Phil Askey's Review of the 5D

[jim_larson1]

Giampi:

 

1) Nice photos. I think I really want a 24-70/2.8L :)

 

2) Relax.

 

Have a drink.

 

Think about a nice tropical island, and the photogear that you would take with you. ;)

 

 

I think Phil does the Net a service with his review. He does highlight a simple fact Full Frame dSLR's want premium lenses attached. I agree with him.

 

I also agree with you that vignetting is a function of the LENS, not the camera body. Too many people just went ahead and bought a 5D with 24-105/4L-IS . . .and found vignetting. Being noobs. . .they did not realize that the problem was not the $3000 camera. . .but the cheapo $1250 lens they attached to it.

 

We do need to correctly identify the source of the issue.

 

We (the community) do need to understand which lenses will perform better on a FF camera than others. Clearly. . the 24-105/4L-IS has issues on the wide end. The 24-70/2.8L does not. For those (like me) who prefer not to fix every image in PS. . .that is a characteristic of the lens that is very relevant when purchasing.

 

It may also be an issue for a 1.6crop shooter who NEEDS to know that going from a 6mp 1.6 crop to a 10mp FF may also PUSH a few lens decisions. The 24-85 is fine on a 10D. . .but may not be up to par on a 5D/1Ds.

 

This is not hype. . .but simple logic. Me? This is why I bought good glass for my 10D! (17-40/4L, 70-200/4L, 85/1.8 plus other primes). I also recognize that I will want a 24-xx "L" zoom if I ever go full frame.. . .which is why I follow the 24-105/4L-IS saga so closely.

 

* * * *

 

As for the pop-up flash. Hey: I agree. It is a con. A 5D with a popup flash is better than a 5D without a popup flash. I hardly ever use the pop up on my 10D; I often carry two flashes with me. But sometimes. . I just use the popup.

[jim_larson1]

Giampi:

 

1) Nice photos. I think I really want a 24-70/2.8L :)

 

2) Relax.

 

Have a drink.

 

Think about a nice tropical island, and the photogear that you would take with you. ;)

 

 

I think Phil does the Net a service with his review. He does highlight a simple fact Full Frame dSLR's want premium lenses attached. I agree with him.

 

I also agree with you that vignetting is a function of the LENS, not the camera body. Too many people just went ahead and bought a 5D with 24-105/4L-IS . . .and found vignetting. Being noobs. . .they did not realize that the problem was not the $3000 camera. . .but the cheapo $1250 lens they attached to it.

 

We do need to correctly identify the source of the issue.

 

We (the community) do need to understand which lenses will perform better on a FF camera than others. Clearly. . the 24-105/4L-IS has issues on the wide end. The 24-70/2.8L does not. For those (like me) who prefer not to fix every image in PS. . .that is a characteristic of the lens that is very relevant when purchasing.

 

It may also be an issue for a 1.6crop shooter who NEEDS to know that going from a 6mp 1.6 crop to a 10mp FF may also PUSH a few lens decisions. The 24-85 is fine on a 10D. . .but may not be up to par on a 5D/1Ds.

 

This is not hype. . .but simple logic. Me? This is why I bought good glass for my 10D! (17-40/4L, 70-200/4L, 85/1.8 plus other primes). I also recognize that I will want a 24-xx "L" zoom if I ever go full frame.. . .which is why I follow the 24-105/4L-IS saga so closely.

 

* * * *

 

As for the pop-up flash. Hey: I agree. It is a con. A 5D with a popup flash is better than a 5D without a popup flash. I hardly ever use the pop up on my 10D; I often carry two flashes with me. But sometimes. . I just use the popup.

[steve torelli]

The 5D is obviously a great camera. Its specs are attractive, the high ISO performance,MPs etc. What I can't understand is some of the features Canon has chosen to include. That ridiculous print button and the expanded parameters menu seem like enticements for the P&S crowd rather than refinements that would attract people that one would think would be potential buyers of a camera of this calibre. Canon claims that they listen to thier customers but I continue to be baffled by some of thier design decisions. Do they really think the previously mentioned features are important to the folks who are willing to part with $3000 for a FF digital camera, when the oft-mentioned mirror lock-up option remains buried in the custom menu ? I love the 5D for its performance but these type of things give it an amateurish air. I think the 5D is worth the price but, for myself, I've decided to take a wait and see stance until the next FF comes out. Perhaps Canon will listen more closely to thier customers and finally give us a digital FF SLR with the features sought by the folks who could take advantage of an advanced camera (more akin to the good people of this forum and others) and ask the company for little more than some common sense, more usable features.

[tan]

Some really good opinions here. I do get some vignetting with both my 24-

70L and 17-40L but it's a minor problem for me and I can deal with it. I am

extremely pleased with the 5D's IQ and it's (FF's) ability to knock out the

background, so to me the 5D is great value, as I could never afford 1Ds2 ...

and neither do I like its bulk and weight.

