More 5D... err... action!

[Nnnnsic]

I was in town today and stopped by Fletchers... and had a great chat with a photographer / salesperson there who seemed like a great guy.

However, they didn't have a 5D I could play with.

Ted's did, however, and in shooting some shots, I got to see how this thing plays.

Overall impression is it plays quite nicely.
Very quick autofocus, great colours, contrast, and a bloody amazing noise control.

However, this camera lets me down at the physical design.

It has quite possibly one of the least intuitive designs I've ever seen implemented.
I'm sure it probably takes a lot of getting used to, but between the power switch located in an odd spot (back of the camera by the LCD), the shutter too low for my liking (it's probably familiarity there), the lone wheel on the right hand side for changing shutter speed and aperture (this one really drove me nuts), a click-wheel on the back (I don't even understand this one)... well, I just couldn't get this thing to be as comfortable as with every other camera I've been able to pick up in the past, and that's going through Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Minolta, Pentax, etc.

Once again, I'm sure it's something you have to get used to.
Like the naming system for A and S modes which is different.

Mind you, I can change most of the features of the D70 without looking at the LCD (either of them) and know what I'm changing... the 5D didn't have that feel, especially with the one thumbwheel.
It doesn't feel like the camera you'd take as a photojourno and has more of a studio sort of feel to it.
And the feel... it's not as toylike as the 350D or 300D, and not having been able to play with a 20D, I can't comment on how it feels in comparison.

But it actually doesn't feel as strong in structure as the D70 and definetly not as strong as the D2x... which worries me.
I know if I drop my D70 or a D2x, it'll survive.
I wouldn't be so sure with the 5D, but once again, it's probably a fairly well-built camera for the price.

So, downsides for this camera so far in my tiny viewing of it are horrible ergonomics and physical design and clunky LCD menu design.
Mind you, I loved where the CF card compartment was... at the side of the hand grip and it seemed quite well protected.

So I've gotten the bad complainy bits out of the way... let's let you see some of the shots I got with this.

Ted's had a Tamron 14mm on their demo model which, I have to say, I'd never seen the 14mm before but damn... it is one beautiful lens.

[Nnnnsic]

IMAGES!!!

Maybe it's just me, but I found the images straight out of the camera fairly soft... probably to make up for how good the noise is.

So, I'm showing two lots of the images here... straight out of the camera and with an unsharp mask applied.

Just as a warning, most of the images are around 2mb downloads.
This is not for dial-up users.

From Raw:

Straight out of the camera
Unsharp mask applied in Photoshop

Full size crops from above image:

Straight out of the camera
Unsharp mask applied in Photoshop


Straight out of the camera
Unsharp mask applied in Photoshop

Jpegs:

Straight out of the camera
Unsharp mask applied in Photoshop
Original of this image (around 5mb download)


Straight out of the camera
Unsharp mask applied in Photoshop

EDIT: I'll post some EXIF data when I get back from dinner in a few hours for those people who don't want to go looking at the file details themselves!

[birddog114]

Leigh,
I know why it's soft!
Coz you took the image of Nikon first! shouldn't do that with the 5D

[gstark]

What Leigh hasn't yet mentioned is that these shots were all taken at ISO 1600. He wanted to shoot at a lower sensitivity, but (from what I understand) they couldn't figure out how to change the ISO.

As he said, the menu design and ergonomics are not in the same class as what Nikon does, and this setting is buried somewhere in the menus. Not a good thing IMNSHO.

That said, looking at the images, and the absence of noise, is most impressive. I suspect that the softness of the images is a trade-off for the low noise performance; I don't know that it's a trade-off I'd be prepared to accept in my images though.

And there is a small amount of vignetting evident in these images too, but not as much as we observed in the other images earlier this week.

Clearly, this is a very nice piece of hardware.

[leek]

That said, looking at the images, and the absence of noise

Gee Gary - and I was just about to comment on how noisy the crops looked... The red wall & black frame especially - but I guess that 1600ISO would explain that...

[spada]

Hi
This is what I found in the "Getting the most from your EOS1 - Digital " by Canon , all images need a degree of sharpening, some below is from that PDF file

"Canon EOS digital cameras have an anti-aliasing filter installed on the image sensor.
This filter improves color rendition and practically eliminates moiré. The liability is a
slight reduction of sharpness. To reduce the softening effect of the anti-aliasing filter we recommend applying an unsharp mask to the image in Adobe® Photoshop®. Although there is no such thing as a “best” setting for all applications, we suggest the following as a starting point:
Amount: 300%
Radius: 0.3 pixels
Threshold: 0 pixels".
The image produced by a CCD is better than one from CMOS CCD straight from cameras, but after sharpening they are nearly equal.I had chances to play both Canon and Nikon cameras, each has pros and cons but for a newbie like me, I like both of them, they are same for me.Please correct if I am wrong.

Regards
spada

[birddog114]

I don't like the trade off of the soft on my images!
Yes, I can see no noise there or not noticeable! but with sharp images we can handle the noise by other ways.
Actually, I don't worry about the noise at all!

[DaveB]

However, this camera lets me down at the physical design.

