Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon 5D: First Impressions with a few pics

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 3:26:10 PM

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

http://www.digit.no/wip4/detail.epl?id=59456

More about : canon impressions pics

Anonymous
August 30, 2005 5:01:56 PM

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

deryck lant wrote:
> http://www.digit.no/wip4/detail.epl?id=59456

"Brian Worley, product manager of D-SLR cameras at Canon Europa, said
that it's a long way before all EOS models will have a full size sensor,
but Canon's aim is to equip all models, except the cheapest, with a 35mm
sensor in the future."

That quote seems to confirm that the EF-S lens line is indeed just a
stop gap. Looks like all those EF-S lens paranoias were justified.

Unless, and this is a thought that has just occured to me, would it be
possible to design a camera with a full frame sensor that accepts EF-S
lenses?
August 30, 2005 5:01:57 PM

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

"Derek Fountain" <nomail@hursley.ibm.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
43144acc$0$28046$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> deryck lant wrote:
>> http://www.digit.no/wip4/detail.epl?id=59456
>
>
> Unless, and this is a thought that has just occured to me, would it be
> possible to design a camera with a full frame sensor that accepts EF-S
> lenses?


It is my understanding that EF-S optics do not cover full frame, but are
limited to APS-C size sensors, or like.
On full frame there would be dark corners...


Another point about the stop-gap EF-S policy:
seems to me that EF-S lenses are on the not expensive side. This is another
proof they are intended to be a "stop gap".


Mike
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 5:13:34 PM

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

Derek Fountain wrote:
> That quote seems to confirm that the EF-S lens line is indeed just a
> stop gap. Looks like all those EF-S lens paranoias were justified.

By the time Canon has the technology to profitably market a full fram
dSLR for $1500, they will simultaneously have the technology to market
a 1.6 crop camera for $400-$500. This will tend to make the average
dSLR purchaser choose the 1.6 crop camera about 10:1.

EF-S will seervice this 90% of the market just fine.
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 5:37:03 PM

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

"Derek Fountain" <nomail@hursley.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:43144acc$0$28046$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> deryck lant wrote:
> > http://www.digit.no/wip4/detail.epl?id=59456
>
> "Brian Worley, product manager of D-SLR cameras at Canon Europa, said
> that it's a long way before all EOS models will have a full size sensor,
> but Canon's aim is to equip all models, except the cheapest, with a 35mm
> sensor in the future."
>
> That quote seems to confirm that the EF-S lens line is indeed just a
> stop gap. Looks like all those EF-S lens paranoias were justified.


It confirms my comments from a few days ago.

> Unless, and this is a thought that has just occured to me, would it be
> possible to design a camera with a full frame sensor that accepts EF-S
> lenses?

The mirror is too big on FF.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 5:59:29 PM

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

Kinon O'cann wrote:
> "Derek Fountain" <nomail@hursley.ibm.com> wrote in message
> news:43144acc$0$28046$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> > Looks like all those EF-S lens paranoias were justified.
>
> Hardly. "In the future" could mean five years from now, and in that time,
> the EF-S lenses will provide excellent service. After that, they'll probably
> still work. And who knows? If there's a market for small, light, and
> inexpensive DSLRs, the 1.6 sensor may remain.

The 1.6 sensor has clear advantages for telephoto enthusiasts. Not only
is the camera itself lighter, the adequate lens is lighter too. A 20D
with an 100-400 IS lens gives you the possibility to get the equivalent
of 640 mm with a setup that is both possible (IS) and practical (not
too heavy, nor too front-heavy) to handhold. Try to do this with a 5D
and a 600 mm lens, IS or no IS.

Besides, it was "all _but the cheapest_". There may not be forever a
20D equivalent with a 1.6 sensor. With deeper DOF, which is normally a
Good Thing for bird photogs. But the way I get this, there will be a
Rebel XT equivalent with a 1.6 sensor for as long as Canon's horizon
is.

The only Canon sensor size that we really now know is a dead end is the
1.3 of the 1D Mark II. That one is extremely unlikely to appear in a
new Canon camera. But this is of no consequence as far as lenses are
concerned.

Jan Böhme
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 6:08:31 PM

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

The message <43144acc$0$28046$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>
from Derek Fountain <nomail@hursley.ibm.com> contains these words:

> deryck lant wrote:
> > http://www.digit.no/wip4/detail.epl?id=59456

> "Brian Worley, product manager of D-SLR cameras at Canon Europa, said
> that it's a long way before all EOS models will have a full size sensor,
> but Canon's aim is to equip all models, except the cheapest, with a 35mm
> sensor in the future."

> That quote seems to confirm that the EF-S lens line is indeed just a
> stop gap. Looks like all those EF-S lens paranoias were justified.

The APS size entry level product line will continue for the
foreseeable future.

