 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / August 2005New Canon EOS 5D
New Canon EOS 5D ... with 12 MP ... FULL FRAME! To be announced August 22, 2005. Shipping October 2005? Wow. Tony Polson wrote: > New Canon EOS 5D ... with 12 MP ... FULL FRAME! > > To be announced August 22, 2005. Shipping October 2005? > > Wow. Around US$4275... ...if that is the correct answer to the sixty four thousand dollar question. Sounds like 1 step below the 1ds... since the 20ds is under USD$1,500? Not the same category? T. > Tony Polson wrote: >> New Canon EOS 5D ... with 12 MP ... FULL FRAME! >> To be announced August 22, 2005. Shipping October 2005? >> Wow. > Around US$4275... > ...if that is the correct answer to the sixty four thousand dollar > question. If the specs and pricing are true, it seems to be positioned as a Nikon D2x-killer. If you don't need 5 or 8 fps high speed shooting this sounds very tempting. I would love full frame in a body just slightly larger then the 20D.  Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > If the specs and pricing are true, it seems to be positioned as a > Nikon D2x-killer. It's really can't be compared to the D2x, other than in price, with the larger pixels, and full frame, it's a big step up. It should be good for D2x buyers though, since it'll likely crash the price of the D2x. >> Tony Polson wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >this sounds very tempting. I would love full frame in a body just >slightly larger then the 20D. They will NEVER try to sell a 20D-type body for $4200. It will have the usual fake "motor drive" style huge base so you think you're getting more than you are. They have to keep up an image. -Rich >>> Tony Polson wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >getting more than you are. They have to keep up an image. >-Rich I saw the .pdf. If it's real then they are doing what I said they wouldn't. HOW are they going pull this off? $4275 for a camera that appears outwardly to be like a 20D?? I suppose a huge percentage of the cost of the body is solely for the sensor? -Rich >>>>Tony Polson wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > the cost of the body is solely for the sensor? > -Rich The specification seems to suggest it's FULL frame so the price is RIGHT. It also has spot metering that 20D lacks. It seems to beat 1D Mark II though. Is it going to replace 1D mark II or is that going to be updated soon too? > I saw the .pdf. If it's real then they are doing what I said they > wouldn't. HOW are they going pull this off? $4275 for a camera that > appears outwardly to be like a 20D?? I suppose a huge percentage of > the cost of the body is solely for the sensor? Full-frame sensors are expensive. If it's real, which is still open to question, it can only mean that Canon is starting to "trickle down" full-frame sensors below the high end models, since this clearly isn't one. Which would be an interesting development, to be sure. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>I saw the .pdf. If it's real then they are doing what I said they >>wouldn't. HOW are they going pull this off? $4275 for a camera that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > end models, since this clearly isn't one. Which would be an interesting > development, to be sure. Kodak had full frame dSLRs for $4000. Why not Canon. It's slower than 1D MK II so it won't directly compete with it. >> I saw the .pdf. If it's real then they are doing what I said they >> wouldn't. HOW are they going pull this off? $4275 for a camera that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > end models, since this clearly isn't one. Which would be an interesting > development, to be sure. I agree, good news if it is true. Also, rather sooner than I expected. >They will NEVER try to sell a 20D-type body for $4200. It will have >the usual fake "motor drive" style huge base so you think you're >getting more than you are. They have to keep up an image. So; do you know for a fact that there are no image quality factors involved? Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > They will NEVER try to sell a 20D-type body for $4200. It will have > the usual fake "motor drive" style huge base so you think you're > getting more than you are. They have to keep up an image. Why do you care? SignatureJohn McWilliams > On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 04:07:58 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr > They will NEVER try to sell a 20D-type body for $4200. It will have > the usual fake "motor drive" style huge base so you think you're > getting more than you are. They have to keep up an image. > -Rich That isn't a "fake 'motor drive' style huge base," that's a battery compartment. The 1 series has a HUGE battery. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> Tony Polson wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > this sounds very tempting. I would love full frame in a body just > slightly larger then the 20D. Funny, my wife was just saying we should buy another camera to augment our 20Ds... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > >> Tony Polson wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Funny, my wife was just saying we should buy another camera to augment our > 20Ds... Shhhh, Anika will have to buy one too. > If the specs and pricing are true, it seems to be positioned as a > Nikon D2x-killer. If you don't need 5 or 8 fps high speed shooting > this sounds very tempting. I would love full frame in a body just > slightly larger then the 20D. I'm so glad that they made the vertical grip an option, rather than integrating it, though I expect that many professionals won't appreciate this. Soon will see the Canon-bashers lament the fact that the D2x comes with an integrated vertical grip, but that it's an extra-cost option on the EOS 5D. The real question is when will Nikon announce a full frame digital SLR. Canon has upped the ante again. I already have the EOS 5, and it's a great camera. >> If the specs and pricing are true, it seems to be positioned as a >> Nikon D2x-killer. If you don't need 5 or 8 fps high speed shooting [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I already have the EOS 5, and it's a great camera. Considering the model number "5", it's not top of the line and is appropriate with it's configuration. The only temporary issue here is how well will 1D Mark II do after this thing is being released. It maybe a repeat of Nikon 70D vs 100D. > already have the EOS 5, and it's a great camera. You are saying you own this camera already? T. > > already have the EOS 5, and it's a great camera. > > You are saying you own this camera already? Notice the lack of a D? Greg >> > already have the EOS 5, and it's a great camera. >> >> You are saying you own this camera already? >> > Notice the lack of a D? All I noticed was the lack of a functional brain (like most other Canon punters). > >> > already have the EOS 5, and it's a great camera. > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > All I noticed was the lack of a functional brain (like most other Canon > punters). Damn, you're so witty. Greg >> All I noticed was the lack of a functional brain (like most other Canon >> punters). > > Damn, you're so witty. > > Greg I love the smell of Canon-toast in the morning. All you a-holes are going gaga over what is clearly a hoax. There is no such camera. However, you have to know that only Canon would be desperate enough for market share to screw over their existing customer base (again) by bringing out something that makes their current consumer line look jaded within only a few months. In the hunt for share in the DSLR market they seem to have neglected development in the area that matters most - lens design. Expect more than just a few sports photographers to start demanding an equivalent to the Nikkor 200-400mm f/4 VR. The "uber-Lens". >>> All I noticed was the lack of a functional brain (like most other Canon >>> punters). [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > just a few sports photographers to start demanding an equivalent to the > Nikkor 200-400mm f/4 VR. The "uber-Lens". I'd hardly say that, Dallas. At around E3500/$4000, it's clearly not competing with the 20D. And why developed new lenses when going to a full frame format? The 16-35, for instance, works like a 16-35 should. A 2x zoom, even with a constant aperture, probably isn't a priority. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > I'd hardly say that, Dallas. At around E3500/$4000, it's clearly not > competing with the 20D. > And why developed new lenses when going to a full frame format? The > 16-35, for instance, works like a 16-35 should. A 2x zoom, even with a > constant aperture, probably isn't a priority. There are a LOT of pro's that I know who had to settle for the 20D because of the cost of the 1D and 1Ds. One the lens side, I am specifically referring to the 200-400mm VR from Nikon. According to more than one review this lens is as good as a 300mm f/2.8 and 400mm f/2.8 when it is shot wide open at f/4. With VR to boot it is a VERY attractive sports and wildlife lens, fields the folks at Canon like to think they dominate in. I will actually sell my M3 to get that lens... SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces >> I'd hardly say that, Dallas. At around E3500/$4000, it's clearly not >> competing with the 20D. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > There are a LOT of pro's that I know who had to settle for the 20D because > of the cost of the 1D and 1Ds. Heheh, don't I know it! We're two of them. But, that being said, the alleged 5D won't dissuade me from buying another 20D, because I had no intention of getting another one, anyway. > One the lens side, I am specifically referring to the 200-400mm VR from > Nikon. According to more than one review this lens is as good as a 300mm > f/2.8 and 400mm f/2.8 when it is shot wide open at f/4. With VR to boot it > is a VERY attractive sports and wildlife lens, fields the folks at Canon > like to think they dominate in. That may well be true. A faster version/replacement/augmentation of the 100-400 would be nice. Is the 200-400 AF-S, too? > I will actually sell my M3 to get that lens... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Heheh, don't I know it! We're two of them. But, that being said, the > alleged 5D won't dissuade me from buying another 20D, because I had no > intention of getting another one, anyway. Ah, but if one of your 20D's suffers a critical malfunction (like falling into the ocean, or something similar), will you replace it with another 20D or will you go for the 5D? >> One the lens side, I am specifically referring to the 200-400mm VR from >> Nikon. According to more than one review this lens is as good as a 300mm [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That may well be true. A faster version/replacement/augmentation of the > 100-400 would be nice. Is the 200-400 AF-S, too? Yes, it is. Constant f/4 aperture too. I think all new Nikkors will have AF-S as a standard feature. SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces >> Heheh, don't I know it! We're two of them. But, that being said, the >> alleged 5D won't dissuade me from buying another 20D, because I had no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > into the ocean, or something similar), will you replace it with another > 20D or will you go for the 5D? Tough question, the 5fps of the 20D is an attraction, as is the $1400 price vs $3500 (est). A 20D might be the perfect backup for the 5D. >>> One the lens side, I am specifically referring to the 200-400mm VR from >>> Nikon. According to more than one review this lens is as good as a 300mm [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Yes, it is. Constant f/4 aperture too. That's what I meant by "faster," even though I didn't actually say it! <G> > I think all new Nikkors will have AF-S as a standard feature. I wonder why Nikon doesn't come out with an 80-400 f4-5.6 VR mkII AF-S? When the original lens came out, there was speculation that VR and AF-S were incompatible, but that hasn't proved to be the case, every other lens they've produced with VR has been AF-S, too. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Tough question, the 5fps of the 20D is an attraction, as is the $1400 > price vs $3500 (est). A 20D might be the perfect backup for the 5D. For your type of work I really don't think you're going to miss 2 fps. > I wonder why Nikon doesn't come out with an 80-400 f4-5.6 VR mkII AF-S? > When the original lens came out, there was speculation that VR and AF-S > were incompatible, but that hasn't proved to be the case, every other > lens they've produced with VR has been AF-S, too. Maybe they will, but I won't be buying one. I have my eye on that $5k other zoom lens! Speaking of lenses, I had my first roll of film shot with my FM2n processed yesterday. I took a variety of shots with various lenses, the Angenieux 28-70mm f/2.6, my 16mm f/2.8 fisheye and the 17-35mm f/2.8 Nikkor. I now know why we should never use digital SLR's to gauge lens performance. I hardly ever use the 17-35mm on the D70 because I don't see the benefit over the 18-70mm DX, but when I got my prints back yesterday, HOLY CRAP! That is one incredible lens! The prints where I used it are remarkably sharper and more colourful than the rest. The Angenieux images are very sharp, but the colour is nowhere near that of the Nikkor lens. Viva film! I wanna go back forever! SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces > Viva film! I wanna go back forever! Please do. Maybe then we won't hear your prattle on the digital newsgroups. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> Viva film! I wanna go back forever! > > Please do. Maybe then we won't hear your prattle on the digital > newsgroups. Aw, sorry Brian. Did I hurt your feelings? I apologise if I did. SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces > > Please do. Maybe then we won't hear your prattle on the digital > > newsgroups. > > Aw, sorry Brian. Did I hurt your feelings? I apologise if I did. No Dallas. The ability of the internet to affect my feelings is quite small. Don't flatter yourself. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >Tough question, the 5fps of the 20D is an attraction, as is the $1400 price >vs $3500 (est). The speed of the 20D might be the reason why the banding occurs. Maybe they sacrificed readout quality for speed. I firmly believe that the 20D has a much better sensor than it seems to have; the quality bottlenecks are inconsistent readout and the generic 12-bit digitization limit. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>Tough question, the 5fps of the 20D is an attraction, as is the $1400 >>price [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 12-bit digitization limit. > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< Never having experienced the banding, I'm not qualified to say. And I'm not sure what you mean by inconsistent readout. Do you mean inconsistent metering? SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >Never having experienced the banding, Never having noticed it, perhaps; I don't think that there are any 20Ds that don't exhibit banding at all. If you render your shadows dark, you might not see it. Try this; take a dark frame with the eyepiece covered, load the RAW file into IRIS, export it to PS and do a histogram equalization. I'm sure that you will see distinct offsets between the horizontal lines (and faint ones between the vertical lines) of pixels. >I'm not qualified to say. And I'm not >sure what you mean by inconsistent readout. Do you mean inconsistent >metering? No, I mean inconsistent readout; the cause of the banding. 20D RAW data has offsets on a line-by-line basis, and RAW conversion in the camera's JPEGs and in most RAW converters do not compensate for it, so the lines get cut or boosted a little. At low ISOs, it means clean color bands in the shadows. At high ISOs, it means contrasty, band-noise in the shadows. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>Never having experienced the banding, > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > shadows. > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< Hmm, okay, I'll take your word for it... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Hmm, okay, I'll take your word for it... This is one of those "problems" that only occurs if you underexpose 4 stops at ISO 1600, readjust for proper exposure in Photoshop and then pump your contrast through the roof... ...okay, it isn't THAT bad, but I have yet to see one normal photo from a 20D exhibit banding. I see a lot of measurebators going on about it, but that's about it. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> Hmm, okay, I'll take your word for it... >This is one of those "problems" that only occurs if you underexpose 4 >stops at ISO 1600, readjust for proper exposure in Photoshop and then >pump your contrast through the roof... No, all you need to do is shoot under red-depraved or blue-depraved light sources, and have shadow areas, to see it. That's a price of doing white-balance completely in software; the weaker channels are at the mercy of the digitization of the shadows. When you shoot a 20D under incandescent light at ISO 1600, the green channel is using about 11 bits, with the camera's metering, and the blue channel is using 9 bits with an exposure index of ISO 6400. Most people who never see it usually have their monitors adjusted improperly. If all shades of black look the same on your monitor, you won't see the banding, the noise (so far ... so good), or the shadows of the image (bad). >...okay, it isn't THAT bad, but I have yet to see one normal photo from >a 20D exhibit banding. How do you define "normal photo"? With circular reasoning: "A normal photo is one that looks normal"? >I see a lot of measurebators going on about it, >but that's about it. There's nothing wrong with measuring things, but the banding comes up in real-world shots. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > >...okay, it isn't THAT bad, but I have yet to see one normal photo from > >a 20D exhibit banding. > > How do you define "normal photo"? With circular reasoning: "A normal > photo is one that looks normal"? Er, a photo where someone hasn't tried boosting the shadows past a reasonable level. "Hey look at all these artifacts I got when I blasted the exposure to ISO 640000 in the shadows!" > >I see a lot of measurebators going on about it, > >but that's about it. > > There's nothing wrong with measuring things, but the banding comes up in > real-world shots. IF you jack up the gamma on your monitor, apparently. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > No, all you need to do is shoot under red-depraved or blue-depraved > light sources, and have shadow areas, to see it. There's already enough depravity around here! SignatureJohn McWilliams > This is one of those "problems" that only occurs if you underexpose 4 > stops at ISO 1600, readjust for proper exposure in Photoshop and then [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a 20D exhibit banding. I see a lot of measurebators going on about it, > but that's about it. http://www.resonant.org/20050320-grinning-skate I can provide you the RAW if you like, to prove that it wasn't underexposed (or rather, since it was an ISO3200 shot, wasn't underexposed more than a stop). The jpg you will see at that location has actually already been cleaned up a bit, but the banding is still visible along the body of the skate. SignatureZed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed. > > This is one of those "problems" that only occurs if you underexpose 4 > > stops at ISO 1600, readjust for proper exposure in Photoshop and then [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > has actually already been cleaned up a bit, but the banding is still > visible along the body of the skate. Yeah, there's some pattern noise there. I'd like to play with the raw file if possible. Remember, at ISO 3200 pushing a stop is going to ISO 6400 - expecting the camera to maintain artifact free in the shadows at that point is rather absurd. Of course it looks much worse on the scaled down version. On the full size picture it's much harder to discern. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> > This is one of those "problems" that only occurs if you underexpose 4 >> > stops at ISO 1600, readjust for proper exposure in Photoshop and then [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > pushing a stop is going to ISO 6400 - expecting the camera to maintain > artifact free in the shadows at that point is rather absurd. Nono... it wasn't pushed a stop afterwards. I was referring only to the fact that ISO3200 itself is ISO1600 pushed digitally in-camera. The raw is at: http://www.resonant.org/images/episodes/2005.03.21-Emma_and_Boris_New_Orleans/ra w/grinning_skate.cr2 > Of course it looks much worse on the scaled down version. On the full > size picture it's much harder to discern. Well, a little, maybe. I still see it pretty clearly, but then, I spent a long time trying to fix it, so I know what I'm looking for. SignatureZed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed. > Nono... it wasn't pushed a stop afterwards. I was referring only to > the fact that ISO3200 itself is ISO1600 pushed digitally in-camera. > > The raw is at: > > http://www.resonant.org/images/episodes/2005.03.21-Emma_and_Boris_New_Orleans/ra w/grinning_skate.cr2 Dammit, I forgot Adobe is forcing me to upgrade to CS2 if I want to use ACR 3.1! Could you do a JPG on default settings? > > Of course it looks much worse on the scaled down version. On the full > > size picture it's much harder to discern. > > Well, a little, maybe. I still see it pretty clearly, but then, I > spent a long time trying to fix it, so I know what I'm looking for. Well, it's really obvious on the resampled images due to the spacing of the noise. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > Dammit, I forgot Adobe is forcing me to upgrade to CS2 if I want to > use ACR 3.1! You can use the DNG 3.1 converter to make CS load it using ACR 2.4 -Mike > > Dammit, I forgot Adobe is forcing me to upgrade to CS2 if I want to > > use ACR 3.1! > > You can use the DNG 3.1 converter to make CS load it using ACR 2.4 > > -Mike But I'm lazy! Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >>> Dammit, I forgot Adobe is forcing me to upgrade to CS2 if I want to >>> use ACR 3.1! >> >> You can use the DNG 3.1 converter to make CS load it using ACR 2.4 > > But I'm lazy! You're just looking for an excuse to spend more money. :-) -Mike > >> You can use the DNG 3.1 converter to make CS load it using ACR 2.4 > > > > But I'm lazy! > > You're just looking for an excuse to spend more money. :-) That was called the BG-ED3! Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> Nono... it wasn't pushed a stop afterwards. I was referring only to >> the fact that ISO3200 itself is ISO1600 pushed digitally in-camera. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Could you do a JPG on default settings? Heh, oddly, I can't. I've gotten rid of CS1, and the ACR in CS2 is doing a much better job on conversion. So much so, that I think I'm going to go back and reprocess that shot properly sometime soon. It's not completely perfect, but drastically improved. I also no longer have the out-of-camera jpg. SignatureZed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed. > > Could you do a JPG on default settings? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > not completely perfect, but drastically improved. I also no longer > have the out-of-camera jpg. Does CS2 seem to solve the banding problem? If so, it would lead me to believe the conversion has a lot to do with this effect. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> > Could you do a JPG on default settings? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Does CS2 seem to solve the banding problem? If so, it would lead me to > believe the conversion has a lot to do with this effect. Well, the conversion can have a lot to do with mitigating this effect, by calculating a blackpoint offset on a per-raster basis. CS2 *mostly* solves the problem, to the point where additional work with Noise Ninja makes it very hard to see unless the image was very drastically underexposed (there was still uncorrectable banding on one of my discard images from a month ago where I was shooting faster than my flash could recharge, for instance). That doesn't mean that it isn't a problem, though, even if I personally am no longer likely to be greatly affected. I strongly suspect that if I went to the effort of grabbing a copy of DCRAW or UFRAW and reconverting with that, I'd see the banding again, and not everyone has the very latest version of Photoshop. SignatureZed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed. >>Tough question, the 5fps of the 20D is an attraction, as is the $1400 price >>vs $3500 (est). >The speed of the 20D might be the reason why the banding occurs. Maybe >they sacrificed readout quality for speed. A little more experimentation has shown me that the 20D's readout isn't any worse than the 10D's; it is simply more visible because it is the main shadow-quality limitation with the 20D's much lower noise. Taking 10D and 20D blackframes at various ISOs, and replacing each horizontal line with the average value of its pixels, and offsetting the entire image to have an average of 128, the two cameras created very similar line patterns at ISO 100, and then diverge up to ISO 800, where the 10D has about 33% more banding (measured by histogram width). Without averaging the lines' pixels, the 10D has about 3x as wide a noise bell curve as the 20D. At ISO 1600 and 3200, the 10D's banding is less than at ISO 800, and those strange patterns I've seen in the RAW data (lines of all odd values, all even values, and alternating odd and even values) might be put there intentionally to offset banding in the 11-bit digitization. If this is the case, maybe they should have done the same with the 20D at ISO 3200, which is all even numbers in the RAW data (except for interpolated bad pixels). In any even, I am optimistic that future software can get rid of banding (I can get rid of it myself in RAW data in many cases, but don't have the facility yet for a quality converter to utilize the fixed data); if the 20D were to lose its banding, it would probably get a stop or more of usable shadows, and would be pushable at least one more stop. >I firmly believe that the 20D has a much better sensor than it seems to >have; the quality bottlenecks are inconsistent readout and the generic >12-bit digitization limit. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > Yes, it is. Constant f/4 aperture too. > > I think all new Nikkors will have AF-S as a standard feature. Criiiipes, I just looked this puppy up on B&H...$5100US??? Welllll, maybe I wouldn't buy the Canon version, if such existed... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > I will actually sell my M3 to get that lens... We talking Leica or BMW here? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> I will actually sell my M3 to get that lens... > > We talking Leica or BMW here? Leica (of course!). My days of tearing around at 200km/h are long gone! I did have the baby 316i at one stage though. Lovely car. SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces >>>already have the EOS 5, and it's a great camera. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Greg At least someone was paying attention. Actually there is a D, but it's preceded by a Q. What I meant was, that the EOS 5D name was probably chosen because it jives with the market segment that the EOS 5 was directed at, and because the EOS 5 was so highly regarded. > What I meant was, that the EOS 5D name was probably chosen because it > jives with the market segment that the EOS 5 was directed at, and > because the EOS 5 was so highly regarded. Except for that dial that kept on breaking :-) -peter >> What I meant was, that the EOS 5D name was probably chosen because it >> jives with the market segment that the EOS 5 was directed at, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -peter Yeah, mine finally broke the other day, after 7 years... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>>already have the EOS 5, and it's a great camera. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > jives with the market segment that the EOS 5 was directed at, and because > the EOS 5 was so highly regarded. IMO, the name 5D was chosen because two-digit models like the 20D accept EF-S lenses and single digit models don't. And the 5D couldn't get a series "1" designation because it doesn't have an integrated grip. > I'm so glad that they made the vertical grip an option, rather than > integrating it, though I expect that many professionals won't appreciate [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > an integrated vertical grip, but that it's an extra-cost option on the > EOS 5D. How would pointing out where Canon made the right choice and Nikon didn't be "Canon-bashing"? I really *do* lament it -- I wish the D2x didn't have a vertical grip standard. > The real question is when will Nikon announce a full frame digital SLR. > Canon has upped the ante again. If this is real, the 5D's specs are below the D2x in every way except for the sensor, which I'm sure is the reason for the price tag. It looks like a really nice camera, though; if I were a Canon user, and couldn't afford a 1Ds2, I'd probably buy it, despite the fact that it's full-frame. > I already have the EOS 5, and it's a great camera. Is the pictured camera an EOS 5 body? I was curious about the body; it doesn't look like a "pro-level" body, but on the other hand I'm not familiar enough with Canon's designs to know for sure. The lack of a 100% viewfinder and the low frame rate seemed odd for a camera with high-spec pretensions. On the other hand, it does have a spot meter, which seems to be Canon's "feature to hold back", much like Nikon and metering with non-CPU lenses (frankly, I'd trade the spot meter for that feature if I couldn't have both, though I'm glad I can). SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com Read the specs, why would the drive speed be lower than the 20D and why would the consective frame capture be lower than the D70s? 3 fps for 60 frames ... >Read the specs, why would the drive speed be lower than the 20D and why >would the consective frame capture be lower than the D70s? Because that is the price you have to pay to get a competent full frame 12.8 MP DSLR camera for an affordable price? > Read the specs, why would the drive speed be lower than the 20D and why > would the consective frame capture be lower than the D70s? > > 3 fps for 60 frames ... I bet you'll dig a hole on Aug 22 to hide. > Read the specs, why would the drive speed be lower than the 20D and why > would the consective frame capture be lower than the D70s? > > 3 fps for 60 frames ... Dude, it's a freaking 12 megapixel camera for less than $4,500! To make it shoot faster, you're going to need faster electronics, that's going to mean less battery life and more cost. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> Read the specs, why would the drive speed be lower than the 20D and why >> would the consective frame capture be lower than the D70s? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it shoot faster, you're going to need faster electronics, that's going > to mean less battery life and more cost. DUDE!! It's a hoax >>>Read the specs, why would the drive speed be lower than the 20D and why >>>would the consective frame capture be lower than the D70s? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > DUDE!! It's a hoax You said that for Nikon D50 and D70s too. Why should we believe you? >>>> Read the specs, why would the drive speed be lower than the 20D >>>> and why would the consective frame capture be lower than the D70s? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You said that for Nikon D50 and D70s too. Why should we believe you? You mean they aren't hoaxes? ;-) <Checking in camera bag> You're right. :-) -Mike >>>>Read the specs, why would the drive speed be lower than the 20D and why >>>>would the consective frame capture be lower than the D70s? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You said that for Nikon D50 and D70s too. Why should we believe you? The fake PDF file, the bad Photoshop mock-up that shows a different camera front and back. A PDF in Spanish, with English specs. Has anyone who reads Spanish read it yet. I am curious if the Spanish grammar is accurate of was it Bablefished? One should expect the entire document to have the same language on it. >>>>>Read the specs, why would the drive speed be lower than the 20D and why >>>>>would the consective frame capture be lower than the D70s? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >it Bablefished? One should expect the entire document to have the same >language on it. My Spanish colleague told me it is often the case that similar documents are in the two languages. However, neither of us can state with any authority whether or not the .pdf is genuine. > Tony Polson wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ...if that is the correct answer to the sixty four thousand dollar > question. Specs at http://alex.netfun.ro/Canon5D-specs.pdf but not in English. >> Tony Polson wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Specs at http://alex.netfun.ro/Canon5D-specs.pdf but not in English. That seems to be a 20D with add on lettering. Wouldn't the 20D body have a problem fitting the mirror for a full size sensor? If the spec are right, it includes a spot meter (3.5%), which would be nice... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to spell out: >>> Tony Polson wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > If the spec are right, it includes a spot meter (3.5%), which would be > nice... The body looks a little weird, but I suppose you could cram a 2.5" LCD on a slightly-widened 20D body. The AF point spec is... peculiar. Signature__ A L L D O N E! B Y E B Y E! (__ * _ _ _ _ __)|| | |(_)| \ "...and then, the squirrels attacked." > "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> choreographed a chorus line of > high-kicking electrons to spell out: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > The body looks a little weird, but I suppose you could cram a 2.5" > LCD on a slightly-widened 20D body. The AF point spec is... peculiar. ? Are you talking about the "invisible focus aid points?" SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> choreographed a chorus line of >> high-kicking electrons to spell out: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > ? Are you talking about the "invisible focus aid points?" Sounds like the "eye" feature