Canon EOS-5D (was: New Canon Body Release?)

08/22/2005 02:25:04 PM · #151

Originally posted by MeThoS:

[ I just love the feeling of not knowing if you got the shot unitl you see it on the light table...

I miss that. But not enough to go back. There are so many advantages to FF digital over medium format film that I would have a hard time listing them here.

If I had a choice between a new 5D with one lens and a new 6x7 with one lens and a years worth of film and chemicals, I would go 5D for sure.

08/22/2005 02:30:39 PM · #152

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by MeThoS:
[ I just love the feeling of not knowing if you got the shot unitl you see it on the light table...

I miss that. But not enough to go back. There are so many advantages to FF digital over medium format film that I would have a hard time listing them here.

If I had a choice between a new 5D with one lens and a new 6x7 with one lens and a years worth of film and chemicals, I would go 5D for sure.

If your main goal is very large prints or very hi-res stock, medium format film is till the way to go. I shot Glacier National Park with the 1Ds because my Pentax 67II went down, I hated it. A lot because of the small view finder, but mostly because of coming back and printing a 30x30 only to be very disappointed...

08/22/2005 02:38:13 PM · #153

Originally posted by MeThoS:

I shot Glacier National Park with the 1Ds because my Pentax 67II went down, I hated it. A lot because of the small view finder, but mostly because of coming back and printing a 30x30 only to be very disappointed...

I've printed 54" wide from shots taken with the 1Ds - 85/1.2 with no problem. The finished image can be viewed from 2 feet and still looks sharp. There is an old metal roofed building in the background of this image and when blown up you can see in detail the heads of the rusting roofing nails.

I won't be able to shoot with the 1Ds Mark II till this weekend, but I expect it to be considerably better for enlargements then the 1Ds was.

08/22/2005 03:24:23 PM · #154

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by MeThoS:

I shot Glacier National Park with the 1Ds because my Pentax 67II went down, I hated it. A lot because of the small view finder, but mostly because of coming back and printing a 30x30 only to be very disappointed...

I've printed 54" wide from shots taken with the 1Ds - 85/1.2 with no problem. The finished image can be viewed from 2 feet and still looks sharp. There is an old metal roofed building in the background of this image and when blown up you can see in detail the heads of the rusting roofing nails.

I won't be able to shoot with the 1Ds Mark II till this weekend, but I expect it to be considerably better for enlargements then the 1Ds was.

I'm talking about the intricate detail viewed from like 6 inches, simliar to a large print from a 4x5 or 8x10 negative.

08/22/2005 03:28:05 PM · #155

Originally posted by MeThoS:

I'm talking about the intricate detail viewed from like 6 inches, simliar to a large print from a 4x5 or 8x10 negative.

Your not going to get that from a 6x7 either. A 4x5in negative is considerably larger then a 6x7cm neg.

Besides, saying "viewed from 6 inches" to me might as well be saying viewed from 600 feet. I can see much more detail at two feet then I can at 6 inches.

Message edited by author 2005-08-22 15:30:29.

08/22/2005 03:35:51 PM · #156

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by MeThoS:
I'm talking about the intricate detail viewed from like 6 inches, simliar to a large print from a 4x5 or 8x10 negative.

Your not going to get that from a 6x7 either. A 4x5in negative is considerably larger then a 6x7cm neg.

Besides, saying "viewed from 6 inches" to me might as well be saying viewed from 600 feet. I can see much more detail at two feet then I can at 6 inches.

...but a 6x7 chrome scanned and printed digitally is about the same as a straight print from a 4x5 neg, maybe even a little better depending on the original. I would like to see a 1Ds mark II 40x50 though, but I would still ahve to worry more about batteries in the middle of nowhere than I do with the pentax.

08/22/2005 03:36:29 PM · #157

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Based on the images I've seen, I think you're correct... just the noise reduction alone should result in an increase in apparent detail. Though the difference bwetween 11 and 16.7Mpx is not dramatic, it's not inconsequential either... and of course, for landscape, there's usually little reason not to shoot a pano, even only a 2 or 3 shot one, which will greatly enhance detail. True, one can do the same with film, but it seems so much more "natural" with digital :-)
With regard to 30x30 from the 1Ds, one issue is that to print at that aspect ratio, you'd crop away a minumum of 1/3 of the frame, putting it at an instant disadvantage.
As for myself, I'm anxiously awaiting the availability of the 5D. I'm hoping to be among the first to get my hands on one, though I don't plan to go to insane lengths to do so. I believe the 5D will be visibly better than the 1Ds, mostly due to lower shadow noise.

08/22/2005 03:37:05 PM · #158

Originally posted by MeThoS:

but I would still ahve to worry more about batteries in the middle of nowhere than I do with the pentax.

I carry spares.

08/22/2005 03:40:18 PM · #159

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by MeThoS:

I shot Glacier National Park with the 1Ds because my Pentax 67II went down, I hated it. A lot because of the small view finder, but mostly because of coming back and printing a 30x30 only to be very disappointed...

I've printed 54" wide from shots taken with the 1Ds - 85/1.2 with no problem. The finished image can be viewed from 2 feet and still looks sharp. There is an old metal roofed building in the background of this image and when blown up you can see in detail the heads of the rusting roofing nails.

I won't be able to shoot with the 1Ds Mark II till this weekend, but I expect it to be considerably better for enlargements then the 1Ds was.

