| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 04/06/2006 11:53 |
|
EOS 5D Woes
|
Well, I spent a lot of time yesterday taking test shots with various lenses on the 5D at a range of apertures to see what happens. My conclusion is that the 5D does vignette badly wide open with most lenses, not just the 24-105, and still has vignetting apparent at f8. You might say why be bothered because the rest of the camera more than makes up for it but I shoot weddings wide-open in dimly-lit churches and if that means that many of my images require more work to correct them then that doesn't bode well for my workflow. Otherwise, this is a fine camera and capable of taking some really detailed pics (I posted a few samples of Cambridge yesterday).
The conclusion I am fast coming to echoes James' (Gen_bunty) comments - IIRC, he said that the 5D is not really up to being a full-frame camera and he returned his with the thought that he'd wait for the second generation semi-pro full-frame camera from Canon (the 3D?) where they would (hopefully) address the issue.
As I have so many images (too many to post here), I will create a web page showing the images I took. I guess that a 1Ds will be much better for a full-frame camera but I don't wish to spend that money or carry that bulk around.
So, what do I do now? I did like the larger screen and that made image review much better. Maybe I'll get a 30D and wait a bit longer...
| jchrisc |
| () |
| 04/06/2006 12:20 |
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
David - that pretty much echos the views that I have expressed, but unlike you, I make little use of the camera wide open and so I decided to press on with it.
I am not convinced that there are significant differences between individual bodies (i.e. some kind of Q.C. problem) and it brings me back to the questions that I asked about the original AP review of this camera.
| Gen_bunty |
| () |
| 04/06/2006 13:12 |
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Hi David,
Well that echoes my thoughts and experience with the 5D. I will certainly be waiting eagerly to see if Canon address such issues with the next semi pro full frame.
For the moment, I am tempted by the 30D, also for the large screen.
So I guess this is the advantage of Jessops. You get 30 days to return the 5D and buy yourself a 30D. Maybe a 30D and the new 17-55 2.8 IS (once the price drops to something realistic for a non L lens - £799 at Parkcameras) would be a better bet.
Let us know how you get on and about the web link to those images.
James
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 04/06/2006 13:28 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Thanks James.
I might consider a 30D with the 17-85 IS. It such that lenses bundled with the camera (my 5D and 24-105 were in their original cartons inside a bigger box) are such good value at Jessies. It works out at £290. So, I could always sell it for more thus subsidising the 30D or keep it for when I get round to getting a 350D as a holiday camera.
| finste |
| () |
| 04/06/2006 14:43 |
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Hi,
I afraid (happy?) my experience with the 5D is almost a mirror image of yours. Of all the lenses I have for my 5D only the 85F1.8 shows any sign of vignetting wide open and even then it is only visible with uniformly lit areas.
17-35F2.8L, 28-70F2.8L, 70-200F2.8L, 300F2.8L, 85F1.8, 100F2.8Macro
All of these lenses are at least 10 years old but lay unused for 5 years or more due to me doing an OU degree but I'm wondering if QC is now a significant problem with Canon products in general. I'm sure there must be pressure to get as much product out the door to meet demand as they possibly can. That pressure may not have been there during the age of film when Canon were not so dominant and hence the problem may not be so apparent with older higher end lenses.
It really is a crying shame about the 24-105. If it didn't vignette so much it would be an almost ideal lens.
Regards...
Steve
| Scphoto |
| (Little Fruitbat) |
| 04/06/2006 14:53 |
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Its kinda putting me off getting one, though had a brief go and didn't notice anything. I'm going to give one a try with my camera (subject to jacobs letting me try it again) to check the results.
Is everyone happy with the 17-40L and 70-200L F4 lenses on the 5D?
| BigWill |
| (Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff) |
| 04/06/2006 15:07 |
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
That is very disappointing, but not entirely unexpected (given previous poor reports), news David. It seems Canon have made a major "faux pas" with this camera and it's just not up to the standards you would normally expect from such a reputable company. For a camera which costs such a large amount of money too this is doubly disappointing. Perhaps the holy grail of full frame digital cannot be obtained at a "budget" cost and Canon, in their efforts to provide such a camera in such a price bracket, have for once taken their eye off the ball and let standards slip. A camera which vignettes is simply not acceptable in any shape or form never mind at this price bracket and the 5D has done no favors to Canon's reputation and I think will make prospective future purchasers of their products more wary of purchasing on reputation only from now on.
So it's to be a 30D until Canon can get their act together then? Well at least the 20D was a proven performer and the additional tweaks the 30D provide should make it even more worthwhile.
BigWill
| TimF |
| (Taking it strictly) |
| 04/06/2006 16:13 |
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Sorry to hear that David. This is, I suppose, the inevitable consequence of the digital revolution.
In the days of film SLRs, a company would avoid having a cheaper mousetrap undermining its more expensive models by deleting or downgrading certain features - eg, lower top shutter speed, lower flash sync speed, lower frames per second rate, slower AF, no mirror lock-up, no spot metering etc. Obviously this can still be done now, but with image quality now an integral part of the camera rather than being dependant on whatever film you put in, it allows another area to cut costs in, and to give them their due, Canon would be foolish to provide image quality equal in every way to the 1Ds II on the 5D.
Would it be possible to get round this by using a centre ND filter? Or is it down to the design of the micro-lenses on the chip.
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 04/06/2006 16:47 |
|
|
|
Update
|
Saw manager at Jessies this afternoon. He was surprised to hear of my concerns. I left a CD of test images with him to print. Will go back tomorrow. He has another body and is willing to do a swap. I'll see what tomorrow brings.
I'll see if I can get examples online later tonight.
| BigWill |
| (Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff) |
| 04/06/2006 18:03 |
|
|
|
Re: Update
|
Will be interested to see if it's just a "one off" with your particular example or if there is a general design flaw. I'm not optomistic though as the evidence so far seems to point to a general design flaw but I await your tests with intrest David.
BigWill
| sofinetti |
| (journeyman) |
| 04/06/2006 18:10 |
|
Re: Update
|
First,I am sorry hearing you're not happy with your new 5D.I was proud about this camera,though I don't own it but being in the same "team",Canon DSLR products well known for their hig ISO performance,DR and detail.
I've got just one question about this,is there the same bad vigneting ,with 24-105 or other lens that's reported to vignettes strong on 5D, on a 35mm film body or on a 1D body?
Isn't it the same "35x24mm" area and the same sensor/frame plan , the same distance between the lens and the plan of sensor/film frame? I think it should be absolutely the same,so where from comes this strong vigneting?
| Bettina |
| (Kein Titel) |
| 04/06/2006 18:40 |
|
|
Re: Update
|
I think that there's always some vignetting but with APS sensor sizes it's less obvious as they tend to use the centre of the lenses. I think the test is not between a 10D and a 5D but, really between a full frame DSLR and it's film equivalent. Also, if you're aware of it, there's lots of scope to get rid of it either in PSCS2 RAW or in its lens correction filter.
As regards weight, I held a 5D in my hand the other day - with battery grip. I found the weight very similar to the 1Ds.
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 04/06/2006 19:38 |
|
|
|
Re: Update
|
Quote:
Also, if you're aware of it, there's lots of scope to get rid of it either in PSCS2 RAW or in its lens correction filter.
Not so. The vignetting is the same from side-to-side but not the same from top-to-bottom. So, using the correction tools, it is possible to remove the top vignetting but it over-corrects in the bottom half of the frame. Now I might be able to combine two layer and do different vignetting on each but why should I have to go to so much trouble and when processing 100 images shot in low light in a church, this is a definite no-no.
| LenShepherd |
| (Persona non grata) |
| 04/06/2006 20:14 |
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
When I field tested the 1DS Mk II I got what I consider too much vignetting - from reports I trust (like BJP) I concluded it was the technology i.e. sensors and wide open with full frame digital with many lenses mean lots of work.
Apparently the vignetting is not as severe as with the 5D. Even so for hotel room interiors where the lower room corners often have low levels of illumination I found it all too easy to loose too much detail to get a workable image.
For this type of work I continue to shoot 24x36 with a film body. Such sales figures I have seen indicate even with it's much discounted price the 5D has yet to achieve 1% of the DSLR market by number of bodies sold. By comparison the 30D and Nikon's D200 are selling far better. Whilst price comes into it I suspect the 5D has not been the market break through Canon hoped it would be.
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 04/06/2006 20:38 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
I'd certainly hope that 1Ds MkII would be better. For my purposes, I buy quality L glass to be used wide-open in low light situations, and that's where the 5D is bad. Maybe a 1D might be a better bet for me as it is 1.3x.
I liked the idea of the 5D because of the larger viewfinder and larger LCD - both of these are in the 1D MkII but I don't fancy the size or price. Maybe a 30D with bigger LCD might be a compromise.
| Les_McLean |
| () |
| 04/06/2006 20:45 |
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
A couple of points, firstly it must be a huge disappointment to find these flaws in a camera you had high hopes for, let's hope a replacement body doesn't have these.
