Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

20D or 5D

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
August 22, 2005 11:09:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Given the review on
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.as...

Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the
20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D?
I wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the
non-professional that much easier than the 20D?

Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional? For me, it's seems
to much difference in cost but that's me. I believe the 20D about one
year ago was around $2000 so it fell about $800 over a year.

More about : 20d

Anonymous
August 22, 2005 11:09:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rob wrote:

> Given the review on
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.as...
>
> Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the
> 20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D?

Is this my money we are spending, or yours?

> I wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the
> non-professional that much easier than the 20D?

If you have to ask a question like that then you may wish to consider
the unpleasant thought that you might not even be 'worthy' of a 20D.

> Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional?

Why should I justify it's cost? I am not selling the things.

> For me, it's seems to much difference in cost but that's me.

Well, since it's your money, that's all you need, right?

> I believe the 20D about one year ago was around $2000 so it fell
> about $800 over a year.

Ah, you aren't a photographer, but an investor in the photographic
equipment futures market! Well, here's the deal about that sort of
thing: only an idiot would sell you a put, and only an idiot would buy
a call. Are you an idiot?
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 11:09:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<Rob> wrote in message news:m9qkg1hnb0tsejsc3tl3pduv5fkta4qflj@4ax.com...
> Given the review on
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.as...
>
> Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the
> 20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D?
> I wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the
> non-professional that much easier than the 20D?
>
> Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional?

I can't justify anything for anyone but myself. You'll have to determine
that.

>For me, it's seems
> to much difference in cost but that's me. I believe the 20D about one
> year ago was around $2000 so it fell about $800 over a year.

20D was about $1500 when released.

If you're not already prepared with a list of reasons why the 5D makes sense
for you, then there is a good chance that it doesn't make sense for you now.
It has many features which a lot of us have been wishing for: Spot meter,
full-frame, nearly 13MP, no pesky built-in flash (did you know it has no
flash?), and other features many general shooters don't ever care about.

What you need to do is really try and define your needs, and how those needs
stack up against the abilities of the two bodies. The 5D isn't universally
ahead of the 20D. For example, the 20D can shoot 5 frames per second in
jpeg mode, while the 5D is limited to 3 frames (any mode).

Check it out and do some serious consideration before you plonk down any
amount for either camera.

Mark
Related resources
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 11:09:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> So far there are 14 frequently documented problems 20D owners have
> discovered with their "state of the art" (sniggers) cameras. It took
> just 2 days to discover the first 5.

Care to elaborate what 3-5 of them are? (the BG-2E issue doesn't
count) Curious, not challenging you.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 11:09:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

pixby can't stop himself from proving he is a shithead:

> I missed one important "feature" of this new camera which will stuff up
> many people's plans to own one - Well all the humans who live north and
> south of Paradise's boarder on the equator anyway. Operating Humidity is
> maximum 85%. I guess that cuts out all you rain forest nuts. Orchid
> growers and beach dwellers in those wonderful tropical islands!

And the Nikon D2X spec is ... what?

Hint: virtually all electronic devices have a specified "operating
environment" that limits relative humidity to ~90%, "non condensing".
But of course, to the Nikon Nutcase, the normal laws of physics do not
apply to the object to their religion...
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 12:39:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rob wrote:

> Given the review on
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.as...
>
> Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the
> 20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D?
> I wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the
> non-professional that much easier than the 20D?

It all depends on ones budget.. If $3299 is pocket change, and
you want the features, then the 5D is "worth it".

What's hard to figure out about that :-)


> Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional? For me, it's seems
> to much difference in cost but that's me. I believe the 20D about one
> year ago was around $2000 so it fell about $800 over a year.

You must not have been around when the Canon D30 came out.. It was a
three megapixel DSLR and it sold for near $3000.00

I think we'll see full frame 12 megapixel DSLR's for $1800 in a few
more years.. Start saving now :-)
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 12:39:59 AM

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

"Jim Townsend" <not@real.address> wrote in message
news:11gkvjlgtcm6o35@news.supernews.com...
> Rob wrote:
>
>> Given the review on
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.as...
>>
>> Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the
>> 20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D?
>> I wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the
>> non-professional that much easier than the 20D?
>
> It all depends on ones budget.. If $3299 is pocket change, and
> you want the features, then the 5D is "worth it".
>
> What's hard to figure out about that :-)
>
>
>> Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional? For me, it's seems
>> to much difference in cost but that's me. I believe the 20D about one
>> year ago was around $2000 so it fell about $800 over a year.
>
> You must not have been around when the Canon D30 came out.. It was a
> three megapixel DSLR and it sold for near $3000.00

And VERY shortly before that, 1 and 2MP Canon DSLRs were selling for
$25,000.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 1:43:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Cockpit Colin wrote:
> <Rob> wrote in message news:m9qkg1hnb0tsejsc3tl3pduv5fkta4qflj@4ax.com...
>
> > Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional? For me, it's seems
> > to much difference in cost but that's me. I believe the 20D about one
> > year ago was around $2000 so it fell about $800 over a year.
>
> Buy first, justify later - this philosophy has worked for me for many a year
> :) 

Hell yeah, can I get an Amen! Sometimes the stark realization that you
just plonked down $3k for a camera will make you get your ass of the
sofa and become the world's best photographer!

Ben
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:10:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 22-Aug-05 17:09, Rob wrote:
> Given the review on
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.as...
>
> Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the
> 20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D?
> I wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the
> non-professional that much easier than the 20D?
>
> Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional? For me, it's seems
> to much difference in cost but that's me. I believe the 20D about one
> year ago was around $2000 so it fell about $800 over a year.

This is what Michael Reichman of Luminous Landscapes also thinks:
This price will fall down. However what makes me think against
the 5D, is the bizarre set of controls. I miss the EOS-1 like or
EOS-3 like set of buttons on the left. This wheel on the left
is such a waste. Its one of the reasons that I left out EOS-20D.

And, I will probably die and never guess why Canon is placing
the on-off button on this strange place. I can switch on and
off my Nikon with one hand while pulling it out of the bag.
Canon better stays on, you cannot reach this silly switch.