Deryck
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 6:42:30 PM

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

"Derek Fountain" <nomail@hursley.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:43144acc$0$28046$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> deryck lant wrote:
>> http://www.digit.no/wip4/detail.epl?id=59456
>
> "Brian Worley, product manager of D-SLR cameras at Canon Europa, said that
> it's a long way before all EOS models will have a full size sensor, but
> Canon's aim is to equip all models, except the cheapest, with a 35mm
> sensor in the future."
>
> That quote seems to confirm that the EF-S lens line is indeed just a stop
> gap. Looks like all those EF-S lens paranoias were justified.

Hardly. "In the future" could mean five years from now, and in that time,
the EF-S lenses will provide excellent service. After that, they'll probably
still work. And who knows? If there's a market for small, light, and
inexpensive DSLRs, the 1.6 sensor may remain. I have two EF-S lenses, and
feel no buyer's remorse whatsoever, even after I buy a 5D next January. The
17-85, mounted on the 20D will still provide excellent service, and the 20D
still has a few advantages over the 5D, like built-in flash and higher frame
rates. Why worry? Just get the glass you need and shoot.

>
> Unless, and this is a thought that has just occured to me, would it be
> possible to design a camera with a full frame sensor that accepts EF-S
> lenses?

Nope. The mirror would hit.
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 7:55:39 PM

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

"Derek Fountain" <nomail@hursley.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:43144acc$0$28046$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> deryck lant wrote:
>> http://www.digit.no/wip4/detail.epl?id=59456
>
> "Brian Worley, product manager of D-SLR cameras at Canon Europa, said that
> it's a long way before all EOS models will have a full size sensor, but
> Canon's aim is to equip all models, except the cheapest, with a 35mm
> sensor in the future."
>
> That quote seems to confirm that the EF-S lens line is indeed just a stop
> gap. Looks like all those EF-S lens paranoias were justified.

"Canon's aim is to equip all models, except the cheapest, with a 35mm
sensor in the future," certainly sounds like the EF-S system has some legs,
since that would include the Rebel line and its successors. 20D type
cameras will probably not exist in the future, reading between the lines,
though, since that wouldn't qualify as "cheapest."

>
> Unless, and this is a thought that has just occured to me, would it be
> possible to design a camera with a full frame sensor that accepts EF-S
> lenses?

Unlikely, but Canon has stated before, and this statement does nothing to
contradict it, that they will have two tiers of cameras, a low tier with
1.6x and a top tier with FF. The 1.3x of the 1D mkII would seem to be the
only victim, here, and that doesn't take EF-S lenses.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 11:08:48 PM

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

Jan Böhme wrote:
> Kinon O'cann wrote:
>
>>"Derek Fountain" <nomail@hursley.ibm.com> wrote in message
>>news:43144acc$0$28046$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
>>
>>>Looks like all those EF-S lens paranoias were justified.
>>
>>Hardly. "In the future" could mean five years from now, and in that time,
>>the EF-S lenses will provide excellent service. After that, they'll probably
>>still work. And who knows? If there's a market for small, light, and
>>inexpensive DSLRs, the 1.6 sensor may remain.
>
>
> The 1.6 sensor has clear advantages for telephoto enthusiasts. Not only
> is the camera itself lighter, the adequate lens is lighter too. A 20D
> with an 100-400 IS lens gives you the possibility to get the equivalent
> of 640 mm with a setup that is both possible (IS) and practical (not
> too heavy, nor too front-heavy) to handhold. Try to do this with a 5D
> and a 600 mm lens, IS or no IS.
>
> Besides, it was "all _but the cheapest_". There may not be forever a
> 20D equivalent with a 1.6 sensor. With deeper DOF, which is normally a
> Good Thing for bird photogs. But the way I get this, there will be a
> Rebel XT equivalent with a 1.6 sensor for as long as Canon's horizon
> is.
>
> The only Canon sensor size that we really now know is a dead end is the
> 1.3 of the 1D Mark II. That one is extremely unlikely to appear in a
> new Canon camera. But this is of no consequence as far as lenses are
> concerned.
>
> Jan Böhme


I have a better suggestion. Panasonic FZ5 is much smaller and has longer
reach. Sorry, I don't see your argument as an advantage but instead just
a fact of life. The larger pixel pitch on the 5D gives you advantage in
sensitive which you usually need with such a long lens.
August 31, 2005 12:31:21 AM

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

Derek Fountain <nomail@hursley.ibm.com> wrote in news:43144acc$0$28046
$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net:

> deryck lant wrote:
>> http://www.digit.no/wip4/detail.epl?id=59456
>
> "Brian Worley, product manager of D-SLR cameras at Canon Europa, said
> that it's a long way before all EOS models will have a full size sensor,
> but Canon's aim is to equip all models, except the cheapest, with a 35mm
> sensor in the future."
>
> That quote seems to confirm that the EF-S lens line is indeed just a
> stop gap. Looks like all those EF-S lens paranoias were justified.
>
> Unless, and this is a thought that has just occured to me, would it be
> possible to design a camera with a full frame sensor that accepts EF-S
> lenses?

