happy_chappy Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 I've lifted the following from a post that has dropped down the system a bit... <P> <i> There are other issues with using a FF camera and lenses that one has to face when coming from a cropped sensor. DOF is substantially less as is reach and the high res senor seems to magnify focus issues or hiughlight the slightest camera shake. Apart from that , one uses the whole image circle of the lens and some nasties that one wouldnt see with a 1.6 FOV camera are present. I would rather have a cropped sensor with the resolution , dynamic range and noise performance of the 5d if it were available. </i> I'm puzzled... <P> Did I miss something. Did everyone drop their 35mm film cameras in favour of the APS size IXUS? Do 'professionals' prefer 1.6 FOV bodies to avoid 'nasties' from showing up in the edges of their photo's? <P> Perhaps I should keep with the 10D and sell my 5D instead... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul hart Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 The further down the system it drops, the better. Internet tittle-tattle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_winkels1 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Hi HC, I don't feel very "handicapped" when using a 5D. Or is it the bright viewfinder damaging my eyes ? Part of the discussion is Canon vs Nikon. I expect this discussion will change once more manufacturers are offering FF bodies. I can appreciate some concerns regarding FF from a sensor perspective, not from a lens perspective. I prefer having the full image from a lens rather than enlarging the center part. But that is just me. I know at the wide-angle side there's is a specific issue with image quality. But if Leica/Contax is able to produce a wide angle that works really well on a FF, we should not blame the sensor for the lenses that don't work well. Come on Canon, give us some nice wide angles ! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexdi Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Yes, sell the 5D. Amateurs that sell their equipment at the drop of a hat and the whim of others continue to make Ebay a buyers market. DI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henrik.ploug Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 I have to agree with Rodney Gold, who wrote the quote above. The main reason for getting a full frame used to be better choices between wide angle lenses. But meanwhile the wide-angle-choices today seems to be better for cropped cameras than for full frame: http://www.ddisoftware.com/20d-5d/#ffff http://www.photo.net/equipment/wideangle-dslr.html a) Why should I wait for Canon to produce a wide lens, that doesn't show severe light-fall-off on a full frame camera, when there are plenty of good wide lenses for cropped cameras? b) And what guarantee do I have that Canon will ever produce such a lens? c) I know that light-fall-off can be corrected in Photoshop, but why should I pay big bucks just to get extra work in Photoshop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark u Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 It doesn't help when the debate is fuelled by false conjectures. A GIVEN lens exhibits less DOF on a crop body at the same aperture than it does when used on a full frame body, requiring more accurate focus on the crop body (although the same angle of view at the same aperture results in greater DOF on the crop body). Camera shake is also more of an issue with crop bodies - angular shake requires higher shutter speeds with a given lens, and other forms of shake (side to side etc.) result in a greater blur for the same absolute movement of the camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henrik.ploug Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Mark, everything you write is correct. But when I want to take a portrait with my 1,6 cropped camera, I will use a 50mm lens instead of a 85mm. And if I choose f1,4 with the 50mm, I get more dof than when I choose f1,4 with a 85mm lens on a full frame. The two pictures will be almost identical except for the dof. As for camera shake the shake from a 50mm on a 1,6 cropped camera will be almost identical to the shake from a 85mm on a full frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_bedell Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Someone's been pixel peeping... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julianradowsky Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Crop the frame from the Canon 5D to 1.3x and you get EXACTLY THE SAME number of pixels that you get with a 1D Mark II (both cameras have exactly the same pixel size) Therefore, if you take a picture with a 50mm lens on the 5D, focused on a subject 1.5m away, and then crop the resultant image to the same crop size as the ENTIRE image from take with a 1D Mk II focussed on the SAME subject from the SAME distance, with the same exposure settings (especially aperture), you will get EXACTLY THE SAME PICTURE, with the same FOV and DOF. By the same methods, take a picture at 24mm with the 5D, and crop that picture to 1.3 (resulting in the same image as the 1D mk II would produce), guess what? THE VIGNETTING WILL VANISH This entire discussion is pointless, and ONLY an issue with those who have never used full frame film cameras and shot chromes, where vignetting with wide angles is par for the course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henrik.ploug Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 So you pay lots of money for a full frame camera, and then crop your pictures in Photoshop - I don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julianradowsky Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Henrik - I am NOT saying that, what I was providing was a counter to the 'logic' of the initial post. Full frame pictures with the 5D SHOULD NOT be taken with the prime intention of then cropping down to equivalent 1D Mk II sizing - that's just dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_white2 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Henrik, Sometimes you'll need an image without any loss of light in the corners. For those occasions, step back, take the photo, and then crop. But most of the time it makes no difference if the corners of the image are a bit darker or a bit softer than the center of the image. Most of teh time there's nothing in the corners of the image that will draw you eyes there, so there's no reason for the corners to be as sharp as the center. To have detail in the corners would only detract from the composition. So for those occasions, just frame the image and shoot. With a full frame sensor, you can have your cake, and you can eat it. It's not really that complicated. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henrik.ploug Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 What Rodney Gold is saying in the above quote is, that he would prefer a cropped camera with the same resolution and low noise as the 5D. And so far I haven't seen any arguments that would make me disagree with him. I used to have a full frame film-SLR, but I don't see, what that has to do with the argument. Today I can choose between a cropped DSLR with no light-fall-off and a full frame DSLR with severe light-fall-off at wide angles. If I could buy a cropped camera with the same resolution and low noise as the 5D AND with no light-fall-off at the wide angles, THEN I could have my cake, and eat it. It's not really that complicated. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 It is extremely rare, even with "frame frame" 35mm to actually use 100% of the frame. I get light fall-off with wide angle lenses and wide zooms when I shoot wide open with my EOS 3. However it rarely bothered me outside of a few images with lots of sky. Even with sky shots I rarely shoot wide open. I might shoot wide open in the murky light of a bar, but light fall-of usually isn't impotant in such compositions. Plus, slide mounts cover 10% or so of the image and prints are always cropped, often to the aspect ratio of 4:3, e.g., 5 x 7, 8 x 10, 11 x 14, etc. From the 5D prints I've seen, outside of pixel peepin' on the edges of the frame, light fall- off is not an issue on typical 11 x 14 or 16 x 20 prints. Of course, most digital camera owners don't print (pixel peep instead) and herein lies the problem... Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbq Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Oh no, the internet is saying that my 5D is not as good as the 10D that it replaced, I must have made a terrible mistake. Come on, the pixel density in the 5D is high enough that it's possible to crop aggressively and still have a lot of image to work with, or to keep all the pixels and print really large. You can actually have your cake AND eat it. Or if DoF is an actual concern, bump the sensitivity by 1 1/3 stops and stop down by an extra 1 1/3 stops (and enjoy the benefits of stopping down further for fewer aberrations and more precise auto-focus). Personally, I'm very much enjoying my 24/2.8 and 50/1.4 on the 5D, they now behave the way they were meant to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickerman_wickerman1 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 On nearly every forum there is so much conflicting old washer woman gossip concerning the 5d, if i was mr Canon i would take it off the market to spite them all. I dont have a 5d only because i am happy using my 20d, but i have to say with all the talk it would make me think twice about buying one as it is very off putting. Does anybody know why the 5d has attracting all this testicles talk? By the way i heard the other day that the 5d is responsible for global warming--deforestation of the Amazon and for getting my mrs pregnant ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henrik.ploug Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 You don't really have to pixel-peep to see the light-fall-off. It's pretty evident on the shots, that I have seen so far. But please show us some of the photos where it's not a problem. Of course you can crop the light-fall-off out. And I can't disagree, that when you have plenty of pixels to begin with, you will have more pixels in the cropped picture. But you would have even more, if you didn't have to crop it. The 24mm f2.8 was probably "meant" for full frame cameras. So I guess it is against the nature of the lens to use it on a cropped camera. None the less I enjoy some of the nice pictures made with that lens on a cropped camera. I'm so sorry! And for 2xWickerman: The old washer woman with the testicles - not the 5D - is responsible for getting your mrs pregnant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickerman_wickerman1 Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 So the bitch lied again ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbizarro Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Wow, so there are actually people that forfeit using the full capabilities of their lenses, by ditching part of their image circle? And that is good? ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodney_gold1 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Im Rodney Gold and here is my take. I started photography 30 odd years ago and have used just about every format that there is , 6x7 , 2 1/2" square , 35mm etc , apart from plate type cameras, so it's not as if I'm coming from a P&S environment and am clueless. In terms of digital , my quest is for image quality as I print real big and have come up from a 300d -10d, 20d and now to a 5d. We live in the digital age ,we are NOT talking about film anymore and the cameras we are discussing are DIGITAL. The expectations of users have changed substantially. With a negative or indeed a slide in the old days , it was difficult to view crops as deeply as we can now or indeed print as big as we can as easily as we can. Nowdays just about every user can afford a A3+ printer than can output better than most photo labs and I can print up to 54" wide on my large format printer. I have computer monitors capable of stunning display. Technology has advanced and so have the demands on equipment. 