Sample Images: 5D

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

  1. Mark²

    ASAAR Guest

    And what I said had nothing to do with tripods. I own two and
    have been considering whether a Benbo MiniTrekker would be useful to
    add to the collection. I generally seek some kind of bracing even
    with relatively high shutter speeds.
     
    ASAAR, Aug 27, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Sorry. That was a cheap shot, and was aimed at Alfred, not you. Sorry.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 27, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mark²

    Skip M Guest

    Are you asking me, or her? 'Cause I certainly can...
     
    Skip M, Aug 27, 2005
  4. Mark²

    Mike Warren Guest

    I tend to skip over these discussions when they stop going
    anywhere so I may have missed something, but aren't you both
    talking about the landscape sample posted on the Canon site?

    If so, it is obvious to me that the blurry corners are not caused
    by movement of any kind.

    I understood you were suggesting that the blur may have been
    caused by rotary movement around the lens axis.

    If not, I'll just crawl back into my box :)

    -Mike
     
    Mike Warren, Aug 27, 2005
  5. Mark²

    Skip M Guest

    No, I was merely answering her question about what movement could turn the
    corners into mush (and guessing that she meant "more than the center.)
    But I'm not sure that it isn't movement...look how the seed heads on the
    lower left corner are elongated.
     
    Skip M, Aug 27, 2005
  6. Mark²

    Bill Funk Guest

    I think if you'd quoted the rest of what I said, you'll see that I
    also said that digital photography wll allow both the use of, and
    non-use of, tripods.
    I was trying to say that "digital photography" will allow both; the
    individual isn't going to be forced into either by "digital
    photography."
    IOW, we agree. :)
     
    Bill Funk, Aug 27, 2005
  7. Mark²

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Owners say it is full-frame above 17mm, even at f/4. Perhaps this varies
    by sample and mount type (the owners in question have Nikon).

    Below 17mm it shows increasing light fall-off, then vignetting.

    However perhaps optical quality in the corners would show badly on a 5D.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Aug 27, 2005
  8. Mark²

    deryck lant Guest

    The message <>
    Forgive me. I was too quick. You are quite right. All the Nikon fit DX
    format lenses are usable part of the way up the zoom range on full-frame.
    The DX type format is probably much better catered for now with excellent
    quality affordable ultra-wide zooms than full-frame digital cameras.

    Deryck
     
    deryck lant, Aug 27, 2005
  9. Mark²

    ASAAR Guest

    Agreed. Actually, looking back through previous messages in the
    thread, the discussion was about wide angle shots taken in bright
    daylight that might be "blown up to 20"x30" or even twice that" and
    whether a tripod might be desired or needed. This led to the
    comment about whether having to reduce mobility by carrying tripods
    was the future of digital photography. Certainly not, at least for
    the majority of photographers that don't even own tripods, and would
    never consider getting one. And it's not strictly a digital vs.
    film issue except in the sense that if a solution is ever devised,
    it's more likely to aid digital rather than film photography. Of
    course there's already one solution available, the technology used
    to make steady-cams. And it would work equally well for both
    digital and film. But with the higher cost, weight, and need for
    extra battery power, it's not about to replace tripods in the field,
    so this wouldn't be the future of photography either. What would
    be, would be something like a super IS or a much more efficient
    sensor. ["would be, would be" is not a typo. :) ]
     
    ASAAR, Aug 27, 2005
  10. Mark²

    ASAAR Guest

    No harm, no foul. :)
     
    ASAAR, Aug 27, 2005
  11. Mark²

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Could you please help me find it? I looked at various "8 megapixel"
    articles and for Konica-Minolta reviews, but didn't find any article
    comparing multiple 8 Mp cameras. TIA.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Aug 29, 2005
  12. Mark²

    Bill Hilton Guest

    Bill Tuthill writes ...
    of 8 Mpix cameras)? I looked at various "8 megapixel"
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/choosing-8.shtml
     
    Bill Hilton, Aug 29, 2005
  13. Mark²

    ASAAR Guest

    The URL (from the other Bill) in another reply is part of it, but
    I was referring more specifically to the Olympus review, which was
    more a comparison of the Olympus C-8080 to the Sony F828. See:


    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/olympus-c8080.shtml

    Some of the things I noted in an earlier thread were the obsession
    with the Olympus's use of small buttons. As was pointed out,
    Reichmann is from Canada, where gloves might have to be worn
    frequently. But it was a point that could have been made once or
    twice. He seemingly raised it again and again, for every button he
    could find. He also said that the Minolta A2 was the "resolving
    power champ", when every other review I've seen rated it well behind
    all of the other cameras that Reichmann compared.