Thomas.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:38:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<Rob> wrote in message news:m9qkg1hnb0tsejsc3tl3pduv5fkta4qflj@4ax.com...
> Given the review on
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.as...
>
> Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the
> 20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D?
> I wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the
> non-professional that much easier than the 20D?
>
> Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional? For me, it's seems
> to much difference in cost but that's me. I believe the 20D about one
> year ago was around $2000 so it fell about $800 over a year.

It was $1499 on intro, so it's dropped $261 in the year since. And it would
be difficult to justify the extra expense of the 5D over the 20D unless you
need full frame for wide angle lens usage, or you need the spot meter. The
50% more resolution will only come into play at sizes of somewhere in the
neighborhood of 24x36 inch prints, in my opinion.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:38:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"ThomasH" <henrymot@coco.net> wrote in message
news:T5SdnVqiZqwcMpfeRVn-1w@comcast.com...
> On 22-Aug-05 17:09, Rob wrote:
>> Given the review on
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.as...
>>
>> Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the
>> 20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D? I wonder
>> if the 5D will make good picture taking for the
>> non-professional that much easier than the 20D?
>>
>> Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional? For me, it's seems
>> to much difference in cost but that's me. I believe the 20D about one
>> year ago was around $2000 so it fell about $800 over a year.
>
> This is what Michael Reichman of Luminous Landscapes also thinks:
> This price will fall down. However what makes me think against
> the 5D, is the bizarre set of controls. I miss the EOS-1 like or
> EOS-3 like set of buttons on the left. This wheel on the left
> is such a waste. Its one of the reasons that I left out EOS-20D.
>
> And, I will probably die and never guess why Canon is placing
> the on-off button on this strange place. I can switch on and
> off my Nikon with one hand while pulling it out of the bag.
> Canon better stays on, you cannot reach this silly switch.
>
> Thomas.

Those buttons make it almost impossible to change camera settings one
handed. It is the only thing I don't like about my old 1n. The controls on
the 5D are similar to every other Canon back to Ftd days.
And I have no problem at all getting to the on/off switch on my 20D as it
comes out of the bag, it's right where I can reach it with my hand on the
grip.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:59:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:uvzOe.2216$sw6.1753@fed1read05...
> "ThomasH" <henrymot@coco.net> wrote in message
> news:T5SdnVqiZqwcMpfeRVn-1w@comcast.com...
>> On 22-Aug-05 17:09, Rob wrote:
>>> Given the review on
>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.as...
>>>
>>> Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the
>>> 20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D? I
>>> wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the
>>> non-professional that much easier than the 20D?
>>>
>>> Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional? For me, it's seems
>>> to much difference in cost but that's me. I believe the 20D about one
>>> year ago was around $2000 so it fell about $800 over a year.
>>
>> This is what Michael Reichman of Luminous Landscapes also thinks:
>> This price will fall down. However what makes me think against
>> the 5D, is the bizarre set of controls. I miss the EOS-1 like or
>> EOS-3 like set of buttons on the left. This wheel on the left
>> is such a waste. Its one of the reasons that I left out EOS-20D.
>>
>> And, I will probably die and never guess why Canon is placing
>> the on-off button on this strange place. I can switch on and
>> off my Nikon with one hand while pulling it out of the bag.
>> Canon better stays on, you cannot reach this silly switch.
>>
>> Thomas.
>
> Those buttons make it almost impossible to change camera settings one
> handed.

I agree with that, as it's also true of my film EOS 3 body.
You defintely need two hands, and...you've got to use at least two left hand
fingers while you use your right thumb, finger, etc. Add tripping the
modeling flash/DOF preview button WAY out on the side of the lens mount, and
you've got to be a one-man-band!!
:) 

>It is the only thing I don't like about my old 1n. The controls on the 5D
>are similar to every other Canon back to Ftd days.
> And I have no problem at all getting to the on/off switch on my 20D as it
> comes out of the bag, it's right where I can reach it with my hand on the
> grip.

The only thing I wish they would add would be an in-viewfinder indicator for
what mode your dial is on. This would be great for those in-the-dark shots,
or those super-quick-reaction grab-shots, where you've got the camera to
your eye before you can even look at the dial. An indicator like that would
allow you to easily see what you were doing in those fast, hazy moments
without having to look at the dial. It's not life or death, but I wish it
was in there.

Mark
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 4:12:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1DyOe.2204$sw6.1033@fed1read05...
>
>
>
> <Rob> wrote in message news:m9qkg1hnb0tsejsc3tl3pduv5fkta4qflj@4ax.com...
>> Given the review on
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.as...
>>
>> Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the
>> 20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D?
>> I wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the
>> non-professional that much easier than the 20D?
>>
>> Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional? For me, it's seems
>> to much difference in cost but that's me. I believe the 20D about one
>> year ago was around $2000 so it fell about $800 over a year.
>
> It was $1499 on intro, so it's dropped $261 in the year since. And it
> would be difficult to justify the extra expense of the 5D over the 20D
> unless you need full frame for wide angle lens usage, or you need the spot
> meter. The 50% more resolution will only come into play at sizes of
> somewhere in the neighborhood of 24x36 inch prints, in my opinion.

With my 6.3MP 10D, its pretty significant.
I like to print with at *least* 240dpi (I think you can get away with this
nicely for a lot of subjects, or even less sometimes, even without upres),
and at that dpi, the sensor takes you from an 8.5":x12.8" max print on a
10D...all the way to a 12"x18" with the 5D. I'd say that's pretty
significant, but it's obviously less so with the slightly higher MP 20D.
August 23, 2005 4:34:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rob wrote:


> I wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the
> non-professional that much easier than the 20D?

No.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 4:42:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:09:51 -0500, Rob wrote:

>Given the review on
>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.as...
>
>Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the
>20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D?
>I wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the
>non-professional that much easier than the 20D?
>
>Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional? For me, it's seems
>to much difference in cost but that's me. I believe the 20D about one
>year ago was around $2000 so it fell about $800 over a year.


