The 5D makes sense for the resolution

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by SimonLW, Aug 22, 2005.

  1. SimonLW

    SimonLW Guest

    The problem with the APS sized SLR sensors is at 8mp, they are already
    taking what the average lens can give in terms of resolution unless one
    moves to quality prime glass. The 8mp 20D or Rebel XT has the same pixel
    pitch as a 20mp full frame sensor. With the 13mp 5D, actually requires less
    resolution from your lenses than does the 20D, XT or even the 6mp Rebel. Of
    course, no S lenses but the cropping factor is gone. Back to 35mm angle of
    view which I grew up on.

    Just speculation (have not seen test shots yet), the larger sized sensor
    cells should mean excellent low light performance.

    The bad news is the cost. Still quite a stretch for me.
    -S
    SimonLW, Aug 22, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:42:43 -0400, "SimonLW" <> wrote:

    >The problem with the APS sized SLR sensors is at 8mp, they are already
    >taking what the average lens can give in terms of resolution unless one
    >moves to quality prime glass. The 8mp 20D or Rebel XT has the same pixel
    >pitch as a 20mp full frame sensor. With the 13mp 5D, actually requires less
    >resolution from your lenses than does the 20D, XT or even the 6mp Rebel. Of
    >course, no S lenses but the cropping factor is gone. Back to 35mm angle of
    >view which I grew up on.


    It makes sense for me to. Now my 85, 135 and 24-70 will be what they
    are supposed to be. It's less than half of what I expected to shell
    out for the 1DsMkII.
    ******************************************************

    "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
    my testimony. The events I have recorded should
    not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

    -James Nachtwey-
    http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
    John A. Stovall, Aug 22, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. SimonLW

    wilt Guest

    While I am in favor of FF digital, since the wide angle lenses for APS
    are slower in max aperture than can be had at the same (or lower!)
    price in FF equivalent focal lengths...(I have 24mm f/2 for FF film
    camera, can you find me an affordable 15mm f/2 for my 20D?!?!)
    one thing the APS size has forced is the creation of wide angle lenses
    with optical properties more conducive to digital sensor needs...if you
    believe what is written on this topic, and which is apparently
    reflected in some better performance at the edge of the frame. So
    taking that another step, one could conclude that...what FF digital
    needs are wide angle lenses with similar optical properties, with light
    striking the edges at more optimal angles.
    wilt, Aug 22, 2005
    #3
  4. SimonLW

    Kinon O'cann Guest

    "John A. Stovall" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:42:43 -0400, "SimonLW" <> wrote:
    >
    >>The problem with the APS sized SLR sensors is at 8mp, they are already
    >>taking what the average lens can give in terms of resolution unless one
    >>moves to quality prime glass. The 8mp 20D or Rebel XT has the same pixel
    >>pitch as a 20mp full frame sensor. With the 13mp 5D, actually requires
    >>less
    >>resolution from your lenses than does the 20D, XT or even the 6mp Rebel.
    >>Of
    >>course, no S lenses but the cropping factor is gone. Back to 35mm angle of
    >>view which I grew up on.

    >
    > It makes sense for me to. Now my 85, 135 and 24-70 will be what they
    > are supposed to be. It's less than half of what I expected to shell
    > out for the 1DsMkII.


    Exactly. All the lenses designed for that format will now function as we've
    become accustomed, and not cropped. I simply can't understand the arguments
    against full frame sensors. Yes, I know you can make smaller and lighter
    cams using 1.6 sensors, but not that much. The 5D is only 3 or 4 ounces
    heavier than the 20D, not really significant.

    > ******************************************************
    >
    > "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
    > my testimony. The events I have recorded should
    > not be forgotten and must not be repeated."
    >
    > -James Nachtwey-
    > http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
    Kinon O'cann, Aug 23, 2005
    #4
  5. SimonLW

    Annika1980 Guest

    >Exactly. All the lenses designed for that format will now function as we've
    >become accustomed, and not cropped. I simply can't understand the arguments
    >against full frame sensors.