A few of my friendsa have 5D's, and have had no mention of vignetting, however, they rarely shoot wide open, so probably not surprising.
Unlike Len , I don't find too much vignetting on a 1Ds MKII, slight on a 24-105 at F4, very slight on a 17-40, 17-35 and a sigma 12-34mm.
I came to the conclusion on the 24-105, while not perfect, I could live with the vignetting, it's rare I shoot wide open , and if I ever did, PS could take care of it.
Hope you keep us posted on this continuous saga .
Les
http://www.lesmclean.co.uk/
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 04/06/2006 23:30 |
|
|
|
OK, some samples...
|
Just to add some substance to my observations, here are some samples:
17-40/f4L at 17mm and f4
17-40/f4L at 17mm and f8
24-105/f4L at 24mm and f4
24-105/f4L at 24mm and f8
28-70/f2.8L at 28mm and f2.8
28-70/f2.8L at 28mm and f8
70-200/f2.8L at 70mm and f2.8
70-200/f2.8L at 200mm and f2.8
70-200/f2.8L at 200mm and f8
I trust your eyes will see what my eyes observe...
| Scphoto |
| (Little Fruitbat) |
| 04/06/2006 23:38 |
|
|
|
Re: OK, some samples...
|
It does look a bit duff on those pics. Hopefully i'll be able to try the first 2 lenses tomorrow on my 5D. It would be interesting to see the results.
| BigWill |
| (Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff) |
| 05/06/2006 00:00 |
|
|
|
Re: OK, some samples...
|
Good lord that's dreadfull! You'd get better results with a Zenit 35mm with a half decent lens! Canon certaily have a neck on them to ask such an outrageous price for such an outrageously bad camera! I'm shocked!
BigWill
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 05/06/2006 00:27 |
|
|
|
Re: OK, some samples...
|
Well let's see if I have a bad example when I get my hands on another body.
| TerryS |
| () |
| 05/06/2006 00:29 |
|
|
Re: Update (Vignetting & DSLRs)
|
Quote:
sofinetti wrote:
I've got just one question about this,is there the same bad vigneting ,with 24-105 or other lens that's reported to vignettes strong on 5D, on a 35mm film body or on a 1D body?
Isn't it the same "35x24mm" area and the same sensor/frame plan , the same distance between the lens and the plan of sensor/film frame? I think it should be absolutely the same,so where from comes this strong vigneting?
First, I have seen comparisons of the 5D and 1DsMkII (both full frame) and they suggest that, when everything is equal, the 5D does vignette more than the 1DsMkII. But what I have not seen is any comparison of either the 5D or the 1DsMkII with a Canon 35mm film SLR using the same lenses, aperture etc This would be interesting.
Second, whilst all the properties you mention are indeed the same across all full frame DSLRs and 35mm film SLRs, that does not mean that the vignetting will be the same across all the bodies. This is because the 'sensors' in the bodies all have different light collection properties, especially for light rays that strike the sensor non-perpendicularly (at near grazing angles).
Film is a 'sensor' with very little depth and hence the angle of incidence of the incoming light rays has little effect on its light collection efficiency. In contrast, digital CCD & CMOS sensors have a depth such that the photosites can be envisioned as being sunken in little wells or pits; as a consequence the light collection efficiency of the sensor alters according to the angle of incidence of the incoming light rays.
Points near the periphery of the image are formed largely by light rays impinging at highly non-perpendicular angles, and hence these points will be the most affected by this sensor-depth effect. And, of course, these are the same points that suffer the consequences of normal optical vignetting. Thus, whilst DSLRs and film SLRs suffer the same from 'traditional' optical vignetting, DSLRs can suffer an additional 'sensor depth vignetting'.
The photosites of digital sensors are usually covered with tiny microlenses in an attempt to compensate for the fact that the light sensitive portions are smaller that the actual photosites (since there is additional electronics taking up space on the surface of the sensor), and to some degree these microlenses also correct 'sensor depth vignetting'. Indeed, this digital vignetting can be virtually eliminated by having microlenses that are offset from the sensor surface, but this increases the cost of manufacture.
The Canon 5D and 1DsMkII have different sensors (such that the sensor in the former is significantly cheaper than that in the latter), and it appears that the 1DsMkII sensor has better peripheral light collection efficiency than does the 5D sensor, possibly because of better microlenses.
Quote:
Bettina wrote:
I think that there's always some vignetting but with APS sensor sizes it's less obvious as they tend to use the centre of the lenses.
Just to be pedantic, APS sensors use the centre of the image circle - they use the entire lens, not just the centre. Every point on a lens surface contributes to every point in the image. Since vignetting shows itself at the periphery of the image circle, this is the part of the image that APS sensors do not record, fortuitously.
Terry.
| BigWill |
| (Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff) |
| 05/06/2006 00:34 |
|
|
|
Re: OK, some samples...
|
Quote:.....................indeed! If I was a betting man I'd put my money on the results being similarly disappointing though! There have just been far too many of these aberrations reported for it to be coincidental but it will be interesting to see if the problem varies in severity from one example to another.
Well let's see if I have a bad example when I get my hands on another body.
BigWill
| Bettina |
| (Kein Titel) |
| 05/06/2006 00:51 |
|
|
|
Re: OK, some samples...
|
That is awful.
let us know what happens.
| radim |
| (member) |
| 05/06/2006 08:44 |
|
|
Re: OK, some samples...
|
Yeah, if these are results from kit over £2449 that's awful.
David, any problems with dust in camera? I've tried three different bodies and all have got really big problem with dust in viewfinder.
Radim
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 05/06/2006 08:55 |
|
|
|
Re: OK, some samples...
|
I've had it 10 days and not seen any dust yet.
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 05/06/2006 08:58 |
|
|
|
If I get time....
|
...I'll re-shoot this lot with Velvia in a film body using the same lenses.
I've suddenly got a great use for my Technical Back E to put the focal length and aperture onto the image so maybe I'll use my EOS 600 for this exercise rather than my EOS 3 (which I meant to put on eBay at the weekend - d'oh!)
| sofinetti |
| (journeyman) |
| 05/06/2006 10:11 |
|
Re: If I get time....
|
Thank you Terry for the theory. Now I know.
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 05/06/2006 11:03 |
|
|
|
Re: Update (Vignetting & DSLRs)
|
Terry
I quite agree with what you say and suspect the 5D sensor is a cheaper design than the 1Ds sensor and this is the root cause of the problems I am seeing.
Regardless, if I buy L glass to be used wide open under low light conditions then I expect to use those lenses that way. If Canon launch a new body that is claimed to be compatible with all lenses then that is what I also expect - compatibility, not compromise.
So, we either have a scenario where all Canon lenses, L or otherwise, are designed with an insufficiently-sized image circle so that it is just on the limits of acceptability for film but not full-frame digital, or, the sensor in the 5D isn't good enough for full-frame usage.
Either way, I am not happy spending a lot of money to find body/lens incompatibility no matter how it is explained away.
| Benchista |
| (Which Tyler) |
| 05/06/2006 11:04 |
|
|
Re: Update (Vignetting & DSLRs)
|
I think it's the microlenses...
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 05/06/2006 11:09 |
|
|
|
Re: Update (Vignetting & DSLRs)
|
Quote:
I think it's the microlenses...
You're probably right Nick but is it my problem or Canons?
Finding the reason for the problem is not a justification for its existence in the first place.
| Benchista |
| (Which Tyler) |
| 05/06/2006 11:29 |
|
|
|
Re: Update (Vignetting & DSLRs)
|
Of course it's Canon's issue. I've seen enough examples of cameras that don't have the issue to know that it can be done, so how on earth are so many dodgy examples getting out?
| El Sid |
| (Going potty) |
| 05/06/2006 11:30 |
|
|
Re: Update (Vignetting & DSLRs)
|
Quote:
You're probably right Nick but is it my problem or Canons?
Finding the reason for the problem is not a justification for its existence in the first place.
IIRC the same complaint was levelled at the Kodak Pro/n (and /c), it's predecessor and, I think, the Contax N digital. Nikon are reckoned to have stuck with the DX sensor because of this very problem and I think it was even mentioned in connection with the new Mamaiya ZD despite this using a smaller than 6 x 4.5 sensor with medium format lenses.
| Benchista |
| (Which Tyler) |
| 05/06/2006 11:34 |
|
|
|
Re: Update (Vignetting & DSLRs)
|
Yes, but Nikon have a big problem with the small size of the F bayonet, which restricts lens design possibilities, and this applies equally to any camera based on it. Contax never really had a bash at solving it, which is a shame, as their lens mount certainly helped. Canon have been pretty successful in this area - they've shown that it IS possible to get it right - which is what makes cases like this all the worse IMHO.
| BigWill |
| (Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff) |
| 05/06/2006 12:05 |
|
|
|
Re: Update (Vignetting & DSLRs)
|
So are you saying that there isn't an inherent design flaw with the 5D but rather that it is a quality control problem Nick? Are you 100% sure that the good examples you saw simply hadn't been tested at the extremes of aperture at which David is encountering problems? (indeed David's camera even produced bad results at mid apertures!) I think it is essential that a definitive answer is given to this problem and the facts established because if there is an inherent design problem (and I'm not saying there is.....................just strong evidence pointing that way) then I think prospective buyers need to be informed of the facts.
