Few shot's with 5D today

[mitedo]

Had the chance to play around with a 5D& 17-40 today, the shot's are not the best the chain was on the leg so i could only get a few feet from the shop door's

Pic's are from camera with no PP at all only some have been croped






ISO 640

ISO 1600









Few problems here



And a few more

[gstark]

Kevin,

I understand the difficulties that you would have had in this brief play with the camera, but I'd like to see some more; these ones are wholly unimpressive thus far, and I'm sure that both you and the camera are capable of something far better than these.

What I'm seeing here is that all of these images are soft and lack contrast and punch; several also have severe vignetting.

Sorry to be so blunt.

[Sheetshooter]

You are right Gary,

These results are atrocious and they are in no way comparable to what I have been obtaining with the same combination of 5D with 17-40.

My 5D gets its baptism in fire tomorrow morning shooting a rather marvellous pool installation up at Palm Beach. From the suck-it-and-see shots I did yesterday (between emptying cartons) I have every confidance that I shall not have a problem meeting my clients' and my expectations.

[birddog114]

Sheetshooter
Don't get me wrong here pls. I'm not bashing or putting fire on the 5D which I'm ordering one of them + number of lenses, just waiting for the dust settled little bit then I'll have one in hand, not too far away, I guess.

If these above are from the 5D, then the D70 can compete them easily, I know you would like to show something new in quickly setup and experiments, but at the end of the day, if they're not better than the Nikon D70 then where are we heading too. Review of the 5D on other sites are mixed atm.

Hope you can show us more better pics with your skills.

Thanking for posting few quick snaps.

[Antsl]

Hi all,

I've had a chance to use the 5D a couple of times now and while I have already seen some impressive results out of it I am also becoming very aware, very quickly that you have to sit on this camera to get the best results. The metering was inconsistant but more of a concern is that this camera has difficulty focusing in low light conditions (I noticed this over two different camera bodies and three different lenses). I am getting another camera (a third) to spend some time with in the next couple of days and so I should have a better chance to really torture the camera.

I was really giving thought to the fact that this may be the camera to get me out of Nikon and onto the dark side.... as it happens I am content to stay with my D70s at the moment in the knowledge that it is capable of metering and focusing just as well as the Canon 5D.

Will try and keep you posted.

Antsl

[birddog114]

Hi all,

I've had a chance to use the 5D a couple of times now and while I have already seen some impressive results out of it I am also becoming very aware, very quickly that you have to sit on this camera to get the best results. The metering was inconsistant but more of a concern is that this camera has difficulty focusing in low light conditions (I noticed this over two different camera bodies and three different lenses). I am getting another camera (a third) to spend some time with in the next couple of days and so I should have a better chance to really torture the camera.

I was really giving thought to the fact that this may be the camera to get me out of Nikon and onto the dark side.... as it happens I am content to stay with my D70s at the moment in the knowledge that it is capable of metering and focusing just as well as the Canon 5D.

Will try and keep you posted.

Antsl

Thanks Ants,
I have heard of mixed reports from few sites same as couple guys whom I know in Sydney about its AF and metering sytems, one of these guys had to swap/ exchange to 2 new bodies/ 2 times last week.
This brought to me lot of questions and made me pay more attention to this new baby.
If I was in Sydney last Saturday, I join them in shooting with the 5D and 1Ds MKII, I was off to the Coast.
Keep us posted of your finding.

[gstark]

These results are atrocious and they are in no way comparable to what I have been obtaining with the same combination of 5D with 17-40.

Care to post a couple so that we can see a few more images from this? I'm truly looking forward to seeing what it's capable of. I may need to weven wander into a camera store (loathful thought, eh?) and grab one for a play.

Does David have one as an in-store demo?

[Antsl]

Heres one image from the test I did this afternoon. The first image is fullframe shot with a Canon 50mm/1.4 at 1/125 at f9, 800 ISO.



The second image is a straight 750x500 pixel crop from the above image with no interpolation or postproduction.

[mitedo]

Look's very soft & a little out of focus to me not good for a $5000 camera

[birddog114]

Lot of disappointments from Canon camp so far on this new baby.

Canon shooters prefer to hold back their upgrade for awhile by using their existing 20D instead of, and agreed with the worst cases in shooting lowlight of the 5D's metering system. The 5D AF system is not better than the 20D, my colleagues are still trying to work it out in the last few days with the 5D, but so far, I haven't heard any positive responses from them as yet.

I'm still on the waiting list of the 5D and looking forward to hear more from other Canon users.