Maybe the question should be for which camera is a better value at
the current prices?
August 23, 2005 4:43:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mark² wrote

> no pesky built-in flash

Why is a built in flash "pesky"? On the camera I use, you can use the flip
up flash along with a shoe mounted "bounce flash?, adjust the output of
each independantly so you can shoot a perfectly balanced "bounce plus
fill". That doesn't seem pesky to me and has resulted in the most natural
looking flash shots I've ever taken.

Is there an actual down side to a built in flash other than it doesn't
sound "pro"?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 4:43:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3mvns5F18flo0U3@individual.net...
> Mark² wrote
>
>> no pesky built-in flash
>
> Why is a built in flash "pesky"? On the camera I use, you can use the flip
> up flash along with a shoe mounted "bounce flash?, adjust the output of
> each independantly so you can shoot a perfectly balanced "bounce plus
> fill". That doesn't seem pesky to me and has resulted in the most natural
> looking flash shots I've ever taken.

Great! More power to ya.

> Is there an actual down side to a built in flash other than it doesn't
> sound "pro"?

Yes, there is.
-By having it built in to the prism housing, you are forced to give up a
larger, more comfortably usable viewfinder. And... I never ever use my
built-in flash. I think it's great for many people who would consider
always mounting a 550EX "pesky," but for the rest of us, it's just not what
works best.

As to your clever use of both...good idea. But that doesn't work with the
10D. It doesn't really need to though. The 550EX has a little pull-out
reflector that adds a catchlight to eyes or light fill while bouncing flash.
If that's not enough forward fill, then I just stick my 80/20 bouncer (80%
light goes up, while 20% bounces forward via the partial bounce surface) on
the flash and get not only fill, but diffused fill--which gives a much more
pleasing rendition of wrinkles, etc. than a fill flash emitted by such a
small source, such as a built-in.

The 80/20 diffuser is pretty cheap. You might find that you really like it.
It comes with little velcro inserts so that you can also use it as a full
bouncer, or the 80/20 configuration. Also, it has a translucent attachment
for more direct, but diffused light...AND...it also comes with gold and
silver bounce inserts.

All of the above costs around $45, and it always in my bag (it folds and it
quite flat/small).

So to answer your question...no. It has nothing whatever to do some sort of
"professional sound," but it does have a lot to do with excellent images.
:) 
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 4:43:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:9hzOe.8378$Us5.5975@fed1read02...
>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3mvns5F18flo0U3@individual.net...
>> Mark² wrote
>>
>>> no pesky built-in flash
>>
>> Why is a built in flash "pesky"? On the camera I use, you can use the
>> flip
>> up flash along with a shoe mounted "bounce flash?, adjust the output of
>> each independantly so you can shoot a perfectly balanced "bounce plus
>> fill". That doesn't seem pesky to me and has resulted in the most natural
>> looking flash shots I've ever taken.
>
> Great! More power to ya.
>
>> Is there an actual down side to a built in flash other than it doesn't
>> sound "pro"?
>
> Yes, there is.
> -By having it built in to the prism housing, you are forced to give up a
> larger, more comfortably usable viewfinder. And... I never ever use my
> built-in flash. I think it's great for many people who would consider
> always mounting a 550EX "pesky," but for the rest of us, it's just not
> what works best.
>
> As to your clever use of both...good idea. But that doesn't work with the
> 10D. It doesn't really need to though. The 550EX has a little pull-out
> reflector that adds a catchlight to eyes or light fill while bouncing
> flash. If that's not enough forward fill, then I just stick my 80/20
> bouncer (80% light goes up, while 20% bounces forward via the partial
> bounce surface) on the flash and get not only fill, but diffused
> fill--which gives a much more pleasing rendition of wrinkles, etc. than a
> fill flash emitted by such a small source, such as a built-in.
>
> The 80/20 diffuser is pretty cheap. You might find that you really like
> it. It comes with little velcro inserts so that you can also use it as a
> full bouncer, or the 80/20 configuration. Also, it has a translucent
> attachment for more direct, but diffused light...AND...it also comes with
> gold and silver bounce inserts.
>
> All of the above costs around $45, and it always in my bag (it folds and
> it quite flat/small).
>
> So to answer your question...no. It has nothing whatever to do some sort
> of "professional sound," but it does have a lot to do with excellent
> images.
> :) 

Just in case you're not picturing what I'm talking about, here it is at B&H,
with pictures fo it mounted on a flash in it's 5 different configurations.
Only $39.99. :) 
Tiny URL version: http://tinyurl.com/8apvx

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=produ...

A GREAT little device I think anyone with a external flash would do well to
carry. It's especially beneficial for candid people shots within 10-15
feet, as it not only gives better skin textures, but also speads the light
for tight group shots at close range (which can be problematic with
flash...more light in the middle. when you either don't have a ceiling...or
it's not white...or it's too high, etc.).
While some people swear by a 3x5 card and rubber band, those can't do
gold/silver, nor can they do 80/20 or direct soft-box diffusion.

-Mark
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 5:02:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rob wrote:
> Given the review on
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.as...
>
> Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the
> 20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D?
> I wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the
> non-professional that much easier than the 20D?
>
> Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional? For me, it's seems
> to much difference in cost but that's me. I believe the 20D about one
> year ago was around $2000 so it fell about $800 over a year.


20D was priced at $1500 from the start. I watched it closely when I was
upgrading from Digital Rebel to 20D. I bought it for $1330.

You have to consider what do you use the camera for. If you don't miss
12MP and full frame, 20D will serve you well. Canon doesn't include a
built-in pop up flash (I use it for fill flash in daytime) is enough to
clue you in that this is not a camera for casual walking around the
city. And for $3200, not including lens, it's enough of a good reason.
You have the wallet, you decide.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 5:06:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1124758882.338691.268420@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
wiltw@aol.com says...
> > So far there are 14 frequently documented problems 20D owners have
> > discovered with their "state of the art" (sniggers) cameras. It took
> > just 2 days to discover the first 5.
>
> Care to elaborate what 3-5 of them are? (the BG-2E issue doesn't
> count) Curious, not challenging you.

Doug has been a ranting and raving lunatic ever since he went off of his
medication. Don't bother.