    I'm guessing that most of your shooting is done at less than 100mm?
    If you shoot lots of telephoto stuff like wildlife and birds, you'd
    appreciate the 1.6x mag factor.
    Annika1980, Aug 23, 2005
    #5
  6. SimonLW

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >Simon writes ...
    >
    >The problem with the APS sized SLR sensors is at 8mp, they are already
    >taking what the average lens can give in terms of resolution unless one
    >moves to quality prime glass. The 8mp 20D or Rebel XT has the same pixel
    >pitch as a 20mp full frame sensor. With the 13mp 5D, actually requires less
    >resolution from your lenses than does the 20D


    I agree with what you're saying, but as owner of a full frame 1Ds (11
    Mpixels) and a 1.3x 1D Mark II (8 Mpix) I'll point out that full frame
    digital stresses your lenses at the corners wide open, even expensive L
    series zooms. Not a problem with a superb lens like the 500 f/4 L IS
    but it is a problem with say the 100-400 L IS and even, at f/2.8, the
    otherwise superb 70-200 f/2.8 L.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Aug 23, 2005
    #6
  7. "Bill Hilton" <> wrote:
    > >Simon writes ...
    >>
    >>The problem with the APS sized SLR sensors is at 8mp, they are already
    >>taking what the average lens can give in terms of resolution unless one
    >>moves to quality prime glass. The 8mp 20D or Rebel XT has the same pixel
    >>pitch as a 20mp full frame sensor. With the 13mp 5D, actually requires
    >>less
    >>resolution from your lenses than does the 20D

    >
    > I agree with what you're saying, but as owner of a full frame 1Ds (11
    > Mpixels) and a 1.3x 1D Mark II (8 Mpix) I'll point out that full frame
    > digital stresses your lenses at the corners wide open, even expensive L
    > series zooms.


    As a landscape wannabe, I rarely shoot wide open. Also, I'd think that shots
    taken wide open would rarely have subjects that extend to the corners. That
    is, when is this a real problem for real photography?

    > Not a problem with a superb lens like the 500 f/4 L IS
    > but it is a problem with say the 100-400 L IS and even, at f/2.8, the
    > otherwise superb 70-200 f/2.8 L.


    I'm quite sure you are correct here for the lenses you mention, but I wonder
    about wide angle. In particular, how do the corners on the 1D2 with a 17mm
    lens compare to the corners on the 1Ds with a 22mm lens? I'd think that in
    an 11x14 or larger print, the full frame with the longer lens would look
    better at the corners than a cropped frame with a shorter lens. Especially
    if you stopped down.

    (I know: I should shut up and buy the 5D and do the test myself, especially
    since I already own both the 10-22 and the 17-40.)

    In a related note, I wonder how large (20x24 and over) prints from a Mamiya
    7 wide angle would compare to similar large prints from a dSLR, whatever the
    pixel count. At those sizes, you are looking at 1/2 the magnification from a
    slow Biogon as opposed to twice the magnification from a fast retrofocus.

    (I know: I should shut up and buy the 5D and do the test myself.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 23, 2005
    #7
  8. "Bill Hilton" <> writes:
    > as owner of a full frame 1Ds (11 Mpixels) and a 1.3x 1D Mark II
    > (8 Mpix) I'll point out that full frame digital stresses your lenses
    > at the corners wide open, even expensive L series zooms. Not a
    > problem with a superb lens like the 500 f/4 L IS but it is a problem
    > with say the 100-400 L IS and even, at f/2.8, the otherwise superb
    > 70-200 f/2.8 L.


    Appearently!

    Take a look at the landscape (sample image 3) put on the web by Canon
    to demostrate the wide angle capabilities of the new EOS 5D, here:
    http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos5d/eos5d_sample-e.html .

    The lens is the EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM (which I've understand is one of
    Canon's better wide angle zooms) at what is probably its best aperture
    (f/8) - but the edges are so soft that this lens has no business on a
    full frame digital camera. Since it is Canon themselves that put it
    there for all to see, I assume that this is not a fluke.