Yes, $5K camera body should do better than these posted photos.

I'm not flaming any brand, but would like to learn more from my possibility new body from Canon, thus investing $$$$$ in new, difference brand of body and lenses is my venture.

[Oneputt]

Antsl both of those images look soft as well

[Aussie Dave]

It would be interesting to see the exact same comparison with a D70.

Perhaps someone with access to both cameras can do as Antsl did & then post their findings (shooting with one, then immediately the other so lighting etc. is as close to the same as possible).

If we are all measuring the 5D against the D70, I think it makes sense that the images are displayed for all to see. You would certainly expect that a $5K camera should outperform a $2K camera....however the user will also have a dramatic effect on the images.

If this is possible for anyone, I'm sure everyone would be interested to see the results.

[gstark]

If we are all measuring the 5D against the D70,

No, we're not, and I would actively discourage that from occurring. Pissing contests are simply not welcome here.

What I'm interested in seeing here is simply some reasonable images, taken with a camera that should be capable of making some images of exceptional quality.

I simply want to see what the camera can do, and that has absolutely nothing to do with a D70, or a D2x, or any other camera, for that matter.

[Aussie Dave]

my apologies Gary if you felt my intentions were to start a pi$$ing contest against Nikon/Canon owners. That is not the case.

In my eyes, I thought that as most people here use (or have used) the D70, it might have been one comparison that we could all relate to - as we know full well what the D70 is capable of. Granted the Canon will always be somewhat different, however we all know that the person behind the camera has just as much effect on the image, and someone with less talent (for want of a better description), may not produce the best possible images from the 5D (or any camera).....but if the same person took the same photo with 2 different cameras, would it not be a reasonable comparison (granted different lenses etc...)?

If no-one else agrees, then I am obviously incorrect, and I shall be happy to sit on the sidelines and watch.

I mean no malice in my thoughts above, and I also do not want to see any pi$$ing contests errupt and ruin this great forum.

[Oneputt]

I think that a direct comparison is the only way to have any sort of a fruitful discussion. I also am not interested in a Canon v Nikon contest, just a comparison of two cameras with a major price difference.

[gstark]

Dave,

No worries, and apology accepted although unnecessary.

While I accept your observations regarding the one person taking a set of images using both cameras, my point is simply that I want to see set of quality images taken with the 5D so that we can simply see what the camera is capable of.

I don't believe that, for those purposes, any other camera is necessary.

[thaddeus]

Personally I am thinking of upgrading my D70 and would like to see comparison images. So if anyone cares to create some, I would appreciate it!

[gstark]

I think that a direct comparison is the only way to have any sort of a fruitful discussion. I also am not interested in a Canon v Nikon contest, just a comparison of two cameras with a major price difference.

Given the price differential - and the different target markets of the two cameras, a direct comparison of the D70 with the 5D is like comparing a cheese sandwich with a bowl of ice cream. They're sort of similar in nature, but direct comparisons are meaningless.

Surely the images from a 5D are capable of standing out on their own merit, just as those from a D70 can, and do?

[petal666]

I don't seen how looking at 13MP images resampled down to 600 pixels images (or whatever size they are) is going to give an accurate depiction of what the camera is capable of. I also don't think comparing a full frame sensor to a 1.5x crop sensor is a good idea. You will get vignetting on wide angle lenses which you won't get on a d70, but this is more a problem with the lens rather than the camare.

[Aussie Dave]

Surely the images from a 5D are capable of standing out on their own merit, just as those from a D70 can, and do?

Point taken....and I agree.

[Oneputt]

Gary sorry I obviously didn't explain myself very clearly. My only concern is the quality of the images produced. I don't care whether one camera is 6mp and another 12mp. For me it is only the images which count. You can compare one image with another regardless of the cameras used.

[petal666]

Check out this image at ISO3200

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?phot ... 68&size=lg

[Oneputt]

Nothing wrong with that.

[gstark]

I don't seen how looking at 13MP images resampled down to 600 pixels images (or whatever size they are) is going to give an accurate depiction of what the camera is capable of.

No, it's not.

But a resampled image, together with a full size crop from that same image will give that accurate depiction.

Regardless, the images posted thus far have not been, IMHO, indicative of what the camera is capable of doing, and the point is that if we can see, posted here, some excellent examples of (resized) images taken with D70/20D/350D/D2x, surely the same is capable using a 5D as the source of those images.

I also don't think comparing a full frame sensor to a 1.5x crop sensor is a good idea. You will get vignetting on wide angle lenses which you won't get on a d70, but this is more a problem with the lens rather than the camare.

