 |
 | 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 / September 2005Canon 5D: So it's real. And by the spec, looks very good.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/ While not "cheap" at an MSRP of US$3300, the 2 Lb 5D does promise a lot: Finally a spot meter. Full frame. Large monitor. 0.3EV ISO steps. A few "odd" things: 6 "invisible assist AF points" within the spot meter circle... 1/200 sync. (v. 1/250 in the 20D, not that important). Viewfinder is 0.71x, but considering "full frame" that's understandable, should be bright. Dumped the AF assist light (or was it via the built in flash in the 20D?) 3 fps v 5 in the 20D. (Proving again that high fps is not that important) Sample images from the source: http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos5d/eos5d_sample-e.html So? Which D60/20D/10D shooters are feeling temptation... when the price inneviably falls under $3K ... $2.5K ... do you leap? Bret I bet. Cheers, Alan -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. "Alan Browne" <alan1browne@hotmail.com> wrote in message > Dumped the AF assist light (or was it via the built > in flash in the 20D?) nope, it's a separate device on the 20d. > http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/ > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 3 fps v 5 in the 20D. (Proving again that high fps is not > that important) What a lower fps rate on a higher resolution camera (50% higher) proves is that memory cost would result in a significantly higher price and likely limit the camera's appeal to a much broader market most of which isn't professional sports photographers. > Sample images from the source: > http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos5d/eos5d_sample-e.html [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin > -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > What a lower fps rate on a higher resolution camera (50% higher) > proves is that memory cost would result in a significantly higher > price and likely limit the camera's appeal to a much broader market > most of which isn't professional sports photographers. I find that hard to believe, as memory is so cheap that compared to the camera's price, it's near negligible. For someone like Canon, who purchases in quanitity, a gigabyte of memory wouldn't cost them more than $50 - and probably less. My guess would be that it's size-related, as in a camera that small, every 1/2 square inch on the PCB is precious... steve > I find that hard to believe, as Slow > memory is so cheap that compared to the camera's price, it's near > negligible. For someone like Canon, who purchases in quanitity, a > gigabyte of memory wouldn't cost them more than $50 - and probably less. > My guess would be that it's size-related, as in a camera that small, every > 1/2 square inch on the PCB is precious... Fast memory might cost a whole lot more, or the bus required to support a larger cache of memory might the limitation. In either case, it's not commodity memory. Dave > > What a lower fps rate on a higher resolution camera (50% higher) > > proves is that memory cost would result in a significantly higher [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > size-related, as in a camera that small, every 1/2 square inch on the > PCB is precious... My guess is that they wanted to keep the features distant enough from the 1D models so as not to erode sales of the higher-priced camera.  SignatureAlbert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting > What a lower fps rate on a higher resolution camera (50% higher) > proves is that memory cost would result in a significantly higher > price and likely limit the camera's appeal to a much broader market > most of which isn't professional sports photographers. No, what it proves is that the small extra cost for more high speed buffer memory would result in decreased sales for much more expensive Canon models. <snip> > What a lower fps rate on a higher resolution camera (50% higher) > proves is that memory cost would result in a significantly higher > price and likely limit the camera's appeal to a much broader market > most of which isn't professional sports photographers. <snip> Except that the 5D already has a bucket of buffer memory. Regardless of the acquisition rate you would still get the 60 jpeg/17 raw burst images. The cost of a higher acquisition rate would revolve around: More analog outputs on the CCD (probably not a huge expense) More A/D converters [channels] (significant expense in $ and power) Faster DIGIC (significant power consumption, possible heat issues) Faster motors to recock the shutter/mirror (more power) Most of these items would also result in additional volume/weight for the camera. My suspicion is that the camera was built to a price point with only a few design givens (full frame, EOS 1 form factor, magnesium frame) and the engineers added as many "professional" features as possible within those constraints. The large number of images in a burst indicates that DDR SDRAM is cheap. Spot metering is probably cheap to implement. Instead of asking why they didn't put these things in, look at the minimal differences between the 5D and the 1DmkII/n and wonder how they got the price down so low. Dean BTW