What the hell is wrong with CANON?

stephen_asprey2 · February 20, 2009

Now that we are being a little less serious, and for those who pay $4500 for their lenses (Leica Elmo 18) would it be better to use the right camera for the particular application, instead of expecting Nikon or Canon to cover the lot?

If you want the ultimate in lenses with shift capability on the appropriate camera (and they can be had new for $700), then this is the lens. To the large format world $2500 is a fortune to pay for the best available, new. Well this is it, or one of its cheaper brothers. Read the specs and then look at the pic. Its smaller than a 1.8/50 in 35mm. This jewel is awesome.

"This is an 80mm lens for use with film formats up to 5x7 inch, although its most common use will be with 4x5 inch film. The lens has a 105 degree field angle at f22, producing an image circle of 211mm at f22. This allows 39mm of shift vertically and 34mm of shift horizontally." Schneider Optics.

I'm not pushing film, but you know what I'm getting at when you have seen a 4000dpi drum scanned image file from a colour slide, made by one of these. It makes your eyes bleed. Then tell me more about value.

desmond_kidman · February 20, 2009

That said, what is offered as "common knowledge" in photography discussions is often simply "common conception that has not been checked against reality."

</blockquote>

About this we concur completely. Many folks repeat "sharp as a tack" and "pin sharp", and all other kinds of comparitives and dogma, without having much experience with anything else. I've challenged some to send me the slides they used for the comparison...oops, nothing forthcoming. Likewise, I've offered to send the test results, the actual shots, not a dumbed down image on the forum. Oops, the challenger backed off.

We all have to realize that there are many good folks on forums, but also many blowhards who make up information, putting unfounded and untested opinions out there, looking to make an "identity" as a guru. It can be hard to tell the two types apart sometimes.

ralph_jensen · February 20, 2009

Stephen said, bringing large-format photography into the discussion,

"I'm not pushing film, but you know what I'm getting at when you have seen a 4000dpi drum scanned image file from a colour slide, made by one of these. It makes your eyes bleed. Then tell me more about value."

</blockquote>

OK, I'll tell you more about value. Let's see: 4x5 Quickloads (color slide film): $3.50 per exposure for the film, plus $3.00 per exposure for the processing equals $6.50 every time you click the shutter. That 4000-dpi drum scan will set you back another $50-100 per image. Not exactly the same math as shooting with a digital SLR!

Don't get me wrong: I shoot a lot of large-format film (8x10 and 4x5; that Schneider 80mmXL is among the less-well-regarded lenses in Schneider's XL series, by the way) and for many applications it's well worth it. But if it's a question of "value," most viewers won't be able to tell the difference in normal-sized prints between images made with that Schneider 80mmXL lens for a minimum of $6.50 per shot (after equipment is paid for) vs. images made with a 5DII and Canon's 24mm TS-E II lens for basically $0.00 per shot (after equipment is paid for).

In other words, nice try but a bit off-topic, Stephen. Repeat after me: "Plaudits for a nice job, Canon. I look forward to seeing Nikon's next product introduction." Really. It's not that hard to admit that "the other company" - the one you don't like - has done something impressive.

desmond_kidman · February 20, 2009

I have a boatload of the latest apo large format lenses as well as 2 Canon TS lenses used on 1DsIII. For work that requires large movements the TS might not be the right tool. For shots that are usable with the TS movements and only need enlargement to 30 inches the TS is certainly not the wrong tool. I've shot the same products with both, I know first hand. So, in many applications the TS is appropriate, and, as the above math shows, they pay for themselves in no time. Forgetting about time savings, in film and process costs alone I paid for the digital system very quickly and have more than satisfactory results.

stephen_asprey2 · February 20, 2009

Flamed again!

I have Nikon (film and digital), Canon (digital), Olympus (film and digital) and Linhoff (film). I can claim to be impartial. The point is that its horses for courses.

Just using an example....must everyone who may have a technical knowledge advantage put down those who are still on the learning curve. My last post. And its documented here in the film forums.

Yes, it costs a lot more to do large format development, BUT....

Digital upfront costs, Australian $, and lets say you want to be in FX:

Camera: D700, 5D2 $ 4500 (Plus $1500 updates every 2-3 years).