BigWill
| Benchista |
| (Which Tyler) |
| 05/06/2006 12:07 |
|
|
|
Re: Update (Vignetting & DSLRs)
|
Yup, I'm 100% certain.
| BigWill |
| (Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff) |
| 05/06/2006 12:11 |
|
|
|
Re: Update (Vignetting & DSLRs)
|
Would you be swayed if the second example David tests produces similar results to the first camera? To me, that would be pretty strong evidence that there is either an intrinsic design flaw or a serious quality control problem with recent/certain batches of the camera?
BigWill
| Bettina |
| (Kein Titel) |
| 05/06/2006 12:41 |
|
|
|
Re: Update (Vignetting & DSLRs)
|
Or maybe it's just the lens hoods ...
| Bawbee |
| (Out on a whim) |
| 05/06/2006 12:57 |
|
|
Re: Update (Vignetting & DSLRs)
|
David,
Sorry to read about your troubles, I hope that Canon/Jessops reconcile the problem.
If this is a general failing with the 5D, it is well timed for me, I was almost ready to go-for-it, thanks for sharing. Please let us know the serial number of the body that you have.
I will now await the outcome and maybe let the current cashback offer lapse and wait to see what happens with the price.
| jchrisc |
| () |
| 05/06/2006 13:00 |
|
|
|
Re: Update (Vignetting & DSLRs)
|
Can't we go in the opposite direction?
If examples exist of EOS 5D picture taken with lenses wide open, and no significant vignetting, can we see them?
Mine certainly vignettes at wide apertures and I have tried it with a range of lenses and focal lengths. Mostly I don't use it wide open and I have the Pro version of DXO to make corrections, but if I was convinced that it was a poor example rather than a standard example of a camera with poor characteristic, then it would go back immeidiately.
So if somebody does have a "non-vignetting" 5D can we see some properly set-up test pictures please - camera square on to a uniformly lit plane surface with some wide aperture lenses. I would be very grateful.
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 05/06/2006 13:08 |
|
|
|
Re: Update (Vignetting & DSLRs)
|
Quote:
Or maybe it's just the lens hoods ...
I did consider this and contemplated shooting without hoods but I didn't in the end because a hood has a purpose and I wouldn't shoot without a hood anyway. Besides, if these hoods are designed to go with the lens and the hoods themselves are the problem then it is an equally significant failing that the lenses cannot be used with a hood, and the recommended Canon one at that!
However, I did also test the 70-200/f2.8L at the 200mm end and vignetting is still present wide open and I doubt that the single hood designed to cope with the range of 70-200mm will cause problems at the 200mm end.
I did remove any UV filters on the front of each lens so that they were all on a level playing field and nobody could claim that the vignetting was caused by the filter.
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 05/06/2006 13:14 |
|
|
|
Dilemma
|
Quote:
if I was convinced that it was a poor example rather than a standard example of a camera with poor characteristic, then it would go back immeidiately.
Chris, that's the big dilemma facing every 5D buyer. Are there poor examples and is it possible to find a good 'un and be very happy with the camera, or is this a design flaw where I'd be better off with a cropped sensor camera.
Certainly I will try the other 5D body that Jessies has lined up for me (the manager is very concerned) but if that exhibits similar behaviour then it's goodbye 5D, hello 30D and I'll wait for the next Canon full-frame camera that has these issues resolved.
| TerryS |
| () |
| 05/06/2006 13:26 |
|
|
|
Re: Update (Vignetting & DSLRs)
|
Quote:
David Steel wrote:
Regardless, if I buy L glass to be used wide open under low light conditions then I expect to use those lenses that way. If Canon launch a new body that is claimed to be compatible with all lenses then that is what I also expect - compatibility, not compromise.
So, we either have a scenario where all Canon lenses, L or otherwise, are designed with an insufficiently-sized image circle so that it is just on the limits of acceptability for film but not full-frame digital, or, the sensor in the 5D isn't good enough for full-frame usage.
I don't think the problem is that Canon lenses are designed with an insufficiently-sized image circle. I believe the more likely explanation is that Canon lenses have, in general, a very non-telecentric design. That is to say, the chief light rays that form points in the periphery of the image strike the sensor very non-perpendicularly (at a high angle of incidence). As a consequence the digital vignetting is high (as David's images demonstrate). There are two solutions to this problem.
The first solution is to use offset microlenses on the sensor to redirect the light rays so that they strike the light sensitive areas on the photosites more nearly 'straight on', but this would, I imagine, add considerably to the cost of manufacturing the sensor assembly. I suspect that the 1DsMkII does something along these lines, hence its sensor shows less vignetting than that of the 5D but it is far more expensive.
The second solution is to design lenses that are 'image space telecentric', which means that all the chief light rays strike the sensor perpendicularly (at zero angle of incidence). This is achieved by designing the lens so that its exit pupil is a long way in front of the lens. This is the solution adopted by Olympus with their four-third system - they claim that all their lenses have a 'near-telecentric' design. And some of the independent lens producers make similar claims for their new 'designed for digital' lenses.
I have been told on good authority that historically Canon have used largely non-telecentric designs for their lenses - with film this didn't really matter since film can tolerate a wide range of angles of incidence, however with CCD and CMOS sensors it has now become an issue since they cannot tolerate a wide range of angles of incidence. In contrast, I understand that many of Nikon's film lenses do have a near-telecentric design, which is ironic since Canon (with their full frame sensors) now have greater need for telecentricity than do Nikon (with their APS sensors). This is just an historical quirk I believe. (I should add that I have never spent the time to verify the truth of this myself by examining Canon and Nikon lens designs, but I was told this by a reliable and independent optical engineer who had examined the designs.)
If the above is true then there is nothing Canon can do to increase the telecentricity of their existing (film) lenses, however I would expect them to ensure that all new lenses are designed to be as nearly telecentric as possible (although it should be born in mind that telecentric designs have disadvantages as well as advantages - lens design is always a compromise). Consequently, I find it disappointing that the new EF 24-105mm f4 L does not appear have a near telecentric design despite the fact that Canon launched it with the 5D, which itself appears to lack offset microlenses. In which case this combination is likely to be particularly susceptible to vignetting, however this conclusion is at odds with those 5D/24-105mm users who claim that there is no significant vignetting with this combo. All a bit of a conundrum!
Terry.
| Gen_bunty |
| () |
| 05/06/2006 14:04 |
|
Re: OK, some samples...
|
Hi David,
Have you taken down the images ? I can't seem to see any images.
Thanks
James
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 05/06/2006 14:13 |
|
|
|
Re: OK, some samples...
|
No. They're still there. It must be a local browser issue with you or your ISPs cache perhaps.
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 05/06/2006 14:14 |
|
|
|
Re: Update (Vignetting & DSLRs)
|
Interesting stuff Terry. Reading around I find that Sigma lenses do better on the 5D than Canon's own lenses. Would they be more telecentric I wonder...?
| BigWill |
| (Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff) |
| 05/06/2006 14:44 |
|
|
|
Re: Update (Vignetting & DSLRs)
|
I must say I'm very surprised at your acceptance of a camera which consistently vignettes at wide apertures Chris, be it a "one off" or not. Surely you shouldn't have to accept such inferior performance from a camera at such a price level? If it were me I would have no hesitation in returning the camera. You should not as a consumer, be expected to have to use post production techniques to correct an error in a product be it a "bad example" or not!
If enough people bring their 5D's back to Jessops or whatever and major retailers start taking note and complaining to Canon about it, then, and only then I feel will something be done about it as individual complaints don't carry as much "weight" as when the camera trade start getting hassle about a troublesome product.
BigWill
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 05/06/2006 14:58 |
|
|
|
Re: Update (Vignetting & DSLRs)
|
BigWill
Nothing is perfect in life and we all have to compromise somewhere. Some examples of the 5D seem better than others and maybe Chris considers that the issue with him is not enough to worry about and the camera's other fine features outweigh this particular drawback. That's for Chris to decide.
In my case, I often work wide-open with fast lenses and so this issue is more critical to me and maybe I have a particularly bad example as well.
However, I do hope that the reject rate by users will make Canon think carefully about their design and acceptance criteria in the future. I'm sure that the problem will be cracked but remember that this is a leading-edge camera at an aggressive price-point for what it offers. It may not be everybody's cup of tea but it might be the nirvana for many.
| BigWill |
| (Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff) |
| 05/06/2006 15:10 |
|
|
|
Re: Update (Vignetting & DSLRs)
|
Indeed David, I accept entirely that it is Chris (and others) perogative whether to accept the standards offered by the 5D or not but I find myself siding with you on this issue in that a camera with such an "Achilles heel" would certainly not meet with my standards of acceptability for a product in such a price range.