When selling your 1.6x camera so that you can purchase a FF camera you
should bundle your EF-S lens/lenses with the camera, they will still be
useful to someone using your old camera.

If you old EF-S camera dies and you decide to replace it with a FF camera
then sell your EF-S lenses on E-Bay to someone still using a 1.6x camera.

Since 1.6x cameras will still be sold for a few years yet, there will be
1.6x cameras in use for quite a while. Even 10 years from now there will
be some 1.6x cameras still in use.

From now on I think that the prudent buyer should be wary of buying EF-S
lenses, especially if they would ever consider upgrading to a 5D.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 16-August-05)
"The person on the other side was a young woman. Very obviously a
young woman. There was no possible way she could have been mistaken
for a young man in any language, especially Braille."
Maskerade
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 12:31:22 AM

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

>
> Since 1.6x cameras will still be sold for a few years yet, there will be
> 1.6x cameras in use for quite a while. Even 10 years from now there will
> be some 1.6x cameras still in use.

The statement by the Canon exec does say that FF will be used on "all but
the cheapest" cameras, implying that the 1.6x sensor will continue on the
Rebel line and it's successors, and, thus, the EF-S lenses.
>
> From now on I think that the prudent buyer should be wary of buying EF-S
> lenses, especially if they would ever consider upgrading to a 5D.

That has always been the case, and why several people, including us, haven't
invested in EF-S glass, upgrading to a 1Ds mkII or it successor was always a
possibility, eased by the introduction of the 5D.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
August 31, 2005 3:28:44 AM

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

"Jan Böhme" <jan.bohme@sh.se> wrote in
news:1125435569.169298.263420@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> The 1.6 sensor has clear advantages for telephoto enthusiasts. Not
> only is the camera itself lighter, the adequate lens is lighter too. A
> 20D with an 100-400 IS lens gives you the possibility to get the
> equivalent of 640 mm with a setup that is both possible (IS) and
> practical (not too heavy, nor too front-heavy) to handhold. Try to do
> this with a 5D and a 600 mm lens, IS or no IS.

I think that you misunderstand how the cropping factor works.

If you compare an 8MPix camera with a 1.6x cropping factor with a FF camera
with the same pixel pitch and noise characteristics then you will find that
the FF camera can do exactly what the 1.6x camera can do, and more!

From the FF camera you can use pictures uncropped with higher resolution or
you can crop to 1.6x equivalent to give the effect of a longer lens (but
with deeper DoF).



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 16-August-05)
"The person on the other side was a young woman. Very obviously a
young woman. There was no possible way she could have been mistaken
for a young man in any language, especially Braille."
Maskerade
August 31, 2005 3:46:13 AM

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

In article <1125435569.169298.263420@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Jan
Böhme <jan.bohme@sh.se> writes
>
>Kinon O'cann wrote:
>> "Derek Fountain" <nomail@hursley.ibm.com> wrote in message
>> news:43144acc$0$28046$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
>> > Looks like all those EF-S lens paranoias were justified.
>>
>> Hardly. "In the future" could mean five years from now, and in that time,
>> the EF-S lenses will provide excellent service. After that, they'll probably
>> still work. And who knows? If there's a market for small, light, and
>> inexpensive DSLRs, the 1.6 sensor may remain.
>
>The 1.6 sensor has clear advantages for telephoto enthusiasts. Not only
>is the camera itself lighter, the adequate lens is lighter too. A 20D
>with an 100-400 IS lens gives you the possibility to get the equivalent
>of 640 mm with a setup that is both possible (IS) and practical (not
>too heavy, nor too front-heavy) to handhold. Try to do this with a 5D
>and a 600 mm lens, IS or no IS.

You could always use a 5D with 400mm lens and crop the image to 62%. At
least you can get a decent wide angle for a sensible price rather than
having to purchase a ludicrously expensive ultra-wide just to obtain
slightly wide.
--
Ian G8ILZ
August 31, 2005 4:06:48 AM

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

Prometheus wrote:


>
> You could always use a 5D with 400mm lens and crop the image to 62%. At
> least you can get a decent wide angle for a sensible price

Just because a lens covers a sensor with a certain FOV doesn't mean it will
produce something you'd want to print... Specs mean nothing, it's the END
RESULT that matters.

--

Stacey
August 31, 2005 10:18:19 AM

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

In article <3nkomoF1vpj2U2@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>
writes
>Prometheus wrote:
>
>
>>
>> You could always use a 5D with 400mm lens and crop the image to 62%. At
>> least you can get a decent wide angle for a sensible price
>
> Just because a lens covers a sensor with a certain FOV doesn't mean it will
>produce something you'd want to print... Specs mean nothing, it's the END
>RESULT that matters.
>
Exactly my point, a FF sensor gives you more option to crop the print to
suit requirements; choosing a small sensor for its "telephoto effect" is
misguided and restricts options.

