Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is it freaking Canon Day or something?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
August 22, 2005 7:53:36 PM

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

Well, it seems Canon has fully punched out their
camera line now. But I wonder how people will
choose between the 5D and the big N, seeing as
how the cost almost the same?
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 7:53:36 PM

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

Hi Brian,

Brian Baird wrote:
> The 5D brings full frame for under $4,000 -
> that will appeal to a lot of people who need true wide angle.

Download the Landscape example from
http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos5d/eos5d_sample-e.html
and look at the edges. They are definitively unsharp to a degree which
makes them unusable.

My D100 and the Nikkor 12-24 beats this easily, and I guess also a D20
and the 10-22 is better.

Therefore: If you need true wide angle (and quality), then you need new
lenses (and a 1.5 or 1.6 crop camera). If you just need wide angle and
do not mind mediocre quality, you may take the 5D or experiment with a
WA-converter and a compact camera.

Regards

Benedikt
Related resources
August 22, 2005 7:53:37 PM

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

"Rich" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1124728715.731402.270600@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Well, it seems Canon has fully punched out their
> camera line now. But I wonder how people will
> choose between the 5D and the big N, seeing as
> how the cost almost the same?
>
I thought all the Canon users whining for 24x36mm sensor? So the N is a
APS-H and the 5D is full-frame. You'll have to weigh speed against format.
Canon's camera d'jour

Wait .... NEWS BULLETIN..... The 5D has been discontinued, replaced with the
3D....
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 8:46:22 PM

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

In article <1124728715.731402.270600@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca says...
> Well, it seems Canon has fully punched out their
> camera line now. But I wonder how people will
> choose between the 5D and the big N, seeing as
> how the cost almost the same?

Depends on their needs. The 1D Mark IIn is going to replace the 1D Mark
II, so if people need a pro-level AF, weather sealing and a fast frame
rate they'll go for that. The 5D brings full frame for under $4,000 -
that will appeal to a lot of people who need true wide angle.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 10:54:29 PM

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

On 22 Aug 2005 09:38:35 -0700, "Rich" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

>But I wonder

so do I so do i.

---------------------
Remember Glencoe.
Visit:
http://members.aol.com/Skyelander/glencoe.html
---------------------
August 22, 2005 11:46:56 PM

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

I commented on that picture's issues on another group. There is more
wrong than
just edge definition. Note the two dark vertical "tracks" left edge in
the grassy area. Seems kinds of counterproductive, bringing out
another full frame, whose major attribute is the preservation of the
wide angle ability of wide angle lenses only to find the len(s)
themselves produce poor results.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:41:08 AM

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

On 22 Aug 2005 09:38:35 -0700, "Rich" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

>Well, it seems Canon has fully punched out their
>camera line now. But I wonder how people will
>choose between the 5D and the big N, seeing as
>how the cost almost the same?

No choice the N is a 1.3 and the 5D is FF. Both have different fps and
resolution. People will choose the one they need for the kind of
shooting they do.

And the N is most likely the 1.3 Canon will make.


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

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

"Epitaph on Army of Mercenaries"
A.E. Houseman - 1914
August 23, 2005 4:39:55 AM

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

Rich wrote:

>But I wonder how people will
> choose between the 5D and the big N,

By looking at the corner sharpness on examples done with a wide lens..

--

Stacey
August 23, 2005 6:46:41 AM

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

Skip M wrote:


>
> Kind of worries me about how the 16-35 f2.8 will do, it's soft on the
> edges on my 20D...
>

I'd be worried as well. If Canon had some GREAT wide zooms made for use on a
digital FF body, I'd seriously consider buying one of these. From the wide
angle samples I've seen from the 1Ds using canon glass, this looks typical.
Canon is going to HAVE to redo their wide lenses if they want to sell FF
bodies to people shooting landscapes. People laughed at the "telecentric"
stuff as being market hype but as the sensor densities increase, you're
starting to see what they were talking about. I'm sure with normal to tele
glass this camera will rock. It's the wide end that is going to suffer
because of the glass they have to use on it.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:14:06 PM

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

Stacey babbles and babbles and babbles:

> I'd be worried as well. If Canon had some GREAT wide zooms made for use on a
> digital FF body, I'd seriously consider buying one of these.

You clearly haven't the money to buy the medication you desperately
need, so dream on, fruitcake.

> Canon is going to HAVE to redo their wide lenses if they want to sell FF
> bodies to people shooting landscapes.

Nitwit: people are buying 1Ds2's and using third-party lenses on them.

> People laughed at the "telecentric"
> stuff as being market hype but as the sensor densities increase, you're
> starting to see what they were talking about.