If anything, I hope that this thread will prove conclusively that the 5D does in fact have such a failing and we can then leave it to prospective purchasers to make their own educated decision as to whether they can live with such a failing or not. At least the issue will have been brought to the attention of prospective purchasers so that they can then make an informed decision having been acquainted with all the facts relevant to that decision.
BigWill
| Gen_bunty |
| () |
| 05/06/2006 15:55 |
|
Re: OK, some samples...
|
Doh. Had the display images from oriniating site only swtiched on in firefox.
Oh my. They really are bad. I thought the 24-105 was a shocker, but the 17-40 is just unbelievable.
How you can be expected to put up with fall off like that from a crop of L glass is beyond me. Even the 70-200 looks bad.
Definitely steering clear of even a second 5D. Canon I hope you are listening.
James
| Scphoto |
| (Little Fruitbat) |
| 05/06/2006 16:33 |
|
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Sadly it looks like i have to confirm Davids test results
17-40mm
24-105mm
Can't explain why its at 28mm for the last 2 pictures. It thought it was 24. But the effect is much the same.
For me its probably not too much of a problem as i tend not to shoot wide open too much, however it is annoying something so expensive performs so badly in certain conditions. I might give canon support a ring for a laugh.
/edit Canon support sugested i take the camera back for a refund. I asked them to register a complaint. Someone from the complaints dept will contact me.
| alanS |
| (The Flameproof Dr Dust) |
| 05/06/2006 17:07 |
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
I might give them a call about dust in the optics and on the sensor.
| Scphoto |
| (Little Fruitbat) |
| 05/06/2006 18:17 |
|
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
I'll take the blame for the sensor, the optics currently belong to Jacobs in Birmingham (and the view is from their shop!).
| El Sid |
| (Going potty) |
| 05/06/2006 18:25 |
|
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
I don't know if Mr C-W has seen this thread but it stongly suggests a full AP investigation might be in order.
| CircleOfConfusion |
| (addict) |
| 05/06/2006 19:03 |
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
surely it can't be all doom and gloom? if this is a standard issue across the board (and not just "bad ones") wouldn't canon be able to possibly update the firmware/techno-wotsits and make the photosites at the periphery of the sensor more sensitive depending on lense, aperture etc. being used
or am I getting a bit ahead of current technology
| robertj |
| (Banned) |
| 05/06/2006 19:05 |
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Quote:
My conclusion is that the 5D does vignette badly wide open with most lenses.
Sorry to hear this.
I can't understand how a body can correct vignetting? If it is micro-lensing, in my view, this is not a proper solution and should be needed only for non-telecentric lenses. It is a well known fact that the less on the light path the better. I think that Olympus E-1 has no micro-lenses (not sure) as all Zuiko Digital lenses are quasi-telecentric (and designed for 4/3). I think once Canon releases digital lenses (for 35 mm sensors) the problem will vanish. Then, at least in my view, it would be preferable to have body with no micro-lenses on the sensor.
Why don't you go for some professional Nikon DSLR (you will have APS sized sensor, but if it may be enough)?
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 05/06/2006 19:05 |
|
|
|
Now got body no. 2...
|
...and will repeat these tests.
In the 5Ds favour, I must say that it delivers pretty impressive images right out of the camera. My previous cameras all required a bit of tweaking (levels, contrast, sharpening) before I got them printed but along with my test prints for Jessies, I just dumped about 50 JPEGs as they were straight from the camera onto a CD to see how they turned and I'm impressed. Superb quality - they look more like punchy and sharp images straight from a digicam and not a dSLR.
| BigWill |
| (Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff) |
| 05/06/2006 21:11 |
|
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
I think it's more a case of Canon burying their heads in the sand and denying the existance of a problem in the hope that it will just "go away" if sufficient people don't complain about it Steve. They have somewhat of a track record of doing that as they did with the Canon EOS5 35mm camera when they never "officially" admitted that it had a weak control dial even though later versions had an "improved" dial fitted to them. I would hate to see Canon worm their way out of this one too simply because people were afraid to challenge the "Mr.Big" of the camera market! That is why I can't understand when people say "well I don't use it much at full aperture anyway" or "maybe I just got a bad one". It's simply not good enough that a camera in that price bracket should come with any major deficiencies and doubly galling when a major company get away with shirking their responsibilities to their customers by denying the existance of what has now become a well documented problem!
BigWill
| AGW |
| (Pure Dead Brilliant) |
| 06/06/2006 19:34 |
|
|
Re: Update (Vignetting & DSLRs)
|
Time for Canon to put some research into curved sensors? I'm sure this subject was discussed in an ancient post I read once?
Graeme
| TimF |
| (Taking it strictly) |
| 07/06/2006 09:01 |
|
|
|
Re: Update (Vignetting & DSLRs)
|
Somehow I doubt curved sensors would be the answer to this (and might even introduce a whole new set of problems).
Browsing the Leica Customer Forum just now, where the subject of the forthcoming digital M is being discussed, and specifically the purpose of the new "optical contacts" being added to the rear flange of M lenses from July 2006 (see the Leica Board here for details of that) has resulted in this item resurfacing.
As many here will know, the Leica DMR has software incuded which maps the characteristics of all compatible R-system lenses, so that things such as distortion, light fall-off etc can be corrected in-camera. This post appeared on the LUG some time ago, with comments in bold from the Leica Forum poster, John F. It might be that Canon will have to undertake a similar excercise for their full-frame cameras in future, though they might be forced to restrict themselves initially at least to lenses with appeal to pro aand pro-am users due to the much larger range they offer.
So far Leica has never officially confirmed any special function of the ROM chip when using the R8/R9 with the DMR digital back. On the other hand, here is the original text from the LUG that started this ball rolling last October:
"The two new [31 and 39 megapixel] sensors [from PhaseOne digital back maker for Hasselblad H2D] have some new technology and some new problems, which are yet to be solved. The 31mp sensor employs microlens technology. A tiny light gathering lens designed to increase the sensitivity of the pixel by funneling light into it, enabling higher ISO ratings, caps each pixel. The microlens exaggerates the usual falloff and color shift between the center and edges of the chip. This is worse on wide-angle lenses and with view camera movements. To date, only Hasselblad has successfully managed the microlens sensor in a professional level product, the digital back they make [with Imacon] for the Leica R8. While the specification for the chip stated that this behavior would occur with wide-angle lenses, only, Hasselblad discovered that it occurred with all lenses. To correct these aberrations, Hasselblad mapped out the characteristics of each lens in the Leica R8 system at every aperture and light level and included this information in the firmware of the [Leica DMR] back. The camera would send the lens and exposure data to the back, which would in turn correct the image. In other words, the corrections had to be integrated at the system level. Hasselblad has already added the capability for this type of lens to camera to back communication in its latest digital platform, the H2. Previous strategies of mechanically adapting backs to fit different cameras may no longer provide an optimal solution with these higher technology sensors.
...
Thank you all for reading this and I look forward to your considered responses.
John O'Donnell Technical Sales & Training - Digital Imaging Systems
Professional Graphics Systems & Services, Inc. 3 West Main Street
Elmsford, NY 10701 (914) 345-3033 x34 cel (914) 224-8642
john@prographics.com
----------------------------
On Sep 30, 2005, at 8:22 AM, John O'Donnell wrote: > > I’d like to shed some light on the subject of the latest new 31 and 39 > megapixel sensor arrays.
Hello all I wanted to add to John's excellent post on the new chips.
It's worth noting that the H2 also passes focus data to the back because in order to know how to correct CA [chromatic abberation] fall off etc you need to know focal length (i.e. on the zoom) aperture AND focus distance. I think you are right in saying that [digital back maker] Phase will have a lot of problems introducing the 31MP [digital back] due to the microlenses and they do not have access to the lens data as Hasselblad backs do. Also as you rightly point out the time spent with the Leica has helped them problem solve.
The H2 launch has been very quiet and I think many people have been a bit under whelmed by the changes but as the new chips come on line they will really see the benefits of the H2 (getting the lens data) and the new DSP [digital signal processor] in the backs. Regards
Nick Tresidder Photography http://www.nick-t.com 649 379 3778 6421 972
111
-------------------------------
regards, George”
Source: http://leica-users.org/v30/msg11701.html (Oct 5, 2005)
Leica R lenses can transmit focal length data (through their ROM chip) and diaphragm data to the Leica R8/R9, but not the focusing distance. While the new 6-bit coding will allow the M8 to identify a lens's focal length, these new M lenses will still not be able to transmit diaphragm data. However, the focusing distance could be obtained through the Leica M's RF focusing mechanism, which could potentially be electronically captured by the Leica M8 (a bit complicated, but it could be done).
To be quite honest, we do not have any idea if this text from the LUG is true or not (and if this optical optimization feature is applied to both JPEG and RAW/DNG files). As I wrote above, I am still attempting to get a confirmation from Hasselblad Sweden. It's possible that Hasselblad wants to keep its "Digital APO Correction" exclusively to itself (hence the silence from Leica on this possible "undocumented feature"). If I do find anything, I will let you all know.
Best regards,
John F.