--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 5:08:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In fairness to Pixby the only place my 300D has had reliablity problems
was in tropical Queensland.
On two separate occasions I was in the rainforest when I got the
dreaded Er99.
Never had that problem before and never since. No problem with the
camera in +45 dry desert heat or at -20 on a glacier.

Nick
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 5:19:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"nick J" <NickJames75@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124784508.501702.225260@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> In fairness to Pixby the only place my 300D has had reliablity problems
> was in tropical Queensland.
> On two separate occasions I was in the rainforest when I got the
> dreaded Er99.
> Never had that problem before and never since. No problem with the
> camera in +45 dry desert heat or at -20 on a glacier.

That's a lens mount contact problem.
It might have been as simple as a wet mount, or dirty contacts in the
mount--as would be likely in damp, sticky environments.
August 23, 2005 6:34:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mark² wrote:

>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3mvns5F18flo0U3@individual.net...
>> Mark² wrote
>>
>>> no pesky built-in flash
>>
>> Why is a built in flash "pesky"? On the camera I use, you can use the
>> flip up flash along with a shoe mounted "bounce flash?, adjust the output
>> of each independantly so you can shoot a perfectly balanced "bounce plus
>> fill". That doesn't seem pesky to me and has resulted in the most natural
>> looking flash shots I've ever taken.
>
> Great! More power to ya.
>
>> Is there an actual down side to a built in flash other than it doesn't
>> sound "pro"?
>
> Yes, there is.
> -By having it built in to the prism housing, you are forced to give up a
> larger, more comfortably usable viewfinder.

Why does it have to be in the prism housing?

> And... I never ever use my
> built-in flash. I think it's great for many people who would consider
> always mounting a 550EX "pesky," but for the rest of us, it's just not
> what works best.

Or is it that you can only use one flash or the other on a canon?

>
> As to your clever use of both...good idea. But that doesn't work with the
> 10D. It doesn't really need to though. The 550EX has a little pull-out
> reflector that adds a catchlight to eyes or light fill while bouncing
> flash.

So you can adjust the output of this "pull out reflector"


> If that's not enough forward fill, then I just stick my 80/20
> bouncer (80% light goes up, while 20% bounces forward via the partial
> bounce surface) on the flash and get not only fill, but diffused
> fill--which gives a much more pleasing rendition of wrinkles, etc. than a
> fill flash emitted by such a small source, such as a built-in.

Wow so you know this works better than my solution because you've actually
used mine and saw the results?


>
> All of the above costs around $45, and it always in my bag (it folds and
> it quite flat/small).

And my solution is free and is always on the camera.

>
> So to answer your question...no. It has nothing whatever to do some sort
> of "professional sound," but it does have a lot to do with excellent
> images.
> :) 

Nevermind, you answered my question..

--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 6:34:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3mvubeF18ofetU1@individual.net...
> Mark² wrote:
>
>>
>> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:3mvns5F18flo0U3@individual.net...
>>> Mark² wrote
>>>
>>>> no pesky built-in flash
>>>
>>> Why is a built in flash "pesky"? On the camera I use, you can use the
>>> flip up flash along with a shoe mounted "bounce flash?, adjust the
>>> output
>>> of each independantly so you can shoot a perfectly balanced "bounce plus
>>> fill". That doesn't seem pesky to me and has resulted in the most
>>> natural
>>> looking flash shots I've ever taken.
>>
>> Great! More power to ya.
>>
>>> Is there an actual down side to a built in flash other than it doesn't
>>> sound "pro"?
>>
>> Yes, there is.
>> -By having it built in to the prism housing, you are forced to give up a
>> larger, more comfortably usable viewfinder.
>
> Why does it have to be in the prism housing?

I suppose it doesn't HAVE to be, but it would sure create a huge bump on top
of your camera if you had a full-size viewfinder AND the folded
flash/housing above that. I wouldn't want my flash shoe to be that high
anyway. Take a look at the 10D or 20D with the flash popped up sometime.
When you look in there, you'll see the angled *actual* prism housing just
beneath it.

>> And... I never ever use my
>> built-in flash. I think it's great for many people who would consider
>> always mounting a 550EX "pesky," but for the rest of us, it's just not
>> what works best.
>
> Or is it that you can only use one flash or the other on a canon?

No, you can use any currently produced (and even a few no longer produced)
on any of Canon's DSLRs or recently (10 years or more) produced film
cameras. Not an issue.

>> As to your clever use of both...good idea. But that doesn't work with
>> the
>> 10D. It doesn't really need to though. The 550EX has a little pull-out
>> reflector that adds a catchlight to eyes or light fill while bouncing
>> flash.
>
> So you can adjust the output of this "pull out reflector"

(keep reading) :) 

Take a look at the picture at B&H that I posted of the device.
You can adjust to either full bounce, or 80:20...it will make sense when you
see the picture...

>> If that's not enough forward fill, then I just stick my 80/20
>> bouncer (80% light goes up, while 20% bounces forward via the partial
>> bounce surface) on the flash and get not only fill, but diffused
>> fill--which gives a much more pleasing rendition of wrinkles, etc. than a
>> fill flash emitted by such a small source, such as a built-in.
>
> Wow so you know this works better than my solution because you've actually
> used mine and saw the results?

No. I know that diffused flash is nicer to wrinkles that non-diffused.
I don't say yours doesn't work, but unless there's a white, low ceiling, a
bounce doesn't work particularly well. It has nothing to do with your
solution except that any time you have a tiny light source providing
significant output, it tend to create more distinct shadows with wrinkles
(as I'm sure you know). If you've got plenty of bounce from a convenient
ceiling, great! If you don't, then you may end up relying on more direct
flash that might be optimal.
Again... If you're happy, then great! Glad it works for you.

>> All of the above costs around $45, and it always in my bag (it folds and
>> it quite flat/small).
>
> And my solution is free and is always on the camera.

You can really be defensive sometimes...
Again...(and again)... That's great. Do whatever pleases you.
You asked, so I'm answering...along with my reasons. It's good to explain
why we do what we do.

>> So to answer your question...no. It has nothing whatever to do some sort
>> of "professional sound," but it does have a lot to do with excellent
>> images.
>> :) 
>
> Nevermind, you answered my question..

