Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The 5D makes sense for the resolution

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 5:42:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The problem with the APS sized SLR sensors is at 8mp, they are already
taking what the average lens can give in terms of resolution unless one
moves to quality prime glass. The 8mp 20D or Rebel XT has the same pixel
pitch as a 20mp full frame sensor. With the 13mp 5D, actually requires less
resolution from your lenses than does the 20D, XT or even the 6mp Rebel. Of
course, no S lenses but the cropping factor is gone. Back to 35mm angle of
view which I grew up on.

Just speculation (have not seen test shots yet), the larger sized sensor
cells should mean excellent low light performance.

The bad news is the cost. Still quite a stretch for me.
-S

More about : makes sense resolution

Anonymous
August 22, 2005 5:42:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

While I am in favor of FF digital, since the wide angle lenses for APS
are slower in max aperture than can be had at the same (or lower!)
price in FF equivalent focal lengths...(I have 24mm f/2 for FF film
camera, can you find me an affordable 15mm f/2 for my 20D?!?!)
one thing the APS size has forced is the creation of wide angle lenses
with optical properties more conducive to digital sensor needs...if you
believe what is written on this topic, and which is apparently
reflected in some better performance at the edge of the frame. So
taking that another step, one could conclude that...what FF digital
needs are wide angle lenses with similar optical properties, with light
striking the edges at more optimal angles.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 5:42:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:42:43 -0400, "SimonLW" <anon@anon.com> wrote:

>The problem with the APS sized SLR sensors is at 8mp, they are already
>taking what the average lens can give in terms of resolution unless one
>moves to quality prime glass. The 8mp 20D or Rebel XT has the same pixel
>pitch as a 20mp full frame sensor. With the 13mp 5D, actually requires less
>resolution from your lenses than does the 20D, XT or even the 6mp Rebel. Of
>course, no S lenses but the cropping factor is gone. Back to 35mm angle of
>view which I grew up on.

It makes sense for me to. Now my 85, 135 and 24-70 will be what they
are supposed to be. It's less than half of what I expected to shell
out for the 1DsMkII.
******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Related resources
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 10:22:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Exactly. All the lenses designed for that format will now function as we've
>become accustomed, and not cropped. I simply can't understand the arguments
>against full frame sensors.

I'm guessing that most of your shooting is done at less than 100mm?
If you shoot lots of telephoto stuff like wildlife and birds, you'd
appreciate the 1.6x mag factor.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 10:59:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Simon writes ...
>
>The problem with the APS sized SLR sensors is at 8mp, they are already
>taking what the average lens can give in terms of resolution unless one
>moves to quality prime glass. The 8mp 20D or Rebel XT has the same pixel
>pitch as a 20mp full frame sensor. With the 13mp 5D, actually requires less
>resolution from your lenses than does the 20D

I agree with what you're saying, but as owner of a full frame 1Ds (11
Mpixels) and a 1.3x 1D Mark II (8 Mpix) I'll point out that full frame
digital stresses your lenses at the corners wide open, even expensive L
series zooms. Not a problem with a superb lens like the 500 f/4 L IS
but it is a problem with say the 100-400 L IS and even, at f/2.8, the
otherwise superb 70-200 f/2.8 L.

Bill
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 1:12:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:qt5kg116hqlsng7j6u6ms7iubipmqh66tp@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:42:43 -0400, "SimonLW" <anon@anon.com> wrote:
>
>>The problem with the APS sized SLR sensors is at 8mp, they are already
>>taking what the average lens can give in terms of resolution unless one
>>moves to quality prime glass. The 8mp 20D or Rebel XT has the same pixel
>>pitch as a 20mp full frame sensor. With the 13mp 5D, actually requires
>>less
>>resolution from your lenses than does the 20D, XT or even the 6mp Rebel.
>>Of
>>course, no S lenses but the cropping factor is gone. Back to 35mm angle of
>>view which I grew up on.
>
> It makes sense for me to. Now my 85, 135 and 24-70 will be what they
> are supposed to be. It's less than half of what I expected to shell
> out for the 1DsMkII.

Exactly. All the lenses designed for that format will now function as we've
become accustomed, and not cropped. I simply can't understand the arguments
against full frame sensors. Yes, I know you can make smaller and lighter
cams using 1.6 sensors, but not that much. The 5D is only 3 or 4 ounces
heavier than the 20D, not really significant.

> ******************************************************
>
> "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
> my testimony. The events I have recorded should
> not be forgotten and must not be repeated."
>
> -James Nachtwey-
> http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 7:29:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

SimonLW wrote:
> The problem with the APS sized SLR sensors is at 8mp, they are already
> taking what the average lens can give in terms of resolution unless one
> moves to quality prime glass. The 8mp 20D or Rebel XT has the same pixel
> pitch as a 20mp full frame sensor. With the 13mp 5D, actually requires less
> resolution from your lenses than does the 20D, XT or even the 6mp Rebel. Of
> course, no S lenses but the cropping factor is gone. Back to 35mm angle of
> view which I grew up on.

This is good news. Finally, I can spend the savings I had made for
those ultra-wide lenses on the 5D and buy regular wide lenses ;-) And
its good to know that there is a FF dSLR that doesn't weight a ton.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:49:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 22 Aug 2005 18:22:34 -0700, "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
wrote:

>>Exactly. All the lenses designed for that format will now function as we've
>>become accustomed, and not cropped. I simply can't understand the arguments
>>against full frame sensors.
>
>I'm guessing that most of your shooting is done at less than 100mm?
>If you shoot lots of telephoto stuff like wildlife and birds, you'd
>appreciate the 1.6x mag factor.

