Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Rumor, but not fake: Canon 5D
- Thread starter mhasman
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm a tried and true Canon fan, but after using the D2X (we have several out in the field), it really has some nice features.
I do think the Canon Camera/lenses take nicer pics, though.
I do think the Canon Camera/lenses take nicer pics, though.
Bibulous said:
Makes sense. This Xmas is to be one the DSLR. Witness the Pentax DL and D2, the Minolta 5D, the two new DSLR's from Canon, the lower pricing on the Olympus Evolt - and from rumors, two new DSLR's from Nikon.
Nice to dream, isn't it? I am hoping for a Leica M mount DRF for under $2000 myself. I hear Minolta has some mules out for testing right now.
The Canon 5D is an exciting development. Maybe we'll see next year the 20D replacement having the 1.3 crop sensor.
Dam nikon just came out with D70s and the D50... but maybe those will get a bump to 8 megapixels... I just hope they don't update the nikon 8800 soonChip NoVaMac said:
Advertised on Canon's website
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=111
Canon are also advertising the EOS-1D Mark II N
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=12012
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=111
Canon are also advertising the EOS-1D Mark II N
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=12012
So the 5d is nice, and I almost decided to order one, but I saw a sample, and i'll be damned if the corners don't look like a $50 len on a $100 camera body. Yuck.
If the 5d was a 1.3x crop factor, i'd be tempted, but from what I see, the "full frame" trend, done to get photogs back their wide angle lens, actually puts MORE stress on WA lenses, even high end expensive ones, and thusly makes the "feature" of "full frame" a moot point.
Looking at edge corner sharpness from the D2x vs. 1ds mk II and 5D... i'd take a D2x with crop first. I'd also take a 1d mk IIn or 20d before the 5d or any of the "full frame" canons.
As much as every one is worried about Nikon, I'd be worried about Canon, who's now looking like a fighter in the woods in the dark, just thrashing around with full frame, 1.3x crops, 1.6x crops, and medicore WAs.
It's a shame too because the color of the 5d rocks, and it's not as plasticky looking to my eye. I was geeked about the 5d, because it's essentially the body I want, small compact but rugged, and delivers hi-res. Perfect for studio and landscape work. Alas, until there's a way to deliver EDGE TO EDGE sharpness without buying a converter and a bunch of expensive Zeiss lenses... well, the 5d (like the Kodak 14n/c and the 1ds/1ds mkII before it) is just another turd to me.
I get better edge to edge on my Canon ae-1 full manual filmie from 1980 than I would get using a new, $3299 5d. Pretty sad what we all are willing to accept in the digital world.
So we have canon giving us full frame with soft corners. No good for me
Nikon gives us DX format wide angles. They're sharp but they distort like mofos if you go past a flat plane.
I have an architectural job coming up and I might honestly shoot film. If the 5d had corner sharpness anywhere near acceptable for a $3000+ camera, i'd gladly have bought it, but I'm thinking I might do it all with film, a Nikon FM from 1976 and a 85mm tilt and shift.
And before any canon apologists flame me with the "if you want sharp corners, just crop" i'll say then that they should advertise it as an 8 mp camera. Nothing like immediately negating 12.8 mp because of a very obvious engineering fault. Blah.
I have a photo of the non-sharp corners. if anyone wants to see it, i'll post it. It seriously made me sad. Back to the drawing board, DSLR production folks!
If the 5d was a 1.3x crop factor, i'd be tempted, but from what I see, the "full frame" trend, done to get photogs back their wide angle lens, actually puts MORE stress on WA lenses, even high end expensive ones, and thusly makes the "feature" of "full frame" a moot point.
Looking at edge corner sharpness from the D2x vs. 1ds mk II and 5D... i'd take a D2x with crop first. I'd also take a 1d mk IIn or 20d before the 5d or any of the "full frame" canons.
As much as every one is worried about Nikon, I'd be worried about Canon, who's now looking like a fighter in the woods in the dark, just thrashing around with full frame, 1.3x crops, 1.6x crops, and medicore WAs.