I do not always keep the sensor ratio but prefer to fit the print to the
subject.
--
Ian G8ILZ
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 1:17:43 PM

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

In article <tm3Re.14286$WN5.1564@fe02.news.easynews.com>,
markat@atdot.dot.dot says...
> Since 1.6x cameras will still be sold for a few years yet, there will be
> 1.6x cameras in use for quite a while. Even 10 years from now there will
> be some 1.6x cameras still in use.
>
with sensor improvements I expect EF-S to be the amateur mainstream for
as long as we have SLR's (future big improvements in EVF's might
eventually kill the SLR?)

> From now on I think that the prudent buyer should be wary of buying EF-S
> lenses, especially if they would ever consider upgrading to a 5D.
>
has been true since day 1 except for wide-angle where the 10-22mm is the
only Canon solution for x1.6 bodies.
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 1:27:23 PM

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

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 06:18:19 +0100, Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

>In article <3nkomoF1vpj2U2@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>
>writes
>>Prometheus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> You could always use a 5D with 400mm lens and crop the image to 62%. At
>>> least you can get a decent wide angle for a sensible price
>>
>> Just because a lens covers a sensor with a certain FOV doesn't mean it will
>>produce something you'd want to print... Specs mean nothing, it's the END
>>RESULT that matters.
>>
>Exactly my point, a FF sensor gives you more option to crop the print to
>suit requirements; choosing a small sensor for its "telephoto effect" is
>misguided and restricts options.

If your lens(es) cover what you want to cover, where's the restricted
options?
>
>I do not always keep the sensor ratio but prefer to fit the print to the
>subject.

You can do that with a 1.6 sensor.
--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 11:02:07 PM

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Just because a lens covers a sensor with a certain FOV doesn't mean it will
> produce something you'd want to print... Specs mean nothing, it's the END
> RESULT that matters.
>

Of course, if you do this, then you get the same effect as using the 20D
8MP sensor ... 12.8MP cropped to 1.6 uses just 12.8 / 1.6 = 8.0MP. In
other words, it sort of looks like they made the sensor in the 20D
bigger, but beyond that, there may be no difference.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
August 31, 2005 11:35:45 PM

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

In article <3hmbh115psgs8vrhtbhmk9epqnqb1oe6vr@4ax.com>, Bill Funk
<BigBill@pipping.com.com> writes
>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 06:18:19 +0100, Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3nkomoF1vpj2U2@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>
>>writes
>>>Prometheus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You could always use a 5D with 400mm lens and crop the image to 62%. At
>>>> least you can get a decent wide angle for a sensible price
>>>
>>> Just because a lens covers a sensor with a certain FOV doesn't mean it will
>>>produce something you'd want to print... Specs mean nothing, it's the END
>>>RESULT that matters.
>>>
>>Exactly my point, a FF sensor gives you more option to crop the print to
>>suit requirements; choosing a small sensor for its "telephoto effect" is
>>misguided and restricts options.
>
>If your lens(es) cover what you want to cover, where's the restricted
>options?

If you had not cropped out the text I was responding to you would
understand that I was showing that advocating a 1.6 sensor 'because it
makes you telephotos longer' is nonsense, you can crop a FF to
'multiply' the sensor (you could crop a 50mm on a FF to give the view
that a 1000mm would give, I know it would not be good) but there is
nothing you can do with 17mm on 1.6 to make it the width you paid for.
Of course some people never want wide angle just as some never want
telephoto, and some only want a macro (some may only ever use a
microscope or telescope).

>>I do not always keep the sensor ratio but prefer to fit the print to the
>>subject.
>
>You can do that with a 1.6 sensor.

Of course you can, I was just making the point that the sensor should
not dictate the subject.

You singly failed to understand the point, or perhaps you did which is
why you quoted my comments out of context.
--
Ian G8ILZ
September 1, 2005 12:39:49 AM

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

Prometheus wrote:

> In article <3nkomoF1vpj2U2@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>
> writes
>>Prometheus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> You could always use a 5D with 400mm lens and crop the image to 62%. At
>>> least you can get a decent wide angle for a sensible price
>>
>> Just because a lens covers a sensor with a certain FOV doesn't mean it
>> will
>>produce something you'd want to print... Specs mean nothing, it's the END
>>RESULT that matters.
>>
> Exactly my point,

You missed MY point. You said "At least you get a decent wide angle at a
sensible price", that was what I was responding to. Just because a lens
covers a wide FOV and the sensor, that doesn't mean it will produce good
results.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 12:39:50 AM

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3nn0ulF2btljU4@individual.net...
> Prometheus wrote:
>
>> In article <3nkomoF1vpj2U2@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>
>> writes
>>>Prometheus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You could always use a 5D with 400mm lens and crop the image to 62%. At
>>>> least you can get a decent wide angle for a sensible price
>>>
>>> Just because a lens covers a sensor with a certain FOV doesn't mean it
>>> will
>>>produce something you'd want to print... Specs mean nothing, it's the END
>>>RESULT that matters.
>>>
>> Exactly my point,
>
> You missed MY point. You said "At least you get a decent wide angle at a
> sensible price", that was what I was responding to. Just because a lens
> covers a wide FOV and the sensor, that doesn't mean it will produce good
> results.
> --
>
> Stacey