It has quite possibly one of the least intuitive designs I've ever seen implemented.
I'm sure it probably takes a lot of getting used to, but between the power switch located in an odd spot (back of the camera by the LCD), the shutter too low for my liking (it's probably familiarity there), the lone wheel on the right hand side for changing shutter speed and aperture (this one really drove me nuts), a click-wheel on the back (I don't even understand this one)... well, I just couldn't get this thing to be as comfortable as with every other camera I've been able to pick up in the past

In P/Av/Tv modes that wheel on the back controls exposure compensation. In M it's the aperture control, while the front wheel is shutter.
The cut-down "Rebel" designs like the 300D and 350D which don't have the rear wheel are the ones I find really confusing.

Mind you, I can change most of the features of the D70 without looking at the LCD (either of them) and know what I'm changing... the 5D didn't have that feel, especially with the one thumbwheel.

There you go again: what "one thumbwheel"?
Well, OK the thumbwheel's on the back and the "fingerwheel"s on the front...

Once again, I'm sure it's something you have to get used to.

Indeed, I can drive most of the EOS features without looking.
The Canon and Nikon systems have different interfaces, so we shouldn't let our critiques become too critical without spending enough time to explore the other system.

[stubbsy]

Dave

I'm inclined to agree with you. WHile there's lots of value in what Leigh has done imagewise, I'd be interested in a Canon user's take on the interface since we are all very used to the interface we use most

[Onyx]

Leigh, I shared your views re: ergonomics when I picked up a 20D - which I take it is not too dissimilar to the 5D in that department (but surprisingly a far departure from the 1D series). As with your experience, I'm fairly certain it was not down to familiarity - objectively, Xerox's bodies are not as intuitive to use as Nikons.

What lens did you test with Leigh? These images, as with others published even with "L" glass - shows noticeable amounts of CA. I've never seen such poor optics from a Nikkor, 70-200G notwithstanding.

[birddog114]

At least I can see: "in terms of vignetting..."

And this is another statement from other user, I know this guy:

""Yes, my 1Ds MKII does vignett with the 16-35 f2.8 especially at 16mm end and my D2X with 17-55 f2.8 does not vignett at any focal length. The Canon combo problem goes away when stop down few stops. I think this is a known problem for FF sensor and I guess I have to live with it for now. The same happens to the 5D which I momentalily owned for a week which I sold off.""

[Sheetshooter]

In any sort of testing it is essential to reduce the variables to just one at a time if there is anything meaningful to come of it. The vast majority of comments and quotes I have seen posted here with regards image quality have been a dog's breakfast of collective errors of technique.

I conducted painstaking evaluations of a broad range of camera and optical options for a few months before even getting to a point at which I was sufficiently convinced that ANY digital capture would do the job at hand. In fact even now, having taken the plunge I see the digital option as being one of near enough is good enough - quality work for discerning clients will still be done on film; it's the less demanding assignments and briefs with an emphasis on workflow needs of the client that will be done of the DSLR.

In that testing I did test the 17-55mm DX lens quite extensively and let me say quite categorically that in my experience it DID vignette at the wide end. It also displayed considerable distortion of opposing effect at BOTH ends and although its resolution and acutance were little short of magnificent from mid-range to long I never saw a satisfactorily or acceptably sharp image with it at the wide end. As for the two 12-24 DX Nikkors that I tested (on D70s & D2x) their performance suggested that they were just a joke.

Now, those assessments were made using tripod mounted cameras with a cable release and, wherever possible, mirror-up. A series of exposures were captured in RAW of static subjects shot at each aperture and the results evaluated on high-end monitors.

No camera is perfect just as no lens is perfect - we work with what best suits our needs at a price that is jusitfiable.

Ergonomics is an issue - always - and may be of greater impoortance to some than to others. I have difficulty recalling the last serious picture I made hand-held and so a lot of the handling characteristics of a camera are a moot point for me. And compared to something the size of a roadside television set ALL 35mm sized and shapoed cameras are messy, fiddly little things with squinty little looky-peepy holes to peer through.

What is important beyond all else, however, are the images produced - both from a technical and an aesthetic viewpoint. Photography is about photograhs and the communication of ideas - visually. Throughout generations the best work has often been produced by artists with the most limited or basic of equipment(Edward Weston springs to mind who, throughout mush of his career, had on second-hand camera and three second-hand (and old even at the time) lenses.

It is curious to note that many of those most addled by the intoxication of possession, kit envy or kit lust and inter-marque tribalism are seldom seen to produce anything of merit much beyond the standards of the casual snap - irrespective of the cost of their arsenal of kit. I include in that some of the 'respected' internet reviewers.

All this obsession in some quarters with justifying or denigrating kit based on prejudices and imprecise evaluation is little more than comparing dicks under the desk in the Latin class (or was it Science when that all used to happen). It also makes it increasingly difficult to find reason to even stop-by and look at the site.

Cheers,

[Heath Bennett]

Sheetshooter - I have been dealing with medium format digital files for a recipe book we have been designing. The photographer says it cost her about $180K to make the switch to digital. The files are absolutely beautiful though, even at 100%. The files are 22MP, leaf I think.

Discerning customers must be photographers in your case. All my clients wouldn't notice the difference in quality between photos that from a photographers eye are very noticeable.

EDIT - sorry Gary, I am making a bit of a habit of this off topic posting. I hope this opinion is valued anyhow.

Cheers mate,