A2 (EOS-5) from 1992 which got 5FPS out of the box. The EOS-3 also goes for under $1000. The A2 was a prosumer camera in the $500 price range similar to the 5D's target market. The EOS-3 was a knockout for the EOS-1n until the EOS-1v came along and the EOS-1v had virtually nothing on the EOS-3 except weather proofing and build quality and framerate with a booster. Being profressional film SLRs the EOS-1, 1n, 1v, and EOS-3 were designed with a booster in mind for high FPS shooting (you needed the power and the motors to run the drive).Quote:
Originally Posted by backpack
Meanwhile, one can get 3fps and 4fps on P&S digital cameras for well under 1000 (albeit with less buffer) 2.5fps unlimited easily on P&S, and the 20D offers 5FPS for $1200 and 24 frames (1.6 crop sensor).
I don't know much about the design inside the 5D but with a buffer of 60 images there is no shortage of buffer space or speed and it sounds almost like a software limitation on FPS to prevent the 5D from encroaching on 1DmkIIn (only $800 more) sales for PJs and sports shooters.
And Canon service is first rate.
Yes. But there is a massive imbedded base, and a large number of users who want everything the same(for some good reasons) to support 35mm for a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
I've never said any of the lenses were superior, I've said they were decent quality and more than good enough for a majority of users. Most users don't need the lens at maximum aperture for lowlight performance, particularly with a digital body which offers fairly uniform quality over a wide range of ISO's, unlike film. Most don't need or like shallow DOF. There are professional users who do, and dentists who think they do, and they are willing to pay $700 for the added performance. Those people aren't in general the customers for a 20D, Digital Rebel or D100/D70/D50. Those customers are probably better served spending the $700 on a different FL lens (say the fisheye) or taking more pictures, or they might not even have the extra money. Good enough for what the customer will profitably pay for is the core of engineering.
If you want to swing geek dicks, I've done work on difraction limited F.55 systems. Your highlight reel?
Ah... the luxury of not having beat my chest as the professional expert who "does this for a living" is that I don't have to throw down. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
I can't say I've ever used one of those... I've operated a 4-rod LEU 200kW swimming pool "system"... maybe a little more unrelated to digital SLR lenses than your toy but only slightly :biggrin: ... You can have the geek trophy. It doesn't make you correct ;)
I think we agree on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
(thus my saying "in the LONG RUN") and in the short run they'll follow the model for how Nikon went from MF to AF film bodies while mostly maintaining backwards compatiblity (to this day over 15 years later).
And as I said Canon has elected for the two tier system with professional/prosumer level uberexpensive full frame cameras and then consumer/high end consumer 1.6 crop bodies. What I was implying is that because of that split they simply won't produce the pro lenses for the 1.6 line (and the 10-22 isn't an L lens).
I'd guess I have 6K invensted in lenses (several of which I should just sell). The economical catch 22 is that as the system goes I would be better off switching to a new lenses if such pro lenses existed for the 1.6 sensors becaues I could sell my old lenses... but if that were the case my old lenses would be worth little because everyone else would be doing the same thing :biggrin:
I think the stick in the pudding is that Tokina, Tamron, and Sigma won't sit idly by for long when there is an opportunity to exploit: professional/prosumer lenses for the 1.6 crop. Sigma 11-22mm f/2.8 HSM EX DC? Something like that will come soon... I wonder how Nikon and Canon will change their plans when it does.
Meanwhile I'll just dream about "what if" the 5D had 5FPS and cost $2000... :p
Actually, it is probably more of a sensor bandwidth limitation. The 5D's sensor is an evolution of the 20D/RebelXT CMOS line, not the 1D/s mkII line, so it's ability to offload the image data from the sensor itself is likely more along the lines of a 20D rather than a 1Ds. If you figure a 20D can dump 5x8.2MP/sec and the 5D can do 3x12.8MP/sec, they have similar stats. Kind of like the 1D and 1Ds can offload about the same amount of data/sec and are in the same sensor chip design series. Basically, you can't take another shot until every photosite has reported its light reading through its output channel, with more channels leading to higher throughput... and that's the primary limiter of frame rate on these cameras from what I understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
And yes, the service was really much faster and more thorough than I expected. They even replaced some parts that I had scratched for free. :)
Put this in your mouth, and do something useful with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by steepconcrete
http://www.tacala.com/images/soft-taco.jpg
CJ,
As summit said trying to compare those MTF charts of two complely differenct lenses is a joke. Didnt they teach you in your first engineering class that you need to compare like with like? If you took an MTF chart of of the L series lense with the same crop factor, I'll bet that the charts are a differenct storey since you would just be ussing the center of the lense wich is by far the sharpest portion.
