20D or 5D

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rob, Aug 23, 2005.

  1. Rob

    Skip M Guest

    Skip M, Aug 25, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rob

    Skip M Guest

    You keep saying "legacy lenses," but both the 16-35 and 17-40 were
    introduced subsequent to the advent of digital cameras. The 16-35 came out
    in late 2001, the Canon Camera Museum blurb even states that it was designed
    with digital in mind, the 17-40 came out in 2003, and that blurb mentions
    that it can be paired with the then current 10D.
    These aren't "legacy lenses." Why they don't perform better on digital is
    another question. Possibly because they were designed with 1.6x crops in
    Skip M, Aug 25, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rob

    Skip M Guest

    That's true, it did have a pop up, and it did zoom, from 28mm -80mm IIRC.
    I'm too lazy to get up and find my A2 manual...
    Well, when I heard that, it was back in the film days...
    Skip M, Aug 25, 2005
  4. Rob

    Stacey Guest

    Skip M wrote:

    It's useable... The corners and even the edges aren't.
    Stacey, Aug 25, 2005
  5. Rob

    pixby Guest

    That's fine advise Bill. I got it from Canon after complaining about the
    2, 20Ds I bought to do our annual Santa shoots last year. I returned one
    of the 20Ds for a full refund which I offset against a 1D, Mk II. I
    don't have an issue with the reliability of that camera, only the
    accessories and lenses I use with it, which are the same ones I use on
    the 20D.

    What my issue is with, is the bullshit from Canon about how a (now
    openly recognized as such)consumer grade camera is promoted as being
    suitable for "Enthusiasts and Professionals" when it is not.
    Particularly in light of a pure consumer camera like the FZ20 Panasonic,
    happily shooting 500 shots a day - using it's internal flash when the
    20D Canon fries it's electronics doing the same thing. I'm bloody angry
    that I listened to even more of their bullshit and bought a 1D, II when
    I was stupid enough to actually believe them.

    The Nikon D2X produces "better" (and no I can't quantify that) colour
    reproduction than the Canons do. I much prefer the look of a print from
    the Nikon than one from the 1D. Also I am very impressed with Nikon's
    Speedlights and the only (so far) Nikon lens I have. If all the lenses I
    intend to buy are as good as this, I don't believe the FF sensor is of
    any value to me. Certainly the Canon Speedlights are of highly
    questionable value to a working Photographer, as several other have
    reported in this group.

    The print centre I put the Minolta system into is indeed in a seaside
    environment. It is impossible to air condition a busy shop and still
    have foot traffic (read that as customers) through it. It is also of
    questionable value to give someone prints made and kept in a low (as in
    40%) humidity when they take them out into 90% humidity and bring them
    back stuck together a few hours later.
    pixby, Aug 25, 2005
  6. Rob

    Brian Baird Guest

    You've got a different definition of "usable" than I do.
    Brian Baird, Aug 25, 2005
  7. Rob

    pixby Guest

    Some time ago I decided not to respond to anyone hiding their identity
    by using Google to post insulting and defamatory remarks about those who
    are easily identified.

    Stop acting like a coward... I realized now, your attitude is endemic
    from socially and economically disadvantaged Canadians. Must be
    something to do with the snow... froze your brain perhaps?

    The kill file grows, yet again.
    pixby, Aug 25, 2005
  8. Rob

    Skip M Guest

    It stands to reason that even a mediocre center would deteriorate to poor,
    or even unusable, edges. That center wouldn't even qualify as mediocre, in
    my opinion.
    Skip M, Aug 25, 2005
  9. Rob

    Stacey Guest

    What's comical is you also called me one and I don't even shoot with a
    nikon! I guess anyone who doesn't use your BRAND and doesn;t blindly ignore
    any problems your BRAND may have has to be a "Nikon nutcase"?
    Stacey, Aug 25, 2005
  10. Rob

    Stacey Guest

    As you seem to have a different definition of "mushy".
    Stacey, Aug 25, 2005
  11. Rob

    Stacey Guest

    Skip M wrote:

    Why? If this is from camera shake etc as people have tried to blame it on,
    does camera shake somehow effect the edges/corners more than the center?
    Stacey, Aug 25, 2005
  12. Rob