P.S. For more info on the Hassy "DAC", goto http://www.hasselblad.se/ and click on the link "H2D-39"
| Benchista |
| (Which Tyler) |
| 07/06/2006 09:09 |
|
|
|
Re: Update (Vignetting & DSLRs)
|
There's similar specualtion on the LUG, inevitably.
There is also the software solution - that's what Nikon will be providing with Nikon Capture NX, and is already available with DxO, of course.
Curved sensors would presumably only work if all the lenses to be used produced similar field curvature, so I don't think that's the solution.
We've debated this all before some time back - can't remember exactly when, though.
| jchrisc |
| () |
| 07/06/2006 12:33 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Quote:
A camera which vignettes is simply not acceptable in any shape or form never mind at this price bracket and the 5D has done no favors to Canon's reputation and I think will make prospective future purchasers of their products more wary of purchasing on reputation only from now on.
BigWill
Will - since you were so concerned, I wrote again to Canon (as I did when I first had the 5D) and I got very much the same reply. I quote the relevant section below, copied directly from Canon's email:
Thank you for your recent query regarding vignetting around the corners of your images, when using extreme aperture settings with your lenses.
This is not a product fault, but an unavoidable limitation of the camera technology when used with lenses set at extreme aperture settings. The Vignetting occurs as the camera's sensor exceeds the lens visible image circle at these extreme aperture settings.
Now, this implies fairly clearly that every 5D has this problem and that one has to live with it if one wants all the other GOOD things that the 5D offers.
As I have said before, if I could see some pictures from a 5D that did not vignette at wide apertures I would have some basis for arguing that my camera is a poor example, but I have yet to see any.
| BigWill |
| (Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff) |
| 07/06/2006 12:48 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Well I sincerely hope that Canon are going to print that in large letters stamped on the first page of the user manual with every 5D they sell and maybe even consider stamping it "health warning like" on the outside of the box
...................but somehow I think they will keep their admissions of failure low key and only confide by emial with those like yourself who have the tenacity to seek such information out!BigWill
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 07/06/2006 13:07 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
A quick brief test last evening suggest that body #2 is probably as bad as the first and I feel that what Canon is saying is true - it is a limitation of the camera technology. However, I would take them to task for implying that 'extreme aperture settings' are something to be avoided. In my tests so far, one of the worst performers is the EF50mm/f1.4 lens. This is what Canon say about it in their brochure:
"One of the best lenses you can buy is the EF 50mm f1.8 II. It has a performance approaching that of some of the L-series lenses, yet is the least expensive, smallest and lightest lens in the range. It also has a wide maximum aperture, making it ideal for photography in low light or at night. Even better is the EF 50mm f1.4 USM, a remarkable lens which excels at all light levels." Hardly in keeping with the view they express to Chris.
Taking this a stage further, vignetting is also visible af f8 with most lenses and I'd hardly call that extreme. In fact, it is slap bang in the middle of the usable range of apertures and one where lens resolution is usually at its maximum.
Like Chris, I'd be interested to see pictures from anyone who doesn't see this problem. I, too, will be writing to Canon shortly if my second body doesn't show an appreciable improvement which, I suspect, it won't.
| The Circle Of Confusion |
| (veteran) |
| 07/06/2006 13:16 |
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
As the light fall off is worse left to right than top to bottom then I think what you are seeing is micro lens vignetting (MLV). This plagues all digital sensors with micro lenses and gets progressively worse as the sensor gets bigger. Fall-offs of 3 or 4 stops are not uncommon.
Quote:
Interesting stuff Terry. Reading around I find that Sigma lenses do better on the 5D than Canon's own lenses. Would they be more telecentric I wonder...?
I found the same when I ran tests on some Nikon zooms against equivalent Sigmas (see here: http://www.thecircleofconfusion.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry051212-051412 )
Some manufacturers have looked at offsetting the microlenses towards the edge of the sensor. This is workabale but becomes very lens/camera specific. Kodak patented a telecentric converter a while back but I doubt we'll see this in production as it looks impractical to make.
It can be post-processed out (which I suspect is what most cameras in fact do) but personally I found the impact on noise and colour balance to be unacceptable. I recommended that my customer use Sigma lenses or buy a medium format adapter and use something from a 'blad.
| 9pins |
| (enthusiast) |
| 07/06/2006 13:29 |
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Hi,
Can I add that I have just bought (or should I say got seriously in debt for) last weekend, a 5D and even though there are many problems associated with buying this bit of kit, it did not stop me from buying it, as I know it is going to be the best camera I will probably ever own.
I have listed some of the problems below, which I hope puts into context the whole issue of vignetting and which we all have to overcome as we develop our passion for photography, and do without ever batting an eye lid (a Yorkshire saying I believe).
Problem 1 - My old 1.4 GHZ computer was too slow to shift around 78Mb Tiff files of the kind I am now getting from my 5D, so it has had to go and a new Dell system has been put in its place - a costly problem, but not sufficient to stop me from buying the 5D.
Problem two - The CR2 RAW files the 5D produces do not run with CS, so if I wish to continue using PS as main RAW converter, I have to upgrade - another costly problem but not enough to stop me.
Problem three - My Epson P-2000 will not work with the CR2 RAW files, so I have to upgrade the firmware and hope it will start to work again.
Problem four - My old 256Mb CF cards will only hold about 16 pictures from the 5D CR2's, so out I go and buy some new 1Gb cards - costly but again still not enough to put me off.
Problem five - most of my lenses were bought for the cropped sensor 300D (except a 100mm to 400mm zoom), so new lenses need to be bought as I can only take pictures with this one lens at the moment - again this will be costly, but not enough to stop me.
Problem six - I might when I use a wide angle lens fully open with the 5D, have to spend an extra 2 seconds correcting the vignetting as part of my post processing - ?
9pins
| alanS |
| (The Flameproof Dr Dust) |
| 07/06/2006 13:38 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
"two seconds"
No problem then.
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 07/06/2006 13:39 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Problems 1-5 are consequential and Canon cannot be blamed for those.
Problem 6
Quote:
Problem six - I might when I use a wide angle lens fully open with the 5D, have to spend an extra 2 seconds correcting the vignetting as part of my post processing - ?
That's a little naive if I may say so. The vignetting is not necessarily symmetrical and may take a lot more than 2 secs to correct and where the corners have darkened by over 4 stops, that's a hell of a lot of darkening to pull back without shifting the noise/colour balance in that corner. If I've got 200 shots taken in the church at a wedding, that's a big overhead. Besides, it's not just wide open - it occurs to a lesser degree at other apertures up to f8.
New cameras, new designs should be improvements on what has gone before - this is a retrograde step that can seriously impact on image quality and workflow times for close to 50% of the images I would take with this camera. It may not be a big deal to you but it will be to others.
| Benchista |
| (Which Tyler) |
| 07/06/2006 13:50 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
DxO.
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 07/06/2006 13:54 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Quote:
DxO
And to you too!
Now, if DxO actually provides a satisfactory fix and Canon bundle it with the 5D then I'd find the situation more acceptable.
| TerryS |
| () |
| 07/06/2006 14:10 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Quote:
"This is not a product fault, but an unavoidable limitation of the camera technology when used with lenses set at extreme aperture settings."
This is undeniably true - optical vignetting, to some degree, is unavoidable with any lens (since a lens has a finite physical length and is also subject to the cos4 law of illumination falloff), and all lens design is a compromise. It is impossible to eliminate all optical defects and aberrations simultaneously, especially whilst trying to keep physical size, weight and cost within reasonable bounds.
Having said that, some of the vignetting I have seen on 5D images is greater than anything I have ever seen with film and this additional falloff is, presumably, due to the design of the CMOS sensor and the lack of telecentricity of the lenses.
Quote:
"The Vignetting occurs as the camera's sensor exceeds the lens visible image circle at these extreme aperture settings."
Now this statement I do find amazing, and I would be very surprised if it was actually true! A Canon EF lens is designed to be compatible with 35mm film, thus its image circle should be big enough to completely cover a 35mm film negative and, therefore, completely cover a full-frame digital sensor, such as that in the 5D (and 1DsMkII).
The question that needs answering is does the EF 24-105mm f4 USM IS L (at 24mm f4) show the same degree of vignetting when used on a 35mm film SLR as it does when used on the 5D DSLR? Also, does it show the same degree of vignetting when used on the 1DsMkII DSLR? If the answers are yes then, in my opinion, it will mean Canon have under-designed this lens. If the answers are no then the explanation may lie in the relative cheapness (compared to the 1DsMkII) of the 5D's full-frame sensor.
Terry.
PS: I noticed that a short time ago BigWill started a thread on this subject in the 'Lounge' or 'News' forums (forget which) but it promptly vanished! Why was that?
| BigWill |
| (Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff) |
| 07/06/2006 14:14 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Hi Terry, my post in the lounge was pulled for reasons explained to me in a private message by forum moderator David Steel which I entirely accept. Let's just leave it at that for discussion on the boards but I can inform you or anyone else of the reasons by private means if you/they are interested?
