Jump to content
Alex_Mustard

Canon 5D official announcement

Recommended Posts

Thanks Herb, I understand your point but only as it regards like sensors of diffrent sizes. The first FF sensor was the 6MP Contax and the images at 400 were worst than my 5 mp Oly E-1 at 800 which has a chip about one fourth the size of the Contax chip.

 

Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Herb, I understand your point but only as it regards like sensors of diffrent sizes. The first FF sensor was the 6MP Contax and the images at 400 were worst than my 5 mp Oly E-1 at 800 which has a chip about one fourth the size of the Contax chip.

 

Phil

 

Yes. It only strictly applies to sensors of the same design and process just scaled up. I don't have any details on the relative merits of the Canon vs Sony processes and circuit design. So if they were to make a FF D3x with the same process and design, you can expect one stop better signal-to-noise.

 

Your experience with the Contax surprises me, but maybe that's why they are out of this business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is sad, I have a Contax N-1 (35 mm) and the glass is wonderful.

 

Go to Pentax and look at the smcp-FA 645 120 mm F4. This is a macro lens that shots life size, 1:1 in 645. Life size image on 645 film or sensor. E-ray does the same thing on film over 12 inches wide. Image is still life size.

 

My Oly E-1 shots life size, 1:1 (the 4/3 chip size or about one- fourth 35 mm size) with an extension tube. In 35 mm that would be called 2:1.

 

Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regarding 1:1, it has nothing to do with 35 mm, it means life size. If you use a 6 x 7 camera with a 1:1 lens at life size then the image is the size of the film (i.e 6 x7) not the size of 35 mm. An 8" x 10" neg at 1:1 would be an image 8" x 10". An image on the Olympus 4/3 format is the size of the sencer at 1:1. The Oly 50 mm macro is a 1:2 lens but produces an image which is life size for 35 MM because the chip has what you would call a 2x crop factor. The image also has twice the DOF because it is a 50 and not a 100 mm.

 

Phil Rudin

 

I suspect that the 1:1 claim of the Canon 60mm lens is based on the 35mm format, even though it mounts only to EF-S camera, thus yielding greater than 1:1. Otherwise the degree of magnification would be less than the 1:1 of the 100 macro (which IS based on 35mm), and offer even further confusion to the lens lineup!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

add my 2 cents .. i would rather have a 1d mkII ....... that killer speed and pro body ... the Ds may have resolution and full frame but its price is out of my league ... and besides the 1d is still a massive choice for pros in the world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5D - it's all about resolution and FULL FRAME. Full frame, in particular, is a Very Good Thing. Many non-Canon shooters seem to have forgotten this point, but it's actually sort of nice to shoot your 17mm lens at 17mm again etc. And I believe that a bigger sensor is a better thing - I'd like a 6*9 sensor rather than a 35mm size sensor if possible!

 

So anyway, that's what your paying for with your 5D. It's certainly not cheap considering the build quality - you're getting a 'consumer' body and autofocus. But there's been a lot of demand on the forums for full frame at an 'affordable' price, and this is Canon's response.

 

I still think it's a pretty good underwater camera, as long as it can be made to fit inside existing housing moldings (unlike the 1 -series, which are substantially bigger and thus seem deprived of sensibly priced housing solutions).

 

Topside I'm not entirely convinced that it's better value than a 1Ds, but that's probably just because I'm bitter that my 1Ds is now devalued to the point where's it's worth about the same as my Yashica Electro (that's not very much, BTW).

 

Another point to consider - with some of the cheaper housing systems, there have been concerns re: corner sharpness on crop sensor cameras. Full frame potentially makes corner sharpness much more of an issue.

 

I will resist the temptation to add more bird pictures to this thread. I still reserve the right to post brick wall photos, however. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally for me full frame vs cropped sensor is not really a big issue. More important issue is how well it is executed. Nikon already took care of the wide angle disadvantage with 12-24mm and 10.5mm DX lens.

