Re: Congratulations Canon for the 5D "Best Professional Camera" at TIPA

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:

Here's 23 mm. Is that close enough? (different lens, not wide open,
and downsampled to 2.7MP, though)

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/59225146

I see little (if ANY?) vignetting in that shot, which is encouraging.
:)

It's stopped way down. The _only_ time you see vignetting with any lens,
cheap or otherwise is wide open or near wide open. Inversely, I've never
seen a lens review that didn't talk about light falloff wide open (and I
read the annual Japanese publication that reviews every 35mm AF lens in
production cover to cover every year).

Here's a 35mm medium format lens, shifted up 12mm. (Big,
oversharpened, overcompressed file of an ugly, handheld, test shot.)

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/57362779/original

Strange colors present in the lower-right corner street... Is that due to
compression?
-Sort of a purplish color.

Hmm. There are certainly nasty jpeg artifacts. The pavement is rendered
brighter than it is in real life, but the color's probably about right.

But again...an encouraging indication regarding vignetting.
:)

Again, vignetting is only a problem wide open. That's stopped down.

By the way, the worst lenses for vignetting are the cheap telephoto zooms.
The Canon 55-200 is truly horrifyingly bad wide open (which isn't very
wide). Good thing it only costs US$100 (used).

I'm interested in a real-world take on vignetting...as it looks
fairly pronounced here:
http://www.ddisoftware.com/20d-5d/#ffff

If you take a real shot of a real subject, only the 24-105/4.0 at 4.0
would be either noticable, or even slightly difficult to correct in
postprocessing. It's really amazing.

I have that lens...but I also have the 24-70.
Have you (by some odd chance) done any comparisons between those two
lenses (24-7- and 24-105 IS)?

I don't have either the 24-70 or 24-105. I have the Tamron 28-75/2.8.

With the 50/1.4 wide open, most
shots look fine, but a white card looks like a disaster.

I assume that clear blue skies would also show a pronounced darkening(?).

Probably. But you wouldn't take clear blue skies at f/1.4: you'd need a
shutter speed of (assuming Sunny 16 at ISO 100) of 1/(100 x 2^7) = 1/12,000
of a second<g>.

I'm thinking that 12.7MP is one of the sweet spots. I'm also thinking
that at least a 14-bit, if not a 16-bit, A/D converter would improve
the dynamic range at ISO 100.

I think that anything much over 20MP wouldn't make much sense, even
in FF. As you can see from the 20D/5D noise comparison in the page
with the vignetting examples above, shadow noise, even at low ISOs,
is much better in the 5D. Also, providing adequate resolution over
the whole frame for anything much over 20MP would be hard. Even at
12.7MP, one has to stop down one's wide angle lenses to f/11 to
sharpen up the corners.

I've been wondering about that.
It seems like going much higher than 13-16MP would cause most lens corners
to struggle at FF.

Only at the extreme wide end. Also, more pixels always improves the image,
just not as much as one would expect.

I do wonder, though, if Canon might not come up with some sort of offering
similar to the fake "3D" mock-up...perhaps as the replacement for the 5D
with the 16MP sensor...

I spent a lot of time with my nose on the screen comparing some 5D vs.
1Dsmk2 shots.

My conclusion is that a 12% increase (sqrt(16/12.7)) in resolution isn't
enough to see in an A/B comparison. So you'd really need 20 MP to see a
difference. At which point, you'd also see a difference in noise. Sigh.

I held out for quite a while for Canon to offer a 24-70 with IS. -Once I
finally gave up and bought the 24-70, they released the 24-105 IS. ;)

I didn't fall in love with the 24-105/4.0. It's slow and heavy.

I've been interested in selling the 24-70, but if I'm close to jumping on
the 5D, I'll wait and see how they compare on a FF.

If you can deal with the weight, I'd hold on to it. Everyone says it's a
superb lens on the 5D. I find the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is all I need much of the
time.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Congratulations Canon for the 5D "Best Professional Camera" at TIPA
    ... I recently got a 5D w/grid screen and a 24-70mm f2.8L lens. ... I see little vignetting in that shot, ... Blah blah blah. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S
    ... D40 that comes close to the lens on the FZ8. ... shoot similar shot under same conditions with your FZ8. ... P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in ... slightly greater detail retention when upsampled directly in the camera for JPG ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Looking for an EOS lens recommendation for panoramas
    ... By one shot do you mean those things that attach to ... > going to add some spirit levels to my tripod to help with the levelling. ... >> I would not use a wide angle Lens. ... I like to shoot 24 to 36 pictures per Pano. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: Canon 20d focusing issues
    ... shot with cheap glass - probably quite true, but I think the people who can ... that you weren't using the kit lens - but not "L" glass either). ... I had a problem with Camera shake - I just didn't know it at the ... For me it was summed up nicly the other day when I took some photos of my ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: Low Light DSLR Sports Shots
    ... I went to try to get pictures with my Sony A100 ... picture unobsturcted I have to put the lens thru the netting. ... Not a smart move with some of the intense players there. ... The only way to get that shot is to machine-gun it. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)