BigWill
| TerryS |
| () |
| 07/06/2006 14:28 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Quote:
Hi Terry, my post in the lounge was pulled for reasons explained to me in a private message by forum moderator David Steel which I entirely accept. Let's just leave it at that for discussion on the boards but I can inform you or anyone else of the reasons by private means if you/they are interested?
BigWill
No problem, I was just curious, especially since I was actually writing a reply to your post at the time it was pulled, which was a little unnerving!
One thing I will add - you asked the editor of AP to take note of Canon's explanation, however it is perhaps worth pointing out that in AP's review of the 5D and 24-105mm lens it was explicitly stated that this combination showed no vignetting at 24mm f4!
Terry.
| BigWill |
| (Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff) |
| 07/06/2006 14:34 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Quote:Quote:
Hi Terry, my post in the lounge was pulled for reasons explained to me in a private message by forum moderator David Steel which I entirely accept. Let's just leave it at that for discussion on the boards but I can inform you or anyone else of the reasons by private means if you/they are interested?
BigWill
No problem, I was just curious, especially since I was actually writing a reply to your post at the time it was pulled, which was a little unnerving!
One thing I will add - you asked the editor of AP to take note of Canon's explanation, however it is perhaps worth pointing out that in AP's review of the 5D and 24-105mm lens it was explicitly stated that this combination showed no vignetting at 24mm f4!
Terry.
.............indeed Terry, but I think we have to either accept that as factual or as a flaw in the testing process. I have no reason to suspect AP's integrity with regard to their testing procedure and it would be very wrong for me or anyone else to suggest otherwise.
BigWill
| TerryS |
| () |
| 07/06/2006 15:04 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Quote:Quote:
One thing I will add - you asked the editor of AP to take note of Canon's explanation, however it is perhaps worth pointing out that in AP's review of the 5D and 24-105mm lens it was explicitly stated that this combination showed no vignetting at 24mm f4!
Terry.
.............indeed Terry, but I think we have to either accept that as factual or as a flaw in the testing process. I have no reason to suspect AP's integrity with regard to their testing procedure and it would be very wrong for me or anyone else to suggest otherwise.
BigWill
Agreed BigWill, however it just makes this whole issue ever more perplexing. I am greatly looking forward to seeing the results of the tests that David is planning with his 5D and Canon film SLR and Les with his 1DsMkII. Let's hope that these tests shed some light on the matter.
Terry.
| El Sid |
| (Going potty) |
| 07/06/2006 15:11 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Quote:Quote:
"The Vignetting occurs as the camera's sensor exceeds the lens visible image circle at these extreme aperture settings."
Now this statement I do find amazing, and I would be very surprised if it was actually true! A Canon EF lens is designed to be compatible with 35mm film, thus its image circle should be big enough to completely cover a 35mm film negative and, therefore, completely cover a full-frame digital sensor, such as that in the 5D (and 1DsMkII).
So would I. The vignetting in Davids examples (and those of other members) is clearly a fall off in illumination rather than no illumination at all. I have occasionally taken pictures with my Sigma 18-50 DC lens on a film body (for reasons I won't go into) and have gone too short on the focal length for the 35mm neg. The net result is a sharply defined black corner on the negative regardless of aperture rather than a gradual fall off of the kind David sees.
| BigWill |
| (Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff) |
| 07/06/2006 15:11 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Quite so Terry. I have a sneaking suspicion that many eyes are taking serious note of this entire thread!
BigWill
| Stevet |
| () |
| 07/06/2006 15:15 |
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
David,
DXO supports the 5D with 14 lens modules available so far - they include the 17-40L and the 24-105L. You can download a 21-day trial version - see here.
If you do bother yourself to try it, I would be interested in seeing the results!
HTH
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 07/06/2006 15:16 |
|
|
|
In case you haven't seen it...
|
... this site explains why full-frame sensors are so good. Amongst their many advantages are 'Use of wide-angle lenses' and 'Background blur' (presumably using a 'more extreme aperture' to get this effect
).
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 07/06/2006 15:48 |
|
|
You've got to be joking!!!
|
Just looked at the DxO web site. Yes, the 5D is covered but only in the Elite version.
You mean that I have to spend £199 to fix Canon's vignetting problem?
You jest sir!
| BigWill |
| (Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff) |
| 07/06/2006 15:50 |
|
|
|
Re: You've got to be joking!!!
|
...................the 30D's starting to look good David...............and think of all the change you'd have left to spend on things like...................well there's beer...................and maybe even more................beer!
BigWill
| Benchista |
| (Which Tyler) |
| 07/06/2006 15:56 |
|
|
|
Re: You've got to be joking!!!
|
It's also the best RAW convertor out, IMVHO...
And if it were Nikon land, you would have to pay for their worthwhile RAW convertor. Still, it is a bit steep on top, isn't it?
| BigWill |
| (Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff) |
| 07/06/2006 16:00 |
|
|
|
Re: You've got to be joking!!!
|
Quote:
It's also the best RAW convertor out, IMVHO...
And if it were Nikon land, you would have to pay for their worthwhile RAW convertor. Still, it is a bit steep on top, isn't it?
..............yep, just like Mount Everest.............."it's a bit steep on top"
BigWill
| Stevet |
| () |
| 07/06/2006 16:00 |
|
|
|
Re: You've got to be joking!!!
|
Hadn't spotted it needed elite - I don't suppose Jessies would bundle it in.....
| Benchista |
| (Which Tyler) |
| 07/06/2006 16:01 |
|
|
|
Re: You've got to be joking!!!
|
Quote:Quote:
It's also the best RAW convertor out, IMVHO...
And if it were Nikon land, you would have to pay for their worthwhile RAW convertor. Still, it is a bit steep on top, isn't it?
..............yep, just like Mount Everest.............."it's a bit steep on top"
BigWill
Thought you might say that!
| 9pins |
| (enthusiast) |
| 07/06/2006 16:06 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Hello,
Quote:
Problems 1-5 are consequential and Canon cannot be blamed for those.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Problem six - I might when I use a wide angle lens fully open with the 5D, have to spend an extra 2 seconds correcting the vignetting as part of my post processing - ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a little naive if I may say so.
Well I can only describe how this will affect me personally and I suspect many more users of the 5D - I would have perhaps preferred the word inexperienced rather than niave, but what the heck I am sure you meant well.
I agree the 5D should not vignette as it does, but do I think the majority of people who will use it, will have a problem with vignetting, then no I don't. I am just trying to be realistic.
And ok, perhaps 2 seconds was being a bit ambition, but again it was the sentiment of taking very little time that I meant, rather than the actual amount of time.
9pins
| SteveEM |
| (Persona non grata) |
| 07/06/2006 16:55 |
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Hi all,
So...the biggest camera seller in the world is selling a camera for £1500 and it DOES NOT WORK PROPERLY.
There is no escaping that fact. Is someone going to get a letter to this effect published in AP?....
| alanS |
| (The Flameproof Dr Dust) |
| 07/06/2006 17:09 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
I don't think that you can say that it doesn't work properly. It certainly takes photographs so on that level it works as a camera. I think that it's more the degree to which it works and the effects exhibited that may be the problem.
| BigWill |
| (Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff) |
| 07/06/2006 17:10 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Quote:
Hi all,
So...the biggest camera seller in the world is selling a camera for £1500 and it DOES NOT WORK PROPERLY.
There is no escaping that fact. Is someone going to get a letter to this effect published in AP?....
...............for once in his life BigWill keeps it zipped!
Big(I'm learning!
)Will
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 07/06/2006 17:19 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Anybody can write a letter to AP and it's up to AP to decide which of their many letters get published. I'd suggest that a balanced, well-thought out and factual letter would get more consideration than an out and out rant.
| James_Symington |
| (newbie) |
| 07/06/2006 18:36 |
|
5D woes
|
I am thoroughly mystified by this thread.
Every camera I own displays vignetting on certain lenses when shot wide-open. That vignetting disappears on stopping down. This applies to my 1Ds II and 5D when used with the 24-105 and 24mm & 35mm Ls and others, my Hasselblads with the 40mm & 50mm lenses, Leicas with the 35mm Summicron ASPH and the Noctilux and a panoply of other film cameras I can't be bothered to list.
Why does this everyday phenomenon create such a commotion with the 5D? The symptoms described seem to be consistent with the way you would expect it to behave. Genuinely please someone explain to me what it is I am missing. If the vignetting didn't disappear on stopping down then we would have something juicy to talk about surely?
| Les_McLean |
| () |
| 07/06/2006 19:34 |
|
|
|
Re: 5D woes
|
Quote:
I am thoroughly mystified by this thread.
Every camera I own displays vignetting on certain lenses when shot wide-open. That vignetting disappears on stopping down. This applies to my 1Ds II and 5D when used with the 24-105 and 24mm & 35mm Ls and others, my Hasselblads with the 40mm & 50mm lenses, Leicas with the 35mm Summicron ASPH and the Noctilux and a panoply of other film cameras I can't be bothered to list.
