Sample Images: 5D

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mark², Aug 22, 2005.

  1. Mark²

    Brian Baird Guest

    Wide angle, yes. Superwide? No.
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 25, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    I didn't know you were a big doofy jock!
    :)
     
    Mark², Aug 25, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mark²

    Skip M Guest

    But that's a 22mm -44mm equiv (compared to 35mm) on an Oly. Not the same as
    a 16-35 on full frame.
     
    Skip M, Aug 25, 2005
  4. Mark²

    Skip M Guest

    Not big, just doofy! ;-) Outside linebacker is a good place for misplaced
    teenage aggression!
     
    Skip M, Aug 25, 2005
  5. Mark²

    Stacey Guest

    Skip M wrote:

    It's one of the reasons I didn't choose a canon camera. Seen too many people
    complain about their WA lens options for digital bodies.


    The images I've seen on FF bodies don't look much better. Some "hide" the
    corner softness by having detailless objects in the corners. While some
    might not be overall as bad as this one, they all look soft in the
    corners/edges to me.
    I can't believe Canon wouldn't actually look carefully at the images they
    put up as samples from a project they have invested MILLIONS of dollars
    into either.
     
    Stacey, Aug 25, 2005
  6. Mark²

    Stacey Guest


    The "problem" isn't the overall sharpness, it's the difference between the
    center of the frame and the edges/corners. And given it was shot at 1/500,
    I can't see camera shake killing this image.
     
    Stacey, Aug 25, 2005
  7. Mark²

    Stacey Guest

    Mark² wrote:

    I basically use an 11-22, a 50 F2 macro and a 50-200 with a 1.4X converter
    which works well on all three.
    Same here. Wish they had a fixed 300 f4 that was reasonably priced, don't
    see one on the road map though. Maybe when all these people "dump" their
    20D's I'll scoop one up with a long lens for birding?
     
    Stacey, Aug 25, 2005
  8. Mark²

    Stacey Guest

    Then check out the 7-14, it's even sharper than the 11-22. And yes they
    ARE expencive and so were the contax distagons people are buying up trying
    to get good WA performance from the 1DsII's.
     
    Stacey, Aug 25, 2005
  9. Mark²

    Stacey Guest


    The foreground in the center of the image is sharp enough, it's the corners
    that are mushed.
     
    Stacey, Aug 25, 2005
  10. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    That's the main problem, but the lack of sharpness everywhere underscores
    the poor selection of that photo in general. If you start with a bad photo,
    the corner problems are even worse. I just want to start with a good
    photo...and then have a better idea of just how bad the corners are. There
    would almost certainly still be a problem, but we should at least remove the
    variable of a poorly shot photo first.
     
    Mark², Aug 25, 2005
  11. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    It wouldn't be the first time.
     
    Mark², Aug 25, 2005
  12. Mark²

    Stacey Guest

    I never print that large. Most are 8X10 but a good shot I might print 11X14
    to 13X19, that's it. I already sold my6X9 rangefinder, never could warm up
    to it and I'm really not intersted in scanning film, even though I do have
    a nikon ls8000. I want a FOV around 20mm with good enough rez to look
    REALLY good at 11X14 or so (native print at 300DPI). If this 5D had a good
    wide zoom, that might be the answer.
     
    Stacey, Aug 25, 2005
  13. Mark²

    Stacey Guest

    But how do you never let yourself go under that setting? :) Instead of a
    16-35, I'd rather have a 20-50 or something along those lines, a
    semi-superwide to normal zoom is a great carry around lens for what I like
    to shoot.
     
    Stacey, Aug 25, 2005
  14. Mark²

    Stacey Guest

    Leonard wrote:


    I'd probably look at it seriously then. The 11-22 FOV on the E300 was one of
    the things that made me go with OM. A semi-ultrawide to normal zoom is a
    VERY useful lens, much more than an ultrawide to wide lens would be.
     
    Stacey, Aug 25, 2005
  15. It does. The 17-40.

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/1Ds-4x5.shtml

    (I really have to rescan the disaster I had the other day with the Mamiya
    35/3.5. While the corners in this shot* are fine, I've taken shots that were
    as bad as that 5D sample. I really think it was an incompetent
    photographer.)

    *: http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/22566107/original

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 25, 2005
  16. Mark²

    Alfred Molon Guest

    But that substantially reduces your mobility, if you have to carry a
    tripod with you and set it up all the time. Is this the future of
    digital photography ?
     
    Alfred Molon, Aug 25, 2005
  17. Mark²

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    I did not read his review of 8 Mp cameras because I have no interest
    in that category.

    But you can read Reichmann's comparison of the Canon 16-35/2.8 L and
    17-40/4 L yourself. The latter has a better MTF graph at wide angle,
    less flare, slightly less chromatic aberration, and better contrast.
    OTOH the 16-35/2.8 is better at the "long" end, 35mm.

    http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml
     
    Bill Tuthill, Aug 25, 2005
  18. Mark²

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    I disagree. If you've ever seen well-focused pictures of grass,
    this doesn't look anything like that.

    I'm thinking that Circle of Confusion should be reduced for big enlargements,
    and at Actual Pixels view, this qualifies as a big enlargement.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Aug 25, 2005
  19. Tripods are the past, the present, and the future of high (technical)
    quality photography.

    Sometimes there is enough light that a handheld shot does not cause any loss
    in image quality. It also depends on whether you are shooting wide open
    for little DoF or at the limit of diffraction for as much DoF as possible.

    And for most people, a tripod slows one down enough to reduce certain classes
    of (framing) errors.
     
    Philip Homburg, Aug 25, 2005
  20. Mark²

    ASAAR Guest

    His conclusions of the Canon lenses may be entirely accurate, and
    as I've said before, his reviews of the new Epson printers were very
    good. But even if you have no interest in 8mp cameras it would be
    worthwhile reading that review, if for no other reason that to see
    that he can use reasoning and come to conclusions entirely divorced
    from reality. Whatever the reason for what I hope was a one-time
    lapse, that's why I suggested getting a second opinion from other
    reviews. Not because I think they'd disagree with his observations,
    but to make sure that they concur. I haven't read many of his
    reviews so I can't be sure, but I assume that his awful review of
    the 8mp P&S cameras was an aberration, and most of his loyal
    followers care mostly about DSLRs, so either they hadn't read that
    "8mp" review, or couldn't care less about it.
     
    ASAAR, 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.