Nitwit: sensor densities have nothing to do with it. (We know this
because (a) the effects were visible on film, and (b) pixel pitches
haven't changed signifigantly.)

> I'm sure with normal to tele
> glass this camera will rock. It's the wide end that is going to suffer
> because of the glass they have to use on it.

Baseless speculation (first sentence), false dichotomy (second
sentence).

Geez, why not think for a change? It's easy, it's productive, it's
fast. Or is it against the tenets of the Nikon Funda-mentalcase
Religion?
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:31:50 PM

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

In article <1124765216.593794.222490@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Rich
<michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca> writes
>I commented on that picture's issues on another group. There is more
>wrong than
>just edge definition. Note the two dark vertical "tracks" left edge in
>the grassy area. Seems kinds of counterproductive, bringing out
>another full frame, whose major attribute is the preservation of the
>wide angle ability of wide angle lenses only to find the len(s)
>themselves produce poor results.
>
I think what you are seeing is a track in the grass itself, caused
perhaps by someone walking through it; it does not seem to be
continuous, or exactly parallel to the edge.

Granted, the corners, and to a lesser extent the edges, go a little
mushy. which would be expected at f/4 but is disappointing at f/8.

David
--
David Littlewood
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 9:25:17 PM

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

On 23 Aug 2005 10:14:06 -0700, "eawckyegcy@yahoo.com"
<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Stacey babbles and babbles and babbles:
>
>> I'd be worried as well. If Canon had some GREAT wide zooms made for use on a
>> digital FF body, I'd seriously consider buying one of these.
>
>You clearly haven't the money to buy the medication you desperately
>need, so dream on, fruitcake.
>
>> Canon is going to HAVE to redo their wide lenses if they want to sell FF
>> bodies to people shooting landscapes.
>
>Nitwit: people are buying 1Ds2's and using third-party lenses on them.

Yes, Zeiss and Leica lens for them not Sigmas. Lenses like the Ziess
21mm Distagon.




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

"There has always been war. War is raging throughout the world
at the present moment. And there is little reason to believe
that war will cease to exist in the future. As man has become
increasingly civilized, his means of destroying his fellow man
have become ever more efficient, cruel and devastating.
Is it possible to put an end to a form of human behavior which
has existed throughout history by means of photography?
The proportions of that notion seem ridiculously out of balance.
Yet, that very idea has motivated me.

James Nachtwey
War Photographer
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
August 24, 2005 12:26:30 AM

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

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:

> Stacey babbles and babbles and babbles:
>
>> I'd be worried as well. If Canon had some GREAT wide zooms made for use
>> on a digital FF body, I'd seriously consider buying one of these.
>
> You clearly haven't the money to buy the medication you desperately
> need, so dream on, fruitcake.

:-/

>
>> Canon is going to HAVE to redo their wide lenses if they want to sell FF
>> bodies to people shooting landscapes.
>
> Nitwit: people are buying 1Ds2's and using third-party lenses on them.

Lets see, I said canon needs to redo their wide lenses for their digital FF
models and then you reason they don't because you can buy an adapter and
use other makers lenses in manual stop down mode on them?

>
>> People laughed at the
>> "telecentric"
>> stuff as being market hype but as the sensor densities increase, you're
>> starting to see what they were talking about.
>
> Nitwit: sensor densities have nothing to do with it. (We know this
> because (a) the effects were visible on film, and (b) pixel pitches
> haven't changed signifigantly.)

What "effects" are you talking about? These same canon lenses worked fairly
well on film yet are mush in the corners on digital and you say this has
nothing to do with anything?

>
>> I'm sure with normal to tele
>> glass this camera will rock. It's the wide end that is going to suffer
>> because of the glass they have to use on it.
>
> Baseless speculation (first sentence), false dichotomy (second
> sentence).
>
> Geez, why not think for a change? It's easy, it's productive, it's
> fast.

All I have to do is look at the sample images. Obviously you haven't!


> Or is it against the tenets of the Nikon Funda-mentalcase
> Religion?

I just like a camera that performs well from corner to corner with the
lenses sold that actually FIT on the camera.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 1:00:09 AM

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

In article <brmmg15mivkc7que435s37qdpcj5onjn1n@4ax.com>,
johnastovall@earthlink.net says...
> >Nitwit: people are buying 1Ds2's and using third-party lenses on them.
>
> Yes, Zeiss and Leica lens for them not Sigmas. Lenses like the Ziess
> 21mm Distagon.

Or Contax or Nikon.