Why does this everyday phenomenon create such a commotion with the 5D? The symptoms described seem to be consistent with the way you would expect it to behave. Genuinely please someone explain to me what it is I am missing. If the vignetting didn't disappear on stopping down then we would have something juicy to talk about surely?
Yes, I agree to a degree, vignetting is expected when wide open with some lenses, it's the amount of vignetting that's the problem.
Also, one would expect it to disappear at f8, but the tests on the 5D suggest it doesn't (on some lenses).
Perhaps if you read through the thread again?
Cheers
Les
http://www.lesmclean.co.uk/
| merton |
| (newbie) |
| 07/06/2006 21:48 |
|
New and already confused!
|
Hello
I am new to the forum and hoping to learn plenty.
I have been reading the various reviews of the Canon 5D and like many I was very impressed. I was about to purchase one, and then i read the comments on this site and became worried, no very worried!
Could someone help me in understanding the diffence between the various on line and magazine reviews and the thoughts and pictures i have seen on this site? I am very perplexed.
Is the 5D worth the money or should i save even harder for the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II. My use is mainly travel photography (worldwide) and candid portraits, again overseas and outdoors.
Or maybe the 30 with L lenses?
Can one of you experts help? I am sure you can...
thanks
peter
| radim |
| (member) |
| 07/06/2006 22:07 |
|
|
|
Re: New and already confused!
|
Hi Peter,
it's very hard to find truth and as it seems the right 5d body. I think announcement of 5d created major shift of interest in DSLR.
Selection of camera above all depends on your budget. Canon 30D and 5D are very good cameras for different needs. 30D is really grown APS-C DSLR that could offer you speed, durability and good rate between price and value. On other side 5d as a first widely affordable full frame DSLR promised to bring new wind into DSLR market.
Problem is that it's more based on 30D than od 1Ds Mark II. I've personally tried few bodies that suffer from dust problem in viewfinder (pretty anoying), and also there's a vignetting problem with zoom lenses. But I know about 2 guys using 5d without any of these issues. It's hard to tell. But to spend almost 2 grands for body that might be affected is not worth for me.
From my point of view it's good to buy 30D and wait for 5D upgrade. Let's hope Canon will bring soon (I hope next year) valuable upgrade. But again you have to buy non EF-S lenses as EF-S lenses are not compatible with full frame bodies (and of course 1.6 crop with 30D)
1Ds Mark II is a bit different league. As a truly professional body it will offer you maximum, but for appropriate price.
Hope this will help a bit.
Radim
| merton |
| (newbie) |
| 07/06/2006 22:28 |
|
Re: New and already confused!
|
Radim
well i have some time to think about it, so i may just carry on with my old stuff for a while - i travel to Brazil then Kenya later this year beginning of next. i want to make sure i do not waste my money on a Camera that is jsut not up to my old 35mm film. I get OK results with my 300D. Maybe i will plod on for a while...
I am off to New York next month (yes i am afraid i do travel a bit) that is why i am considering the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II as it is much cheaper in US (i think)
peter
| James_Symington |
| (newbie) |
| 07/06/2006 22:29 |
|
Re: 5D woes
|
Thank you very much Les.
On my 5D the vignetting always disappears at f8 on the 24-105mm and considerably wider with my faster lenses. The 24-105mm behaves identically on my 1Ds II too so I am still none the wiser though. I just have a tough time believing there is something wrong with the camera - the lens quite possibly - but the camera no.
| BigWill |
| (Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff) |
| 07/06/2006 22:40 |
|
|
|
Re: 5D woes
|
I'm sorry James but I have a tough time believing that you don't have a problem with a camera that displays vignetting at any aperture wider than f8 on your 24-105! That certainly wouldn't be acceptable to me or indeed the vast majority of the camera using public. Don't you ever use fast lenses or wide apertures for shallow depth of field or is shallow depth of field simply not an option with a 5D? I'm frankly amazed at anyone who is prepared to accept such limitations as the norm and doubly amazed that anyone would even consider accepting this on a camera at this price point!
BigWill
| Les_McLean |
| () |
| 07/06/2006 22:48 |
|
|
|
Re: 5D woes
|
Quote:
Thank you very much Les.
On my 5D the vignetting always disappears at f8 on the 24-105mm and considerably wider with my faster lenses. The 24-105mm behaves identically on my 1Ds II too so I am still none the wiser though. I just have a tough time believing there is something wrong with the camera - the lens quite possibly - but the camera no.
Hi James.
I think the difficulties arose because of the variance we are seeing.
For example, I had a good 24-105mm F4, which I used on my 1Ds MKII, and it performed well, minor vignetting at f4. I sent it back to canon under their re-call, the new copy they sent me vignetted quite badly at f4 and at f8, so I sent it back, the next copy wasn't perfect, but I could live with it.
My cameras in for servicing at the moment, but when it comes back, I'll do some sample images on a range of lenses to compare with a 5D.
I very rarely shoot wide open (unlike David et al), as I mainly concentrate on landscapes, so it's not such a big issue for me.
Les
http://www.lesmclean.co.uk/
| Les_McLean |
| () |
| 07/06/2006 22:55 |
|
|
|
Re: New and already confused!
|
Quote:
Hello
I am new to the forum and hoping to learn plenty.
I have been reading the various reviews of the Canon 5D and like many I was very impressed. I was about to purchase one, and then i read the comments on this site and became worried, no very worried!
Could someone help me in understanding the diffence between the various on line and magazine reviews and the thoughts and pictures i have seen on this site? I am very perplexed.
Is the 5D worth the money or should i save even harder for the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II. My use is mainly travel photography (worldwide) and candid portraits, again overseas and outdoors.
Or maybe the 30 with L lenses?
Can one of you experts help? I am sure you can...
thanks
peter
Hi Peter
The 5D is a fine camera, and some of the results I've seen are pretty amazing.
I think there is an issue with the 5D and some wide lenses, particularly vignettibg wide open.
Unless you are shooting very wide, at f4 etc, it shouldn't be a major problem.
But those that do (wedding photographers for example), it's a real issue
Concerning the 1Ds MKII, I use one, and it's a dream of a machine, built like a brick outhouse, although it's a beast to carry round, I normally carry mine in a toploader zoom when out walking.
It's likely there will be a replacement out for the 1DS MKII this autumn, so it's possibly worth waiting either for the new model, or the reduced price of the current model.
Cheers
Les
http://www.lesmclean.co.uk/
| merton |
| (newbie) |
| 07/06/2006 23:13 |
|
Re: New and already confused!
|
Hi Les
thanks for the info
if i was to shoot wide open on a 85mm lens do you know if i would notice any vignetting? and what about a little 50mm lens?
i must admit to be little non plussed by a camera costing £1600 with these limitations at open f settings.
Is there any vignetting on your 1Ds? I prefer not to use flash and at times need to shoot in low light.
May i say how much i enjoy the postscript on all of your messages by Jack Dykinga - it makes me smile every time!
peter
| Benchista |
| (Which Tyler) |
| 07/06/2006 23:17 |
|
|
|
Re: 5D woes
|
Will, why are you telling everybody how to think about a camera you don't own and to the best of my knowledge haven't even used? Let those who have it make up their own minds and share their experiences, I say.
| James_Symington |
| (newbie) |
| 07/06/2006 23:57 |
|
5D and 1Ds II comparison / 5D woes
|
Dear Les and BigWill,
I too got a 2nd 24-105mm after that initial recall and the corner sharpness improved slightly on the 2nd copy - fortunately.
I just did a quick comparison of my 5D and 1Ds II shooting against a blank white wall at home with a few of my lenses. The lenses used were:
24mm f1.4 L
35mm f1.4 L
85mm f1.8
20mm f1.8 (Sigma)
24-105mm f4 L
24mm f1.4 L
Vignetting pronounced at f1.4 and identical on both cameras, negligible at f2.8, absent at f4
35mm f1.4 L
Vignetting pronounced at f1.4 and identical on both cameras, negligible at f2.8, absent at f4
85mm f1.8
Slight vignetting at f1.8, negligible at f2.8 and absent at f4 identically on both cameras
24-105mm f4 L
Pronounced and identical vignetting at f4, negligible at f8 (the widest aperture I usually use for landscape purposes with this lens and successfully I might add) - and totally absent at f11
20mm f1.8 Sigma
Medium vignetting that improves up until f4 when it disappears - in identical fashion on both cameras
On the basis of this rough but revealing test - admittedly just with my sample of one 5D and one 1Ds II - I can conclude that this alleged 5D vignetting problem occurs in equal, identical measure to the 1Ds II. Duff 1Ds II? Maybe. Or maybe I just have one of the few 5Ds in the country that works.
More likely this 5D vignetting problem is really just a 24-105mm problem - and one that can be overcome simply either digitally or by stopping down.
As a landscaper shooting at small apertures on a tripod I don't care most of the time. But I have just come back from a month long trip around the Pacific and Chile where aside from MF cameras I only had the 5D with the 24-105mm and hand-held at f8 the results were sparkling with no vignetting that you would notice. It is the greatest all-round zoom lens I have ever owned even with its known limitations.