It's a shame too because the color of the 5d rocks, and it's not as plasticky looking to my eye. I was geeked about the 5d, because it's essentially the body I want, small compact but rugged, and delivers hi-res. Perfect for studio and landscape work. Alas, until there's a way to deliver EDGE TO EDGE sharpness without buying a converter and a bunch of expensive Zeiss lenses... well, the 5d (like the Kodak 14n/c and the 1ds/1ds mkII before it) is just another turd to me.
I get better edge to edge on my Canon ae-1 full manual filmie from 1980 than I would get using a new, $3299 5d. Pretty sad what we all are willing to accept in the digital world.
So we have canon giving us full frame with soft corners. No good for me
Nikon gives us DX format wide angles. They're sharp but they distort like mofos if you go past a flat plane.
I have an architectural job coming up and I might honestly shoot film. If the 5d had corner sharpness anywhere near acceptable for a $3000+ camera, i'd gladly have bought it, but I'm thinking I might do it all with film, a Nikon FM from 1976 and a 85mm tilt and shift.
And before any canon apologists flame me with the "if you want sharp corners, just crop" i'll say then that they should advertise it as an 8 mp camera. Nothing like immediately negating 12.8 mp because of a very obvious engineering fault. Blah.
I have a photo of the non-sharp corners. if anyone wants to see it, i'll post it. It seriously made me sad. Back to the drawing board, DSLR production folks!
Moxiemike said:
Moxie, you have some good points. If the image you talk about is the Canon landscape image shot with the 17-40L, the extreme corners are disappointing. The proof in the pudding, as they say, will come from the many tests by end users come mid-October when the 5D starts to ship.
I for one can't wait to see lets say the 17-40L shot with the 1Ds Mk II, the 1D Mk II, the 5D, and even the lowly Rebel Ti film body with the same lens. Once those tests are done, then it will be up to the purchaser to decide what direction the results indicate.
The idea about cropping the corners out can be a valid one for the most demanding of cases (like yours). The debate then would be whether the larger pixel size on the 5D gives any lower noise, better dynamic range, or better "detail" - compared to going to lets say the Nikon D2X with digital specific lenses.
The smaller sensors for digital right now, may be the best solution. Nikon owners have been singing this song for a while, when Canon users put up the 1Ds cameras (and now the 5D). But it was Olympus that first gave the world the "news" that for digital, lenses had to be designed to effectively expose each photocell site.
As Canon moves forward in their desire for the FF DSLR, you may see newer lens designs that cover the 24x36 format and provide the edge sharpness that people desire.
I find it interesting that you mention that you are thinking of shooting the upcoming job with an FM and the 85mm T&S lens. Depending on the final size of the print, this might be the best solution. But even the 1D or 5D with the Canon 24mm TS lens would give you a wider field of view than the FM combo would - even if you cropped out for the soft corners. And wider field of view seems to be what you wanted in the first place.
For what we are talking about is choosing the right tools for the job. By your own admission the Nikon wide angle lenses for the DSLR don't pass muster because of distortion. That is the reason IMO that Canon has decided to go the 1x, 1.3x, and 1.6x route. For a pro might buy the 16-35L or 17-40L for their 20D, and get close to an extreme wide angle with the 1D, or even have a film body for those really extreme shots that demand corner sharpness.
[BTW: took the image that Canon offered and printed it (with minor sharpening) at both a 10 inch width and an 18 inch width (no cropping, actual print sizes) - and at a normal viewing distances, both appear to have good or decent corner sharpness. As I mentioned before, we will have to wait for real world tests, but "pixel peeping" can't be the only judge.]
Chip NoVaMac said:
I hope canon is coming out with some new lenses for these FF cameras, if only because if FF is the way they're going to go, they need it. The corner shaprness issue isn't just a 5d phenomenon, but it's also highly prevalent on the $8000 1ds MK II. That's not good.
The point I was trying to make on the "shooting the upcoming job" is that while the image quality overall of DSLR's might be more than sufficient, and i could probably make good use of a 5d as, say, a fashion/portraiture cam, I don't think I can justify $3300 on a camera body that, honestly, doesn't deliver.
Someday they might make some new lens designs, but you have to wonder about the expense of those, as L series glass is mightily expensive as it stands. To get maxmium corner sharpness out of a 1ds mk II, several folks online have resorted to converting Zeiss primes to work on their canons, and to me, that defeats the purpose of "buying into a system."