There are a ton of lenses that can be adapted to the EF mount.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
August 24, 2005 1:00:10 AM

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

Brian Baird wrote:

> In article <brmmg15mivkc7que435s37qdpcj5onjn1n@4ax.com>,
> johnastovall@earthlink.net says...
>> >Nitwit: people are buying 1Ds2's and using third-party lenses on them.
>>
>> Yes, Zeiss and Leica lens for them not Sigmas. Lenses like the Ziess
>> 21mm Distagon.
>
> Or Contax or Nikon.
>
> There are a ton of lenses that can be adapted to the EF mount.


Yet none retain ANY automation. This again goes back to: the Legacy lenses
people keep saying "I'm so glad I bought Full Frame glass" don't work good
on a FF digital body anyway. The normal to tele lenses will work great, the
wide film lenses are never going to work great unless the sensor design is
changed or the lenses are and I'm not sure the mount size used by Canon is
going to be large enough for telecentric wide lenses to be made for it.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 1:19:03 AM

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

In message <3mvuqeF18ofetU2@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Ever consider this is the reality of Canon's wide lenses on a FF sensor?

That's pretty much what it is, although the Sigma and Tamron lenses
might be the same way. Everyone I've spoken to who uses 1.3x or FF
Canons with super-wide lenses uses CA correction in PP or RAW
conversion.

Ideally, RAW converters should have, at least as an option, a way to
handle RAW data as 3 meshes that are independently scalable; geometric
corrections in a bitplane at the pixel resolution of the sensor are not
ideal. One current option is to render at 200%, and adjust CA from
there.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 1:23:45 AM

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

In message <3mvv2hF18ofetU3@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Skip M wrote:

>> Kind of worries me about how the 16-35 f2.8 will do, it's soft on the
>> edges on my 20D...

>I'd be worried as well. If Canon had some GREAT wide zooms made for use on a
>digital FF body, I'd seriously consider buying one of these. From the wide
>angle samples I've seen from the 1Ds using canon glass, this looks typical.
>Canon is going to HAVE to redo their wide lenses if they want to sell FF
>bodies to people shooting landscapes. People laughed at the "telecentric"
>stuff as being market hype but as the sensor densities increase, you're
>starting to see what they were talking about. I'm sure with normal to tele
>glass this camera will rock. It's the wide end that is going to suffer
>because of the glass they have to use on it.

It's not the glass per se, as it would perform with film, but the fact
that the anti-aliasing filter and microlens layers tend to push
different parts of the spectrum into different pixels at the edges of
the sensor. This is corrected to a degree in software that compensates
CA.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
August 24, 2005 1:23:46 AM

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

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <3mvv2hF18ofetU3@individual.net>,
> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm sure
>>with normal to tele glass this camera will rock. It's the wide end that is
>>going to suffer because of the glass they have to use on it.
>
> It's not the glass per se, as it would perform with film, but the fact
> that the anti-aliasing filter and microlens layers tend to push
> different parts of the spectrum into different pixels at the edges of
> the sensor.

Yet this -is- the glass because if the light rays weren't being aimed at an
angle to the sensor, this problem wouldn't occure. Yes this wide glass does
perform well with film because it was designed for us with film.


> This is corrected to a degree in software that compensates
> CA.

What I'm seeing isn't CA but details being mushed into a blur. Software
isn't going to be able to fix that.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 4:35:49 AM

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Yet you'll never get these guys to admit this.. The people actually USING
>the 1Ds's have been bitching about this from when they were introduced.


True. But it is only a problem with ultra wide angle lenses.

I regularly rent a 1Ds Mk II for use with a 28mm Super-Angulon shift
lens, and the CA is barely discernible. It is there, but it is
certainly not severe.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 5:12:39 AM

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

In article <3n1sruF190nikU2@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
> > There are a ton of lenses that can be adapted to the EF mount.
>
>
> Yet none retain ANY automation. This again goes back to: the Legacy lenses
> people keep saying "I'm so glad I bought Full Frame glass" don't work good
> on a FF digital body anyway. The normal to tele lenses will work great, the

Some people don't care about automation. And if the image quality
wasn't there, people wouldn't be gushing about it.

> wide film lenses are never going to work great unless the sensor design is
> changed or the lenses are and I'm not sure the mount size used by Canon is
> going to be large enough for telecentric wide lenses to be made for it.

That's just bunk.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 5:13:10 AM

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

In article <3n1t5nF1998tvU1@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
> > Nitwit: sensor densities have nothing to do with it. (We know this
> > because (a) the effects were visible on film, and (b) pixel pitches
> > haven't changed signifigantly.)
>
> What "effects" are you talking about? These same canon lenses worked fairly
> well on film yet are mush in the corners on digital and you say this has
> nothing to do with anything?

