Phil Askey's Review of the 5D

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/

Dang that black background is hard on the eyes! Interesting he finds the dynamic range to

be nearly identical to the 20D. I didn't notice much light fall-off in his examples.

So the 5D does not vignette after all? And I was beginning to trust all these users and their experience shared on the internet...

Phil mentioned that the 5D will show some shortcomings in some lenses....What is meant by that? I know the 24-70mm was introduced because in the larger megapixel cams....those cams showed lens flaws in the 28-70mm lens....I still haven't figured out what those flaws are in the 28-70mm L lens...I have one..use it on my EOS 3 and 20D with phenominal results...

SO..if someone will explain what he meant by his statement about showing up the shortcomings I'd be eternally grateful...

Thanks

>>I didn't notice much light fall-off in his examples.<<

 

That's because people posting on the NET have created a "problem" where none exists. In essence, there is no more light fall-off than it existed on film.

 

The *theory* that the microlenses are "missing" some light at the corners has not been proven thus far.

 

All data provided sin *some* articles refers to tests done in a lab with some sensors (not the 5Ds) projecting light beams at different angles which can never occur in real life (i.e. with the sensor mounted on the camera and a lens attached). Clearly, when the light hit a certain angle some ligh fall off occurred but, this test conditions can never be duplicated with a lens (any lens) attached.

 

So, while they may offer an interesting read they do not reflect reality.

 

In practice, I have noticed *zero* increase in light fall off from film to the 5D. Looking at my old slides taken with my [now gone] 24mm and the new pictures taken with the 24-70L and the 5D I see no increase whatsoever in light fall off. Same for all my other lenses.

I means that some lenses are crappy. You seem to be happy with what you got ... So count your lucky stars.

Charles, in this case, it's so much better not to know. Once you do know, the "flaws" will

annoy you and you will wind up spending money! :) It turns out that as important as the

lens is in taking photos, that other factors such as subject matter, composition, line, form,

and just having an "eye" for art is so much more useful!

 

Keep taking good photos! (ie: no matter how much we might wish it, our tools don't make

us into better artists) :)

 

Tony

 

PS: every lens has flaws

Sorry 'bout my typos!

Paulo, whoever said that the 5D does not vignette? All FF DSLRs vignette

and all 35mm film cameras do as well, although maybe not as much. But it's

not such a big deal as there are workarounds, so it's a minor problem.

 

<<So the 5D does not vignette after all? And I was beginning to trust all these

users and their experience shared on the internet...>>

<<Phil mentioned that the 5D will show some shortcomings in some

lenses....What is meant by that? I know the 24-70mm was introduced because

in the larger megapixel cams....those cams showed lens flaws in the 28-

70mm lens....I still haven't figured out what those flaws are in the 28-70mm L

lens...I have one..use it on my EOS 3 and 20D with phenominal results... SO..if

someone will explain what he meant by his statement about showing up the

shortcomings I'd be eternally grateful... Thanks>>

 

A FF sensor is less forgiving with inexpensive consumer zoom lenses as it

uses the edges of the lens which tend to be rather soft. You will generally

require better lenses (primes and L) if you get into FF DSLR.

An interesting review.

 

Surprises:

 

1) Dynamic range, ISO performance not better than a lowly 20D. - and that the 1Ds-II was in the same general ball park! !

 

2) Light fall off on a 5D and 24-70/2.8L was similar (at the same apertures) to a 20D with a 17-85/EF-S. That is a very, very pathetic statement of poor quality for the EF-S.

 

3) Hmmm. Reading this review. . .I feel the primary advantage of this camera is increased MP. Lens quality issues (ie, you should only use the very, very, very best lenses on this camera) actually are a negative on full frame. (in case you are wondering. . . . I think my 17-40/4L is plenty wide enough.)

 

4) Increasingly. . . digital workflow is an important part of the game. Don't go shooting without understanding.

 

 

****

 

As for the whole "full frame vignetting" thing. Bunch of hooey in my book. One cannot hide the fact, however, that FF will reveal edge defects in lenses. From what I have read, the 24-105/4L is basically disappointing (for a "L") on a full frame camera. I will happily mount my 17-40 and 70-200 on the 5D, however.

 

* * * *

 

My path: $3000 is too rich for my blood. Skipping this current generation. Especially since I will need a 24-70 type "L" quality lens to go with the camera. If a 10mp 1.6 crop dSLR comes out (at the $1250 level), or a FF 12mp camera comes in at the more attactive $1500-$1750 level. . .I may be tempted.

FF is not for most people, that's for sure. But it satisfies a niche market, and

there is definitely such a market judging by the relatively strong demand for

the 1Ds2 and now the 5D.