Lenses: Say a 12-24 2.8 $2000, 24-70 2.8 $2000, 80-200 2.8 $2000 (Maybe a bit less)

Computer: Intel or Apple with a good monitor: $2500 (Maybe much more)

Software: Say Lightroom and Photoshop: $2000 (unless you say you are a student)

A3 4000dpi printer: $1000 (maybe a bit more)

I don't include the best paper and consumables, or the cost of CFcards.

Thats $16000.

or,

I can buy a large format (or even medium format) camera and lens for $2000 max...$14000 difference can buy a lot of film, developing, pro scanning and printing. And if I wanted to go fully digital, I can get my money back. Just look at the used prices of digital. Its worse than the depreciation on your car.

Finally, its not the cost that's at the core of things really, its the ease of use of digital . But no one can say digital is inexpensive. The smart people know that up to A3 size prints, a 12mp sensor is all you need. And it all gets back to the lens, and so friends, we are back on topic...lenses!

g dan mitchell · February 20, 2009

Since we are having fun veering wildly off topic... ;-)

I have a friend who has a long career and a great reputation as a large format landscape photographer. He shot 4x5 color LF for many years but recently switched to MF digital backs. I can't exactly speak for him, but my impression from some conversations is that there were several reasons.

One, strangely enough, is the decrease in costs! His figure was $4.50 per exposure with LF. We had a joking email exchange in which I pointed out that by switching to the (rather expensive high end) digital MF back that he had "saved" something like $2250 during one shoot of several days. His response, in general terms, was more or less along the lines of "I should have shot twice as many frames and saved $4500!" ("C," if you read this, yes, I know this alters the story a little bit...)

It might only take a dozen shoots at that rate to "pay for" the digital MF camera and back. :-)

Dan

neil_fitzgerald · February 20, 2009

The new 24 is definitely on my wish list, and I hope they upgrade the other TSEs before they go sticking IS in a short L lens. Get a tripod. Oh, and "cheap and good optical glass" is oxymoron.

kevcross · February 20, 2009

Lenses I have no use for:

200-400L IS, EF-S Fish Eye, 24-70L IS.

Lenses I would really like to have:

17 TS, 24 TS

If you're having trouble keeping your camera steady you may want to try a tripod. Old fashioned IS works surprisingly well on your non IS lenses.

g dan mitchell · February 20, 2009

OK, this is based on a test I just posted at <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2008/12/31/2008-favorites">my site</a> :

Earlier someone wrote:

There is quite a bit of loss in image definition if you do a significant amount of correction for converging verticals in an image editor. You can get far better results with a view camera or a tilt/shift lens. If you only photograph for the web, then maybe the image editor approach is ok, but for reasonably large prints?

</blockquote>

And, as a follow up to my post of a contrary point of view, someone else posted:

I am open minded to any tests, but we are talking about perspective control and making some pretty drastic corrections where your test is correcting for relatively minor lens distortions. Perspective control is a different animal. Have you done any tests relative to pretty severe perspective control corrections via PP verses using a perspective control lens?

</blockquote>

While that point of view is widely held and often repeated, in my experience a blanket statement like this is not correct. I have found that in many cases the degradation of the image is so small as to be insignificant or even invisible at 100% magnification, and it is often completely invisible even in fairly good size prints. Rather than just accepting statements like this, I like to test them. In the past I've tested and written about the option of correcting for lens distortions in post- processing: <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2007/09/16/a-test-correcting-lens-distortion-in-post-processing">A Test: Correcting Lens Distortion in Post Processing</a> . Here I want to extend this concept to using post-processing techniques for the correction of perspective distortion and for leveling the image.

(I will admit that the distortions in this image probably don't qualify as "severe," but this is the first example I could come up with. And there are still situations in which I completely understand the reasons for using a TS.)

The photograph I'll use was shot handheld using a full-frame Canon 5D with the EF 35mm f/2 lens, one of my favorites for street photography. First a small version of the final photograph:

Next is the same image with the same post-processing, except that the corrections to horizontal alignment and perspective have been left out:

In this example we can clearly see several problems. First, the image is not level - it tilts down to the left. Second, the vertical lines begin to converge toward the top of the image. Third, since the camera's sensor was not perfectly parallel to the building wall, the right side of the building recedes and gets smaller as the horizontal lines become closer together toward the right edge.