Based on the images I've seen, I think you're correct... just the noise reduction alone should result in an increase in apparent detail. Though the difference bwetween 11 and 16.7Mpx is not dramatic, it's not inconsequential either... and of course, for landscape, there's usually little reason not to shoot a pano, even only a 2 or 3 shot one, which will greatly enhance detail. True, one can do the same with film, but it seems so much more "natural" with digital :-)
With regard to 30x30 from the 1Ds, one issue is that to print at that aspect ratio, you'd crop away a minumum of 1/3 of the frame, putting it at an instant disadvantage.
As for myself, I'm anxiously awaiting the availability of the 5D. I'm hoping to be among the first to get my hands on one, though I don't plan to go to insane lengths to do so. I believe the 5D will be visibly better than the 1Ds, mostly due to lower shadow noise.

I would guess the same thing. Digic II seem to be wonderful. I still have that 30x30 on my hard drive somewhere, if anybody wanted to download it to see the example...

08/22/2005 03:55:00 PM · #160

Originally posted by MeThoS:

I still have that 30x30 on my hard drive somewhere, if anybody wanted to download it to see the example...

I believe you. One thing the 1Ds was not was consistent. The camera was often picky about what situations it would work well under. It was up to the photog to figure all of these conditions out and learn how to compensate. My 1D Mark II is much less temperamental.

08/22/2005 03:58:32 PM · #161

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by MeThoS:
I still have that 30x30 on my hard drive somewhere, if anybody wanted to download it to see the example...

I believe you. One thing the 1Ds was not was consistent. The camera was often picky about what situations it would work well under. It was up to the photog to figure all of these conditions out and learn how to compensate. My 1D Mark II is much less temperamental.

But I sure loved it for the studio. All my model and product photos on my website were shot with it.

08/22/2005 04:02:50 PM · #162

Originally posted by MeThoS:

But I sure loved it for the studio. All my model and product photos on my website were shot with it.

I'm very much looking foreward to seeing how the 5D does. It will have to be impressive.

08/22/2005 04:11:23 PM · #163

Just a quick calculation... a 30x45 inch print from the 1Ds (which would be the full-frame version of a 30x30 inch crop) results in about 90ppi, which leads me to believe that if the original is anything less than razor sharp, corner to corner, it will start to become apparent on the print, at least when viewed close-up. For the 5D and 1DsII those numbers are 97 and 111ppi respectively. Still need a very sharp original to give completely satisfying results on a print that large, but possible.
Alternatively, shooting a portrait-oriented two-shot pano with 25% overlap with the 5D results in a 5096x4368px image. When printed at 30 inches in the minor axis, this results in a 35x30 image at 145ppi. Much more comfortable! Do the same with the 1DsII and that number becomes 166ppi!

08/22/2005 05:00:10 PM · #164

Originally posted by kirbic:

Would be hard to pan when a slow shutter speed is used with water. Sample of 1Ds
//www.brentwardphoto.com/stmarys30x30.jpg

100% crop of the 30x30 taken with 1Ds.
//www.brentwardphoto.com/stmarys30x30crop.jpg

Sample of 40x50 taken with Pentax 67 on Velvia then scanned in.
//www.brentwardphoto.com/waterfall.jpg

and the 100% crop of it.
//www.brentwardphoto.com/waterfallcrop.jpg

Message edited by Manic - please post thumbs or links, not large images.

08/22/2005 05:58:18 PM · #165

Thought for sure someone would comment on the examples...

08/22/2005 06:14:25 PM · #166

Originally posted by MeThoS:

Thought for sure someone would comment on the examples...

I have a hard time commenting on crops that have been optimized for file size and saved for the web. From what I've seen though, the MF crop had more detail, but it also had more pronounced grain. If I was ever to go back to use medium format with film for any reason, I think I would want to take full advantage of the medium and print from an enlarger, as expensive as that set-up may be.

08/22/2005 06:42:51 PM · #167

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by MeThoS:
Thought for sure someone would comment on the examples...

I have a hard time commenting on crops that have been optimized for file size and saved for the web. From what I've seen though, the MF crop had more detail, but it also had more pronounced grain. If I was ever to go back to use medium format with film for any reason, I think I would want to take full advantage of the medium and print from an enlarger, as expensive as that set-up may be.

Having printed color and B&W from 4x5 negs, I would never go back. Digital prints are much better, well for color anyway. B&W traditional prints still have a major advantage in life span. I even use to process my own E-6.

Pentax SMC DA 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR

08/22/2005 07:20:27 PM · #168

Originally posted by MeThoS:

Thought for sure someone would comment on the examples...

Interesting; the 1Ds sample is certainly not what I'd call a sharp original. It shows the typical 1Ds noise levels in shadow as well. Still, the noise is much lower than for the film example. Of course, the film example has the disadvantage of having some noise added in scaanning. That may have been a minor or major impact, depending on the scanner. With my scanner, for example, it's major, LOL.
IMO, with a really sharp original off the 1Ds, it would be much more of a horse-race than in these examples.

Edit:
BTW, it's normally not a problem shooting panos with slow shutter speeds as in your 1Ds example shot. Just necessary to carefully choose where the stitch will be ad spend a little time on the blend. Stitching anywhere within the blurred water will normally be completely invisible.

Message edited by author 2005-08-22 19:25:02.

drz01

Pentax K50

08/22/2005 11:39:18 PM · #169

D5 Samples!
here...

08/22/2005 11:45:32 PM · #170

Originally posted by drz01:

D5 Samples!
here...

That should tell somthing about the intended sales target. The only L lens tested on the body was the EF17-40mm f/4 L USM.