EOS 5D is WOW !

Father Christmas delivered my spanking new 5D to me at work today,

but I couldn't play with my new toy untill last night. WOW! I read

the reviews, first impressions and thoughts posted on Photo.Net, and

wondered who'd be right. I was, in purchasing it.

 

Great feel, look, brilliant viewfinder (on par with my EOS3) and

excellent pics. I'll post a few in a couple of days. Features that

impressed me most apart from the full frame censor : Instant switch-

on, spot metering, large viewfinder and large viewing screen.

 

If you've wondered about spending the cash, wonder no more. I love

my 10D, but this camera is in a different league. I'l looking

forward to trying every single feature, and seeing what my 17-40 F4

L should show me.

Sounds good.....Just curious, do you ever shoot Medium Format? I have the 10D, but I also shoot with a Mamiya 645. I am wondering if the time has come to go fully over to one system (without paying 7K for the 16mp monster). There is something about that extra detail that is very evident in a 16x20 (yes, I am sure the 5D will make a "good" (if not excellent)16x20, but would I have to be nit-picking to see the differences between it and a print of the same view from a 645 or would there be an obvious lacking?)

Louis, the 5D would be comparable to a flatbed 6x4.5 scan/digi-print, or a sup-par wet print. If you scan your 6x4.5 on a dedicated MF film scanner, or print using a high-end darkroom, it would still fall short.

I would be interested in your views of your 17-40L on a FF dslr, conventional wisdom these days is that the Canon wide angles are extremely poor at the corners (as in soft) and you will get vignetting under F8 at the wide end.... all wide angles vignette wide open on a FF/film camera, but this is exagerated in DSLRs due to the pit design of the sensor pixels causing shadowing and light drop off when light hits them at an angle.

 

Mike

 

Mike

"Louis, the 5D would be comparable to a flatbed 6x4.5 scan/digi-print, or a sup-par wet print. If you scan your 6x4.5 on a dedicated MF film scanner, or print using a high-end darkroom, it would still fall short."

 

The 1Ds was roughly equal to 6x7 on some pretty good scanners. The 5D should do better than the 1Ds (better S/N).

 

So yes, it's time to merge to one system.

 

"all wide angles vignette wide open on a FF/film camera, but this is exagerated in DSLRs due to the pit design of the sensor pixels causing shadowing and light drop off when light hits them at an angle."

 

Yes, it's exagerated so much that a professional photographer couldn't find one bit of difference between FF and film vignetting in his online review: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field-3.shtml

I love Michael Reichmann. For some reason, his cameras always seem to outdo everyone elses. His D30 bested my provia scans 4 years ago. RIGHT.

 

The 1Ds is a great camera, but falls short compared to a good 6x7 scan. It struggles against a 6x4.5, and comes close in color only. But sharpness is not the reason you opt for a 35mm-based DSLR anyway.

I see no mention of a comparison of vignetting performance with film in the Reichmann link Daniel cites. OTOH, vignetting is quite evident in the f/2.8 shot. There is only a claim, unsupported by actual evidence, that the effect is the same as it would be with film. Reichmann is noted for making exaggerated claims about his digital equipment, and even when he purports to provide evidence, it often is slanted by technique (such as using inadequate scanning procedures, etc.) in favour of the DSLR.

Another take from a pro who shoots both film and digital:

 

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

 

Robert

True. . .Reichman is a Photographer. Not a pixel peeper. He also has deep, deep pockets. Once you realize his natural bias tendencies (cost is no object, usability is king), I find his reviews very informative.

>"I love Michael Reichmann. For some reason, his cameras always seem to outdo everyone elses. His D30 bested my provia scans 4 years ago. RIGHT."

 

May be if we all start claiming stuff like that Canon will start sending us free cameras, too! No? :)

 

Most pros I know don't have time to write online camera reviews...

In two years time something else will be in a "different league", it's amazing

Canon has taken over the mantle form Hasselblad who for years pushed the

square format and overpriced lenses. People are lining up to drop $3300 on a

camera body...think about about how absurd that is? Keeep your Mamiya it's

worth just about nothing on the used market just like that $2500 Canon D30

from how many years ago?