Full frame, at equal pixel count to cropped sensor (all else being equal) theoretically will have advantage in digital noise level but if Nikon can manage somehow to keep the noise level down to an acceptable level, especially when compared to the full frame counter part then I don't see cropped sensor as a disadvantage beside having to do a little math when trying to figure out the lenses.

The trade off of higher noise level especially at high ISO vs problem with seeing deficiency in the periphery of full frame glass is not a dealbreaker for me as far as cropped sensor is concerned. If Nikon decides to stay with cropped sensor for their next 18-20+ mps camera, I have no problem with that as long as they can somehow make the sensor works and keep the noise down. If they can't then they probably be better off going full frame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, if the pixels in the D2x are smaller, there are more pixels per unit area, does this translate into higher resolution?

 

If you fill the frame with the subject on both a D2x and a 5D there should be very little differences in most cases. Of course we'll have wait until we see a detailed review of the 5D to compare, but I would be a little surprised if there's much of a difference.

 

At small apertures, the smaller, higher density, sensor will be limited by diffraction more than the larger sensor. It's a little complicated to sort out but the larger sensor has an advantage on macro subjects where you shoot to get the same print size and depth of field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suspect that the 1:1 claim of the Canon 60mm lens is based on the 35mm format, even though it mounts only to EF-S camera, thus yielding greater than 1:1.  Otherwise the degree of magnification would be less than the 1:1 of the 100 macro (which IS based on 35mm), and offer even further confusion to the lens lineup!

 

I am not sure if I understood you properly. A lens doing 1:1 is recording the subject 1:1 and has so far nothing to do with relation to certain sensor/film sizes. The only thing which is true: if you shoot a small subject 1:1 which fills the smaller sensor (APS-C) entirely, you would require a 1,5:1 (Nikon) or 1,6:1 (Canon) lens in order to fill the full frame sensor in the same way with the same subject.

 

Personally for me full frame vs cropped sensor is not really a big issue. More important issue is how well it is executed. Nikon already took care of the wide angle disadvantage with 12-24mm and 10.5mm DX lens.

 

I still know some film shooters who really like their fast primes (in which they have invested a lot of money) a lot. Some of them consider switching to digital finally, but not all of them would be happy to exchange several f2.8 primes (14mm, 20mm, etc.) for those few and slow APS-C 10/11/12-20/22/24mm zooms. Add the price for a new APS-C fisheye and the 5D is already a quiet good deal. I don't say these zooms aren't good, but some people who would spend the money for cameras like the 5D might love to continue using their fast glass. From one point of view I would even prefer APS-C wideangle zooms because the have a lot more DOF than a full frame lens with the same FOV and therefore perform better behind dome ports in this respect. But I can not confirm that FF wideangles deliver poorer corners in general. I think we have been spoilt by FF lenses on cropped sensors where corners weren't critical because the lenses had been designed to cover a larger image circle. But APS-C lenses have shown the same effect now as they “just†cover the used image circle, like FF lenses with slides or FF sensors. I can not see the Canon EF-S 10-22mm beating all full frame L glass wideangle zooms and fast primes (17-40mm f4, 16-35mm f2.8, 20mm f2.8, 24mm f2.8, and so on) to replace them with just one slow zoom. I am sure Nikon shooters had more wideangle choices when shooting slides than “just†one equivalent 18-36mm f4 (12-24 on APS-C). I am sure Nikon will add more good glass to their DX line but for the time being, it’s not the worst thing if you switch to digital and simply continue to use your existing glass which is not only available now, but already owned.

 

Don't get me wrong, its looks like a really nice camera with a lot of advances.

But for a camera with that price tag ($3299) It’s looks odd that there are some important features(at list to me) that aren't there but they are in my 'entry level' camera that cost 1/4 of the D5.

 

With film bodies it was simple, the next more expensive camera was better in most every aspect (frame rate, build quality, etc.). Resolution and sensor size was the same with all cameras: film. With digital we have to face different models being different kinds of compromise between the old days’ criteria and the digital part of the camera (sensor size / resolution). 5D’s priority is nothing but FF and resolution. So I would not say it’s odd that it doesn’t feature certain things just because of the high price. A 5D with Nikon D2X body and features would not be available for 3000 bucks, the 5D sensor is much more expensive than the D2X sensor. On the other hand a studio photographer with no requests to speed but resolution could say the Nikon D2H is so overpriced, just 4 megapixels for the same price like the 5D? Different Cameras for different users with different preferences, hourses for courses. Judging from the very first responses, it seems that the 5D could be a quiet attractive compromise for Canon underwater shooters.