Actually, perhaps yes, perhaps no. I agree that comparing the FF Vs the 1.5 crop is not a good idea, and that's a part of my resoning behind not wanting to see the comparison with a D70, but the vignetting is a different issue again.

A wide angle lens, in and of itself, should not be producing vignetting such as we're seeing here, provided the lens has been designed for use with the camera in question.

In these examples, the lens used was the 17-40; is this a lens designed for use with Canon's FF cameras, or is it designed for the 300/350/20D?

If the latter, then clearly it's the wrong lens to be used for these purposes.

But if it's a lens for Canon's FF cameras, then using this lens for these examples is valid and appropriate, and the vignetting that we're seeing would also be an issue even on any of Canon's film cameras, and that would be, as you correctly point out, a serious issue with that lens, rather than with the camera.

[Antsl]

I don't seen how looking at 13MP images resampled down to 600 pixels images (or whatever size they are) is going to give an accurate depiction of what the camera is capable of.

No, it's not.

But a resampled image, together with a full size crop from that same image will give that accurate depiction.

Regardless, the images posted thus far have not been, IMHO, indicative of what the camera is capable of doing, and the point is that if we can see, posted here, some excellent examples of (resized) images taken with D70/20D/350D/D2x, surely the same is capable using a 5D as the source of those images.

Actually, I thought the image and the crop that I supplied were a very good indication of what this image was capable of. I am confident that what I captured in just that one shot (one of many) would easily out perform the same image from a D70s. What I am concerned about though is the consistentancy of the camera. The sensor has enough resolution and ability, the problem is the AF system is not capable of getting the sharpness out of the lens.

[LOZ]

At some near stage, I will also be in the market for a new camera. Nikon? Cannon? However, at present unless I can brutally force my lens collection onto a Cannon body, I have no real choice other than go Nikon. The price difference between Cannon 5D and Nikon D2X is only the cost of a decent lens. I will stick my foot in it and say if there were four identical pictures taken i.e. same subject, same lens configuration, same timing from 5D, D2X, D350, D70S and all posted here, maybe only the purists could tell the difference. Let’s not make this a pissing contest, but lets post some shots without naming the camera and without PP, and see if there is any real difference. I have seen pictures posted on this site taken with high-end Nikon and high-end Cannon and can tell no difference to the D70. The truth may come to light on large-scale blow-ups, but then again, how many of us actually print off large format? In my own opinion, for the extra $5000, I can see little gain in photo quality or maybe I just need a new set of glasses? LOZ

[Nnnnsic]

I personally think comparing a D70 to a 5D is a pointless venture.

We don't bother comparing the D70 to a D2x. We just drool over it.

Surely we should be comparing the image quality from a D2x to the 5D.

[Sheetshooter]

Perhaps a point that is being overlooked here is that the actual capture is only a part of the over all equation. All DIGITAL files require some, and varying, post production relative to their pixel size & pitch and the final output size. The EOS 5D has 8.2 micron pixel pitch which is quite close to the ideal of '9 micron' but this necessitates a stronger anti-aliasing filter than the smaller pixel pitch of some other cameras. After destruction of the image formed by the lens as a result of the anti-aliasing filter it is then up to the algorithms of each camera's processing plant to reconstruct that image to acceptable limits. There are so many variables as to make a direct comparison totally meaningless and this is BEFORE we get to the point of considering the size of the pout put - in my case a 300dpi image 45cm on the long side.

More than ever before the DSLR dictates that the camera is infinitely more closely related to the purpose it will be put to. Does cost play a part in this? In a commercial environment, NO - one must have the best tool for the task at hand. How about with recreational photography? Again NO. What people choose to spend on their hobbies is their own affair and needs no justification beyond pleasure.

No two cameras are going to compare meaningfully - not even from the same marque. For much of what is shot by members here the D70s is more than adequate. Can the D2x be warranted? Probably not in real world technological terms - especially given the differences between CCD and CMOS. But as a badge of office the D2x wins hands down.

Is there a similar relationship between the 5D and the 350D? Of course not. Sensor size alone dictates that the 5D must be compared to the 1Ds MkII and it then becomes a matter of justifying an additional $7,000.00 outlay.

I concur totaqlly with Gary that it is far moire relevant to identify the capabilities of a particular unit as opposed to comparing trucks and sports cars.

Cheers,

[petal666]

Cannon?

Is this some new manufacturer?