<i>....I love my 10D, but this camera is in a different league....</i><br><br>

 

As a current 10D owner considering adding the 5D to my arsenal, I'm curious about the differences in 6MP images shot with the 10D's "Large/Fine" JPG setting and those shot with the 5D's "Medium/Fine" 6MP JPG setting.<br><br>

 

Because the 5D uses a FF sensor, I'm willing to bet that even at its 6MP JPG setting, the 5D will outperform the 10D's highest JPG setting ----and maybe even 10D's RAW setting-- in terms of shadow and highlight detail, noise level, etc..<br><br>

 

Am I guessing right?<br><br>

I also shoot medium format and a 10D and I'm desparately trying to talk myself into moving my wedding business all to the 5D -- however... My Pentax 645 film gets scanned by my local lab to a 6 megapixel resolution, since that's good enough for 11x14 prints (generally the largest I offer). It's not the megapixels or resolution that keeps me on film, it's the contrast and color differences. There is still a good reason to be on film -- despite how cost effective and generally good digital is. If you're interested in the features that film has to offer, it's still a good deal. I've been tweaking and testing my 10d to try to get it's color and contrast results close to even what I get from 35mm 160 portra NC, and I'm having a hard time. It's not about the megapixels -- it's about all the other features with me. Not trying to start a dig vs. film war, just trying to throw my personal analysis at it.

The 5D surely is a very fine camera, no doubt about that, but for me, it is not a reason to give up film.

 

I use a 6x9 field camera for my landscape work. It has movements and requires a slow working pace. Excellent for me. The slides are scanned on a good MF scanner and deliver excellent results.

 

For my wildlife pictures, I exclusively use Canon DSLR.

 

That combination works fine for me as it enables me to take profit of the advantages of each system.

 

Maybe, it is not an absolute necessity for everyone to decide for one OR the other system, but to use both.

 

Cheers

Tate and others who complain about digital color reproducibility. You probably do not shoot in RAW format, I use 20D and 1Ds, I have shot weddings exclusively with Medium format up to 3 years ago, now I am exclusive digital and the color reproduction does match well with some of my film jobs. Contrast and sharpness lagging a bit, but for weddings it is fine, aspecially when you can batch correct for both using PhaseOne.

 

Greg

"I love Michael Reichmann. For some reason, his cameras always seem to outdo everyone elses. His D30 bested my provia scans 4 years ago. RIGHT. The 1Ds is a great camera, but falls short compared to a good 6x7 scan. It struggles against a 6x4.5, and comes close in color only. But sharpness is not the reason you opt for a 35mm-based DSLR anyway."

 

Where are your comparison images? You have them, right? Where can they be downloaded? I would like to see them.

 

You can bash Reichmann all you want. He has samples for anyone to download: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

 

Those samples show that it took a drum scanner to pull 6x7 even with a 1Ds, and they're pretty convincing.

 

Here's another site with actual samples: http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_mf.html

 

He found that the 6x6 frame recorded a little bit more detail in properly exposed areas, but that the 1Ds "took over" in shadow areas, was cleaner and had better color. He also did not apply USM, which probably would have made it even on fine detail. (I can't find any truly missing details in the 1Ds crops, but the MF crops have better acutance with fine lines like the bricks. That's what USM is for.)

 

I have more links of the same. No where do I see the 1Ds "struggling" against MF. Sometimes MF has a tiny bit more detail, but the digital always cleans house in terms of noise and color. Maybe that's why so much MF equipment can be found cheap on ebay.

 

So where are your images? I get annoyed with photo.net forums because everyone is ready to opine and bash the people who publish images and judgements based on those images, but nobody is ready to back up their opinions. If you want to pixel peep, fine. But be ready to back up your claims and accept the results.

 

"I see no mention of a comparison of vignetting performance with film in the Reichmann link Daniel cites. OTOH, vignetting is quite evident in the f/2.8 shot."

 

But NO WORSE than it would be on film. Heck, I've seen worse on film from less wide angle (but cheaper) lenses. The guy owns and uses the 1Ds, 35mm, and the 16-35mm lens. He would have noticed and said something if there was worse vignetting on the 1Ds.

 

Do you own any of the equipment such that you can say with confidence that your theory is true, and post samples of the proof?

 

"Reichmann is noted for making exaggerated claims about his digital equipment, and even when he purports to provide evidence, it often is slanted by technique (such as using inadequate scanning procedures, etc.) in favour of the DSLR."

 

Some people on photo.net are noted for nitpicking any and every test which contradicts their preconceived notions and pet theories about how equipment should perform, especially when it comes to the "film vs. digital" question, but also film vs. film and lens vs. lens. "Inadequate scanning procedures." Before digital the guy used Imacon's and drum scanners for a living. When was the last time you touched either?

 

"I use a 6x9 field camera for my landscape work. It has movements and requires a slow working pace. Excellent for me. The slides are scanned on a good MF scanner and deliver excellent results."