I'd love for you to explain this effect...
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 5:22:10 AM

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

In article <3n1otoF19111vU1@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
> >> Ever consider this is the reality of Canon's wide lenses on a FF sensor?
> >
> > It's the reality of superwide angle lenses and extreme FOVs, period.
>
> Funny my fuji 6X9 doesn't do this sort of thing

It wouldn't - it's a camera body. I wonder what lens you'd use on it?

> neither does the 90mm SA on
> my 4X5.

Yeah, it delivers 20 degrees less FOV, too!

(It would be closer to a 24mm lens on a 35mm camera, BTW)
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 5:51:10 AM

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

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:284ng1psvo6smk0b7jmh5nsjq8c5ochmn0@4ax.com...
SNIP
> Ideally, RAW converters should have, at least as an option,
> a way to handle RAW data as 3 meshes that are independently
> scalable;

Indeed, although there are post-processing alternatives available, and
some Raw converters already (attempt to) correct lateral CA (or
similar effects). Pixmantec's RSE 2005 does attempt to reduce it, as
does Bibble and DxO, but some (optional) user control is preferable
(to me anyway).
I'm pleased that PTlens now also has a CA correction
(http://www.epaperpress.com/ptlens/index.html), although the interface
could be improved.

> geometric corrections in a bitplane at the pixel resolution of the
> sensor are not ideal. One current option is to render at 200%,
> and adjust CA from there.

Yes, although subsequent down-sampling could lose some of the
improvement and what's worse introduce artifacts itself. A better
option is a properly implemented resampling (Lanczos or Sinc) method
with large support (and proper edge handling).

Bart
August 24, 2005 6:00:57 AM

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

Tony Polson wrote:

> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>Yet you'll never get these guys to admit this.. The people actually USING
>>the 1Ds's have been bitching about this from when they were introduced.
>
>
> True. But it is only a problem with ultra wide angle lenses.
>
> I regularly rent a 1Ds Mk II for use with a 28mm Super-Angulon shift
> lens, and the CA is barely discernible. It is there, but it is
> certainly not severe.


I don't really consider 28mm very wide. And isn't the main "point" of FF
being able to use their old FF wides again? If 28mm FOV was all they need,
this 17-40 on a 1.6 crop provides that and looking at this image, a crop
from that part of this lens would be pretty good.
--

Stacey
August 24, 2005 6:03:02 AM

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

Brian Baird wrote:

> In article <3n1otoF19111vU1@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
>> >> Ever consider this is the reality of Canon's wide lenses on a FF
>> >> sensor?
>> >
>> > It's the reality of superwide angle lenses and extreme FOVs, period.
>>
>> Funny my fuji 6X9 doesn't do this sort of thing
>
> It wouldn't - it's a camera body. I wonder what lens you'd use on it?

The fuji lens that's mounted to it?

I've used a 47mm on 6X9 and it wasn't "Mush" in the corners either so it
isn't WA perspective that's doing this.

--

Stacey
August 24, 2005 6:06:15 AM

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

Brian Baird wrote:

> In article <3n1t5nF1998tvU1@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
>> > Nitwit: sensor densities have nothing to do with it. (We know this
>> > because (a) the effects were visible on film, and (b) pixel pitches
>> > haven't changed signifigantly.)
>>
>> What "effects" are you talking about? These same canon lenses worked
>> fairly well on film yet are mush in the corners on digital and you say
>> this has nothing to do with anything?
>
> I'd love for you to explain this effect...

You have never researched about how AA sensors work and how the angle of the
light stricking them affects the sensor performance? Obviously not. It's
not a huge deal on the APS size sensors but REALLY shows up on FF ones with
wide lenses.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 8:25:47 AM

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

> and I'm not sure the mount size used by Canon is going to be large enough
> for telecentric wide lenses to be made for it.

Well, Nikon is making them, with a smaller mount.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
August 24, 2005 8:25:48 AM

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

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> and I'm not sure the mount size used by Canon is going to be large enough
>> for telecentric wide lenses to be made for it.
>
> Well, Nikon is making them, with a smaller mount.
>

Then Canon -should- be able to as well.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 8:27:41 AM

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

Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:

>> What "effects" are you talking about? These same canon lenses worked fairly
>> well on film yet are mush in the corners on digital and you say this has
>> nothing to do with anything?
>
> I'd love for you to explain this effect...