Yup, that's what happens when you shoot street and shoot handheld. ;-)

The next image includes two versions of roughly the same section of the photograph at 100% magnification. The crops come from the lower left area of the full image and include the conduit on the wall in the area in full sun. Depending on your monitor, this resolution is equivalent to looking at a print of perhaps four or five feet in width.

I do believe that if you inspect this 100% crop very closely that you can detect a difference in the "sharpness" of the two photographs - but it is quite subtle even when viewed at 100%. In practical terms, however, this tiny effect that is just barely visible under close inspection at 100% in side-by-side comparisons on the screen is entirely insignificant in a print. Even with a very close inspection it would be quite invisible in a print of, say, 18" x 24" and probably even larger.

This reinforces my belief that any degradation to the image quality that occurs when lens distortion, perspective, and/or horizontal level are corrected carefully during the post-processing stage can be very minimal and in virtually all situations will be invisible in prints.

Dan

(I'll still try to come up with an example in which the original perspective distortion was "severe.")

stephen_guess · February 21, 2009

Just a thought regarding price. I see that Amazon.com advertises the Canon TS-E 90mm lens with a "List Price" of $1,900, but a selling price of $1,150. That's only one example. Hopefully the TSE-17mm lens will follow the same trend and sell for something closer to $1,500.

ron_uriel · February 21, 2009

Canon's new TS lenses are an important step in the process of 35mm penetration to all areas of Professional photography. Manufacturers like Canon understand that while developing the 35mm full frame DSLRs they also need to address the optics and other accessories to match photographer's needs. Many pro's are already using the 35mm DSLRs for studio assignments. Now we will see more of the 35mm even in architectural photography. Bad news for MF photographers, good ones for 35mm enthusiasts (and for Canon...).

ilkka_nissila · February 21, 2009

Dan, that's a very minor convergence effect with a 35mm lens. This thread is about 24mm and 17mm tilt-shift lenses. Point your favorite superwide up at a facade, and correct in post. The effect to be corrected may easily be 30 degrees on each side. Your example has a few degrees. And do make that 18x24" print out of the digitally corrected superwide shot. Then review what you wrote above - I expect an apology.

chrisjb · February 21, 2009

Interesting the way this thread has gone, I`m sure the OP David realizes he may not be the spokesperson to canon for this forum but, what could a 200~400 lens give more than a 100~400 (I don`t use that FL anyway) , I would have thought 200~500 more desirable. Fisheyes are just a toy, generally not bothered with in economic worrying times and when used for weddings or commercial, the proofs skipped like they were a booboo, 24 70IS? useless IMO on crop, in fact wider on FF than 17~xx on crop anyway. Now if canon only sold 10000 T/S 17mm lenses, long awaited for, how many consumer lenses would it take to make the same profit? I think canon is smart in its marketing. I agree with Dan M things can be done digitally to a certain extent, and appreciate Dans skills which are as I see ahead of many. For pro users tho doing the job up front with the right tools saves time and shortens deadlines. important in some competitive envirements. Sure some lenses are long overdue for improvements inc 50 1.4, my zuiko 50 1.4 focusses quicker in low light, but only constant complaints may get a change,as most who have them are satisfied. remember canon said most were happy with 9 point AF in 5dmk1, so had no reason to upgrade the AF in 5Dmk2. Forums are mainly ignored, I feel. it`s direct personal approach by many that brings change. Sure as hell stiirred a lil :)

manuel barrera houston, · February 21, 2009

As to the 17mm tilt, I have 3 full frame cameras, 1Ds, 5D, and a 1V. I find that photography is a great stress reliver, for me anyhow. A couple of years ago I ran across a used 17mm Tokina f/3.5, immediately after buying that lens I sold my 17-40 L. I have not purchased the 24 TS-e because I did not consider it wide enough for the photos I enjoy taking. I will wait for the reviews on the 17 TS-e and if the reviews are as good as they are for the three existing TS-e lens, I will probably buy it. I think Canon is paying attention to some one and it ain't me as I have not been complaining.

phyllis_ollari · February 21, 2009

Cheap and high quality? Its not going to happen with any camera company. I'm sorry to say that. I work in photo retail. I'd put a TS on my 30D without a second thought.

Why do everything in post? There are times when you have to correct things, but if you have the right tools from the start it's that much better. This might come from my years in the darkroom and shooting film, which I still prefer. I like to work with my mistakes and see what images I can make from them.

desmond_kidman · February 21, 2009

Many viewpoints have been expressed, and it is true that the best solution for one person is not the best for another.

