Sample Images: 5D

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

  1. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    IS lenses go a long way to enabling nice shots without a tripod.
    But we're talking about full frame, 13MP images here. The assumption with
    this is that people are likely going to make very large prints, ar at the
    very least...view them at high definition and huge.
    That means that now, more than ever, tiny movements will show up as
    camera-shake blur.

    Any time you intend to make huge enlargements, a tripod is critically
    -Doesn't mean you can't go without, it just means you'll compromise the

    If you're only blowing up to 8x10, it often makes no difference.
    -But then, if you're only blowing up to 8x10, the 5D is over-kill.

    The best move I recently made was to replace my heavy tripod with a nice,
    carbon fiber model.
    It is SOO much more pleasant, now, to take it along! No more sore shoulder
    from bouncing along with a heavy tripod slong accross it! This is what
    makes the carbon fiber pod worth the price--because it means that it
    actually gets USED more often.

    Mark², Aug 25, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    You call that sharp?!?
    No way.
    It's a bad shot all 'round.
    Mark², Aug 25, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mark²

    Skip M Guest

    When I started out with the system, WA was not a priority, or even really on
    the list. Which is why I bought the Sigma, nearly as good as the old Canon
    17-35, and WAY less expensive. The 16-35 is much, much better than the
    Sigma, or the Canon 17-35, for that matter, but it still leaves me a little
    concerned on the corners.
    Heck, if that's the best Canon could come up with to post, you'd think
    they'd just conveniently forget to put up an image shot with a wide angle.
    Or use a different one, like the 16-35 f2.8 shot at f2.8, so at least we'd
    have the excuse that it was shot at its widest, wide open...
    Skip M, Aug 26, 2005
  4. Mark²

    Skip M Guest

    Heck, so's the 16-35...
    Skip M, Aug 26, 2005
  5. Mark²

    Skip M Guest

    You can't, but he said his favorite setting was at 20mm, that's all I was
    commenting on.
    Canon used to make a 20-35, or some such, maybe a search on ebay will turn
    one up. But who's to say that it won't be the same at 20mm as the 17-40 is
    at 17mm?
    Skip M, Aug 26, 2005
  6. Mark²

    Skip M Guest

    Skip M, Aug 26, 2005
  7. Mark²

    Stacey Guest

    Relative to the corners..
    Stacey, Aug 26, 2005
  8. Mark²

    Stacey Guest

    Not from the sample full size images I've seen from this lens.
    And they are posting 640X480 image samples? The one crop is from the center
    of the frame and he thinks this looks even CLOSE to 4X5?
    So how exactly does the photographer make the corners of an image turn to
    Stacey, Aug 26, 2005
  9. Mark²

    Mark² Guest


    Take a look at the new shots on dpreview, shot with the brand new 24-105 f4
    Specifically, look at the full-res versions of the third airplane shot.
    Also the 24mm street photography shot.
    Their corners at 24mm look great.
    We'll have to see what they manage when they get to test the 5D with a 16 or
    17mm zoom, as clearly they were given the two new items to use together.

    Mark², Aug 26, 2005
  10. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    Time to play a new tune, Stacey.
    Mark², Aug 26, 2005
  11. Mark²

    Stacey Guest

    But like you said, this could be as bad or worse on a dSLR as the 17-40 is.
    Stacey, Aug 26, 2005
  12. Stacey doesn't own a superwide, and simply doesn't know how gross the
    corners get when you mess up.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 26, 2005
  13. Mark²

    Skip M Guest

    One way is rotary camera movement. Turning the camera on the axis of the
    lens. The center seems to be less affected than the edges, since they are
    moving more, relative to the center.
    Skip M, Aug 26, 2005
  14. Mark²

    Skip M Guest

    Yeah, since Canon saw fit to replace it with the 17-35. But I seem to
    remember guys on the 35mm newsgroup bemoaning its replacement, and saying it
    was a better lens. But there's always somebody who like the old better than
    the new, just for its familiarity.
    Skip M, Aug 26, 2005
  15. Mark²

    Mike Warren Guest

    I didn't want to get involved in these type of discussions but I'm

    Are you saying you can't tell motion blur?

    PS: Just so you know where I stand: I won't be purchasing a 5D
    because it is too expensive for me but I do think it is a very nice
    Mike Warren, Aug 26, 2005
  16. Mark²

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    The 20-35/2.8 was definitely better than the 17-35/2.8, judging by,
    especially wide open. Composite score was 3.5 versus 3.2, but looking at the
    MTF graphs, I have no idea how the 17-35/2.8 scored so high. Furthermore it had
    4.5% (!) barrel distortion at 17mm.

    Whether the current 16-35/2.8 is better than the old 20-35/2.8 is a matter of
    conjecture. Photodo did not test the 16-35/2.8, but its score,
    back when it was still online, was 3.97, higher than any other Canon wide zoom,
    but lower than a typical Contax wide zoom.

    I suspect better results could be obtained with a Tokina 12-24/4 mounted on the 5D.
    Bill Tuthill, Aug 26, 2005
  17. Mark²

    deryck lant Guest

    The message <>
    The Tokina 12-24/4 is the best of the independent ultra-wide zooms - but
    unfortunately is only for the DX type reduced format cameras.

    deryck lant, Aug 26, 2005
  18. Mark²

    Bill Funk Guest

    No, IMO.
    The future of someone's photography can be anythng they choose, within
    the confines of the equipment they have.
    If they don't want to carry a tripod, well, that's their choice, and
    they will have to deal with the consequences of their actions.
    But "digital photography" doesn't care if I, or you, or anyone else,
    uses a tripod or not.
    If the photographer's criteria includes the very best that digital
    photography can offer, forst, he/she won't be using a 5D. :)
    Second, he will probably, for landscapes, use a tripod, because that's
    how to get the very best shot available. And digital photography
    allows that now.
    If, OTOH, *I* want to take a landscape photo, and I don't have a
    tripod with me, digital photography will allow that, too.
    Will we reach a point where lenses will be able to fully exploit the
    digital sensors? I, personally, think lens designers in several
    different companies, are working towards that end right now.
    Bill Funk, Aug 26, 2005
  19. Mark²

    ASAAR Guest

    Your perspective is different. Alfred is talking about the future
    in more general terms, and you've narrowed it down to specific
    individuals. You're both technically correct, but I think his
    "correctness" is of a higher order. Apply this to recordings, where
    CDs replaced vinyl LPs. Most people would agree a decade or two ago
    that vinyl was not to remain dominant as far as the future of audio
    recordings were concerned. But for a small number of people, vinyl
    is everything. They've chosen their past, present and future.
    ASAAR, Aug 26, 2005
  20. Tripods have nothing to do with digital or film. If you don't care about
    sharp images, you don't need a tripod, whatever camera you are using.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 26, 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.