[sirhc55]

I concur totaqlly with Gary that it is far moire relevant to identify the capabilities of a particular unit as opposed to comparing trucks and sports cars.

Cheers,

Walter, Walter is that moire a pun

[yeocsa]

There seems to be some light fall off at the corners. That's odd.



regards,

Arthur

[gstark]

There seems to be some light fall off at the corners. That's odd.

Arthur,

Yes, we've already noted the vignetting as quite worriesome, and it appears in a number of the posted images.

As it happens, Leigh and I managed to find a unit and have a quick play with one this afternoon. Unfortunately, we didn't have any CF cards with us, and so we weren't able to grab any sample images, but FWIW, here are my first impressions:

The feel of the camera is quite nice, and far, fasr, far better than the 350D, or even the 20D; this feels like a real camera, whereas the 350 really feels like a toy. While the 20D doesn't feel as toylike as the 350, it's still too small and light for my liking, but the 5D, while still feeling a little plasticky (in comparison to a D70), does feel far better, and far more comfy than any of the low-end Canons.

Given the $5K+ pricing tough, I do think it feels somewhat on the el-cheapo side,

Startup speed is great, as is frame-to-frame speed. Viewfinder is nice, as is the rear LCD.

Don't like the on/off switch or its placement, but that's probably just a familiarity thing.

One thing that I've always held to be true though is that Nikon's ergonomics are better than Canon's, and this is no exception; I don't, for instance, like the shutter button slanted towards the front on the top deck. I've noted this on other Canon's too, and it's really not as comfortable (for me) for short term use.

The camera was fitted with, IIRC, a 24-135 IS USM lens, and we were not impressed with its focussing speed. Given the USM, I expected performance to be on a par with Nikkor AF-S lenses, but this was somewhat slower, probably no better than any similar Nikkor AF lens, which is ok, but certainly not sparkling, nor class-leading, performance.

I need to slip a CF card into my pocket and wander back into the store so that I can grab some images for review.

[petal666]

The 28-135IS is by no means a spectacular lens and when compared to my L lenses AF is slow. I sold it more than a year ago now but I always felt is was an OK lens for the money. I never really had anything to compare it to though.

[leek]

Given the USM...

Please forgive my ignorance of Canon terminology, but what is USM in this instance???

[gstark]

Given the USM...

Please forgive my ignorance of Canon terminology, but what is USM in this instance???

Ultrasonic Motor.

[gstark]

The 28-135IS is by no means a spectacular lens and when compared to my L lenses AF is slow..

Thanx for the confirmation of this.

[mitedo]

Gary your right about the feel of the camera it is nice in the hands a lot better then the 20D, did you find the LCD dark we had to turn it up to near max to get a good screen shot, this pic taken as a jpg with the 28-135mm IS lens

[gooseberry]

In these examples, the lens used was the 17-40; is this a lens designed for use with Canon's FF cameras, or is it designed for the 300/350/20D?

The 17-40 f/4 L is a Canon EF lens - designed for the full 135 format - it is not an EF-S lens. So it should have an image circle that fully covers the 135 format frame.

[gstark]

Gary your right about the feel of the camera it is nice in the hands a lot better then the 20D, did you find the LCD dark we had to turn it up to near max to get a good screen shot, this pic taken as a jpg with the 28-135mm IS lens

Perhaps it was a tad on the darkish side, but not overly so. I don't know what settings were applied on the camera itself, however.

I should add the rider that I find that most people seem to have the LCDs turned up brighter than the optimum, probably to address the fact that too often we need to chimp in bright(ish) sunlit situations, and we thus need that extra degree of brightness in order to even have a chance of even seeing an image on the LCD.

This new image that you've posted looks far better than the other ones we've seen thus far, with better colour and contrast, but I'm still seeing some evidence of vignetting here (albeit nowehere near as much as with the 17-40) despite this being taken with the somewhat longer lens.

[Heath Bennett]

Look's very soft & a little out of focus to me not good for a $5000 camera

I think that may be a bit of a Canon trait. The 1ds2 looks soft in comparison to the D2x at 100% (both with .RAW), but after sharpening very little diffence is seen.

I do think that vignetting and corner softness are the two biggest faults of FF, even with the top of the line lenses. DX will have too much noise at over 20MP (WITH CURRENT TECHNOLOGIES) in my opinion, but even Phil says in his review that 12.4 MP may be all the res that we need! Not many applications cause for more res. Anything bigger than A3 is designed to be viewed from greater distances (except fine art) so 12MP is sufficient. The D2x hits A3 at 300dpi at about 115%, which in my discussions with the printers that I deal with is fine.