Never mind what?
??
Oh... I got it. You're disappointed because I actually had a reason, and
that I had a reason spoiled your fun in assuming I was just blowing
"professional sounding" smoke by calling built-in flashes "pesky."
:)  Sorry to disappoint you.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 6:40:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:

> And the Nikon D2X spec is ... what?

Exactly the same. If you look at such specs you'll find that pretty much
everything says "0-40 degrees C, max 85% humidity". It's so consistent
that it's probably automatically inserted without much thought.

I've used my D2x outside all three "limits" already, with no ill effects,
though it's only seen below-freezing on two days, and then not below it
by much, this being summer and all. Judging from previous experience
using a D70 well below 0 degrees C, it'll be fine come winter.

As for the humidity... if the 85% "limit" really were a problem, I'd
pretty much have to keep the thing in storage all summer, where I live. :) 
I've used my D2x, and the D70 before it, in 100% humidity.

Given that Douglas is the only one to have reported any issue with the
environmental limits, I'd expect a decent Canon to do just as well.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 6:40:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:11gl348mq532g6b@corp.supernews.com...
> eawckyegcy@yahoo.com <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> And the Nikon D2X spec is ... what?
>
> Exactly the same. If you look at such specs you'll find that pretty much
> everything says "0-40 degrees C, max 85% humidity". It's so consistent
> that it's probably automatically inserted without much thought.
>
> I've used my D2x outside all three "limits" already, with no ill effects,
> though it's only seen below-freezing on two days, and then not below it
> by much, this being summer and all. Judging from previous experience
> using a D70 well below 0 degrees C, it'll be fine come winter.
>
> As for the humidity... if the 85% "limit" really were a problem, I'd
> pretty much have to keep the thing in storage all summer, where I live. :) 
> I've used my D2x, and the D70 before it, in 100% humidity.
>
> Given that Douglas is the only one to have reported any issue with the
> environmental limits, I'd expect a decent Canon to do just as well.

In Brazil, we had a "hot box" for sensitive electronic equipment like video
cameras, etc.
All it consisted of was a wooden box, a hinged door, and a standard light
bulb that always stayed lit in side. This would basically keep it
relatively dry inside and free of mold, condensation, etc.
Worked a charm.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 7:06:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

If I had Canon equipment, I would order the Canon 5D today!!! Forget about
the 20D. It's a fine camera but compared to the specs of the 5D, no chance.
The 5D is the real digital 35mm format camera that one can actually afford.
Go for it! - I still don't give up hope that sooner or later Nikon will come
with something comparable, too. Something, that is worthy of the Nikon glass
I have for my Nikon F3.

Gregor

<Rob> wrote in message news:m9qkg1hnb0tsejsc3tl3pduv5fkta4qflj@4ax.com...
> Given the review on
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.as...
>
> Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the
> 20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D?
> I wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the
> non-professional that much easier than the 20D?
>
> Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional? For me, it's seems
> to much difference in cost but that's me. I believe the 20D about one
> year ago was around $2000 so it fell about $800 over a year.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 7:23:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the
> 20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D?
> I wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the
> non-professional that much easier than the 20D?

One thing for sure - buying EF-S lenses will be a freakin' waste of money.
So if it was me, I'd get the 5D - but I just bought the 20D, so I'm screwed.
:) 

Damn grass is always greener!

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 7:39:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I wonder if I should stop considering buying Nikon DX lenses. Looking at the
Canon 5D, I can no longer imagine how Nikon can stick with a DX format image
sensor. The community of 35mm camera users will most certainly no longer
accept a DX format image sensor in a D2X that sells for US$5000.

Anyway, a couple of months ago, the 20D was the best DSLR for the money.
Maybe end of next year, Canon will introduce a 35mm format sensor in a lower
priced model. The perfect upgrade for your 20D ;-)

In 2006, what will be my Nikon upgrade for my D70?

Gregor


"Beach Bum" <e.cartman@southpark.com> wrote in message
news:tEwOe.32092$Oy2.7765@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the
>> 20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D?
>> I wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the
>> non-professional that much easier than the 20D?
>
> One thing for sure - buying EF-S lenses will be a freakin' waste of money.
> So if it was me, I'd get the 5D - but I just bought the 20D, so I'm
> screwed.
> :) 
>
> Damn grass is always greener!
>
> --
> Mark
>
> Photos, Ideas & Opinions
> http://www.marklauter.com
>
>
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 7:52:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

GTO <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

> I wonder if I should stop considering buying Nikon DX lenses. Looking at the
> Canon 5D, I can no longer imagine how Nikon can stick with a DX format image
> sensor. The community of 35mm camera users will most certainly no longer
> accept a DX format image sensor in a D2X that sells for US$5000.

Why not? The D2x is equal or higher spec than the 5D in everything but
sensor size; the two cameras are not comparable. And unless you really
need super-wide-angle, full frame is a lot of money for little benefit.
(The main benefit may be a hard lesson in how poorly some lenses may
behave at the edges of a full frame digital sensor.)

Having said that, I'd imagine that full frame is in the future, sooner
or later, so apart from the DX fisheye (which you need to get fisheye
on 1.5x) it's probably best to stick to full frame lenses.

> In 2006, what will be my Nikon upgrade for my D70?

Maybe sometime in 2006 Nikon will fill in the mid-spec gap in their
lineup. It's a big jump from D70 to D2x.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
August 23, 2005 7:52:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> And unless you really
> need super-wide-angle, full frame is a lot of money for little benefit.
>

Did you look at the corners of that "super wide angle " landscape image yet?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 8:38:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Personally, I do not need a 35mm format image sensor in my DSLR. There is
nothing magical with the 35mm format. Sure, it is somewhat awkward to use my
F3 and then switch to my D70. The 1.5x cropping factor has its limitations.
And yes, I like my 20mm f2.8, which is pretty useless on a DX format camera.
But the 35mm community of photographers is a different story. People will
ask, why should they accept DX format CMOS sensors when Canon can make them
larger. The pressure from this market segment will mount faster than Nikon
will be capable of convincing most of them that it is not really
"necessary". Sure enough, Canon seems to be moving faster than Nikon most
likely anticipated. Once Canon offers a full line of DSLRs with the 35mm
format (from US$1000 to US$5000+), Nikon must match this feature or come up
with a CCD that offers true 14-bit A/D. Something that so far cannot be
accomplished with CMOS sensors, but already today CCDs can be purchased that
offer 16-bit A/D. Of course, such a design must be cooled (e.g. with Peltier
cooling) to ensure proper function.