Sorry but it's not a magnification factor it's just a smaller part of
the same image..The lens has the same magnification factor at full or
1.6.


*****************************************************

"Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood, and the earth's foundations stay;
When God abandoned, these defended,
And saved the sum of things for pay."

"Epitaph on Army of Mercenaries"
A.E. Houseman - 1914
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 4:17:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> writes:
> as owner of a full frame 1Ds (11 Mpixels) and a 1.3x 1D Mark II
> (8 Mpix) I'll point out that full frame digital stresses your lenses
> at the corners wide open, even expensive L series zooms. Not a
> problem with a superb lens like the 500 f/4 L IS but it is a problem
> with say the 100-400 L IS and even, at f/2.8, the otherwise superb
> 70-200 f/2.8 L.

Appearently!

Take a look at the landscape (sample image 3) put on the web by Canon
to demostrate the wide angle capabilities of the new EOS 5D, here:
http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos5d/eos5d_sample-e.html .

The lens is the EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM (which I've understand is one of
Canon's better wide angle zooms) at what is probably its best aperture
(f/8) - but the edges are so soft that this lens has no business on a
full frame digital camera. Since it is Canon themselves that put it
there for all to see, I assume that this is not a fluke.

If this is what we can expect, the paradox is that APC-C sized sensors
(e.g with the Canon 10-22 mm EF-S or Nikkor 12-24 mm DX) makes /more/
sense at the wide end.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 9:24:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1124760154.108092.86180@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >Exactly. All the lenses designed for that format will now function as
> >we've
>>become accustomed, and not cropped. I simply can't understand the
>>arguments
>>against full frame sensors.
>
> I'm guessing that most of your shooting is done at less than 100mm?
> If you shoot lots of telephoto stuff like wildlife and birds, you'd
> appreciate the 1.6x mag factor.

Not really. You can crop the FF sensor to approximate the 1.6 sensor. I
shoot a mix of lenses, not just wides. The FF sensor gives you an option
that 1.6 can't.

>
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 10:49:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

It does look pretty bad at the corners. But you should find a similar
example with the 20D and the 10-22 lens at full wide and see how that
fares. I wouldn't be surprised if it too has corner issues. I have the
EF 24mm fixed focal length lens. And if I had a 5D I would be very
happy using it. With the 20D it just isn't wide!
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 3:36:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <TbqdnUSoXo9q6pfeRVn-2w@comcast.com>, "Kinon O'cann"
<Yes.it's.me.Bowser> says...

> I simply can't understand the arguments
> against full frame sensors. Yes, I know you can make smaller and lighter
> cams using 1.6 sensors, but not that much. The 5D is only 3 or 4 ounces
> heavier than the 20D, not really significant.

Nothing wrong with big sensors, except that lenses become big and heavy
too. It's not too much a body problem, rather a lens problem.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 12:23:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Kinon O'cann" <Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote in message
news:h6Odnd6VpZWECZbeRVn-1w@comcast.com...
>
> "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1124760154.108092.86180@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >Exactly. All the lenses designed for that format will now function as
>> >we've
>>>become accustomed, and not cropped. I simply can't understand the
>>>arguments
>>>against full frame sensors.
>>
>> I'm guessing that most of your shooting is done at less than 100mm?
>> If you shoot lots of telephoto stuff like wildlife and birds, you'd
>> appreciate the 1.6x mag factor.
>
> Not really. You can crop the FF sensor to approximate the 1.6 sensor. I
> shoot a mix of lenses, not just wides. The FF sensor gives you an option
> that 1.6 can't.

The 20D pixels are smaller, so it does give you a magnification boost with
lenses that provide enough resolution. An 8MP crop from the 5D would only be
a 1.22x crop factor. So the 20D is still a 1.3x boost from a cropped 5D.

Also, the 20D burst rate is 5 fps vs. 3 fps for the 5D, so for most of what
Bret does, the 20D's the right camera.

So: Is Bret happy that he doesn't have to buy a new camera, or mad at Canon
for not making a camera that speaks to his needs????

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
August 25, 2005 12:29:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Spot on David. Not just the facts, but the other comment as well:

'So: Is Bret happy that he doesn't have to buy a new camera, or mad at Canon
for not making a camera that speaks to his needs?'"

I think that there are many 20D users who are thinking this about the 5D.



"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:D egdkg$uma$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
>
> The 20D pixels are smaller, so it does give you a magnification boost with
> lenses that provide enough resolution. An 8MP crop from the 5D would only
be
> a 1.22x crop factor. So the 20D is still a 1.3x boost from a cropped 5D.
>
> Also, the 20D burst rate is 5 fps vs. 3 fps for the 5D, so for most of
what
> Bret does, the 20D's the right camera.
>
> So: Is Bret happy that he doesn't have to buy a new camera, or mad at
Canon
> for not making a camera that speaks to his needs????
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 12:29:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Anthony" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:o OqdnZ2dnZ092s-GnZ2dnYBXkd6dnZ2dRVnyq52dnZ0@pipex.net...
> Spot on David. Not just the facts, but the other comment as well:
>
> 'So: Is Bret happy that he doesn't have to buy a new camera, or mad at
> Canon
> for not making a camera that speaks to his needs?'"
>
> I think that there are many 20D users who are thinking this about the 5D.
>
>
>

I'm just irritated that Canon didn't introduce the 5D instead of the 20D.
It is better suited to what I do, although the 20D works just fine. I'll be
buying the new one, or, actually, two of them, but keeping the 20Ds, both as
backups and for what they do that the 5D doesn't.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
!