 

Julian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Simon,

 

Do you think that the 5D will fit in your S&S D60 housing - with a few mods? This might be the cheapest option and you wouldn't have to wait for the new housing?

 

Alex

 

Interesting Idea. The S&S Housing is pretty big (What i first disliked but now like) so it is a possibility. I will do a Measuring on the Weekend when I have the Housing Back from the Suitecase of my Girlfriend who is still in Spain (had to put som weight to her suitcases)

 

But probably you have to change most Buttons and i don't know if this is

 

- much less expensive than a new housing

- Good for the future tightness of the housing

 

Anyone did something like this in tha past?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I can not confirm that FF wideangles deliver poorer corners in general. I think we have been spoilt by FF lenses on cropped sensors where corners .

 

Julian

 

Do you mean topside or through a dome port, Julian? Pretty much all lenses, and all the practical underwater options, will be a bit soft in the corners on full frame when shot wide open in above water use. If you want really sharp corners on the 5D, you're pretty much talking Zeiss 21, Zuiko 21 and Leica Elmarit 19mm - but I don't think you want to take any of these diving. In reality, the corner performance of something like the 17-40L would be fine for underwater use from the point of view of the lenses' optics.

 

I do wonder whether the softish corners (from the dome port, not the lens) that I see when shooting underwater on the 10D would be significnatly worse if shooting full frame. Even if Ikelite for example decides to house the 5D, I'm figuring that there's no experience available in using a port system like this for full frame. I guess I'm thinking that all the issues like nodal point etc would be magnified if we're using the full lens and not just the centre crop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suspect that the 1:1 claim of the Canon 60mm lens is based on the 35mm format, even though it mounts only to EF-S camera, thus yielding greater than 1:1.  Otherwise the degree of magnification would be less than the 1:1 of the 100 macro (which IS based on 35mm), and offer even further confusion to the lens lineup!

 

If this is the case then Canon should step up and call the lens what it is a 1:1.6 macro.

 

Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob,

 

as said, when leaving dome effects out for the first.

So what EF-S lenses would you suggest to deliver better corners than 17-40L, 20 f2.8, ... on full frame? Do you expect the 10-22 to be better on a high resolution 1.6 sensor (which doesn't exist from Canon) than the others on full frame?

 

As said, the dome is a factor as it requires DOF for wideangle corners. FF lenses call for large domes.

 

Julian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rob,

 

as said, when leaving dome effects out for the first.

So what EF-S lenses would you suggest to deliver better corners than 17-40L, 20 f2.8, ... on full frame? Do you expect the 10-22 to be better on a high resolution 1.6 sensor (which doesn't exist from Canon) than the others on full frame?

 

As said, the dome is a factor as it requires DOF for wideangle corners. FF lenses call for large domes.

 

Julian

 

Like the issue of life size (i.e. 1:1) full frame has nothing to do with 35 mm. Any lens that was designed for the sensor being used makes the sensor a full frame sensor. A 645 lens used with a 645 sensor is full frame. Canon has four EF-S lenses, 60 mm macro, 10-22, 17-85, 18-55. These lenses are designes for the so called 1.6 sensor and don't work on the 1.3 sensor or the 35mm sensor. That makes the 1.6 sensor full frame for those lenses. Nikon has six DX lenses that don't work on 35 mm, these lenses make the 1.5 sensor full frame. Olympus has nine digital only lenses and four more on the way. They only work on the 4/3 sensor and no 35 mm lens is even made that will fit the lens mount. That makes the Oly lens sensor combo clearly full frame. I admit that most camera users come from a 35 mm backgroung but that in no way makes 35 mm the standard by which all other formates should be judged. I have a Pentax 6 x7 camera for some types of work where I need a large neg. If I used that as the standared 35 mm would have a X2 crop factor. Regarding 35 mm sensor v 1.6 or 1.5 with like angle of view lenses. Go to Steve Frinks review of the 17 to 40L on a 35 mm sensor and the review of the Nikon 12 to 24mm

on the Nikon high end 12+ MP sensor. Results show the smaller sensor giving the better image.