You seem to forget that with the crop factor you still are not comparing the same level of magifications.
Please tell me again that the EF-s lense performs as well as the L series at a given aperature. It doesnt. I would hope that you would know that MTF charts are seldome relied upon as indicators of a lenses performance in real life situations, especially in photo gear. Things such as coatings, internal flockings to reduce ireflections also come into play. Ever hear of Bokeah? Why do you think all of the Zeiss glass is so superior.
The build quality of the EF-s lense is shit compared to the L series stuff or even a lot of uper end aftermarket stuff. This IS a HUDGE deal to those of us that actually use the gear.
Have you ever owned any L series glass?
Please tell me again how digi cams deliver uniform performance at a wide range of iso's This couldnt be further from the truth, The noise associated with an increase in iso is far more noticiable than an increase in grain with a higher asa modern film.
"with modifications you could put an EF-S lens on an EF mount, execpt it'd bump into the shutter. " Actually there is a thing in the way called a Mirror (you have heard of those since you are a self proclaimed lense expert) that it would hit. Its the same deal if you tried to put one of the original APS specific lenses on a 35mm film body. Also, you would get a shit load of vignetting since it does have an image circle desinged for 35mm film. Once again being a "designer" of lense I would hope that you knew what an image circle is and the theories behind it.
"a variable aperture is more of a compromise in a field that revolves around compromise (or why it compromises optical quality at all, since it's not an element)," No shit an aperature isnt an element. But variable maximum aperature lenses arnt that way becasue of the size of aperatue. They have a vaiable maxium aperature due to there lense design. The maximum amount of light that can pass threw the lesne determins the maximum aperature this IS determined by the optical design of the lense elements and also reflects the quality of the lense.
"Most don't need or like shallow DOF" Once again WTF? People do like and want shallow depth of field. Why do you think that they will pay to have portaits taken by some one that knows how to control depth of field. It's not that complicated of a concept and dont make assertions about the general amerature photographer that arnt ture. Depth of field is the KEY to making an image look like it has some depth, and not just some shitty snap shot. Having a fast aperature in a ultrawide zoom is MUST since the lense inherantly has a hudge depth of field, a large maxiumum aperatue is needed to make the depth of field shallow enough to isolate the subject from its surroundings.
Cj,
While you may know just enough about optical desing to be dangerous, you obvioulsy dont know jack shit about lense desing and its aplication in photgraphy, so why dont you just STFU. You might actually learn something if you could get past your attitude and realise you are not as smart as you think you are.
Somehow it seems like Grant hasn't actually used the EF-S lens in question and CJ hasn't used the L lens... BOTH reviewed very well at various respectable online camera sites.
As far as the "EF-S only has to cover a smaller imaging circle so it's not fair to compare blahblahblah"... uh, it covers the area it was intended to cover, which happens to be smaller than FF, and it takes advantage of that. It's a specialized tool for a specific type of camera. It's like saying that, say, all 35mm lenses are inferior to MF lenses because the MF lenses have to cover a larger imaging area and if you cropped out a center area the size of 35mm the MF lens would always be better. Maybe that's true, but how is it relevant to the discussion of whether a lens provides a good image to a particular sensor size?
Also, am I the only one who cringes every time I read the world "lens" spelled "lense?" Sure, technically lense is an "alternate spelling," but it isn't the primary modern english spelling.
Anyway, ugh. I feel dirty just posting in this thread now... :tdo13:
[QUOTE=backpack]Somehow it seems like Grant hasn't actually used the EF-S lens in question QUOTE]
Actually I have tested several of them, and I do not feal that they performed very well. I have also repaired 3 of them now, and can atest to the fact they are not built very well especially for there price. Another note, I have never ever seen a 17-35 or 16-35 come in for repair, and only a few 28-70's and 70-200 all of wich where dropped.
I was referring specifically to the EF-S 10-22mm. From what I've read you're correct: many of the EF-S lenses, especially the kit lens, are not exactly top performers, to put it mildly. That said, the 10-22 has been reviewed as a sort of "high end" EF-S.Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbakerskier
"This lens is small, light and solidly built. Sometimes Canon's non-L series lenses can feel a bit cheap, but not this one. Focus is as fast as ever due to the USM motor, and manually focusing, if you're so inclined, is similarly smooth. The lens is in the current Canon idiom, and there is little to fault about it with regard to either fit or finish." ... "The numbers tell a positive story, but more importantly, this lens is capable of producing some very fine results in terms of prints. I wouldn't hesitate to use the Canon 10-22mm for any professional application." -- from here .