I also do not lament the loss of the built-in flash; I have a PS camera when I need snapshots/redeye. > http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/ > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 3 fps v 5 in the 20D. (Proving again that high fps is not > that important) Was it really necessary to kill the onboard flash? Seems like an *afforadable* FF dSLR (when the price drops) but has it been crippled with 3fps rate and lack of AF assist? Will photo journalists be ok with that low frame rate? And where is the movie mode? ;-) - Siddhartha > And where is the movie mode? ;-) > - Siddhartha You know....I know you probably said that tongue in cheek...but I would love to have movie mode on the D70. To me it doesn't make the camera any less serious....and it's a bloody handy thing to have.... In fact, I would imagine that it would be huge selling point for any dSlr I have a lot of friends overseas and would love to be able to shoot a few little movies and send them... > > And where is the movie mode? ;-) > > - Siddhartha [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I have a lot of friends overseas and would love to be able to shoot a few > little movies and send them... I don't have any puritanistic arguements against more consumer grade features in dSLRs but I don't think that the current electronics can handle 30fps from a full-frame or even a APS-C sized sensor. Maybe a new breed of microprocessors like the cell technology from IBM will make it possible. - Siddhartha >> And where is the movie mode? ;-) >> - Siddhartha [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I have a lot of friends overseas and would love to be able to shoot a few > little movies and send them... Tis true. Like leather in a truck, it's an unlikely thing to love. Anyway, I have a feeling that the mechanical shutter, combined with a sensor setup that maximizes data collection from the full frame at one time, makes a downsampled movie mode much harder to integrate. Dave > >> And where is the movie mode? ;-) > >> - Siddhartha [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > sensor setup that maximizes data collection from the full frame at one time, > makes a downsampled movie mode much harder to integrate. Why not put another small CCD/CMOS sensor that moves in place between the mirror and viewfinder's optical path when the movie mode is switched on? Just wondering aloud, don't really know much about dSLR construction. - Siddhartha > Why not put another small CCD/CMOS sensor that moves in place between > the mirror and viewfinder's optical path when the movie mode is > switched on? Just wondering aloud, don't really know much about dSLR > construction. Because it would probably be much more cost effective to pocket a P&S camera instead. :o) Dave > > Why not put another small CCD/CMOS sensor that moves in place between > > the mirror and viewfinder's optical path when the movie mode is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Dave Not sure about cost effectiveness but sure lets you sell a dSLR, P&S and handycam to the same guy ;-) - Siddhartha >> And where is the movie mode? ;-) >> - Siddhartha [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I have a lot of friends overseas and would love to be able to shoot a few >little movies and send them... It should also help to solve my problems in getting precise focussing in using my 10D for photomicrography. With a poor screen (for manual focussing) and the inability to open the shutter to focus from the DV output, it really isn't as useful as it ideally should be. David SignatureDavid Littlewood >>> And where is the movie mode? ;-) >>> - Siddhartha [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > David The 5D is supposed to have an optional screen made for critical focusing... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>> And where is the movie mode? ;-) >>>> - Siddhartha [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >The 5D is supposed to have an optional screen made for critical focusing... Yes, I saw that. However, they mention (IIRC) a choice of 3, and I have a nasty feeling they will be something with split image wedges and microprisms. These are in my experience little better; what is required for critical focus in the kind of applications I have in mind is the old "I" screen, with a clear centre spot and cross hair. This is the only one which is really satisfactory on my 1n. Also, the advantage of focussing from the sensor is that it eliminates any possible errors from misalignment between the sensor and the focussing screen. The disadvantage may be lower resolution of the video output. At the moment, all too often, I have to fiddle around with focus bracketing. The margin for error in photomicrography is as near zero as makes no odds. David SignatureDavid Littlewood In the "white paper:" http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_EOS_5D_White_Paper.pdf it shows all three screens, the Ee-S Sharp focusing Screen shows not split image, and the write up says it has "finer microlenses than other two types, meant for lenses f2.8 or faster, with a steeper-than-normal parabola of focus for easier manual focusing." SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>> >>>>> And