[digitmstr]

LOL! What makes you believe I am not relaxed? Just because I point to some facts? Very funny!

 

>>He does highlight a simple fact Full Frame dSLR's want premium lenses attached. I agree with him.<<

 

Re-read my post: how does that obvious fact (which is also true for film cameras) a 5D "con"? Also, how is the lack of pop-up flash all of a sudden labelled a "con"? While we all may have an *opinion* as to its usefulness it doesn't make it a "con".

 

Reviews have to be objective, not subjective. I like Phil's reviews very much and IMO, they are actually the best on the net. All the more reason for my surprise when I read those items listed in the "con" category. I can think of more, real 5D "cons" such as the lack of a dedicated button for the extended ISO mode, the lack of ISO shift based on exposure, etc...

 

In other words: light fall off is nothing new so, to list it under the "con" column of a camera while in fact intending it to be a lens issue, makes no sense.

 

I think the WEB, and this forum specifically, is already full of posts about the 5D "vignetting" (wrong term, BTW). Adding to the ignorance is of no use to anyone.

 

I don't post here to force my opinion onto others, nor to get exited. Sorry to disappoint you JIM :)

 

I call them as I see 'em...and I can assure I am very, very relaxed while doing it ;p

[beauh44]

I don't own a 5D but I do own a 1DsMKII which, as you all know, is another Canon FF-sensor camera. So I thought I'd take a look back at the debut of that camera and Phil's subsequent review since they are quite similar with the exception of price and about 4 megapixels.

 

1) He made no mention of "falloff" in his 1DsII review but did in his 5D review. Does he explain why he feels the 5D "falls off" but not the 1DsII? (I've not read the entire 5D review)

 

2) In the 1DsII review he makes no mention that there's no mirror lockup button on it - there's not - but calls this a "con" for the 5D. (BTW, I agree with him; it's a PITA to lockup the mirror on Canon cameras)

 

3) Neither camera has a built-in flash. For some reason this is a "con" for the 5D but not the 1DsII. I'd have a hard time calling the 5D anything less than a "pro" camera at over $3K so saying it's OK for the (presumably "pro") 1DsII but not the (presumably "amateur") 5D seems a bit strange to me. Sure, it's handy if you forget to bring your flash but c'mon... I don't think that's fair to say it's a problem on one camera but not the other.

 

4) No GPS is a "con" for both cameras?!? WTF? Neither one has a toaster oven either! I want my money back!

 

At any rate, I too value Phil's contributions and overall he does do a very good job. I think my point would be to not read too much into this because there's a bit of nit-picking going on here.

 

BTW I do not notice an inordinate amount of "falloff" with my 1DsII and from the examples I've seen posted here I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

 

Lastly, check out this issue of Pop Photo magazine; the 5D won "Best Camera of The Year". Second place went to the 1DsII... Both FF Canon cameras. If light falloff was some big problem with FF sensors, I think those guys would catch it.

[jim_larson1]

<i>4) No GPS is a "con" for both cameras?!? WTF? Neither one has a toaster oven either! I want my money back! </i>

<p>

Oh yeah! I saw that! For the life of me. . .I cannot conceive of any reason to have GPS support on a camera. <p>But then again. . .I cannot fathom why you would put a camera on a telphone either. I suppose what you really need is a phone that takes pictures that also tells you where you are. . .and provide verbal instructions on where you are going. PDA functions, such as pocket Excel would be handy as well. And hopefully. . .the phone will have a pop-up flash.

<p>

OK. I am done talk about the "con" column. I will just close with the simple thought that if one has become accustomed to shooting the sweet spot of lower end lenses on a 1.6 crop camera. . . the cost of upgrading to a FF digital will be a real cost. This is exactly the same as the what happened when people switched from film to a 1.6 crop digital. Adding a wide angle lens was a real cost.

<p>

oh. . .and one final thought. . .I am actually more excited about the 10mp and 1/3 stop ISO adjustment of the 5D than the FF capability.

[Brad_]

<I>I cannot conceive of any reason to have GPS support on a camera.</I><P>

 

That's easy. Would be a great feature - wish my cam had it. That way when I'm out street-

shooting each photo would be tagged with it's location. I can think of other photo disciplines

where it would be a killer feature as well.

[beauh44]

I suppose, but my camera weighs a ton as it is.

[digitmstr]

Once again...sorry 'bout my typos ;p

[digitmstr]

>>That way when I'm out street- shooting each photo would be tagged with it's location<<

 

Journalistically speaking only the City name and street are relevant. And street names can and do change. As for the city, usually one sends the pictures within hours so, it's hard to forget where you are...

 

However, GPS may be a nice feature to have but, hardly a "con" for sure. The camera is NOT meant for PJ work afer all since it doesn't have the built and weather sealing necessary to shoot under PJ conditions.