Which effect, that it works okay on film but not digital? That is a result
of the fact that digital sensors are very sensitive to the angle of incidence
of the light hitting them, but film is not.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 10:12:47 AM

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

In article <11gntpt8umi5621@corp.supernews.com>, jeremy@exit109.com
says...
> > I'd love for you to explain this effect...
>
> Which effect, that it works okay on film but not digital? That is a result
> of the fact that digital sensors are very sensitive to the angle of incidence
> of the light hitting them, but film is not.

I know that. The effect is somewhat mitigated by microlenses, but I
really wanted to see if Stacey could pull it out.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 10:13:27 AM

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

In article <3n2h2nF198lhfU5@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
> > I'd love for you to explain this effect...
>
> You have never researched about how AA sensors work and how the angle of the
> light stricking them affects the sensor performance? Obviously not. It's
> not a huge deal on the APS size sensors but REALLY shows up on FF ones with
> wide lenses.

What's an AA sensor? Anti-aircraft!?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 1:55:36 PM

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

Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> writes:
> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> and I'm not sure the mount size used by Canon is going to be large
>> enough for telecentric wide lenses to be made for it.

> Well, Nikon is making them, with a smaller mount.

But so far, only for a smaller image circle. AFAIK, all Nikon's
telecentric lenses are DX lenses. Same with Canon: The 10-22 EF-S is
telecentric and from the samples I've seen, it produces better results
on a 20D than this horrible 17-40 L example.

The big question now is what gives the better result at the wide end:
A 1.5x/1.6x crop and DX/EF-S designs, or FF and Canon's present EF
line-up? There is IMHO no point in going for FF and L-glass if a
APS-C sized sensor and telecentric DX/EF-S designs actually gives you
better wide angle results. (Well, there is noise and there is DOF,
but the high ISO-noise from the latest generation CMOS is so
impressive at APS-C size that this no longer an issue for me, and if
I want shallow DOF, I just up the focal lengh.)

Canon has alreday announced that they plan to replace most of their
present wide-angles with telecentric designs, and I've no doubt that
this is doable - but these lenses are not avialable today.

In other words, the question I am asking is this: Given that good
wide angle performance is your top priority, is the EOS 5D /really/
such a bargain compared to, say, a D2x or a 1D MkIIn?
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 2:21:41 PM

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

Stacey babbles on:

>>> Canon is going to HAVE to redo their wide lenses if they want to sell FF
>>> bodies to people shooting landscapes.
>>
>> Nitwit: people are buying 1Ds2's and using third-party lenses on them.
>
> Lets see, I said canon needs to redo their wide lenses for their digital FF
> models and then you reason they don't because you can buy an adapter and
> use other makers lenses in manual stop down mode on them?

Let's see, you said that "Canon is going to HAVE to redo their wide
lenses if the want to sell FF bodies [...]".

I point out that people are buying the bodies and using third party
lenses on them.

So your statement is thus false. Hence, you (at best) are a nitwit.
More likely is that you are an ignorant ditz, but for that we need to
gather more evidence. Reading on:

> >> People laughed at the
> >> "telecentric"
> >> stuff as being market hype but as the sensor densities increase, you're
> >> starting to see what they were talking about.
> >
> > Nitwit: sensor densities have nothing to do with it. (We know this
> > because (a) the effects were visible on film, and (b) pixel pitches
> > haven't changed signifigantly.)
>
> What "effects" are you talking about? These same canon lenses worked fairly
> well on film yet are mush in the corners on digital and you say this has
> nothing to do with anything?

No, I said it has nothing to do with "sensor densities". Your reading
comprehension difficulties are once again in evidence; this may
explain the falseness of your statement, but whatever: you are now
officially a ditz. Can you go further? In one single posting?

> >> I'm sure with normal to tele
> >> glass this camera will rock. It's the wide end that is going to suffer
> >> because of the glass they have to use on it.
> >
> > Baseless speculation (first sentence), false dichotomy (second
> > sentence).
> >
> > Geez, why not think for a change? It's easy, it's productive, it's
> > fast.
>
> All I have to do is look at the sample images. Obviously you haven't!

Yes! Congratulations! You have progressed to stupidity!

I don't have to look at anything but your own words to prove you are an
intellectual incompetent -- and as soon as that is achieved, everything
else you say can be given the appropriate weight (ie, negligible).

> > Or is it against the tenets of the Nikon Funda-mentalcase
> > Religion?
>
> I just like a camera that performs well from corner to corner with the
> lenses sold that actually FIT on the camera.

But as I originally noted, you almost certainly can't afford even the
objects of your own religion, let alone those of the Anti Camera, so
even if your words had any value, your opinion would still be
completely useless.