I beleave this is because the 17 to 40 was designed for a film camera and the 12 to 24 was designed for the 1.5 chip. If you read the date regarding many of the high end designed for digital lenses you will find that the elements are of a diffrent design from film lenses. Also that the wider the film lens the worst the preformance of the lens in the corners, land or sea. See Steve Frink test of 16 to 35L mm v 17 to 40L on 35 mm full frame.

 

Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term full frame is used more than regularly for describing a DSLR recording surface of equal size to 35mm film, from the industry too. Of course you may argue if you find this term misleading.

 

The problem with larger image recording size for underwater is the shallow DOF because we shoot thru simple curved glass which actually is not a consistent optical underwater system. Again, the problem remains especially with wideangles in the corners as the dome’s virtual image is curved, not flat. Corners are closer in terms of focus distance. So they have to be covered by DOF. That’s why dome glass didn’t work well with medium format wideangles and things like the Ivanoff underwater optical corrector have been used instead. I agree that on an identical dome setup the APS-C lens (same FOV,etc.) performs better. But the reason is not the general opical disadvantage of the 35mm format, it's the hosuing optics which are very poor compared to any decent wideangle lens.

By the way, this does not apply to fisheyes because they focus in a manner the dome’s virtual image is shaped. Fisheyes have always been less critical underwater in the film past too.

 

What I was trying to say to Rob: A lot of people complain about 35mm sized sensors delivering poor (wideangle) corner performance. I think this is often meant in comparison to APS-C DSLRs with 35mm lenses because the weak corners are cut away. But you loose the FOV too. IMO you experience the same with an APS-C image chip and APS-C lenses as they capture the entire lens’s image circle too, including critical corners at the edge of the FOV the lens was built for (we talk about extreme wideagnles around 100° FOV). I’ve seen poor corners with both formats, 35mm with 35mm lenses and APS-C with APS-C lenses. And I am not sure that every APS-C zoom must outperform any 35mm lens (prime/zoom) in general.

 

Don't know the tests you have mentioned. I guess they are in conjunction with underwater usage incl. domeports? or lens only tests? Maybe you could post a link? I found this quiet interesting:

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/17-40/union.htm

 

Julian

 

edit/ps: 17-40 for designed for digital 35mm sensors. The older 16-35mm was film only in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The term full frame is used more than regularly for describing a DSLR recording surface of equal size to 35mm film, from the industry too. Of course you may argue if you find this term misleading.

 

The problem with larger image recording size for underwater is the shallow DOF because we shoot thru simple curved glass which actually is not a consistent optical underwater system. Again, the problem remains especially with wideangles in the corners as the dome’s virtual image is curved, not flat. Corners are closer in terms of focus distance. So they have to be covered by DOF. That’s why dome glass didn’t work well with medium format wideangles and things like the Ivanoff underwater optical corrector have been used instead. I agree that on an identical dome setup the APS-C lens (same FOV,etc.) performs better. But the reason is not the general opical disadvantage of the 35mm format, it's the hosuing optics which are very poor compared to any decent wideangle lens.

By the way, this does not apply to fisheyes because they focus in a manner the dome’s virtual image is shaped. Fisheyes have always been less critical underwater in the film past too.

 

What I was trying to say to Rob: A lot of people complain about 35mm sized sensors delivering poor (wideangle) corner performance. I think this is often meant in comparison to APS-C DSLRs with 35mm lenses because the weak corners are cut away. But you loose the FOV too. IMO you experience the same with an APS-C image chip and APS-C lenses as they capture the entire lens’s image circle too, including critical corners at the edge of the FOV the lens was built for (we talk about extreme wideagnles around 100° FOV). I’ve seen poor corners with both formats, 35mm with 35mm lenses and APS-C with APS-C lenses. And I am not sure that every APS-C zoom must outperform any 35mm lens (prime/zoom) in general.