 

I think we can all have our own wish list but, a CON has to be something objectively useful to ALL users. GPS clearly isn't.

[Brad_]

<I>Journalistically speaking only the City name and street are relevant. </I><P>

 

For you, perhaps. For me that's inadequate.<BR><P>

 

<I>The camera is NOT meant for PJ work afer all since it doesn't have the built and

weather sealing necessary to shoot under PJ conditions.</I><P>

 

Who's talking about PJ work? My reply was respect to what **I** would find useful. Many

others will find it useful as well, including PJs that aren't swayed by equipment blessed as

"PJ-ready."

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

"seem like enticements for the P&S crowd rather than refinements that would attract people that one would think would be potential buyers of a camera of this calibre."

 

In Japan at least, Canon is, I think, hoping to woo over at least a few of the well-heeled film holdouts. Thus the picture style dial-in-your-favorite-film bit. When I was in a used store the other day buying a Mamiya 7, the other clientelle were all extremely well-dressed over-60 gentlemen leisurely fondling used Leicas.

 

By the way, Dpreview missed the noise and dynamic range advantages of the 5D. This guy found a rather different story using 16-bit linear conversion with DPP.

 

http://www.ddisoftware.com/20d-5d/#nsprof

[digitmstr]

>>My reply was respect to what **I** would find useful<<

 

Exactly my point. A review should be based on objective observations. Even though we all have *subjective* points of view and it is useful to mention specific [though rare] uses one might have for a particular tool, conclusions should be based on a broad understanding of the intended use and marketing segment of such tool.

 

We all have individual preferences but, a review should be based on the intended purpose of a tool. Placing the lack of GPS in the "con" list is inappropriate for the 5D. It's not a matter of being blessed with anything. A PJ can use disposable cameras as well but, that doesn't mean they should have GPS as well.

 

Someday, all cameras may have GPS, phone & video, heart rate monitor, alarm clocks and calendar, personal to do list, database and phoneboook, food warmer and coffee makers in them...not to mention the ever popular caloric intake monitor for when you are shooting on the run and eat too muhc junk foods...

[derek_linney]

All in all its probably a good thing that there have been all these Web stories of vignetting / light fall off and how the 5D tests the limits of the edge resolution of your lenses. It it wasn't for this the Nikon forums would be full of despondency about Nikon's lack of a FF DSLR. As it is they can now convince themselves that Nikon has the right strategy and that FF is a mistake. Of course they do have to ignore the comments everyone makes about what great pictures the 5D enables.

[ilkka_nissila]

I think you guys have very low standards if you don't find the light falloff in those examples objectionable. (And this has nothing to do with me being a Nikon user. I do not get that kind of dark corners on any of my lenses using film, save the 70-200.)

[pbizarro]

I find the light fall off reported from the 24-105 objectionable, that is why I am not buying one. I shoot a lot of landscapes of lot's of sky, and light fall off is a problem.

 

It is a lens problem, not a camera problem. For decades lens makers have struggled to design and build wide angle lenses without light fall off in the corners. It has been well known from the film days, when all cameras were full frame.

 

What I would like to see is similar testing done with a film camera, with this lens. Or with a 1DsMKII.

 

Bottom line is that this lens fares poorly in this department.

[tan]

<< I think you guys have very low standards if you don't find the light falloff in

those examples objectionable. (And this has nothing to do with me being a

Nikon user. I do not get that kind of dark corners on any of my lenses using

film, save the 70-200.) >>

 

LOL. If we have low standards, we WON'T be using FF bodies. We can get

rid of vignetting very easily in Photoshop ... that is what we mean when we

say that vignetting is not a big deal.

 

The MAIN reason (for me it is the ONLY reason) we would pay big bucks to go

with FF is image quality. If we do not have such high standards, we would

have stuck with our digital Rebels, 10Ds and 20Ds ... as they are as good as

any Nikon body.

[digitmstr]

>>I do not get that kind of dark corners on any of my lenses using film<<

 

What dark corners?

[ilkka_nissila]

These that show in the upper left and right corners in this example (will repost for the sake of reminder).<div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

Notice that if you hadn't overexposed most of the sky, the corners would look even darker.

 

Yeah, sure you can sometimes fix them in photoshop. Like you can fix any number of things if you have infinite time to spend on it. But it's much easier when you don't have to do it.

 

One way to do it of course is to ignore these issues like you seem to do, although I'm wondering why it has to be done with such ferocity (I mean if you're happy, great, but that doesn't stop other people from wanting better quality).

 

Truth is, most of these legacy lenses will eventually be replaced if you continue on the FF path. That's the real cost of FF digital.