I would not say that TS on a FF digital camera is best for everyone, and I would not say that large format is best for everyone. Maybe for some PP is the best answer. This all depends on the degree of correction, the volume of images (which determines the time spent and the film costs), the demands on time for getting results to the printer or publication (with no demands on time, with shots solely for personal use, if someone loves processing film, the preference of course can be completley different), and many other factors that you can easily imagine without my listing them all.

In the end, for some folks, the new lenses will be very important. For others, they will be useless, not relevant to the format they use, and too expensive. That fact does not mean that Canon "dropped the ball on this one", quoting the original entry in this thread. From the miniscule sampling represented by posters to this thread (relative to the photographic market in general) it is clear that there will be buyers for these lenses.

desmond_kidman · February 21, 2009

Many viewpoints have been expressed, and it is true that the best solution for one person is not the best for another.

I would not say that TS on a FF digital camera is best for everyone, and I would not say that large format is best for everyone. Maybe for some PP is the best answer. This all depends on the degree of correction, the volume of images (which determines the time spent and the film costs), the demands on time for getting results to the printer or publication (with no demands on time, with shots solely for personal use, if someone loves processing film, the preference of course can be completley different), and many other factors that you can easily imagine without my listing them all.

In the end, for some folks, the new lenses will be very important. For others, they will be useless, not relevant to the format they use, and too expensive. That fact does not mean that Canon "dropped the ball on this one", quoting the original entry in this thread. From the miniscule sampling represented by posters to this thread (relative to the photographic market in general) it is clear that there will be buyers for these lenses.

g dan mitchell · February 21, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=19054">Ilkka Nissila</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Feb 21, 2009; 07:44 a.m.

Dan, that's a very minor convergence effect with a 35mm lens...I expect an apology.

</blockquote>

Don't hold your breath.

I also wrote in this piece: "I will admit that the distortions in this image probably don't qualify as "severe," but this is the first example I could come up with. And there are still situations in which I completely understand the reasons for using a TS."

keith reeder · February 21, 2009

what could a 200-400 lens give more than a 100-400

</blockquote>

A 200-400mm F/4 (constant aperture) gives a whole stop of light and the ability to use a 1.4x natively on xxD bodies.

Very significant advantages.

lauren_macintosh · February 21, 2009

Well: IN my Old eyes and I have used canon since the F-1 which my son has and use's, Canon has gone down Hill in the last few years ,Pentax and others Kicked them in the Fantail real good with good camera's as they listened and gave the people what they wanted , Now Nikon is kicking Canons Fantail , I have a EOS20D and have not planned to change to another Canon unless it a older model but not any of their newer stuff:

As far as I am concerned canon is heading for weightside fast , becauise of Over blowen Ego

Just my 1/10 of a cent !

steve_strongheart · February 21, 2009

Other than looking for maximum satisfaction with minimum effort, nothing wrong with Canon, (we all do that)

Most new technology is based decade old ideas that got the final go from the bean counters. Bringing to production such technology has risks because a more daring company might bring a newer technology to production, reaping benefits of quality and production technology.

~ If I had a zillion $'s I'd buy every lens available, every camera, every accesory. Anything redundant I'd simply give away. Anything crappy I' d smash to little tiny bits - and make a photo production - unless the items being smashed are required to make the best shots. I believe in this scenario I'd be doing more giving away than smashing - though I do love smashing things - and photographing things being smashed.

Any product is a product - they all have features and limitations. Quality, demand and competition determine price. The name brand might carry an extra $10%+/-. I'm one who is usually grateful for the unusual products that come out to meet the needs of the few - though finacnces meake me wait a generation or two to scoff it it up on ebay.

~S~.

don_bryant2 · February 21, 2009

What a worthless thread.

yoshio · February 22, 2009

example of image prior to perspective correction<div>

</div>

yoshio · February 22, 2009

perspective corrected in photoshop (note the shrinkage of the pillar to the left? My taste is that Shift lens is preferable<div>

</div>

yoshio · February 22, 2009

segment of uncorrected<div>

00SXMy-111053784.jpg.4df39773b78d8a18050966065a1dac17.jpg

</div>

Sign In

What the hell is wrong with CANON?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in