on those certain film bodies? > Tony Polson wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ...if that is the correct answer to the sixty four thousand dollar > question. Crap. That's still too much. The only thing it does for me is hopefully lower the price of a used 1Ds. Source? SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > New Canon EOS 5D ... with 12 MP ... FULL FRAME! > > To be announced August 22, 2005. Shipping October 2005? > > Wow. > Source? The PDF is on some Romanian website. I also question a 20D body and wonder how they packed a 24x36mm sensor in a dSLR designed for EF-S lenses. Likely a hoax like the series of D200 rumours a year ago. > The PDF is on some Romanian website. I also question a 20D body and wonder > how they packed a 24x36mm sensor in a dSLR designed for EF-S lenses I think this is a rumor, but the sensor wouldn't be difficult on that body. The mount size is the same, EF-S just clears a little room by the mirror. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> The PDF is on some Romanian website. I also question a 20D body and >> wonder [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > body. The mount size is the same, EF-S just clears a little room by the > mirror. IT's not just the mirror, it the entire mirror box and shutter module. If the body was a 10D there would be room, but I don't know if a 20D could be upgraded. I haven't read all the specs and compared it to a 20D yet. >>>The PDF is on some Romanian website. I also question a 20D body and >>>wonder [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the body was a 10D there would be room, but I don't know if a 20D could be > upgraded. I haven't read all the specs and compared it to a 20D yet. Come on, check the size. It's slightly BIGGER in all dimensions and HEAVIER than 20D. Found it. The text is in Spanish, but the specs are in English. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > >> Source? >> > The PDF is on some Romanian website. I also question a 20D body and wonder > how they packed a 24x36mm sensor in a dSLR designed for EF-S lenses. > Likely a hoax like the series of D200 rumours a year ago. > Found it. The text is in Spanish, but the specs are in English. If it was a "leak" shouldn't everything be in Japanese? >> Found it. The text is in Spanish, but the specs are in English. >> >If it was a "leak" shouldn't everything be in Japanese? Not if they plan to announce it at Photokina 2005. ********************************************************* "I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ >>> Found it. The text is in Spanish, but the specs are in English. >>> >>If it was a "leak" shouldn't everything be in Japanese? > > Not if they plan to announce it at Photokina 2005. You mean PhotoKina 2006, there is no PK this year. It's every two years. >>>> Found it. The text is in Spanish, but the specs are in English. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >You mean PhotoKina 2006, there is no PK this year. It's every two years. Yes, the keyboard has moved the 6 key again. ********************************************************* "I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ Who gives a rats arse > Source? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> Wow. I'd like to know more, and see if it is a hoax. There are at least two "images" of this camera floating around. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Who gives a rats arse > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> >>> Wow. > New Canon EOS 5D ... with 12 MP ... FULL FRAME! > > To be announced August 22, 2005. Shipping October 2005? > > Wow. That would be cool, but I'll believe it when I see it. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > New Canon EOS 5D ... with 12 MP ... FULL FRAME! > > To be announced August 22, 2005. Shipping October 2005? > > Wow. Is there a verifable source to this rumour? >>New Canon EOS 5D ... with 12 MP ... FULL FRAME! >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Is there a verifable source to this rumour? I'm quite happy to eat my words, but no - not verifiable. I expect a 12mp or so 20d successor to coincide with the D200 more or less, but not full frame. It would be daft for Canon not to continue with two formats, full frame (which they have sewn up) and 1.6 crop. If I was a 20d owner with EF-s lenses, then I would be rather saddened if this rumour is correct. The 5D - if it exists, and if the price indication is correct, does not really have a place in the market. SNIP > If I was a 20d owner with EF-s lenses, then I would be rather > saddened if this rumour is correct. EFs lenses have been incompatible with full-frame (and/or 1.3 crop factor) sensors by design. Someone with a bit of foresight and money should have played safe and gone with the EF mount. That is not to say that there isn't room for an EFs platform, but it has a built-in ceiling for those having larger output magnification and higher dynamic range needs. Bart >>> New Canon EOS 5D ... with 12 MP ... FULL FRAME! >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > (which they have sewn up) and 1.6 crop. If I was a 20d owner with EF-s > lenses, then I would be rather saddened if this rumour is correct. Uh, the 20D is around $1200, and the 5D is rumored to be around $4000. The 20D owners might be sad if the 5D sold for around $2000. > The 5D - if it exists, and if the price indication is correct, does not > really have a place in the market. We'll see, but the D2x is doing well, and going just by the specs, the 5D beats it in many ways. Most professionals would greatly prefer full frame, but may not need the features or resolution of a 1Ds Mark II. >>>New Canon EOS 5D ... with 12 MP ... FULL FRAME! >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The 5D - if it exists, and if the price indication is