No, but if it doesn't cover it, you won't get any image at all... Now that
I've used the obligatory comeback, if you can't get wide enough to get the
image you want, then even shooting the image as it stands may be a waste of
time. If you do get the coverage, but the corners are a little soft, that
can be cropped, and you may still end up with an image that covers more than
one taken with the same lens on a 1.6x crop. Since we're speaking
hypothetically, anyway.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
September 1, 2005 12:41:03 AM

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

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Just because a lens covers a sensor with a certain FOV doesn't mean it
>> will produce something you'd want to print... Specs mean nothing, it's
>> the END RESULT that matters.
>>
>
> Of course, if you do this, then you get the same effect as using the 20D
> 8MP sensor ...

I was refering to his coment about "decent wide angle" not cropping the
image.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 1:27:09 AM

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

In article <4315feae$0$63617$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>,
Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Of course, if you do this, then you get the same effect as using the 20D
>8MP sensor ... 12.8MP cropped to 1.6 uses just 12.8 / 1.6 = 8.0MP.

Bzzt! The sensor has *two* dimensions. You need to divide both the width
*and* height by 1.6. The arithmetic should be 12.8MP / (1.6 * 2) = 4MP.

>In
>other words, it sort of looks like they made the sensor in the 20D
>bigger, but beyond that, there may be no difference.

Nope, the pixels in the 5D would seem to have twice the area of those in the
20D. Should be good for noise.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 1:50:00 AM

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

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:35:45 +0100, Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

>In article <3hmbh115psgs8vrhtbhmk9epqnqb1oe6vr@4ax.com>, Bill Funk
><BigBill@pipping.com.com> writes
>>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 06:18:19 +0100, Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3nkomoF1vpj2U2@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>
>>>writes
>>>>Prometheus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You could always use a 5D with 400mm lens and crop the image to 62%. At
>>>>> least you can get a decent wide angle for a sensible price
>>>>
>>>> Just because a lens covers a sensor with a certain FOV doesn't mean it will
>>>>produce something you'd want to print... Specs mean nothing, it's the END
>>>>RESULT that matters.
>>>>
>>>Exactly my point, a FF sensor gives you more option to crop the print to
>>>suit requirements; choosing a small sensor for its "telephoto effect" is
>>>misguided and restricts options.
>>
>>If your lens(es) cover what you want to cover, where's the restricted
>>options?
>
>If you had not cropped out the text I was responding to you would
>understand that I was showing that advocating a 1.6 sensor 'because it
>makes you telephotos longer' is nonsense, you can crop a FF to
>'multiply' the sensor (you could crop a 50mm on a FF to give the view
>that a 1000mm would give, I know it would not be good) but there is
>nothing you can do with 17mm on 1.6 to make it the width you paid for.
>Of course some people never want wide angle just as some never want
>telephoto, and some only want a macro (some may only ever use a
>microscope or telescope).

Of course, a 1.6x or 2x sensor with smaller pixels than an equivalent
1x sensor WILL resolve more detail in a given area when using the same
focal length lens.
-Rich


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"
September 1, 2005 4:21:19 AM

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

Skip M wrote:

> If you do get the coverage, but the corners are a little soft, that
> can be cropped, and you may still end up with an image that covers more
> than
> one taken with the same lens on a 1.6x crop. Since we're speaking
> hypothetically, anyway.
>

Sure you do have a point.

I have several old folding 6X9 cameras that have soft corners but a 6X7
crop looks really nice. While these cameras are better than say a 6X6
camera using the same lens as far as getting a wide angle shot, they aren't
as good as say a fuji 6X9 that is deadly sharp to the corners on the full
6X9 frame. A modern camera should be able to do this task and not be
"crippled" like a 1950's folding camera is! :-)
--

Stacey
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 4:21:20 AM

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3nndtvF28r62U4@individual.net...
> Skip M wrote:
>
>> If you do get the coverage, but the corners are a little soft, that
>> can be cropped, and you may still end up with an image that covers more
>> than
>> one taken with the same lens on a 1.6x crop. Since we're speaking
>> hypothetically, anyway.
>>
>
> Sure you do have a point.
>
> I have several old folding 6X9 cameras that have soft corners but a 6X7
> crop looks really nice. While these cameras are better than say a 6X6
> camera using the same lens as far as getting a wide angle shot, they
> aren't
> as good as say a fuji 6X9 that is deadly sharp to the corners on the full
> 6X9 frame. A modern camera should be able to do this task and not be
> "crippled" like a 1950's folding camera is! :-)

You got that part right!