The Nikon Nutcases are a curious crowd. To the last member, they lack
basic reasoning skills, simple reading comprehension abilities, and in
many cases, lack any sense of intellectual honesty (consider the nutbar
Polson and his claims of magazine covers). Why is this? Is it just
basic fundamentalcaseism at work (e.g., christian kooks, islamic
psychotics, etc)? Or is there more? Two items that may explain this
sect's mentality (or lack thereof):

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Gems/Neg...

This makes a bit of sense, because with each new word the Nikon Nutcase
learns, he figures out something truly stupid to say. The more the NN
learns, the dumber he becomes.

Another one was an instant classic in psychological research:

"Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments", Kruger J. and Dunning
D., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999 December, Vol.
77, No. 6, pp1121-1134.

The APA used to host the paper online; I couldn't find it at their
website anymore. Here is a mirror:

http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html

The abstract:

"People tend to hold overly favorable views of their
abilities in many social and intellectual domains.
The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs,
in part, because people who are unskilled in these
domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these
people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate
choices, but their incompetence robs them of the
metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies,
the authors found that participants scoring in the
bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and
logic grossly overestimated their test performance
and ability. Although their test scores put them in
the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in
the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration
to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to
distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically,
improving the skills of participants, and thus
increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them
recognize the limitations of their abilities."

The part about 'not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions
and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the
metacognitive ability to realize it' seems to sum up a large chunk of
the mental map of a Nikon Nutcase.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 4:19:25 PM

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

In article <MPG.1d7595c1709a0d70989981@news.verizon.net>, Brian Baird
<no@no.thank.u> writes
>In article <3n1otoF19111vU1@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
>> >> Ever consider this is the reality of Canon's wide lenses on a FF sensor?
>> >
>> > It's the reality of superwide angle lenses and extreme FOVs, period.
>>
>> Funny my fuji 6X9 doesn't do this sort of thing
>
>It wouldn't - it's a camera body. I wonder what lens you'd use on it?

I think it is a fixed lens rangefinder camera.
>
>> neither does the 90mm SA on
>> my 4X5.
>
>Yeah, it delivers 20 degrees less FOV, too!
>
>(It would be closer to a 24mm lens on a 35mm camera, BTW)

--
David Littlewood
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 6:29:44 PM

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

In article <3x+XiFC9eFDDFw6D@dlittlewood.co.uk>,
david@nospam.demon.co.uk says...
> >
> >It wouldn't - it's a camera body. I wonder what lens you'd use on it?
>
> I think it is a fixed lens rangefinder camera.

Shows what I know!
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 9:17:05 PM

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

"Gisle Hannemyr" <gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> wrote in message
news:q54q9frcp3.fsf@nelja.ifi.uio.no...
SNIP
> The big question now is what gives the better result at the wide
> end: A 1.5x/1.6x crop and DX/EF-S designs, or FF and Canon's
> present EF line-up?

One thing is clear, the '1.6x crop' needs to be magnified some 60%
more to reach the same output size as a FF ...

Bart
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 9:37:05 PM

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

Gisle Hannemyr <gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> wrote:

> But so far, only for a smaller image circle. AFAIK, all Nikon's
> telecentric lenses are DX lenses.

The Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 is a telecentric design with full-frame coverage.

I don't know what other lenses may or may not be; unfortunately they don't
mark them "telecentric" or anything like that.

> Canon has alreday announced that they plan to replace most of their
> present wide-angles with telecentric designs, and I've no doubt that
> this is doable - but these lenses are not avialable today.

It also means that you have to replace your lenses to get wide-angle
on full-frame, which is exactly opposite to the reason people wanted
full-frame in the first place (so their existing lenses would work
like they did on film). I'd rather stay with cropped sensors so that
my existing lenses keep working.

> In other words, the question I am asking is this: Given that good
> wide angle performance is your top priority, is the EOS 5D /really/
> such a bargain compared to, say, a D2x or a 1D MkIIn?

Well, exactly. I can't answer the question, since super-wide isn't a
priority for me, but at this point in the game I'd be inclined toward
the APS-C side (or 1.3x, if that's small enough to avoid the issue).

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 10:46:00 PM

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I don't really consider 28mm very wide.


Neither do I. That was actually my point.

;-)
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 10:49:44 PM

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Brian Baird wrote:
>
>> In article <3n1t5nF1998tvU1@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
>>> > Nitwit: sensor densities have nothing to do with it. (We know this
>>> > because (a) the effects were visible on film, and (b) pixel pitches
>>> > haven't changed signifigantly.)
>>>
>>> What "effects" are you talking about? These same canon lenses worked
>>> fairly well on film yet are mush in the corners on digital and you say
>>> this has nothing to do with anything?
>>
>> I'd love for you to explain this effect...
>
>You have never researched about how AA sensors work and how the angle of the
>light stricking them affects the sensor performance? Obviously not. It's
>not a huge deal on the APS size sensors but REALLY shows up on FF ones with
>wide lenses.