    If this is what we can expect, the paradox is that APC-C sized sensors
    (e.g with the Canon 10-22 mm EF-S or Nikkor 12-24 mm DX) makes /more/
    sense at the wide end.
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gisle Hannemyr, Aug 23, 2005
    #8
  9. SimonLW wrote:
    > The problem with the APS sized SLR sensors is at 8mp, they are already
    > taking what the average lens can give in terms of resolution unless one
    > moves to quality prime glass. The 8mp 20D or Rebel XT has the same pixel
    > pitch as a 20mp full frame sensor. With the 13mp 5D, actually requires less
    > resolution from your lenses than does the 20D, XT or even the 6mp Rebel. Of
    > course, no S lenses but the cropping factor is gone. Back to 35mm angle of
    > view which I grew up on.


    This is good news. Finally, I can spend the savings I had made for
    those ultra-wide lenses on the 5D and buy regular wide lenses ;-) And
    its good to know that there is a FF dSLR that doesn't weight a ton.

    - Siddhartha
    Siddhartha Jain, Aug 23, 2005
    #9
  10. On 22 Aug 2005 18:22:34 -0700, "Annika1980" <>
    wrote:

    >>Exactly. All the lenses designed for that format will now function as we've
    >>become accustomed, and not cropped. I simply can't understand the arguments
    >>against full frame sensors.

    >
    >I'm guessing that most of your shooting is done at less than 100mm?
    >If you shoot lots of telephoto stuff like wildlife and birds, you'd
    >appreciate the 1.6x mag factor.


    Sorry but it's not a magnification factor it's just a smaller part of
    the same image..The lens has the same magnification factor at full or
    1.6.


    *****************************************************

    "Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
    They stood, and the earth's foundations stay;
    When God abandoned, these defended,
    And saved the sum of things for pay."

    "Epitaph on Army of Mercenaries"
    A.E. Houseman - 1914
    John A. Stovall, Aug 23, 2005
    #10
  11. "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:dee1ef$92u$...
    SNIP
    > I'm quite sure you are correct here for the lenses you mention, but
    > I wonder about wide angle.


    The (super) wide-angles have relatively poor corner performance on FF
    sensors, even when stopped down.

    > In particular, how do the corners on the 1D2 with a 17mm lens
    > compare to the corners on the 1Ds with a 22mm lens?


    From the MTF data of the 17-40mm @ 17mm, it can be predicted that the
    central 15 mm radius of the image performs well, from 15-20mm radius
    the quality drops significantly, but beyond 20mm it is virtually
    non-existent, even stopped down. Things get a bit better towards the
    longer focal lengths. This concurs with my FF findings.

    This means that it's fine on a 1.6x crop (max. radius ), it'll start
    to deteriorate in the corners on the 1.3x crop EOS-1D MkII (max.
    radius 17.2mm), but is still good enough for most purposes. On a FF
    sensor (max. 21.6mm radius) the extreme corners will basically suck,
    and they do. So a slight crop wouldn't hurt.

    > I'd think that in an 11x14 or larger print, the full frame with the
    > longer lens would look better at the corners than a cropped frame
    > with a shorter lens. Especially if you stopped down.


    That's what I expect as well. For wide landscapes with little (wind or
    subject) motion, I would certainly consider stitching with e.g. a
    24mm.

    Bart
    Bart van der Wolf, Aug 23, 2005
    #11
  12. SimonLW

    Kinon O'cann Guest

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >Exactly. All the lenses designed for that format will now function as
    > >we've
    >>become accustomed, and not cropped. I simply can't understand the
    >>arguments
    >>against full frame sensors.

    >
    > I'm guessing that most of your shooting is done at less than 100mm?
    > If you shoot lots of telephoto stuff like wildlife and birds, you'd
    > appreciate the 1.6x mag factor.


    Not really. You can crop the FF sensor to approximate the 1.6 sensor. I
    shoot a mix of lenses, not just wides. The FF sensor gives you an option
    that 1.6 can't.

    >
    Kinon O'cann, Aug 23, 2005
    #12
  13. SimonLW

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <>, "Kinon O'cann"
    <Yes.it's.me.Bowser> says...