Anyway, it doesn't seem like anyone said that the build quality was the same as an "L" lens, just that the 10-22 could provide a good wide-angle perspective for reduced-frame cameras.
Oh, and just out of curiosity, do you work at a camera repair shop? It sounds interesting... I love taking broken things apart to see how they work. :)
I have managed a high end used camera shop for 7 years. Besides selling gear I also do a lot of repairs in house.Quote:
Originally Posted by backpack
That sounds like fun. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbakerskier
In other news, dpreview has a basic (nothing too exciting) hands-on preview of the 5D.
Perhaps you could learn how to read an MTF chart from me? Bottom axis is image height in mm, left axis is Image Preservation/Modulation Contrast/ whatever you want to call it. You can compare the same crop factor by simply stopping at the 13mm image height on the chart for the 16-35mm lens.Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbakerskier
MTF charts are one tool for a designer. Imaging systems costing millions of dollars are designed and specified with MTFs that are produced using the very same design software used by Canon, etc. Are they perfect? No. Are they relied upon, hell yes. Now the publicly available MTF's probably aren't always reliable, but that's a different story.
Sure, coatings, baffles, etc. matter but until someone actually produces public data on those are less reliable than MTFs to me. Everyone's eye is different, and humans are often influenced by packaging.
The aperture stop always limits the light path through a system, by definition. It's generally chosen to allow the fastest possible F# that gives an "acceptable" quality image with the specified components. What "acceptable" is will very lens to lens, company to company. Are modern pro lens generally better designs? Yes. Inherently? No. Will an EF lens take an image that's very similar to an L lens at F20something? Yes, all of the image aberrations increase the further away from the optical axis a ray of light travels. Stop down the lens and they decrease substantially. Look at how similar the MTF tests are on many zoom lens at slower speeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbakerskier
As for a "variable aperture" if you take apart a "variable aperture" lens, you'll see the aperture is physically the same size throughout it's zoom range. The "fixed aperture" lenses require a moving aperture of various types. Not really an indictment of the lens optically, the designers/marketing didn't feel the added optomechanical mounting was worth the cost.
And what would I learn from you? Spelling? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by mtbakerskier
Perhaps the needs/wants of professional sports photographers? That would be interesting. Ancedotal information of camera repair, that too would be interesting.
In turn you might learn that there are plenty of people who don't need/want what you do, or they just lack the budget, and they've been able to acheive good results with equipment that isn't as good. That was the purpose of my original post (I'll bold) You can take good pictures with cropped sensors. There are decent lenses available for them. Many users, even some professionals, are happy with them We can have arguments over what makes a lens decent for unspecified uses, I can show you data, you can disagree from your experience, whatever. They still meet the needs of millions of photographers, and are better than similar things that were sold a decade ago in many, many ways.
Summit-
I'm not an expert, those are all old, grey, and as a species fast on the track to extinction All it takes now is a bit of knowledge and a computer to design a decent lens now (not a great lens, but a good design). I don't know everything, and listening to people drone on all day at seminars doesn't help my knowledge deficit or the ability to post coherently in the evening. I have had a broad experience of actually making things with optics. Specing and sourcing parts.
And I agree with you on Canon's marketing theory or pro/consumer, which is why the 1.3x sensor is going to definitely be a stopgap. There is another good camera company out there, Nikon, that makes some decent cameras and has decided on only 1 reduced sensor size, 1.5x, and makes some nice, reasonably well built lenses for them. In the longer term there is also the 4/3 format consortium, if Fry's keeps selling the Olympus kits cheap, and other do as well that may go somewhere at the consumer level.
Since I own a D70 body, I'll probably get a couple more DX lenses for it. They take pictures good enough for me, last well, and I enjoy them, which is all that matters in the end.
Backpack-
If you are interested in taking apart lenses, well, they aren't that exciting. Cameras are more interesting. Some coated bits of various different types of glass in a tube. In an older zoom lens 2 of the groups move in a proscribed manner. Modern lenses just split the function of those groups into more elements for better error correction as a broad simplification. For a decent history up into the late 80's (prime lens haven't changed much, zoom lens have become lighter/better corrected because of "ED", aka large Abbe number). Check out "A History of the Photographic Lens" by Rudolf Kingslake, if you are interested in a readable history of designs.
Didn't mean to have turn this into the stereotypical TGR trainwreck thread.
You know nothing... you're just writing shit to make yourself sound smart and important! Which you're not! Grow some balls and quit grandstanding you arrogent prick!Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
He doesn't design shit! he spends his time trying to act smarter than he his to make up for his tiny limp dick! Nothing better than trying to be a God of lenses (what a fucking geek!) when you really SUCK at everything!Quote:
Originally Posted by steepconcrete