Canon 5D performance and IQ

[eldar]

Hi everyone,

 

I finally made the jump to the 5D this weekend from the 350D and I was hoping

for some feedback from fellow 5D users. I have a 17-40mm and 100mm lenses. One

thing I definitely noticed over shooting this weekend is the advantage of the FF

especially on the 17-40 and the great performance at high ISO. But from what I

can tell the image quality is not that much better from the 350D even though

I've taken only about 200 shots around NYC. I was hoping for feedback around the

image quality and sharpness of images. I've always noticed on this site and

others the great sharpness and detail on 5D shots with the 17-40 but so far I've

yet to see it. The 100mm on the 350 performs great as it does on the 5d. So is

it my lens or am I doing something wrong? Should I be shooting at 50 ISO, what

about picture style setting (currently set on "Standard")? Most I shot on P and

AV modes around 8F. Or is it just another case of having to shoot 100 shots to

get that 1 that sticks?

 

Thanks!

 

Eldar.

[bobatkins]

You won't see a huge amount of difference. In fact unless you make big prints you may not see any difference at all.

[johnson_d.]

Corner sharpness from the 17-40mm is know to be a little weak. Perhaps this is what you are noticing? The "bad" corners are essentially cropped out when you use your 350D so it's not surprising that this lens would look worse when you use your uncropped 5D. If you post some samples we may be able to provide more specific advice.

[danielleetaylor]

The differences you notice will depend in part on the subject. If the 350D has more than enough resolution for a subject, then you won't notice much, if any, difference. If fine detail in the subject is just beyond the 350D's reach, then the 5D image will stand out.

 

As an example, I wouldn't expect much of a difference between the two on portraits. But I bet the 5D would clearly stand out with a sweeping landscape of a forest.

[danielleetaylor]

Oh yes...I feel that the 17-40 f/4L needs a little more USM to really "pop" and stand out versus other good lenses. Perhaps your 350D had a different sharpness setting and that's the difference?

[john_t3]

Shooting at ISO 50 may dampen the dynamic range and your images are likely to look a bit flat. Don't hesitate to try setting ISO at 100-200-400-800 to keep up your shutter speed and enable you to stop down to f/8 or whatever to find the sweet spot of your lenses for sharpness and contrast. If you are shooting jpeg, play with the various picture styles to find the one that pleases you. I find Landscape with it's extra sharpening to be a good safety net when I want snaps right out of the box, especially when experimenting with settings.

 

To accentuate seeing the relationship between what you do and what you get, try using Spot Metering and P and watch what it gives you at differing ISO settings, or AV and change the f/stops to see what that gives you. The main thing is to take your time, watching carefully what does what, both on the camera and afterwards on your computer, looking at the image and analyzing the EXIF info. It's all in there, you've just got to coax out the best.

 

...or just set it to Auto and spin the roulette wheel. :)

[jason_hall4]

>>>"Shooting at ISO 50 may dampen the dynamic range and your images are likely to look a bit flat."<<<

 

Exactly, ISO 50 is done by software in the camera and not by hardware like the other ISO setting. The tone curve is affected by this and can or will cause lose of detail in the highlights. Same is true with ISO 3200.

 

Jason

[marcphotography]

I know what Eldar means. I see images taken by 5d's and they always look so much sharper and more vibrant.

The sharpness could probably be because the full frame is utilizing the lens sharpness alot better right? Im not sure how big of a difference that would make.

My Tamron 28-75mm stopped down to its sweet spot looks soft compared to a 5D.

[manuel barrera houston,]

The sweet spot for the 17-40 is f.8 corners and center are the sharpest. Remember that the 350 is looking at the center of the lens which is sharper in all lenes.

[photo_dark]

Even though landscape is the reason I first got into photography serisouly, I decided on a 40D instead of a 5D as I valued the speed and responsiveness for action photography. So to get the same dramatic landscapes, i've resorted to taking 3 vertical shots with the 17-40L and stitching. <br/><br/>

 

Needless to say, i'm glad I went with the 40D. Instead of a 12mp image with a moderately wide angle, I have a 8644 x 3888 pixel wide angle image that I can crop and size however I want. <br/><br/>

 

It's not what you have, it's what you do with it. The 5D is a great camera and probably has subtle properties that will give you better image quality in certain situations, but I wouldn't expect it to work miracles<br/><br/>

 

<center>40D, 17-40L, Not HDR.<br/>

<img src=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3050/2540808998_1e637773ae.jpg><br/><br/>50% crop of left edge<br/><img src=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3044/2544522951_2e391b2025.jpg></center>

[sheer]

I'm in a similar boat ... I just bought a 5d to replace my 350d and, though I haven't spent much time with my new one I played with a 5d a while ago (and also a 40d). I don't think you can expect to see a significant difference between image quality when you look at a screen sized or A4 copy of an image taken in ideal conditions.

 

Some have claimed you'll see more detail in landscapes, etc... (and many online tests seem to confirm this) but I'm not sure you'll notice it without zooming to 100% crops. I think the big advantage you'll see is that you have to use a more tele lens to get the same framing. This tends to compress the background and make the subject stand out more. See e.g. the comparison of the 60mm, 100mm, and 180mm canon macro lenses:

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

 

This effect is more pronounced at large apertures and is, for me, one of the nice advantages of FF. Also, if you ever shoot at higher iso's the 5d holds up much better. I had a large collection of iso 1600 pictures that I didn't even know were 1600 until I checked the exif tags. I think you'll also see a sharpness improvement here since less noise reduction is needed.

 

I've also heard you'll get nicer color gradients, etc... out of the 5d but I haven't seen (or tested) this myself.

 

I'm curious to hear what others have to say.

[sheer]

I'd be interested to see links to the sharper 5d images you referred to.

 

Thanks

[stephen sullivan]

To get better performance out of your 17-40 f/4L.

 

f/8 is where the 17-40 starts to shine. Put your 5D & 17-40 on a Tripod with a cable

release. This time, shoot at F-Stops 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 13. What you'll see is how the

corners start to come into play and the overall contrast goes up.

 

And, switch to Picture Style, "Landscape" @ EI 100.

[eldar]

Thanks for the great feedback everybody. I just got back from NYC today so I havent had a chance to upload all my shots and review them. I will test out the differences between the 350D and 5D under the same settings and condiftions etc and post the results. The reason I brought this up is that I've seen some amazing shots with the 5D and 17-40 on this site and others and haven't really seen that many with the 350 and 17-40 so I expected much better performance. I guess it's the photographer then that makes the difference!