where is the movie mode? ;-) [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > David > > And where is the movie mode? ;-) > > - Siddhartha [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I have a lot of friends overseas and would love to be able to shoot a > few little movies and send them... I agree. I use the movie mode on my Sony 828 on a regular basis; it's great for making short clips for web sites. I'm looking forward to a camera that merges what's great about the Canon DSLRs (great image quality, low noise at high ISOs, 3+ fps shooting, interchangable lenses) with what's great about the Sony 828 (30fps movie mode, impressive Night Framing mode, and (gasp) framing on the LCD. It's just a matter of time. Heck, I remember when the nay-sayers were ranting that digital cameras would never displace film for professional shooters. :-O SignatureAlbert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting >> > And where is the movie mode? ;-) >> > - Siddhartha [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > ranting that digital cameras would never displace film for professional > shooters. :-O Yer gonna have a long long wait for all three of those on one camera. Movie mode, maybe, but "Night framing mode" and framing on the LCD probably will be non starters for a long, long time. The viewfinder does just fine, and it would take a complete redesign of the camera to get the LCD to give you live preview. The shutter/sensor/lens/back setup prevents this, and it really is unnecessary when you use the viewfinder, which is less affected by ambient light than an LCD would be. And, since it doesn't have pixels, is more accurate, if somewhat smaller, for focus. So, if you've checked your focus in the viewfinder, why do you want to frame it in the LCD, since it's already framed in the viewfinder? SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com "Siddhartha Jain" <reach.siddhartha@gmail.com> wrote in message > Was it really necessary to kill the onboard flash? YES! Finally you don't have to pay for something you'll never use. SignatureMark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com > "Siddhartha Jain" <reach.siddhartha@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> Was it really necessary to kill the onboard flash? > > YES! Finally you don't have to pay for something you'll never use. I was wondering how they got the price so low. :-) -Mike >> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/ >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - Siddhartha Onboard flash may have affected the viewfinder coverage, and most of the users won't miss it, we have shoe mount or off camera flashes, anyway. Frame rate is similar to 1Ds mkII, so that may be a function of the sensor size, not a "crippling." Canon probably feels it doesn't need AF assist, if you're shooting in low light, you'll probably have either a fast lens, or a flash mounted. Canon's flashes have their own AF assist lights, and better ones than are on the cameras. That being said, the old A2 had a very nice AF assist light, near IR, that worked very well. Canon hasn't produced one as nice since. And don't expect the price to drop much, or soon. Look at the price of the 1Ds mkII, not much change there, percentage wise, the 1D mkII has dropped, what, 200 bucks? 5%? As has the 20D, a year after its intro. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > >> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/ > >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > nice AF assist light, near IR, that worked very well. Canon hasn't produced > one as nice since. After owning a dSLR for a year, I found my preference is to enjoy the flexibility offered by a dSLR alongwith the superior low-noise sensor but without carrying too much baggage around. So no onboard flash means no flash for me as I am very less likely to carry an external flash around. Ofcourse, your usage and preferences may vary. - Siddhartha >> >> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/ >> >> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > - Siddhartha I have a Tamron 519 top loader, the camera fits neatly in it, and the 420EX flash fits equally neatly in the outside pocket, with its attendant Lumiquest Pocket Bounce. The weight difference is negligible, and in going without a flash, aren't you going without some of the flexibility, too? SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > >> >> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/ > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > Lumiquest Pocket Bounce. The weight difference is negligible, and in going > without a flash, aren't you going without some of the flexibility, too? Don't get me started on dSLR bags ;-) I agree that my 300D's onboard flash has very limited capabilities (other than stunning the subjects) but I like to travel as light as possible. So yes, I am sacrificing some flexibility for convenience. As a sidenote, the Leica Digilux 2 has a cool onboard flash that other manufacturers can copy. - Siddhartha I'd like to see the size of the AF sensors, hopefully not the oversized ones of the 10D, and multi-spot metering (maybe this could be a software add-on?). . |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.