In my Nikon case, I can buy a 12-24, which is a tack sharp lens, and on the 1.5 crop, it's sharp corner to corner to corner to corner. The results are very acceptable, that is, until you tilt your ballhead and see the distortion. In this case, the solution is to buy a $500 sigma 12-24, which exhibits much less distortion than the Nikkor. That lens however, is definitely not as sharp as the Nikkor.
As for the 17-40L, we've seen that this piece of glass is pretty poor overall, and it has been shot extensively on the rebels, mk IIs, mk Is, and now the 5d. It's obviously not a good lens, but there's samples on the net all over showing the 16-35 as giving very similar results. Even in one major photo mag, they recommend a rebel set up and pass on the kit lens in favor of the Tamron 11-18.
What this all points to is this. We have full frame cameras, 1.3 crops, 1.5 crops and even 1.6 crops. Full frame is looking more and more to me like a white elephant, as it seems like full frame cameras are beating the stuffing out of the lenses. Now, honestly, when trying to cover that big of an image circle, what lense advances could be made to recover shaprness or resolution? In that case, it seems much tougher, if only because sharpness is glass is a variable that can change from piece to piece. I imagine that lense for Full Frame digitals would be mightily expensive, and that in the end, it'll be on the price range of Medium Format gear. We know how expensive that is.
On the other hand, we have Nikon, who have given us a bit more consistency, with a bit more distortion and noise. Either way, you have to resort to a 3rd party lens manufacturer to get elevated quality.
As for me buying a 5d and a 24mm t&s, that's still not a variable. When i do this job, the client wants BIG prints. Big to the point where 12.8 MP is the perfect size. Now, EVEN IF i have to crop down, why couldn't I just justify spending $3500 for a 1d mk II and get decent corner to corner?
Lastly, I have to counter your print theory, as I took he same photo and printed it out at 12x18 on my 2200, and showed a couple photo buddies around here who immediately panned the image as a "student using a cheap, mediocre lens to take a shot."
it's noticeable and it's bad. Just like it's bad on the 1ds mk II. The corner sharpness issue is a real deal, and I can't imagine Canon making any affordable DSLR lenses for FF camera in the near future. Oh, and if you're upgrading from your rebel or 20d, throw away that kit lens. It won't work on this system.
The more and more I look at this, the less I see obvious benefits to go with either brand. We have Canon obsoleting lenses again, Nikon resting on their laurels again, and Minolta/Olympus as the only manufacturer that is REALLY making any sort of headway with REAL tech in their cameras. Kinda like the 80s, for sure!
Sure, the D2x, 1ds, 1d, D70, 20d, D50, D2hs, et. al. are fine cameras for 90% of the applications. But the fact remains is that UNLIKE an FM or AE-1, they're not well rounded machines. The though of buying a 1d mk II for reportage, a 5d for studio, etc is a little silly to me. Even buying a D2h (at 4mp) and a D2x (at 12mp). The D2x crop mode is pretty cool, but still, If I wanted the FPS with film, i'd slap on a motor drive. I didn't have to go out and buy a $3200 camera to get decent frame rates for sports and reportage.
So this is what we're stuck with, and to be fair, the 5d is a turd. It's a turd because 75% of the people who buy it are probably going to be rich doctors and rich lawyers, the lovely "saturday brigade". Unlike pros who generally try to milk their equipment, and we're talking REAL pros, who work for their dollars, these guys will fill up the BB's on dpreview and freddy m. They already have. They whine about corner sharpness because the Ritz camera where they bought their 5d sold them a crappy Quantary 28-90 for $75 bucks. Again, just like the 80s, when people go hard ons for f1.4 lenses. And again, we're left with lawyers and doctors making the decisions for us. Sure, I could make some great shots with the 5d. At this point, I still may buy one, just to have some hi-res camera available. But I'll probably just get a D200 if they ever release it, or a D2x, milk it for four or five years, see what happens until then, and make money in the mean time. That said, the corner softness, an issue brough up in the 1ds mk II reviews, and even in some of the initial resposnes to the 1ds and the Kodaks, is a HUGE issue, and in the film days was the difference between a "good" and "crappy" photo. The difference now is that the gear costs 12x as much as it did in the film days....full frame? who needs it.