There is one thing that might kill the DX format image sensor in the future
anyway. How small can you make pixels before you can very noticeably see the
difference when comparing the image quality with the output from its larger,
35mm format, sibling? One thing I really like is the 8.2 um x 8.2 um pixel
size of the Canon 5D.

Gregor


"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:11gl7bnsq1rd8c1@corp.supernews.com...
> GTO <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I wonder if I should stop considering buying Nikon DX lenses. Looking at
>> the
>> Canon 5D, I can no longer imagine how Nikon can stick with a DX format
>> image
>> sensor. The community of 35mm camera users will most certainly no longer
>> accept a DX format image sensor in a D2X that sells for US$5000.
>
> Why not? The D2x is equal or higher spec than the 5D in everything but
> sensor size; the two cameras are not comparable. And unless you really
> need super-wide-angle, full frame is a lot of money for little benefit.
> (The main benefit may be a hard lesson in how poorly some lenses may
> behave at the edges of a full frame digital sensor.)
>
> Having said that, I'd imagine that full frame is in the future, sooner
> or later, so apart from the DX fisheye (which you need to get fisheye
> on 1.5x) it's probably best to stick to full frame lenses.
>
>> In 2006, what will be my Nikon upgrade for my D70?
>
> Maybe sometime in 2006 Nikon will fill in the mid-spec gap in their
> lineup. It's a big jump from D70 to D2x.
>
> --
> Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 8:38:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7LxOe.1480$A%1.1076@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...


> There is one thing that might kill the DX format image sensor in the
> future anyway. How small can you make pixels before you can very
> noticeably see the difference when comparing the image quality with the
> output from its larger, 35mm format, sibling? One thing I really like is
> the 8.2 um x 8.2 um pixel size of the Canon 5D.

I think this final factor is going to become the key factor in forcing
Nikon's hand. Once that happens, there isn't any room left in the
form-factor of 35mm based gear, and so little remains but noise reduction
*while simultaneously pushing sensitivities upward to 6400 and beyond. Low
noise advantage will always lean in favor of those using larger pixels.
This alone may be what finally forces Nikon to commit to full frame, as you
suggest.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 9:30:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Depending on the power consumption of the 5D in standby-mode, you may not
have to always switch off your camera. While moving around taking pictures,
I try to avoid switching off my D70 even when putting it into my bag. - But
perhaps the EOS type of cameras drain the battery too quickly when turned on
(?).

Gregor

"ThomasH" <henrymot@coco.net> wrote in message
news:T5SdnVqiZqwcMpfeRVn-1w@comcast.com...
> On 22-Aug-05 17:09, Rob wrote:
>> Given the review on
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.as...
>>
>> Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the
>> 20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D? I wonder
>> if the 5D will make good picture taking for the
>> non-professional that much easier than the 20D?
>>
>> Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional? For me, it's seems
>> to much difference in cost but that's me. I believe the 20D about one
>> year ago was around $2000 so it fell about $800 over a year.
>
> This is what Michael Reichman of Luminous Landscapes also thinks:
> This price will fall down. However what makes me think against
> the 5D, is the bizarre set of controls. I miss the EOS-1 like or
> EOS-3 like set of buttons on the left. This wheel on the left
> is such a waste. Its one of the reasons that I left out EOS-20D.
>
> And, I will probably die and never guess why Canon is placing
> the on-off button on this strange place. I can switch on and
> off my Nikon with one hand while pulling it out of the bag.
> Canon better stays on, you cannot reach this silly switch.
>
> Thomas.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 9:30:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cwyOe.1681$A%1.1147@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Depending on the power consumption of the 5D in standby-mode, you may not
> have to always switch off your camera. While moving around taking
> pictures, I try to avoid switching off my D70 even when putting it into my
> bag. - But perhaps the EOS type of cameras drain the battery too quickly
> when turned on (?).

If it's anything like the 10D, stand-by mode consumes almost no power at
all.
(See my response to him)
-Mark


>
> Gregor
>
> "ThomasH" <henrymot@coco.net> wrote in message
> news:T5SdnVqiZqwcMpfeRVn-1w@comcast.com...
>> On 22-Aug-05 17:09, Rob wrote:
>>> Given the review on
>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.as...
>>>
>>> Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the
>>> 20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D? I
>>> wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the
>>> non-professional that much easier than the 20D?
>>>
>>> Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional? For me, it's seems
>>> to much difference in cost but that's me. I believe the 20D about one
>>> year ago was around $2000 so it fell about $800 over a year.
>>
>> This is what Michael Reichman of Luminous Landscapes also thinks:
>> This price will fall down. However what makes me think against
>> the 5D, is the bizarre set of controls. I miss the EOS-1 like or
>> EOS-3 like set of buttons on the left. This wheel on the left
>> is such a waste. Its one of the reasons that I left out EOS-20D.
>>
>> And, I will probably die and never guess why Canon is placing
>> the on-off button on this strange place. I can switch on and
>> off my Nikon with one hand while pulling it out of the bag.
>> Canon better stays on, you cannot reach this silly switch.
>>
>> Thomas.
>
>
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 10:40:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Did you look at the corners of that "super wide angle " landscape image yet?

Yep. It's pretty bad. On the other hand, it's just one image, so it would
be premature to leap to conclusions from it. It could have been entirely
the fault of the lens, after all. Or simply due to being a pre-production
camera that had some problems.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
August 23, 2005 10:40:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Did you look at the corners of that "super wide angle " landscape image
>> yet?
>
> Yep. It's pretty bad.

Mush is a good word for it..


> On the other hand, it's just one image, so it
> would
> be premature to leap to conclusions from it. It could have been entirely
> the fault of the lens, after all.