Brian isn't really bright enough to understand that. He's happy
taking snapshots with his Canon 10D, and has never used any of the
other cameras that are being discussed here. All his "knowledge"
appears to be derived from Canon press releases.
August 24, 2005 11:45:41 PM

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

Brian Baird wrote:

> In article <3x+XiFC9eFDDFw6D@dlittlewood.co.uk>,
> david@nospam.demon.co.uk says...
>> >
>> >It wouldn't - it's a camera body. I wonder what lens you'd use on it?
>>
>> I think it is a fixed lens rangefinder camera.
>
> Shows what I know!

Exactly, yet you continue to post your "Opinions"..
--

Stacey
August 24, 2005 11:48:28 PM

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

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

>
> Canon has alreday announced that they plan to replace most of their
> present wide-angles with telecentric designs, and I've no doubt that
> this is doable - but these lenses are not avialable today.
>

If and when they do this, the FF sensor body will also be a bit cheaper as
well and THEN I might switch to canon? At this time, this new body doesn't
excite me given the WA results it produces.
--

Stacey
August 24, 2005 11:54:49 PM

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

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:

> Stacey babbles on:
>
>>>> Canon is going to HAVE to redo their wide lenses if they want to sell
>>>> FF bodies to people shooting landscapes.
>>>
>>> Nitwit: people are buying 1Ds2's and using third-party lenses on them.
>>
>> Lets see, I said canon needs to redo their wide lenses for their digital
>> FF models and then you reason they don't because you can buy an adapter
>> and use other makers lenses in manual stop down mode on them?
>
> Let's see, you said that "Canon is going to HAVE to redo their wide
> lenses if the want to sell FF bodies [...]".
>
> I point out that people are buying the bodies and using third party
> lenses on them.

So that's the reason canon doesn't need to fix their WA lenses? Does the
manual explain if you want good WA results, go buy some old contax Zeiss
glass and use it manually in stop down mode on an adapter? Yea that's a
step forward..


>
> But as I originally noted, you almost certainly can't afford

Why because I don't want to buy it?

>
> The Nikon Nutcases are a curious crowd.

Interesting given I don't own or use a Nikon. I do own a couple of older
canon cameras and a canon printer...




--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 6:08:54 AM

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

In article <3n4f55F14jurjU1@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
> > Shows what I know!
>
> Exactly, yet you continue to post your "Opinions"..

Yeah, but amazingly I still come out looking better than you. Funny,
that.

I'll confess my ignorance fully when it comes to medium and large format
gear. I don't touch it, use it or really want to know that much about
it.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
August 25, 2005 6:08:55 AM

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

Brian Baird wrote:

> In article <3n4f55F14jurjU1@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
>> > Shows what I know!
>>
>> Exactly, yet you continue to post your "Opinions"..
>
> Yeah, but amazingly I still come out looking better than you. Funny,
> that.
>
> I'll confess my ignorance fully when it comes to medium and large format
> gear. I don't touch it, use it or really want to know that much about
> it.


Yes ignorance is bliss isn't it?
--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 8:50:51 AM

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

In article <3n4uvgF19i71bU2@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
> > Yeah, but amazingly I still come out looking better than you. Funny,
> > that.
> >
> > I'll confess my ignorance fully when it comes to medium and large format
> > gear. I don't touch it, use it or really want to know that much about
> > it.
>
>
> Yes ignorance is bliss isn't it?

Can't really say.

I'd like to know more about medium and large format, but I'd rather
stick to the stuff I'm working with now.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
August 25, 2005 8:50:52 AM

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

Brian Baird wrote:

> In article <3n4uvgF19i71bU2@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
>> > Yeah, but amazingly I still come out looking better than you. Funny,
>> > that.
>> >
>> > I'll confess my ignorance fully when it comes to medium and large
>> > format
>> > gear. I don't touch it, use it or really want to know that much about
>> > it.
>>
>>
>> Yes ignorance is bliss isn't it?
>
> Can't really say.
>
> I'd like to know more about medium and large format, but I'd rather
> stick to the stuff I'm working with now.