We'll see how the 5D pans out with WAs in everyday usage. My wife may not
let me wait to see how the early adaptors fare with it, she wants one NOW!
I guess she figures that Canon wouldn't screw up a release twice in a row.
Me, I don't have that much faith, but the FF sensor would really help with a
couple of weddings we have coming up in November...
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
September 1, 2005 10:17:01 AM

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

In article <3nn0ulF2btljU4@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>
writes
>Prometheus wrote:
>
>> In article <3nkomoF1vpj2U2@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>
>> writes
>>>Prometheus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You could always use a 5D with 400mm lens and crop the image to 62%. At
>>>> least you can get a decent wide angle for a sensible price
>>>
>>> Just because a lens covers a sensor with a certain FOV doesn't mean it
>>> will
>>>produce something you'd want to print... Specs mean nothing, it's the END
>>>RESULT that matters.
>>>
>> Exactly my point,
>
>You missed MY point. You said "At least you get a decent wide angle at a
>sensible price", that was what I was responding to. Just because a lens
>covers a wide FOV and the sensor, that doesn't mean it will produce good
>results.

It produces better results than no lens (no photograph).
--
Ian G8ILZ
September 1, 2005 10:17:02 AM

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

Prometheus wrote:

>>
>>You missed MY point. You said "At least you get a decent wide angle at a
>>sensible price", that was what I was responding to. Just because a lens
>>covers a wide FOV and the sensor, that doesn't mean it will produce good
>>results.
>
> It produces better results than no lens (no photograph).

So does a pin hole or a box camera for that matter, doesn't excuse the WA
results I've seen.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 1:06:10 PM

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

Prometheus skrev:

> In article <1125435569.169298.263420@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Jan
> Böhme <jan.bohme@sh.se> writes

> >The 1.6 sensor has clear advantages for telephoto enthusiasts. Not only
> >is the camera itself lighter, the adequate lens is lighter too. A 20D
> >with an 100-400 IS lens gives you the possibility to get the equivalent
> >of 640 mm with a setup that is both possible (IS) and practical (not
> >too heavy, nor too front-heavy) to handhold. Try to do this with a 5D
> >and a 600 mm lens, IS or no IS.
>
> You could always use a 5D with 400mm lens and crop the image to 62%.

You have a point in general, but not really when it comes to a 5D and a
20D. If I crop the 5D image to 62%, I only get .62x.62x12.6 = 4.88
million pixels, instead of those 8 million one gets with a 20D. And if,
by chance, 4,88 million is really all I need - it isn't all that far
from the 6M which leave the istD, D70 or Dynax D7 owners quite happy,
isn't it? - then I can crop the 20D image a further 22%, and get the
FOV of a 820mm lens at FF.

A 5D with the same pixel density as the 20D - which would give a total
resolution of almost 21 M - would do the trick. Only it ain't there
yet. And when it comes, I bet that it will be expensive enough to make
the purchase of a "ludicrously expensive ultra-wide" positively
irrelevant in comparison.

> At
> least you can get a decent wide angle for a sensible price rather than
> having to purchase a ludicrously expensive ultra-wide just to obtain
> slightly wide.

Remember, I was specifically talking about telephoto enthusiasts.
Wide-angle capacity is, almost by definition, not the first priority of
this group of shooters.

Jan Böhme
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 2:24:25 PM

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

"Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
> Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Of course, if you do this, then you get the same effect as using the 20D
>>8MP sensor ... 12.8MP cropped to 1.6 uses just 12.8 / 1.6 = 8.0MP.
>
> Bzzt! The sensor has *two* dimensions. You need to divide both the width
> *and* height by 1.6. The arithmetic should be 12.8MP / (1.6 * 2) = 4MP.
>
>>In
>>other words, it sort of looks like they made the sensor in the 20D
>>bigger, but beyond that, there may be no difference.
>
> Nope, the pixels in the 5D would seem to have twice the area of those in
> the
> 20D. Should be good for noise.

Also good for MTF, since if you are using the same lenses, three pixels
rendering a line pair in the 5D will be seeing a much higher contrast line
pair to render than three pixels in the 20D. (Of course, this means that the
low-pass filter is that much more critical, and they're using a new design
LPF*. I hope it works...)

The first image in the dpreview galleries of 5D samples looks better printed
at 240 ppi than any DSLR image I've ever printed at that ppi. I was a bit
worried that at 13x19 (220 ppi) I might be a bit unhappy for landscape work
compared to the 250 ppi the 1Dsmk2 coughs up, but from that sample, it seems
that the 5D will have no troubles whatsoever at 13x19.

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/?gallery=canoneos5d_pre...