[gstark]

In these examples, the lens used was the 17-40; is this a lens designed for use with Canon's FF cameras, or is it designed for the 300/350/20D?

The 17-40 f/4 L is a Canon EF lens - designed for the full 135 format - it is not an EF-S lens. So it should have an image circle that fully covers the 135 format frame.

That's what I thought.

Why are we seeing such severe vignetting with this lens then? Was a lens hood fitted (perhaps incorrectly) to those (affected) shots

[gstark]

I do think that vignetting and corner softness are the two biggest faults of FF, even with the top of the line lenses.

No.

Or at least it ceratinly should not be.

Otherwise, you're saying that we would also be seeing these traits on the film cameras as well.

While I'm not saying that we do not, this would surely not be a new issue, and thus would either be known, and/or addressed.

Unless, perhaps, we're talking about some technical issue that causes a fall-off effect at the sensor due to the characteristics of the sensor and how the photosites embedded therein are reacting to the angles of the incoming focussed light.

Possible, of course, but were this the case, I'd also expect to be seeing other issues in the image as well.

[mitedo]

Hi Heath i have had canon's 300D 20D & 1DMKII i have found that on all 3 camera's that you have to sharpen canon pics a lot more than nikon's pics to get the same results, both oneputt & myself have downloaded sharping actions off the net and the diff between canon & nikon is a lot

[mitedo]

The 17-40 lens we used had no hood on

[gooseberry]

I do think that vignetting and corner softness are the two biggest faults of FF, even with the top of the line lenses.

No.

Or at least it ceratinly should not be.

Otherwise, you're saying that we would also be seeing these traits on the film cameras as well.

While I'm not saying that we do not, this would surely not be a new issue, and thus would either be known, and/or addressed.

Unless, perhaps, we're talking about some technical issue that causes a fall-off effect at the sensor due to the characteristics of the sensor and how the photosites embedded therein are reacting to the angles of the incoming focussed light.

Possible, of course, but were this the case, I'd also expect to be seeing other issues in the image as well.

The main problem is with the microlenses in front of the digital sensors. They need light to strike them fairly perpendicular to the sensor plane. For film, it didn't matter the the light path was at a large angle.

For a number of wide angle lenses the light near the edge of the full 135 frame is coming to the sensor/film at a large angle from perpendicular. I've read that Nikon has had a new design for their wide angles starting with the 17-35 f/2.8 so that the light falls at a more perpedicular angle.

The 17-40 f/4 L is one of canon's better wide angles (better than their more expensive 16-35 f/2.8 L and 17-35 f/2.8 L), but it seems it has light fall off on a 5D wide open at 17mm.

One of the disadvantages of FF. Actually, you can sort of see it with Bjorn Roslett's review of the D2X where he compared it to the 1DsMkII, you can see in some of the pics, visible light fall off on the snow pictures.

[yeocsa]

It probably due to the sensor. I had 17-40F4L on my canon 1n RS and had no problem with at all with light fall off. I had used the lens with and without lens hood at the wide angle end - no problem.

regards,

Arthur

[petal666]

It probably due to the sensor. I had 17-40F4L on my canon 1n RS and had no problem with at all with light fall off.

How can it be the sensor? It's the same size a frame of film, unless you are talking about the sensitivity falling off at the edges of the sensor, which I doubt very much.

[yeocsa]

It probably due to the sensor. I had 17-40F4L on my canon 1n RS and had no problem with at all with light fall off.

How can it be the sensor? It's the same size a frame of film, unless you are talking about the sensitivity falling off at the edges of the sensor, which I doubt very much.

Well, i know it is not the lens. It is possible that it could be the sensor with such high pixel count and it is not same as film. The sensor cells are square and align like checker board but the lens are circular - even the diaphrams are circular! Thus the appearance of light fall off. This is exactly why Olympus had chosen to use 4/3 and redesign everything from ground up. The same goes for why Nikon chose not to go FF.

Below is an extract from Olympus White Paper on the 4/3 system.


regards,

Arthur

[Antsl]

At the risk of being obvious... if you are going to buy a camera like the Canon 5D you would be wise to buy the best glass you can afford to go with it as well ... chances are you will not have so much difficulty with falloff at the corners.

[petal666]

At the risk of being obvious... if you are going to buy a camera like the Canon 5D you would be wise to buy the best glass you can afford to go with it as well ... chances are you will not have so much difficulty with falloff at the corners.

The 17-40 is the best.