So 2 hours ago you claim "I don't touch it, use it or really want to know
that much about it." and now you say "I'd like to know more about medium
and large format..."? LOL!
--

Stacey
August 25, 2005 9:22:16 AM

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

"I'm not sure the mount size used by Canon is
going to be large enough for telecentric wide lenses to be made for it.
"

Telecentricity is *NOT* required. The reason the 21mm Distagon works
so well is that it is well corrected for all aberrations, especially
lateral color. It is not a telecentric lens.

Brian
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 1:48:13 PM

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

Stacey just can't deal with anything:

>> Stacey babbles on:
>>
>>>>> Canon is going to HAVE to redo their wide lenses if they want to sell
>>>>> FF bodies to people shooting landscapes.
>>>>
>>>> Nitwit: people are buying 1Ds2's and using third-party lenses on them.
>>>
>>> Lets see, I said canon needs to redo their wide lenses for their digital
>>> FF models and then you reason they don't because you can buy an adapter
>>> and use other makers lenses in manual stop down mode on them?
>>
>> Let's see, you said that "Canon is going to HAVE to redo their wide
>> lenses if the want to sell FF bodies [...]".
>>
>> I point out that people are buying the bodies and using third party
>> lenses on them.
>
> So that's the reason canon doesn't need to fix their WA lenses? Does the
> manual explain if you want good WA results, go buy some old contax Zeiss
> glass and use it manually in stop down mode on an adapter? Yea that's a
> step forward..

You clipped the conclusion I made, and raise an irrelevancy. Can we
stick to the subject? You may recall that you claimed:

"Canon is going to HAVE to redo their wide lenses if the want
to sell FF bodies [...]"

This demonstrably false. Will you admit to the error (here and
elsewhere in your mindless missive), and gain a smidge of respect, or
continue with your idiotic distractions?

>> The Nikon Nutcases are a curious crowd.
>
> Interesting given I don't own or use a Nikon. I do own a couple of older
> canon cameras and a canon printer...

Who has said the Nikon Nutcase actually has to own the equipment?
Indeed, I would expect in many (if not most) cases, the dingbats don't
own any camrea equipment of signifigance. In any event, in the end,
the test for Nikon Nutcase status is a behavioural one: act like an
NN, and you get called one. And unlike Justice Stewart's notorious "I
know if when I see it" (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potter_Stewart), the NN behaviours are
completely objective and reproducible on demand. I'll quote myself:

To the last member, they lack basic reasoning skills, simple
reading comprehension abilities, and in many cases, lack any
sense of intellectual honesty (consider the nutbar Polson and
his claims of magazine covers).
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 5:54:46 PM

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

In article <1124972074.228782.255290@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, BC
<brianc1959@aol.com> writes
>
>Tony Polson wrote:
>> >
>> >Ever consider this is the reality of Canon's wide lenses on a FF sensor?
>>
>>
>> It amply demonstrates the need for (near-)telecentric lens designs.
>>
>> <grins, ducks and runs>
>>
>> ;-)
>
>Lack of telecentricity has nothing to do with the appearance of lateral
>chromatic aberration in wide angle lenses. What most people don't
>appreciate is that many normal lenses have exit pupil distances just as
>short as the least telecentric SLR wide angles.
>
>For example, the 55mm f/2.8 Nikkor and 20mm f/2.8 Nikkor have nearly
>identical exit pupil distances. That means they have the same lack of
>telecentricity. Despite this, the 55mm has no lateral color and the
>20mm has a ton, thereby proving that telecentricity has no bearing on
>the appearance of lateral color.
>
>More evidence comes from LCD and DMD wide-angle projection lenses,
>which are all perfectly telecentric. Nevertheless, most of these
>lenses exhibit lateral color.
>
>Lateral color is by far the most difficult aberration to correct in
>reverse-telephoto lenses, and it requires skillful use of abnormal
>partial dispersion glasses. As far as I know the only manufacturer to
>fully address this problem is Zeiss, and even they only address it with
>a single lens: the 21mm/2.8 Distagon. Some of the recent wide angle
>zooms by Nikon and others are also very good with respect to lateral
>color, but typically not over the full zoom range.
>
>Brian
>
I suspect we may be in danger of getting at cross-purposes here. Brian,
you are describing the lens aberration. I believe the previous
discussion (though this was not explicitly stated) referred to colour
fringing effects caused by light interacting with digital sensors,
microlenses, AA screens etc. Many people seem to have started calling
this chromatic aberration, which shows they are not very technically
aware, but since the phenomenon is similar in appearance this is not
surprising.

BTW, interesting point; my understanding is that LCA - that is, the
real, lens-created aberration - gets worse with longer focal length
lenses, which is of course likely to be the exact opposite of the
position for sensor-angle artefacts.

David
--
David Littlewood
!