    > I simply can't understand the arguments
    > against full frame sensors. Yes, I know you can make smaller and lighter
    > cams using 1.6 sensors, but not that much. The 5D is only 3 or 4 ounces
    > heavier than the 20D, not really significant.


    Nothing wrong with big sensors, except that lenses become big and heavy
    too. It's not too much a body problem, rather a lens problem.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
    Alfred Molon, Aug 23, 2005
    #13
  14. "Kinon O'cann" <Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> >Exactly. All the lenses designed for that format will now function as
    >> >we've
    >>>become accustomed, and not cropped. I simply can't understand the
    >>>arguments
    >>>against full frame sensors.

    >>
    >> I'm guessing that most of your shooting is done at less than 100mm?
    >> If you shoot lots of telephoto stuff like wildlife and birds, you'd
    >> appreciate the 1.6x mag factor.

    >
    > Not really. You can crop the FF sensor to approximate the 1.6 sensor. I
    > shoot a mix of lenses, not just wides. The FF sensor gives you an option
    > that 1.6 can't.


    The 20D pixels are smaller, so it does give you a magnification boost with
    lenses that provide enough resolution. An 8MP crop from the 5D would only be
    a 1.22x crop factor. So the 20D is still a 1.3x boost from a cropped 5D.

    Also, the 20D burst rate is 5 fps vs. 3 fps for the 5D, so for most of what
    Bret does, the 20D's the right camera.

    So: Is Bret happy that he doesn't have to buy a new camera, or mad at Canon
    for not making a camera that speaks to his needs????

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 24, 2005
    #14
  15. SimonLW

    Guest

    It does look pretty bad at the corners. But you should find a similar
    example with the 20D and the 10-22 lens at full wide and see how that
    fares. I wouldn't be surprised if it too has corner issues. I have the
    EF 24mm fixed focal length lens. And if I had a 5D I would be very
    happy using it. With the 20D it just isn't wide!
    , Aug 24, 2005
    #15
  16. SimonLW

    Anthony Guest

    Spot on David. Not just the facts, but the other comment as well:

    'So: Is Bret happy that he doesn't have to buy a new camera, or mad at Canon
    for not making a camera that speaks to his needs?'"

    I think that there are many 20D users who are thinking this about the 5D.



    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:degdkg$uma$...
    >
    >
    > The 20D pixels are smaller, so it does give you a magnification boost with
    > lenses that provide enough resolution. An 8MP crop from the 5D would only

    be
    > a 1.22x crop factor. So the 20D is still a 1.3x boost from a cropped 5D.
    >
    > Also, the 20D burst rate is 5 fps vs. 3 fps for the 5D, so for most of

    what
    > Bret does, the 20D's the right camera.
    >
    > So: Is Bret happy that he doesn't have to buy a new camera, or mad at

    Canon
    > for not making a camera that speaks to his needs????
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >
    Anthony, Aug 24, 2005
    #16
  17. SimonLW

    Skip M Guest

    "Anthony" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > Spot on David. Not just the facts, but the other comment as well:
    >
    > 'So: Is Bret happy that he doesn't have to buy a new camera, or mad at
    > Canon
    > for not making a camera that speaks to his needs?'"
    >
    > I think that there are many 20D users who are thinking this about the 5D.
    >
    >
    >


    I'm just irritated that Canon didn't introduce the 5D instead of the 20D.
    It is better suited to what I do, although the 20D works just fine. I'll be
    buying the new one, or, actually, two of them, but keeping the 20Ds, both as
    backups and for what they do that the 5D doesn't.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Aug 25, 2005
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. HeritageMom

    Hopefully this makes sense

    HeritageMom, Feb 8, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    707
    tomm42
    Feb 9, 2006
  2. Mark²

    Wide Angle IS makes sense...

    Mark², Aug 31, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    128
    Views:
    1,649
    ½ Confused
    Sep 10, 2006
  3. Kal
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    355
    catwalker63
    Mar 25, 2007
  4. John Navas

    Why pixel peeping (usually) makes no sense

    John Navas, Nov 16, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    96
    Views:
    1,856
    Carlton S
    Nov 27, 2007
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    835
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page