And that says what about their QC if they can't even get a good sample! I
doubt that's the problem.

> Or simply due to being a pre-production
> camera that had some problems.
>

I've seen this same sort of thing from samples of wide canon glass used on a
1DsmkII.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 10:40:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:11glh674dscuqf9@corp.supernews.com...
> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Did you look at the corners of that "super wide angle " landscape image
>> yet?
>
> Yep. It's pretty bad. On the other hand, it's just one image, so it
> would
> be premature to leap to conclusions from it. It could have been entirely
> the fault of the lens, after all. Or simply due to being a pre-production
> camera that had some problems.

Have a look at the macro shot edges though.
It clearly isn't a sensor issue, or it would show up there too. More like a
lens/DOF/distortion issue.

Let's face it, though...most DSLR shooters have forgotten what TRUE wide
angle looks like any more... Having that wide a view means you're getting
things much closer to you than is within view on a crop-factored 1.6 DSLR.
This means DOF in a shot like that is going to look more limited. Add to
this that a 100% view of that image on high-res monitors (this one is
160x1200) becomes a HUGE enlargement of that image. This same factor,
though, is why I was very impressed with the retention of detail and focus
in the macro shot.

Mark
August 23, 2005 10:40:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I agree with your desires for the new D200. What new camera bodies,
Nikon or Canon offer "extended dynamic range" other than the Fuji S3 ??
(I have never seen any mention of it associated with the the D2X for
example !) Thanks.


GTO wrote:
> If the D200 is similar to the posts that currently circulate in cyberspace,
> I assume it will list for around US$1600. Everything above US$2000 would be
> unwise. Of course, if the D200 comes with a CCD that offers extended dynamic
> range, people would jump on it even without "full format" image sensor.
>
> My D200 pipe dream is one that has a 10MPixel CCD with a 1/500 flash sync,
> very fast auto focus, fully enabled MLU and the stability we know from the
> D100. It shall list for US$1599. - But that's just a pipedream ;-(
>
> Gregor
>
> "frederick" <lost@sea.co.zn> wrote in message
> news:1124769536.880359@ftpsrv1...
> > GTO wrote:
> >
> >> In 2006, what will be my Nikon upgrade for my D70?
> >>
> > Almost certainly a DX sensor 12.? mp D200, hopefully available before the
> > end of 2005.
> > If Nikon release the D200 at a similar price to the 5d, then I'll sell my
> > Nikon gear.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 10:43:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

GTO <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

> But the 35mm community of photographers is a different story. People will
> ask, why should they accept DX format CMOS sensors when Canon can make them
> larger.

Well, why should I accept a 35mm sensor, when I can get a bigger one in
a Hasselblad? :) 

> There is one thing that might kill the DX format image sensor in the future
> anyway. How small can you make pixels before you can very noticeably see the
> difference when comparing the image quality with the output from its larger,
> 35mm format, sibling?

Yeah, full-frame is probably in our future, sooner or later.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 10:53:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

You may well be right - although I thought Er 99 was 'unspecified
error'

I do remember trying a number of different lenses at the time all with
the same result.
I thought it may have been due to moving straight from a very dry and
cold air conditioned room (not my choice) to a very hot humid
situation.

On returning to my accomodation, and without removing the lens again,
the camera 'sorted' itself a short while.

It only happened twice though which isn't really enough to base a solid
hypothosis on. I'm a happy user having had approx 3000 shutter clicks
before and after this 'glitch'

nick J
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 11:23:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Well, why should I accept a 35mm sensor, when I can get a bigger one in
> a Hasselblad? :) 
>

You are just mentioning my current dream digital camera. The Hasselblad H1D
(22 MPixels, 16-bit color, ISO 50 - 400, CCD size 36.7 x 49.0mm) ;-)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=detai...

Gregor
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 11:32:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rob wrote:
> Given the review on
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.as...
>
> Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the
> 20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D?

If you have to ask, the answer is always "no".


> I wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the
> non-professional that much easier than the 20D?

Probably not, for if no other reason, the increase in file sizes will
be YA strain on the non-pro's home PC...smaller means faster, which
means a greater likelihood of a non-pro to be willing to make the
appropriate post-processing time investment.


> Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional?

Ultimately, it really depends on the non-pro and how much they're
willing to invest in their hobby, which also includes the specifics of
their specialization within the hobby.

For example, consider the trade-off between shooting a telephoto lens
with a 20D and getting the +60% increase in focal length, versus
shooting the same image with the same lens with the 5D and having to
crop in the image to get to the same net magnification. If your
definition of "success" is the pixel count, which one wins?

Similarly, but in the opposite focal length direction, there's
trade-offs for going wide angle. If you don't shoot WA, you might not
care, but for the hobbiest who lives for WA, then the 1.6x
multiplication within the 20D is a killer, so he's not really going to
be comparing the 20D to the 5D, but instead the 5D to Canon's other
Full-Frame dSLR's and regardless of the feature set comparisons, its
definitely a less expensive camera, so its probably going to compete
pretty favorably.

Of course, there's always more options...for example, you could choose
to use a 20D for telephoto and keep an EOS 3 around for WA, and with
the money saved vs a 5D, you can pick up the good 35mm film scanner
that you probably want to have anyway for digitizing some of your
legacy film archives.


-hh
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 11:47:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> Have a look at the macro shot edges though.
> It clearly isn't a sensor issue, or it would show up there too. More like a
> lens/DOF/distortion issue.

A macro lens won't be dealing with light on the extreme angles that a wide
angle will, though. The issue isn't the edges of the sensor alone, it's
the angle of the light hitting the sensor, which is a problem with digital
but not with film. I really don't know enough about lens design to say for
sure, though, so I'll wait and see.

> Having that wide a view means you're getting things much closer to you
> than is within view on a crop-factored 1.6 DSLR. This means DOF in a
> shot like that is going to look more limited.

I thought of DOF too, but those blurry edges aren't close enough for that.
That wide, at f/8, that issue couldn't possibly be simply DOF.

> Add to this that a 100% view of that image on high-res monitors (this
> one is 160x1200) becomes a HUGE enlargement of that image.