 

Don't know the tests you have mentioned. I guess they are in conjunction with underwater usage incl. domeports? or lens only tests? Maybe you could post a link? I found this quiet interesting:

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/17-40/union.htm

 

Julian

 

edit/ps: 17-40 for designed for digital 35mm sensors. The older 16-35mm was film only in mind.

Regarding the industry use of the term full frame the industry also uses the term life size or 1:1 in regard to 35 mm as well, I have no argument regarding this other than to say it is in fact misleading.

It was not my intent to suggest that all digital specific lenses are better than all film lenses.

I just wanted to point out that the evidence is becoming stronger that lenses designed for a digital sensor type appear to be gain ground over lenses designed for film. Which leads to the question will 35 mm film lenses need to be replaced by 35 mm digital lenses for the 35 mm chip to achieve max image quality?

The Frink tests can be found a seacamusa.com in the Tech Notes section.

Regarding corner sharpness, all things being equal should I expect that when my Olympus 7 to 14 mm zoom (14 to 28 mm 35 equiv.) dome port arrives in the next month or so that I should expect it to be the sharpest lens of all in the corners because it has the smallest SLR sensor and therefore the greatest DOF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree there is some work to do with both formats. 35mm wideangles should be overworked to meet nowadays’ digital 35mm SLR bodies (5D / 1Ds) requirements. An increased choice on APS-C lenses (more zooms, fast primes, etc.) is important too.

 

As a Canon shooter, I would prefer the 35mm lens choice over EF-S - from what is available now. As said, I am really afraid EF-S won’t become an extensive lens line-up like Nikon’s DX series.

 

4/3†7-14mm: Well, I don’t expect Olympus will ship you an adapted Seacam Superdome with E-300 housing mount :)

But yes, if everything else would be absolutely identical, 4/3†wideangles have a dome corner advantage in terms of DOF.

 

Julian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you guys check the 5D samples at the Canon site? The colors are awesome, but I noticed soft corners on the landscape shot. I don't know which lens was used, the exif only says 17mm, I am guessing the 17-40.

 

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos5d/eos5d_sample-e.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you guys check the 5D samples at the Canon site? The colors are awesome, but I noticed soft corners on the landscape shot. I don't know which lens was used, the exif only says 17mm, I am guessing the 17-40.

 

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos5d/eos5d_sample-e.html

EXIF says 17-40.

The grass looks like mushy water color in the corners. A little better nearer the center. Actually that landscape shot is not that great... but the portraits are amazing. Pretty typical of digital outresolving WA lenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this sample doesn't look good at all. I really hope this is not representive for the 5D + 17-40mm. I am not surprised by the corner softness, it's 17mm (93°) and somehow all extreme wideangles produces such corners, especially on this kind of high resolution cameras. But the rendered colors and details look strange. I sometimes wonder why manufactures put such samples online to promote their gear, even if they are real :). Most worse I have seen is a Olympus 7-14mm sample from the manufacture itself:

http://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/product...ge/sample08.jpg

 

... and this is just a 5 MP camera not demanding this 1800 bucks lens to strong. Like the Olympus lens, I hope the 5D/17-40 will do better in real life too. Otherwise it's a bit dissapointing.

 

Julian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I agree there is some work to do with both formats. 35mm wideangles should be overworked to meet nowadays’ digital 35mm SLR bodies (5D / 1Ds) requirements. An increased choice on APS-C lenses (more zooms, fast primes, etc.) is important too.

 

As a Canon shooter, I would prefer the 35mm lens choice over EF-S - from what is available now. As said, I am really afraid EF-S won’t become an extensive lens line-up like Nikon’s DX series.

 

4/3†7-14mm: Well, I don’t expect Olympus will ship you an adapted Seacam Superdome with E-300 housing mount  :)

But yes, if everything else would be absolutely identical, 4/3†wideangles have a dome corner advantage in terms of DOF.