    Mark² Guest

    Camera shake is a guess...to explain what is clearly a blurry picture in all
    areas of the frame.
    I don't know what caused it, but there is no debating the fact that the
    entire frame is not in keeping with the well-known and solidly-establish
    capability of that lens. It has been established (via the macro sample)
    that the sensor is perfectly capable of rendering the center well. The
    sensor cannot magically thrash the center portion of one shot, while nailing
    the center of another, without some screw-up happening, or a faulty lens.
    The shot itself, in this case, HAS to be at least a PART of the problem. As
    I have said repeatedly...this doesn't fully explain the corners, nor does it
    excuse them. I have never claimed that the focus acounted fully for
    anything, and certainly not the full explanantion of the corners. Any
    poorly focussed, or poorly secured camera will lead to WORSE everything.
    Mark², Aug 25, 2005
  13. Position too close to lens (results in red-eye), no bounce, too
    limited range in most situations. I'd say the built-in flash like you
    find on the Canon 20D or Nikon D70s is inadequate, even for casual
    work. Whether I bring a DSLR or a P&S, I always pack at least one
    external flash unit. To me the built-in flash you find on consumer
    grade cameras is just additional cost and weight, with no benefits.
    (The Powershot looks a bit top-heavy with the 550EX with attached
    diffuser card mounted on top of it, as the flash is bigger than the
    camera,but I prefer that to the underexposed red-eyed devils the
    built-in flash unit usually produces.)
    Gisle Hannemyr, Aug 25, 2005
  14. Sounds logical. It is similar to the position in recording audio tapes -
    to get the best S/N ratio, turn up the music signal to just before the
    onset of clipping; the noise is at a constant level, so the higher the
    signal (to the point before quality is affected) the better the ratio.

    Thanks for the thought - the analogy had not occurred to me before.
    Even more extreme. Of course, you have the issue of how to get this
    right in the heat of the moment. I guess this is where prior experiment
    and experience comes in....

    David Littlewood, Aug 25, 2005
  15. Rob

    JPS Guest

    In message <430d4b05$>,
    Then be honest; say you "like it better".
    JPS, Aug 25, 2005
  16. Rob

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    It's not really all that uncommon a situation where you can do that. I
    have taken many pictures with the EC set to +2 with no blown highlights
    It's simply a matter of estimating contrast. If you see a reflection,
    for example, in glass backed by something white, shooting at 0 EC is a
    huge mistake. If you can't compromise DOF or shutter speed by "exposing
    to the right" at ISO 200, then go to ISO 800 and +2; you will have a
    cleaner RAW capture than if you did ISO 200 and 0 EC. Same concept
    applies in fog, or in a field right after sunset or under heavy clouds
    when no sky is in the image, etc. Unfortunately, the cameras don't work
    in paradigms to facilitate this; I would prefer an option that behaves
    in such a way that when I set the camera to +1 EC, the ISO would double
    as well. This would reduce f-stop and shutter speed compromises when
    making EC decisions. The camera makers are asleep, spoonfeeding us
    yesterday's paradigms; and lots of people have quantized, noisy images
    because they trusted that the camera would give them a good exposure at
    low ISOs; if they do try +2 EC, they lose DOF or shutter speed and back
    off from the +EC electric fence..
    JPS, Aug 25, 2005
  17. Thanks, John, very thought-provoking. I will try this out as soon as I
    get the chance.

    David Littlewood, Aug 25, 2005
  18. Rob

    eawckyegcy Guest

    Oh the terrible, terrible, pain of being killfiled by a proven idiot!
    eawckyegcy, Aug 25, 2005
  19. Rob

    eawckyegcy Guest

    Like I told "pixby": if you don't like being called a Nikon Nutcase,
    then you should stop acting like one. (I am not holding my breath.)
    eawckyegcy, Aug 25, 2005
  20. Rob

    John Ortt Guest

    I agree.

    The website will have been done by a web-designer, not a photographer...

    Maybe the web-designer picked the shots rather than getting them selected
    for them.

    Who knows....not us thats for sure :)

    Regardless I think it's a screw up rather than a major fault in the camera
    and lens.
    Doesn't bother me anyway as I'm only an amateur and it'll be decades before
    I can afford to upgrade my 300D anyway :(
    John Ortt, Aug 25, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.