[jim_larson1]

<i>I find the light fall off reported from the 24-105 objectionable, that is why I am not buying one. I shoot a lot of landscapes of lot's of sky, and light fall off is a problem. </i>

<p>

Amen.<p>

Maybe tolerable on a $400 lens. . .but not a premium priced "L".

[pbizarro]

"Truth is, most of these legacy lenses will eventually be replaced if you continue on the FF path. That's the real cost of FF digital."

 

The 24-105 f/4 L IS is not a legacy lens, it is brand new. And yes, it has light fall off problems, thus I am not buying one for my fullframe film camera. I would most likely see it in my slides.

 

Generalizing from one lens to the whole EOS EF lens line is not correct. I have used dozens of EOS EF lenses since 1991, and I have never had a problem with light fall off. Partly because I know how to avoid it before pressing the shutter. Shooting at a minimum of f/8 with landscapes gets rid of light fall off with the majority of lenses, not only EOS ones. When shooting wide open for street or reportage, light fall off is not an issue.

 

The problem with the 24-105 L is that light fall off is present even at f/8. Of course you can shoot fullframe and crop later, but I shoot slides, and my objective is to get the slide as close as possible to what I see in the viewfinder.

[benb]

<p>I think people need to take these gear test/pixel peep tests with a grain of salt. A much bigger grain of salt when he is testing a DSLR + some lenses versus a point and shoot or other camera with a single fixed lens.</p>

 

<p>Phil's reviews are much more meaningful when he is testing a point and shoot camera with a fixed lens. Note he says "EOS 5D review" when in actuality he is reviewing the EOS 5D with a certain set of lenses. None of the lenses he tests overlap with my set of lenses, I don't see the same results, characteristics, features, and faults with my combination of equipment. He doesn't really make that clear enough when he writes these reviews. And he is not writing "real world" reviews. Reviewers on photo.net, the luminous landscape, and other sites write real world reviews that are much more relevant for most of us. If you shoot primarly test targets in your house, then Phil's reviews are more relevant. He has his own foibles & weird pet peeves, and he emphasizes them over and over when they are not necessarily a problem for 99% of us. For example his continual harping on Canon for the CF door behavior. I've had a 10D and now a 5D, I've never been dumb enough to open the door and pull the card out while the camera is writing, and I doubt I ever will be. It just does not bother me at all.</p>

 

<p>One of the tests that I think has become overly emphasized and has ever decreasing relevance to the real world is Phil's noise tests. He is shooting a very contrived and controlled example, which often has very little bearing on how the cameras are used in the real world and how I personally observe problem noise in my images.</p>

 

<p>For example, my understanding of the test is that he shoots EV10, which is fairly bright, with a fixed aperture, and then decreases the shutter speed as he increases the ISO speed. I believe you can figure out his exposures, he seems to indicate he is shooting 1/ISO for each ISO. This ends up firing exposures that are the complete opposite of how most of us operate. I know in bright conditions I will always use ISO 100, and I will use short or long exposures depending on what kind of effect I want in the shot. But in low light conditions I am almost always going to be using the longest shutter speed I can at the minimum ISO. As a result I've probably never fired a shot of 1/1600 @ ISO 1600. Just not going to happen. I know digital sensors are supposed to respond linearly to different exposure lengths, but the amplifiers are not supposed to respond linearly, and many phases of the software processing are also not linear. Phil is also using a balanced ligthing scheme for the test, which is something we are unlikely to have at high ISO. With the balanced lighting he ends up with a narrow dynamic range shot which also must help. I think his test is probably generating a "best case" scenario for noise results. In the real world I think tougher lighting conditions and longer exposure times can generate much more annoying noise characteristics. It is probably unrealistic for him to try and test any other way then he does though, as he obviously is limited on time.</p>

 

<p>The light falloff strikes me as indeed making mountains out of molehills. The FF camera seems to respond just like film to me. I think the angle light is hitting the sensor as an effect has been blown out of proportion. My understanding is this effect is much more of an issue the closer the lens is moved to the sensor, hence the problems it has caused for Leica and other Rangefinder manufacturers. But Canon has the widest mount of any 35mm system, and moves the lens the furthest from the sensor. It just doesn't seem to be a problem. People also seem to be forgetting that the light falloff is not a constant at a given aperture with a given lens, it can vary depending on lighting conditions. And again it is all about tradeoffs. Even a 50mm prime lens will have falloff in certain circumstances, but the tradeoff for that falloff is the ability to shoot in extremely low light. If you want to take landscapes of the sky, just shoot primes and don't shoot wide open. It makes little sense to shoot wide open for an outdoor landscape shot, and if you are not using a slow zoom you will have plenty of ability to stop down and still handhold. All these issues seem to be the same things people went through with film, it's just there is a whole new group of photographers who seem to have never shot a format that uses the entire imaging circle before. Great shots deserve and require careful shooting and preparation, this is nothing new.</p>