*: I had read that the LPF is actually a fairly significant cost in larger
sensors, and in their white paper on the 5D, Canon hints that it was the new
(and cheaper to fabricate) LPF that it's the new LPF that made it possible
to produce the 5D economically.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 3:37:30 PM

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

"Kinon O'cann" wrote
> Hardly. "In the future" could mean five years from now, and in that time,
> the EF-S lenses will provide excellent service. After that, they'll
> probably still work. And who knows? If there's a market for small, light,
> and inexpensive DSLRs, the 1.6 sensor may remain. I have two EF-S lenses,
> and feel no buyer's remorse whatsoever, even after I buy a 5D next
> January. The 17-85, mounted on the 20D will still provide excellent
> service, and the 20D still has a few advantages over the 5D, like built-in
> flash and higher frame rates. Why worry? Just get the glass you need and
> shoot.
>
>>
>> Unless, and this is a thought that has just occured to me, would it be
>> possible to design a camera with a full frame sensor that accepts EF-S
>> lenses?
>
> Nope. The mirror would hit.
>

You should work for Canon! Well stated and in my opinion very accurate in
explaining the advantages to Canon [and regular/non-pro consumer] for the
ongoing development of EF-S lenses. That's a big market Canon is filling and
I can't see them stopping until demand drops.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 4:40:38 PM

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

Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
> In article <4315feae$0$63617$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>,
> Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Of course, if you do this, then you get the same effect as using the 20D
>>8MP sensor ... 12.8MP cropped to 1.6 uses just 12.8 / 1.6 = 8.0MP.
>
> Bzzt! The sensor has *two* dimensions. You need to divide both the width
> *and* height by 1.6. The arithmetic should be 12.8MP / (1.6 * 2) = 4MP.
>

Bzzt yourself! Following your two dimensional logic, you would divide
by the square, and not double it. So, 12.8 / 1.6^2 = 5MP, not 4MP.
Further, I believe that the 1.6x describes effective focal length
adjustments. However, I do believe you are correct that the 1.6 should
be applied in both dimensions.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 6:28:32 PM

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

In article <4316f6c6$0$63620$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>,
Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>> In article <4315feae$0$63617$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>,
>> Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Of course, if you do this, then you get the same effect as using the 20D
>>>8MP sensor ... 12.8MP cropped to 1.6 uses just 12.8 / 1.6 = 8.0MP.
>>
>> Bzzt! The sensor has *two* dimensions. You need to divide both the width
>> *and* height by 1.6. The arithmetic should be 12.8MP / (1.6 * 2) = 4MP.
>>
>
>Bzzt yourself! Following your two dimensional logic, you would divide
>by the square, and not double it. So, 12.8 / 1.6^2 = 5MP, not 4MP.

Oops, you're quite right.

>Further, I believe that the 1.6x describes effective focal length
>adjustments.

It's the same thing. The sensor in the 10D/20D is 22.7mm * 15.1mm. 22.7 *
1.6 is 36.3, and 15.1 * 1.6 is 24.16 - pretty much exactly the dimensions of
a 35mm frame. That 1.6 fold reduction in each linear dimension equates to
requiring a focal length division by 1.6 to achieve the same field of view.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 6:47:57 PM

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

Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>>
>>Bzzt yourself! Following your two dimensional logic, you would divide
>>by the square, and not double it. So, 12.8 / 1.6^2 = 5MP, not 4MP.
>
> Oops, you're quite right.
>
>>Further, I believe that the 1.6x describes effective focal length
>>adjustments.
>
> It's the same thing. The sensor in the 10D/20D is 22.7mm * 15.1mm. 22.7 *
> 1.6 is 36.3, and 15.1 * 1.6 is 24.16 - pretty much exactly the dimensions of
> a 35mm frame. That 1.6 fold reduction in each linear dimension equates to
> requiring a focal length division by 1.6 to achieve the same field of view.

Hey ... I agreed with you ... but you cut it out.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 8:30:56 PM

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

In article <4317149d$0$63622$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>,
Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:

>>
>>>Further, I believe that the 1.6x describes effective focal length
>>>adjustments.
>>
>> It's the same thing. The sensor in the 10D/20D is 22.7mm * 15.1mm. 22.7 *
>> 1.6 is 36.3, and 15.1 * 1.6 is 24.16 - pretty much exactly the dimensions of
>> a 35mm frame. That 1.6 fold reduction in each linear dimension equates to
>> requiring a focal length division by 1.6 to achieve the same field of view.
>
>Hey ... I agreed with you ... but you cut it out.

Yes, sorry, I took that bit as read - was just commenting on the focal
length multiplier/sensor dimension multiplier being equivalent.
September 1, 2005 11:45:33 PM

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

In article <3nnob9F2d2mnU4@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>
writes
>Prometheus wrote:
>
>>>
>>>You missed MY point. You said "At least you get a decent wide angle at a
>>>sensible price", that was what I was responding to. Just because a lens
>>>covers a wide FOV and the sensor, that doesn't mean it will produce good
>>>results.
>>
>> It produces better results than no lens (no photograph).
>
>So does a pin hole or a box camera for that matter, doesn't excuse the WA
>results I've seen.
>
Who said anything does?
--
Ian G8ILZ
September 2, 2005 12:44:32 AM

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

Prometheus wrote:

> In article <3nnob9F2d2mnU4@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>
> writes
>>Prometheus wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>You missed MY point. You said "At least you get a decent wide angle at a
>>>>sensible price", that was what I was responding to. Just because a lens
>>>>covers a wide FOV and the sensor, that doesn't mean it will produce good
>>>>results.
>>>
>>> It produces better results than no lens (no photograph).
>>
>>So does a pin hole or a box camera for that matter, doesn't excuse the WA
>>results I've seen.
>>
> Who said anything does?