correct, does not > really have a place in the market. I'm very happy with the Canon 1.3 format of the 1D thank you, but I would really like to try a full-frame. >> New Canon EOS 5D ... with 12 MP ... FULL FRAME! >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >Is there a verifable source to this rumour? The rumour originated in Spain. The following isn't a rumour: European Canon dealers are aware of a major new product announcement on August 22. Five new products will be announced. Four of them are known, at least in terms of the market sector they address. The fifth is unknown, but there have been strong rumours for months of a new DSLR positioned above the 20D. The spec sheet on the Romanian website is the one I received from a Spanish friend. It might be a fake. If so, it would be an elaborate and fairly convincing one. If it is a fake, after August 22 it will be very amusing to read (for a second time) the responses to date of the Canon shills on here. ;-) "Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.com> a écrit dans le message de news:vckjf1tah9p0hn79eq1luv01o4gtlhaeoe@4ax.com... > >> New Canon EOS 5D ... with 12 MP ... FULL FRAME! > >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > ;-) Someone to whom I showed this said his sources talk about 3 new bodies and a Digic 3 processor... Jean >"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.com> a écrit dans le message de >news:vckjf1tah9p0hn79eq1luv01o4gtlhaeoe@4ax.com... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >Jean That isn't what I heard. My Spanish friend talked about one DSLR body, two camcorders and two other things I cannot recall, but they were definitely not DSLR bodies. > New Canon EOS 5D ... with 12 MP ... FULL FRAME! > > To be announced August 22, 2005. Shipping October 2005? > > Wow. http://alex.netfun.ro/Canon5D-specs.pdf Looks like a fake image... but I may be wrong, PDFs aren't known for quality. Whatever, it (or any other DSLR) certainly won't be called a 30D, unless they don't mind the inevitable D30/30D confusion. Martin >>New Canon EOS 5D ... with 12 MP ... FULL FRAME! >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Martin Unlike Nikon, you rarely find any fake soon to be released Canon cameras. If you look at the PDF properties, you can find these details, so maybe you can cross check that. company: cayenne communications manager: Mariska van Gell author: Jim Bowes >>>New Canon EOS 5D ... with 12 MP ... FULL FRAME! >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > manager: Mariska van Gell > author: Jim Bowes And it turns out that a Jim Bowes works for cayenne communications, which is a European ad agency that does some work for Canon. But someone could have grabbed a PDF from a Canon site and modified it. In particular, there seemed to be reference to some DVD recorder in the PDF properties. Signature-Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. >>>>New Canon EOS 5D ... with 12 MP ... FULL FRAME! >>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > particular, there seemed to be reference to some DVD recorder in the > PDF properties. wow... we got a detective here! A full frame 12MP selling at $4000 is exactly what Canon needs to replace the discontinued Kodak dSLR. I think it's real. It has all the bar code numbers listed so you can check that out too. >> If you look at the PDF properties, you can find these details, so >> maybe you can cross check that. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >particular, there seemed to be reference to some DVD recorder in the >PDF properties. Or Jim Bowes could have used another flyer for a DVD recorder as a template and not reset that comment; it does say that it's draft v0.2 of the document. In addition to the above links to Canon, the EAN13 numbers all have a prefix that is registered to Canon's head office in Tokyo. The word "colour" is spelt with the British "u", so that also ties in with an interim translation between English and Spanish being done in Europe (Cayenne is in Amsterdam, which incidentally is also in the timezone set in the PDF's properties). I still think the pictures are a bit iffy, but then again they are quite low resolution and may just be placeholders using photos of early production prototypes. I was highly sceptical of this at first, but given that all recent Canon DSLR releases have had a leak of genuine information a couple of weeks before release. Well, I'm starting to think that it's not so much a leak as a deliberate marketing ploy to get people all hyped up for the official release. Or it could just be a *very* well planned and well implemented fake by someone(s) with a copy of CS2 and way too much time on their hands. In either eventuality, I don't care either way as I'm totally indifferent towards these specs which seem to be aimed squarely at the enthusiast landscape/studio photographer to me. A 13MP FF sensor would certainly an impressive technical achievement at the price, but there is nothing else mentioned in there that would make me want to upgrade. Now the 1DmkIIN that is also mentioned in the PDF on the otherhand, that sounds very promising indeed... Andy >>>If you look at the PDF properties, you can find these details, so >>>maybe you can cross check that. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Andy A PDF file for Internet user to download or internal proof doesn't need high resolution. As for the photo, I think it's real. I have a 20D and I can see the difference here and there and just enough to be a bit bigger to hold the full frame sensor and larger LCD. It's clearly wider and taller than 20D. Neverthless, I can't afford this toy but surely like to see Canon can deliver something that Kodak had done for a few years already - in a better way, of course. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message