    He also was responsible for a foolish error that he blamed on
    Olympus. Despite having had the camera for several months prior to
    his initial tests, he set the camera up the night before the test
    and didn't realize that the next day it would revert to default
    settings when powered on, which required him to re-shoot the Olympus
    test shots to get the RAW files and proper apertures that he needed.
    His excuse was that the information needed to change the ALL RESET
    default from ON to OFF was buried in the manual. Several months
    should have provided ample time to read the manual and at least
    experiment *a little* with the camera prior to testing it. (RTFM,
    Reichmann). His complaint was that the default should be to OFF.
    It seemed to me to simply be a face-saving excuse, since one expects
    pros (and Reichmann is really speaking to them) to not be the
    principal owners of these P&S cameras. And having the initial
    default set to ON could prevent many newbies from getting their new,
    unfamiliar camera stuck in a mode that would prevent the camera from
    taking usable pictures. Once they know what they're doing the mode
    can be set to OFF.

    Reichmann also misstated some of the cameras capabilities (sound,
    histogram) saying that these functions didn't exist because they
    weren't mentioned in the printed manual. This manual however, as
    others have pointed out, is only a "BASIC" manual, suitable for
    quickly getting started, little more, and the PDF Reference Manual
    on the CD is mentioned. After updating his review, Reichmann
    reiterated that still picture sound was not mentioned in BASIC
    Manual when in fact it was.

    There were other things he got wrong in the review, but it's not
    necessary to repeat them all. As I indicated before, his opinions
    shouldn't be discounted, and they may be better than average when
    bias or ignorance doesn't intrude. But this review alone provides
    ample warning that it would be wise to get second and third opinions
    before committing cash on new purchases. An interesting extra
    viewpoint is that whereas Reichmann clearly prefers other cameras
    (nothing wrong with that) in a recent reply in another thread asking
    about which cameras could be considered to be "classic", one of the
    principals from B&H answered that his choice was the Olympus C-8080.
     
    ASAAR, Aug 30, 2005
  14. Mark²

    RichA Guest

    I don't know why, but the way the sky is in that photo
    makes me think it's a composite.
    -Rich


    "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
    never gave us refunds for in the past"
     
    RichA, Aug 31, 2005
  15. Mark²

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Thanks, I see what you mean.

    I'm kind of biased against Olympus myself, because of having owned a
    Stylus 38-105, and having seen lots of exposure and color balance problems
    with low-end Olympus digicams. But the E-300 is quite good for the price
    and so might be the C-8080, if I could accept a camera with power zoom,
    no usable RAW mode, and electronic viewfinder.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Sep 2, 2005
  16. Mark²

    ASAAR Guest

    I don't know whether you or I would like the C-8080, but I'm not
    sure what the color balance problems would be. According to reviews
    and what I've seen in the manual, the color (saturation, hue, etc.)
    can be tailored to give you whatever you prefer. Unless you were
    talking about inconsistent color. Power zoom doesn't bother me very
    much. What I'd like to see thouge is good manual focusing. But
    speaking as one who knows only very little about RAW mode, what
    makes it unusable in the C-8080? Lack of speed?
     
    ASAAR, Sep 2, 2005
  17. Mark²

    Alfred Molon Guest

    I use an 8080 and shoot exclusively RAW. The camera is painfully slow,
    taking 12 seconds to write a RAW file to the memory card, being stuck
    during this time because there is no buffered write. Still the lens of
    the 8080 is great - at the level of a good DSLR lens and this is what
    matters. I can live with the fact that I can only shoot one image every
    12 seconds. For others this may not be acceptable though.

    Have a look at my Italy photo gallery, shot with an 8080:
    http://www.molon.de/galleries/Italy/
     
    Alfred Molon, Sep 3, 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.