Uh, lots of people on this forum? :-)
--

Stacey
September 2, 2005 11:30:05 PM

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

In article <6fnch1hsvn7ge081vses7fmlmup9ob2i8m@4ax.com>, RichA
<none@none.com> writes
>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:35:45 +0100, Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3hmbh115psgs8vrhtbhmk9epqnqb1oe6vr@4ax.com>, Bill Funk
>><BigBill@pipping.com.com> writes
>>>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 06:18:19 +0100, Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <3nkomoF1vpj2U2@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>
>>>>writes
>>>>>Prometheus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You could always use a 5D with 400mm lens and crop the image to 62%. At
>>>>>> least you can get a decent wide angle for a sensible price
>>>>>
>>>>> Just because a lens covers a sensor with a certain FOV doesn't
>>>>>mean it will
>>>>>produce something you'd want to print... Specs mean nothing, it's the END
>>>>>RESULT that matters.
>>>>>
>>>>Exactly my point, a FF sensor gives you more option to crop the print to
>>>>suit requirements; choosing a small sensor for its "telephoto effect" is
>>>>misguided and restricts options.
>>>
>>>If your lens(es) cover what you want to cover, where's the restricted
>>>options?
>>
>>If you had not cropped out the text I was responding to you would
>>understand that I was showing that advocating a 1.6 sensor 'because it
>>makes you telephotos longer' is nonsense, you can crop a FF to
>>'multiply' the sensor (you could crop a 50mm on a FF to give the view
>>that a 1000mm would give, I know it would not be good) but there is
>>nothing you can do with 17mm on 1.6 to make it the width you paid for.
>>Of course some people never want wide angle just as some never want
>>telephoto, and some only want a macro (some may only ever use a
>>microscope or telescope).
>
>Of course, a 1.6x or 2x sensor with smaller pixels than an equivalent
>1x sensor WILL resolve more detail in a given area when using the same
>focal length lens.
>-Rich

But it will be noisier, which imposes a new constraint.

--
Ian G8ILZ
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 6:03:29 AM

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

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:D f5l8i$umu$3@nnrp.gol.com...
SNIP
> *: I had read that the LPF is actually a fairly significant cost in
> larger sensors, and in their white paper on the 5D, Canon hints that
> it was the new (and cheaper to fabricate) LPF that it's the new LPF
> that made it possible to produce the 5D economically.

In raw material I'd estimate we're talking about US$ 300 worth of
Lithium Niobate (assuming that is what they use), but that has to be
assembled and coated which will make production volume important to
reduce cost/unit.
What I understood from the info sofar, is that the CMOS cover-glass is
replaced by the actual LPF sandwich, thus eliminating (coated)
material in the optical path but also placing the LPF closer to the
sensor. That might cause less of an anti-aliasing effect, unless the
layer thickness is also adjusted.
Guess we'll have to wait for some decent tests to see what it means
for image quality.

Bart
September 5, 2005 9:51:31 AM

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

David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> Also good for MTF, since if you are using the same lenses, three pixels
> rendering a line pair in the 5D will be seeing a much higher contrast line
> pair to render than three pixels in the 20D.

A line pair is equivalent to one cycle, and it corresponds to just two
pixels, not three.

Brian
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 3:33:35 AM

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

"BC" <brianc1959@aol.com> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>
>> Also good for MTF, since if you are using the same lenses, three pixels
>> rendering a line pair in the 5D will be seeing a much higher contrast
>> line pair to render than three pixels in the 20D.
>
> A line pair is equivalent to one cycle, and it corresponds to just two
> pixels, not three.

That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about imaging some random
frequency on the sensor, and the random frequency that I felt like talking
about was the <1 lp>/<3 pixels> frequency.

If one were taking the same image with both the 5D and the D2x, and the
image happened to have some detail in it at, say 1920 lph, then that would
correspond to the <1 lp>/<3 pixels> frequency on both cameras.

My calculations have it that the <1 lp>/<3 pixels> frequency for the 5D
sensor is 40 lp/mm and that for the D2x is 60 lp/mm.

(Oops. I changed cameras. This frequency for the 20D is, I think, around 50
lp/mm.)

So the lens the D2x user uses would have to have as good contrast (MTF) at
60 lp/mm as the lens you used on the 5D does at 40 lp/mm to provide an image
that looks as good.

And that's hard.

The reason I picked the <1 lp>/<3 pixels> frequency is that if you look at
the test charts on dpreview, the point where the pattern peters out (when
viewed at 100% pixels) is on the order of 3 pixels for most cameras.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
!