 

Julian

 

The Seacam dome would be beyond great and you could throw in a 180 enlarged finder at the same time. My guess is that the dome will be a 170 mm Athena glass on the Oly mount with the removable extension tube for the zoom lens. The FF 8 mm fisheye coming in Jan 06 is a 180 lens and projected at around 153 degrees under the dome without the tube and focus to 2 mm from the dome.

For a $1000.00 housing the viewfinder is not half bad.

you can see my post regarding this housing in the E-300 post in this forum.

 

Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Herb - 1:1 traditionally means that the image on the 35mm fram is the same size as the subject, so the APS crop is actually larger than 1:1.  This leaves the question whether the EF-S 60mm lens is 1:1 on the EF-S sensor, or really greater than 1:1. 

 

Ok, maybe I can help resolve this issue.

I have a Canon 350D with a Canon 60mm EF-S lens sitting next to my desk that I use for work.

I set the camera for f8, 1/100, iso1600. I set the lens to manual, minimum focus (all the way left). I then photographed this ruler at what I estimated to be the sharpest focus I could achieve by moving the camera in and out. Here is the result:

 

60MM_350D.JPG

 

This shot has not been cropped. I've only resized it to fit this forum.

 

Units are in inches. I estimate the total width to be 13.5 x 1/16 inches = 0.844 inches = 21.4 mm

The 1.6 crop sensor in the 350D is 22.2 mm across but not all of it is used.

 

I think this answers the question concerning 1:1 and the relevance of 35 mm equivalency. A 35 mm equivalency is not used when rating this lens. The image is the same size as the cropped digital sensor at 1:1.

 

-Brad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, maybe I can help resolve this issue.

I have a Canon 350D with a Canon 60mm EF-S lens sitting next to my desk that I use for work.

I set the camera for f8, 1/100, iso1600. I set the lens to manual, minimum focus (all the way left). I then photographed this ruler at what I estimated to be the sharpest focus I could achieve by moving the camera in and out. Here is the result:

 

60MM_350D.JPG

 

This shot has not been cropped. I've only resized it to fit this forum.

 

Units are in inches. I estimate the total width to be 13.5 x 1/16 inches = 0.844 inches = 21.4 mm

The 1.6 crop sensor in the 350D is 22.2 mm across but not all of it is used.

 

I think this answers the question concerning 1:1 and the relevance of 35 mm equivalency. A 35 mm equivalency is not used when rating this lens. The image is the same size as the cropped digital sensor at 1:1.

 

-Brad

 

Thanks Brad! I'm surprised that canon departed from the 35mm convention! So the 60mm lens gives signficantly less magnification than its FF cousin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Brad!  I'm surprised that canon departed from the 35mm convention!  So the 60mm lens gives signficantly less magnification than its FF cousin.

 

Kasey, I don't understand what you mean by this. Canon did what I think is the correct way to state a spec: 1:1 magnification means the image is the same 22mm as the subject. The 60mm lens has exactly the same magnification as the 1:1 100mm macro which was made for 35mm cameras.

 

A subject 22mm completely fills the 22mm frame rather than a 35mm subject. If he makes a 8x12 print from this shot the 22mm subject will come out 12 inches high, in the 35mm case a 35mm subject will become 12 inches high. The magnification would be GREATER if Canon were to state this in 35mm terms. See why it's so confusing to keep translating things to 35mm frames.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Herb - if a 35mm lens is rated at 1:1 (as is the 100mm), it will provide greater than 1:1 magnification when mounted to APS - agreed? On APS the image circle is cropped leading to an apparent higher magnification.

 

All my micro Nikkors are rated at 1: 1 (35mm) but yield greater magnification on the cropped sensor.

 

In turn, the EF-S 1:1 lens offers only 1:1 magnification on the cropped chip. It provides less magnification than mounting a 35mm macro lens to the same body.

 

I think that this is confusing as a consumer - mounting the 1:1 100mm lens to my 20D yields greater magnification than mounting the 1:1 60mm EF-s to the same camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...