Yes, but the problem is bad enough that I'd reject the image on technical
grounds alone, if it were mine. And I doubt it would be accepted for
publication or make it past QC at a stock agency. I can't believe that
Canon's marketing department let it into the wild (and frankly, I can't
imagine Canon releasing a high-profile camera with results that bad, so
I'm expecting to see that the production models don't show the problem,
or that it was the lens, or whatever).

> This same factor, though, is why I was very impressed with the retention
> of detail and focus in the macro shot.

No doubt. But it's the super-wide-angle that people (largely) want full-
frame for, so that's where the attention will be.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 11:47:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:11gll51mef9cf4b@corp.supernews.com...
> Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> Have a look at the macro shot edges though.
>> It clearly isn't a sensor issue, or it would show up there too. More
>> like a
>> lens/DOF/distortion issue.
>
> A macro lens won't be dealing with light on the extreme angles that a wide
> angle will, though. The issue isn't the edges of the sensor alone, it's
> the angle of the light hitting the sensor, which is a problem with digital
> but not with film. I really don't know enough about lens design to say
> for
> sure, though, so I'll wait and see.

Ya, I think that question came up when the first 1Ds full frame came out.
I don't know enough about that either. Most lense's back elements stop at a
similar distance from the sensor--at least with wides I'm aquainted with...
But I have some teles that pull significantly into the lens for differnt
focal lengths. This alone would introduce less extreme angles of light
projected onto the sensor. I dunno... Some of our engineer types here will
know...

>> Having that wide a view means you're getting things much closer to you
>> than is within view on a crop-factored 1.6 DSLR. This means DOF in a
>> shot like that is going to look more limited.
>
> I thought of DOF too, but those blurry edges aren't close enough for that.
> That wide, at f/8, that issue couldn't possibly be simply DOF.

After looking again, I agree. It's not a DOF thing. Look at the lower
right wood-pile at 100% view and it becomes clear that the mush gets worse
than could be induced simply from shallow DOF.

>> Add to this that a 100% view of that image on high-res monitors (this
>> one is 160x1200) becomes a HUGE enlargement of that image.
>
> Yes, but the problem is bad enough that I'd reject the image on technical
> grounds alone, if it were mine. And I doubt it would be accepted for
> publication or make it past QC at a stock agency. I can't believe that
> Canon's marketing department let it into the wild (and frankly, I can't
> imagine Canon releasing a high-profile camera with results that bad, so
> I'm expecting to see that the production models don't show the problem,
> or that it was the lens, or whatever).

I've posted this elsewhere, but I agree that they kinda goofed by releasing
that shot.

>> This same factor, though, is why I was very impressed with the retention
>> of detail and focus in the macro shot.
>
> No doubt. But it's the super-wide-angle that people (largely) want full-
> frame for, so that's where the attention will be.

Good point.

-Mark
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 1:38:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"nick J" <NickJames75@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124805187.791028.316110@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> You may well be right - although I thought Er 99 was 'unspecified
> error'
>
> I do remember trying a number of different lenses at the time all with
> the same result.
> I thought it may have been due to moving straight from a very dry and
> cold air conditioned room (not my choice) to a very hot humid
> situation.

That's always a bad idea, especially in a very humid place...

> On returning to my accomodation, and without removing the lens again,
> the camera 'sorted' itself a short while.

Next time try removing the lens and drying/wiping the contacts on the lens
mount, and perhaps the contacts on a battery grip (if you were using one).

> It only happened twice though which isn't really enough to base a solid
> hypothosis on. I'm a happy user having had approx 3000 shutter clicks
> before and after this 'glitch'

:) 
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 1:41:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Bruce" <bantell@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:1124804459.572727.315760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I agree with your desires for the new D200. What new camera bodies,
> Nikon or Canon offer "extended dynamic range" other than the Fuji S3 ??

The 5D extends downward to ISO 50 via a custom function, and upward to 3200.
The low ISO of 50 can be very useful when you're in very strong light where
you don't want to be forced to use a super high speed shutter, and likely a
good way to have an ultimate, low-noise shot (though I can't imagine needing
much lower than the incredibly clean ISO 100 on a Canon CMOS body).
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:07:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <t_yOe.8373$Us5.2198@fed1read02>,
Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>Once that happens, there isn't any room left in the
>form-factor of 35mm based gear, and so little remains but noise reduction
>*while simultaneously pushing sensitivities upward to 6400 and beyond. Low
>noise advantage will always lean in favor of those using larger pixels.

I think a split in different models is much more likely. Just like
there is currently the high speed/high res split.

Very high resolution will limit both dynamic range and low light performance.

There are a lot of situations where the contrast is not that big, and where
you want good color accuracy and the highest resolution that is still
practical.

On the other hand, for really low light situations, it might make a lot of
sense to reduce losses due to filters, etc. as far as possible, even if that
results in less color accuracy.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:07:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Philip Homburg" <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote in message
news:o ag7anj7d50d01neufur05klu6@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
> In article <t_yOe.8373$Us5.2198@fed1read02>,
> Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>Once that happens, there isn't any room left in the
>>form-factor of 35mm based gear, and so little remains but noise reduction
>>*while simultaneously pushing sensitivities upward to 6400 and beyond.
>>Low
>>noise advantage will always lean in favor of those using larger pixels.
>
> I think a split in different models is much more likely. Just like
> there is currently the high speed/high res split.

Are you talking about Nikon? If so, then I agree. I'm just saying that I
think Nikon will be forced to produce a full-frame in order to keep up with
the sensetivity advantage Canon will eventually dominate if Nikon only has
the smaller sensor...even in their professional line.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:14:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <7LxOe.1480$A%1.1076@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
GTO <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>Sure enough, Canon seems to be moving faster than Nikon most
>likely anticipated. Once Canon offers a full line of DSLRs with the 35mm
>format (from US$1000 to US$5000+), Nikon must match this feature or come up
>with a CCD that offers true 14-bit A/D.

Well, when cameras with full frame 35mm sensors sell for less than $1000
it will be time to invest in some medium format gear...


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
!