My gut on the full-frame 'problem' with lenses is that with digital, people are more apt to

view their digital images carefully at the equivalent to ~40" enlargements, looking for flaws.

 

I suspect that if you were to take a comparison of a scan from a slide shot with the same lens

on a film camera and a digital image from a FF camera, you'd see the same kinds of optical

quality reflected in each.

 

This is just my seat-of-the-pants assessment of the matter, and I can't back it up with a

shred of data.

Scott said:

<p>

<i>"... with digital, people are more apt to view their digital images carefully at the equivalent to ~40" enlargements, looking for flaws."</i>

<p>

I think the vignetting issue wouldn't even show up at this magnification: you need to look at the whole image to see it...

My gut feel is that enlargements and manipulation is far more practical now than it has been in the past: Hence everyone does it.

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

I think the "issue" of light fall off has been totally created.

 

There is no proof that the FF Canon sensor *causes* light fall off. It is obvious that an high rez., FF sensor will show *lens weakness* just as good film would. This is not a "con" has Phil put it. I am amazed he would list it under the con column! It clearly suggests to the uninformed reader that there is a defect in the sensor whereas this is NOT true.

 

I wonder if people stopped shooting slide film because it revealed lens shortcomings!

 

I think the lack of a dedicated mirror lockup button IS a con but, the fact that the high rez, FF sensor demands *good glass* is NOT a con by any stretch of the imagination. If you buy a Ferrari will say that having to shell out for appropriate Pirelli tires is a con?

 

Nor is the lack of a built-in flash!

 

The EOS3 doesn't have a built-in flash, neither does the EOS1v, F5, FTn, OM1, etc... Since when it has become a "con"? My Bronica didn't have a built-in flash either. I have never seen that listed as a "con" in reviews for ANY of the film cameras listed above. When one buys a Hassie does one say "darn it, the lack of a built-in flash is definitely a point against it". I think not. It is obvious that certain cameras are designed for more deliberate shoots. Thus, a built-in flash would be contrary to their intended use. Convenience and deliberate shoots don't go together. you want convenience get a P&S.

 

So, will all due respect to Phil, why has the standard built of an SRL without built-in flash become a con all of a sudden?

I don't think the light fall off and lens issue has been manufactured A lot of shooters , including myself have not shot film for a long time , have bought lenses and accesories based on a crop factor camera and had never seriously considered FF digital as it was totally unaffordable. Now that it has become affordable (relatively speaking) one needs to readjust ones thinking on all sorts of issues like range , DOF and lens performance wide open. I do not think that Phil is pointing this out as a specific 5d defect , he is pointing out , quite rightly so , that should one want to go FF from a cropped sensor , be VERY aware of these issues which might or might not please you. I was less than enthusisastic to see all my L zooms exhibited light drop off right across the range wide open.

Its not a problem in most real life shooting and can be fixed very easily , but it is something to consider.

As Jim says , these days one can pixel peep and print much larger than before and user expectations as to technically perfect pics have advanced. There is a new generation of shooters out there to whom film and FF is like a LP compared to a ceedee. They havent heard the mistracking and pops and clicks and when they do , they don't like it.

 

As to flash , well I have always been a proponent of the fact that to get good flash lighting , one needs a good dedicated flash , but it wouldnt harm to have an onboard flash for those times one needs a little fill or extra light and one doesnt have a flash handy. Essentially , the 5d without a flash forces one to pack a flash when shooting. I dont see it being a requirement of a Pro or FF camera that a flash is not included to be "worthy" of pro status. I also dont see the point of saying "XYZ camera didnt have one , so why should the 5d" , kinda like saying the 1980 vette didnt have ABS and it was a sports car that won races , so why should the 2005 have it - its only inexperienced consumers that would need it , a "true" red blooded racing type guy doesnt need it. Not so.

I found the review to be the best that Phil has produced , very meaty , very comprehensive , very balanced, In fact I haven't ever seen a camera review that goes into that much detail.

Generally speaking, these days people are more interested in finding lens shortcomings, than in making good photographs. In the past, "testing" lenses was done by only a few. These days, everyone with a computer is a lens tester, and they don't know what they are doing. Then they report it on the internet forums, and "knowledge" is established. Go figure...

 

It is sad that for a camera to require the best lenses to get the best results is envisaged as a negative point. Personally, if I can afford it, I prefer to use the best lenses, so I can profit from the advantages of my full-frame camera (EOS 1V) and sensor (Velvia 100F).

 

Cheers.

Thanks for these examples Giampi. Do you have other wide lenses from which you could post examples too?