25 years ago the way to get big power out of an engine was to increase its CC , today there are better strategies like computerised fuel mapping , efficient turbos etc. If I can buy a car with the same power as a 350 cu inch chev , that uses less fuel and is more reliable , why would I want the bigger engine? The quality of output of a sensor is relative to size only in terms of TODAYS technology, it is not inconceivable that smaller sensors can deliver even better results than the 5d's at some near point in the future. The only way one can currently get the DR , resolution and noise performance that the 5d has to offer at it's price is to buy one , it just happens to have a full size sensor relative to 35mm film. I get no real advantage barring extened WA using existing lenses (which were NOT designed for todays type of sensor or for the capabilites of todays output) by using a FF sensor and do get significant disadvantages , for example with my 17-40L zoom , using it on a croppped sensor at its effective 28mm wide end , there was no light drop off at all wide open , the same cannot be said using that lens on a the 5d's FF senor at 28mm. So I got to get to 17mm but I also now have to PP my images if shooting wide open at ALL focal lengths. I have used ACR , PT lens etc to do so and sometimes the results are not acceptable. IE my 17-40 is now compromised on FF compared to a 1.6 FOV crop sensor. I do not have the same utility from my 70-200 2.8 L in terms of reach and still have light drop off at all focal lengths wide open. If the sensor had enough resolution so that I could crop to emulate my 20d , I might not be as dissapointed , but it doesnt. Wow , so what exactly did I gain by using the whole image circle of the lenses I have ? What is the point of buying fast glass if you cant use what you pay for without jumping thru hoops or compromising the image itself? Not everyone LIKES vignetting or light drop off or less than stellar corners and not everyone wants to stop down to avoid it and not everyone wants to have to spend serious money on L lenses or different Focal length ones, at the moment to get the image quality provided by the 5d vs a Cropped sensor , one has to. Yes , there are optics that do make sense on a FF camera , like my 28-300L or one of the TSE lenses and so forth and they wouldnt make as much sense on a FOV crop sensor , but these are speciality lenses. I also spoke about High resolution magnifying focussing issues and camera shake , not the fact that it was a FF senor. With more resolution one can see this more. There is no point in more resolution if one cant print bigger or crop deeper and these issues relate to and are visible in both. What difference does it make if one is a pro or a serious amateur in this regard. I dont see the pros using Nikons which do have cropped sensors abandoning them wholesale for a FF canon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Not everyone takes photos of evenly-lit, blank walls so they can then get worked up about light falloff of wide angles. The same light falloff exists when using film, too, and it never stopped film shooters (amateur or pro) from using wide angles, nor did it "force" them to do any kind of additional post processing when using wide angles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodney_gold1 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 This does not affect only white walls , as these pics demonstrate. http://www.5d.fotopic.net/c718605.html The problem becomes even more pronounced when shooting flash indoors in certain cases , not a coveratge issue , but a light fall off one. You also seemed not to have read my post in that we are no longer film shooters but digital and the output and requirements have changed. If I had to print the pics I have shown as is without PP for the corners , not one of my clients would be thrilled. This does not even consider the poor performance of some lenses in the corners which is pretty visible when printed big. Why should we accept compromises based on heritage systems that are fast being eclipsed. Would you tell someone using a computer that is making addition errors that it never stopped accountants in the old days of abacusses and they must just accept it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 If you're not satisfied with the performance of a particular ultra-wide zoom or 11x mega-zoom, don't buy those lenses. There are primes lenses available for those focal lengths that have superior performance. Just how much optical performance do you expect from a 28-300 zoom ? It's hardly a fault of full-frame sensors that you won't get the best possible optical quality from a zoom--this was just as true with film.<P> <i>If I had to print the pics I have shown as is without PP for the corners , not one of my clients would be thrilled.</i><P> Are you saying that clients were thrilled with those shots after the appropriate corrections? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henrik.ploug Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 So far I have seen severe light-fall-off on the 24-105mm f4L 24-70mm f2,8 L 17-40mm f4 L 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM 16-35mm f2,8 L 135mm f2 L So the apropiate question would be: Is there any lenses out there, that doesn't show severe light-fall-off on the 5D? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henrik.ploug Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Sorry, the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM should have been the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now