 

This, in contrast to the above two quotations, is a perfectly valid comment and opinion. Movements are certainly one reason to stick to some MF equipment. And yes, the results from MF are excellent, nobody denies that. It's a testament to Canon's engineering that their FF bodies can be competitive at that level at all.

 

"It's not the megapixels or resolution that keeps me on film, it's the contrast and color differences."

 

Another valid comment. Although to be honest, out of the camera I feel my 10D images are pretty close to the portrait films in color, but with more contrast. The 5D may better address your contrast concerns as it seems to have wider latitude based on test images.

And he doesn't get free cameras. Charging his 'inferior' scanning techniques only works if you regularly drum scan and can afford to, if you don't, then the Imacon comparison was perfectly valid. If all that the 1Ds is missing resolution wise is the $100 difference per scan between a drum scanner and an Imacon scan, then the advantage of medium format is for the 'niche' market who can afford it only!

Hello Hermann,

 

I teach photography and sell large 16x20,18x24, and 20x28 landscape prints professionally. I've shot 6x6 & 645 MF for 35 years. I just purchased a 5D and have had 1DS for the last year which I sold 1 month ago. The 1DS could, when properly used with high quality lenses match my Pentax 645N scans made on my Nikon LS8000 in everyway. In fact color and tonality was way better in many ways. If people say otherwise they don't know how to use their 1DS. The 5D seems even a bit better and much lighter!

 

To get maximum quality you must shoot RAW, jpegs need not apply.

You must also use high quality lenses and have good photoshop technique. Canons wide angles are sorely lacking. I use a Zeiss 35-70mm, 28-85mm and Leica 21-35mm zooms.

The widely used Canon 24-70mm is pretty soft at the edges below 35mm, even at f8. Other Canon zoom and primes are even softer.

 

If people are not getting good results IMO it's because they don't

know how to or care to. The thousands of pro's that have switched to full frame digital cameras to replace their MF gear are not idiots. They don't care what some romantic amateur who still loves to view trannies on the light table thinks. At 6x7 MF used with the best lenses still has a tiny advantage at 20x28 and bigger, but the hassle is not worth it for most people. If you really want the best shoot LF and put up with the hassles and joys. Of course bring your wallet when it comes time to buy film and develope it, $5 a shot is the norm.

 

Good luck,

Miles

Daniel has added his unsubstantiated statement to Michael Reichmann's about vignetting. Neither or them offer any actual insight - just rhetoric - on this issue. However, French magazine Chasseur d'Images (March 2003 IIRC) actually ran a series of tests with a number of lenses and took measurements which they reported - these clearly demonstrated that using the 16-35 f/2.8L at 16mm on a 1Ds (the combination used by Reichmann in Daniel's link) there was additional vignetting and colour shifts in the image corners, particularly at wider apertures. I think I prefer tests to rhetoric.

 

Another test that I think has been well executed is this one:

 

http://www.16-9.net/ultrawides/

 

It compares several lenses shot at f/8 with the same body and exposure. It's worth looking at the corner crops closely - try to ignore the clear superiority in sharpness of the Zeiss 21mm, and instead compare the brightness and colours. Even at f/8, it seems that there are clear differences in vignetting performance and colour shift (most evident in the crops from the top right of the images). The conclusion is that (surprise, surprise) different lenses perform differently with regard to vignetting - and that it is possible to get outstanding performance in all respects with a wide angle lens on a 1Ds, albeit that the lens in question is not made by Canon.

"Daniel has added his unsubstantiated statement to Michael Reichmann's about vignetting."

snip

"Another test that I think has been well executed is this one: http://www.16-9.net/ultrawides/"

snip

"The conclusion is that (surprise, surprise) different lenses perform differently with regard to vignetting..."

 

You don't even understand the original question. The question was: will a WA lens vignette more on FF digital than on film? I'll grant that Reichmann offered his personal opinion, and that a strict test would be welcome.

 

But you didn't offer such a test. You put up tests with different lenses on digital. Of course different lenses perform differently with regard to vignetting. NOBODY WAS ARGUING THAT.

 

Before you mouth off, try to at least understand what the debate is about. Thank you.

"Anyone who thinks that a 12MP digital slr can best 6x7 medium format for quality is clearly a digisheep who's only experience with the format is via questionable shootouts. Use a FILM scanner (ie not an Epson flatbed masquerading as an Imacon a la Luminous Landscrape)"

 

Are you accusing Reichmann of using an Epson flatbed and claiming it was an Imacon? Do you have any evidence of this accusation, or are you just mouthing off to try and make your position seem stronger? Do you normally lie about opponents in a debate to try and win your point?