Draw your own conclusions from this test if you like - I have at least satisfied myself if nobody else.
Goodnight all,
James
http://www.jamessymington.co.uk
| Scphoto |
| (Little Fruitbat) |
| 08/06/2006 00:06 |
|
|
|
Re: 5D and 1Ds II comparison / 5D woes
|
Quote:
Draw your own conclusions from this test if you like - I have at least satisfied myself if nobody else.
Sounds fine to me, like you i rarely shoot at F4 anyway so its not an issue.
| jchrisc |
| () |
| 08/06/2006 01:57 |
|
|
|
Re: 5D and 1Ds II comparison / 5D woes
|
Quote:
I just did a quick comparison of my 5D and 1Ds II shooting against a blank white wall at home with a few of my lenses.
The only lens I have that compares directly with any of yours is the 80mm f1.8
How does yours look compared with this (wide open)
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 08/06/2006 07:25 |
|
|
|
Re: 5D and 1Ds II comparison / 5D woes
|
Thanks for your input James. I published some pictures here and I plan to publish more shortly of a 5D vs film shoot-out with the same lenses.
I frequently shoot at f2.8 or f4 - it's why I invested in L glass. What I am trying to establish is whether the 5D has a design flaw and all cameras are similarly affected or whether Canon has a QC issue. I am happy to persevere trying to get hold of a good body but I don't want to waste my time if such a beast does not exist.
I am not aware of any full-frame images that have been published on the web showing negligible or nil vignetting wide open on the 24-105 or 17-40 lenses. My results so far show vignetting even at f8 and vignetting on the 70-200 lens as well as a 50mm prime. There are claims made by some that there isn't a vignetting issue and there is a slight chance that these users have a good camera (if so, I want one just like that!) but, as yet, I have not seen any proof.
| BigWill |
| (Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff) |
| 08/06/2006 07:30 |
|
|
|
Re: 5D woes
|
I wouldn't dream of telling anyone how to think about a camera. That is up to each individual to make up their own mind about. What I (and I believe David and Les) are trying to achieve is that people are at least made aware of the facts about the camera and it's limitations so that they can make an informed choice. As a potential purchaser of this camera (or it's type) myself someday, I have a vested intrest in knowing its capabilities or lack thereof. I don't see why the fact that I don't currently own the camera should preclude me from speaking about it here as I believe my opinion is as valid as anyone else's around here and I find it odd that you have singled me out as the one who should desist from expressing an opinion as there are others in this thread who, like myself, don't own the camera but who haven't been chastised for expressing an opinion.
If you wish me to be silent on this matter then I suggest you exercise your moderator powers and remove my comments from this thread. You have the capability to do so if you choose. I leave the matter in your hands.
BigWill
| radim |
| (member) |
| 08/06/2006 08:28 |
|
|
|
Re: 5D woes
|
David, I'll try today to go back to Jessops on Strand and take few shots on my CF card if they still have same body I've tried this week.
Radim
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 08/06/2006 08:35 |
|
|
|
Re: 5D woes
|
Thanks. The lens must be wide open in Av mode and choose a scene sufficiently plain and uniform so you stand a chance of seeing it. Take two identical shots - one at max apertue and one at f8 and then, using the thumbwheel, it's easy to toggle between them and see if the corners darken or lighten depending on which way you view them.
Better still, take the images home and post them here.
| alanS |
| (The Flameproof Dr Dust) |
| 08/06/2006 08:57 |
|
|
|
Re: New and already confused!
|
Sorry to go off subject just a little and defend EF-S lenses.
These lenses are specifically designed to get the best out of the digital cameras they fit. Whilst I accept that they can not be fitted to non compatible cameras I believe that Canon show an increasing commitment to EF-S and that if at some point in the future any purchaser wishes to buy other than an EF-S compatible camera they will find a ready market for any EF-S lens that they wish to sell.
I just find it a little off putting that some on these forums advise others to steer clear of EF-S lenses because of compatibility issues. I'd counter that by pointing out that at least EF-S lenses are specifically designed for the cameras they fit. Anyway, I rest my case.
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 08/06/2006 10:06 |
|
|
|
Re: New and already confused!
|
I quite agree Alan but mostly we point this out in case members are considering building up a lens collection and then upgrading to a full-frame body later on. In fact, I have an EF-S 10-22mm and it is excellent but I bought it knowing that I'd have to sell it if I went full-frame.
On the other side of the coin, it does suggest that Canon sees issues with full-frame such that it continues to put effort into developing lenses for APS-C size sensors.
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 08/06/2006 10:17 |
|
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Quote:
...when a major company get away with shirking their responsibilities to their customers by denying the existance of what has now become a well documented problem!
Well, that's part of the problem. Is it really 'well-documented'? We have some members here showing problems of various degrees and we have other claiming that the 5D does not vignette.
FTR, I only ever starting buying L lenses when I had my D30 so I never really examined how the lenses behave on film when used wide-open (all will be revealed shortly). Equally, this is my first full-frame dSLR. I am putting together the evidence and hope fully I'll have something conclusive to put up online shortly rather than deal with peoples' subjective opinion.
Also, as an aside, I decided to expand my testing to a three-way battle - 5D vs 20D vs 600 (film).
| James_Symington |
| (newbie) |
| 08/06/2006 10:40 |
|
Re: 5D and 1Ds II comparison / 5D woes
|
Hi David,
Good morning. What I tried to establish in my little test last night comparing my two cameras is that there is no difference between the 1Ds II and the 5D in their behaviour. The results I was getting look essentially the same as your posted photos and for lenses like the 24 and 35mm Ls vignetting is all but gone at f2.8 and on the 24-105mm it is all but gone at f8. What I don't quite get is why this translates to the 5D having any kind of problem at all? The proof of the pudding would be repeating the test on slide film as you will do - but I am sure it will be the same.
Anecdotally, the Leica 35mm f2 Summicron-M vignettes every bit as badly wide open as the 24-105mm does. I was so surprised that such a highly corrected uber lens behaved like this that I started a thread on photo.net ages ago because I thought something was wrong with mine. Wrong! Everybody's is like that and it is just a fact of lens design that this vignetting has to be incorporated. In the latest edition of Leica Photographie there is a comparison of their 4 current 50mm lenses and the f2 Summicron also has pronounced vignetting when wide open and they say so in the text too. That is supposedly the reference 50mm lens in 35mm photography.
Full frame digital cameras of the quality and resolution of the 5D and the 1Ds II are merciless in exposing the characteristics of the lenses used on them and this what I believe is the source of this issue. Because the 5D is the first 'affordable' full frame DSLR plenty of people are finding problems with their lenses. People may not like the vignetting characteristics of the 24-105mm but that is a whole different discussion. But I don't think the 5D has a problem at all. Just my view though!
All the best,
James
| James_Symington |
| (newbie) |
| 08/06/2006 10:55 |
|
Re: 5D and 1Ds II comparison / 5D woes
|
Hi Chris,
It looks the same as yours on both of my cameras!
Thanks,
James
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 08/06/2006 11:06 |
|
|
|
Re: 5D and 1Ds II comparison / 5D woes
|
If mine looked like that, I'd be a lot happier but experience so far suggests it's much worse than that.
| chrisgatcum |
| () |
| 08/06/2006 11:31 |
|
Re: New and already confused!
|
Hi folks
I guess it's time that I throw myself into the fray, not least because of the criticisms posted about my 5D test and AP's tests in general.
To start with I want to assure everyone that the editorial department does not pander to advertisers as has been suggested. I have never owned Canon kit so personally I have no attachment to the brand whatsoever (even if I did, my job is to report the facts as they are). While Canon may advertise their products and provide competition prizes, so do other manufacturers and this is between the company and AP's advertising / marketing departments. Editorial is a seperate entity.
Before I hear cries of 'he doth protest too much' (I may not be psychic, but I know how some people think) I will leave it at this - we (AP's testing staff) are impartial and we know we are impartial. I appreciate you can only take my word for that.
As far as my test of the 5D goes I really don't know where to start. The simple fact is that I can only test the camera I am given with a selection of lenses and can only analyse the results it gives. In this case I have several DVDs of images taken under wide-ranging conditions and given the early rumours of vignetting this was something I specifically set out to explore. In this instance - with this particular camera - I did not see any evidence of vignetting. So, the ONLY conclusion I could reach is that vignetting is not an issue. I could not report that vignetting might be a problem, as that would be speculative.
It has, however, become apparent since I conducted that test that some people are experiencing vignetting, and in some instances it is terrible. In his recent 5DvsD200 test, for example, Damien Demolder found the 5D did vignette slightly, although it should be stressed that this was with a different camera body and different lens - perhaps manufacturing tolerances have a part to play?
I hope this goes some way to explaining things, and I assure you that we at AP hold you as the reader in far greater esteem than the camera makers, and it is our endeavour to make sure the advice we give is correct.
If you have a 'duff' 5D then I would suggest the answer is to contact Canon. Don't accept 'no' for an answer and if you aren't happy about the service and / or product, keep going. I know it's not easy and it's definitely frustrating, but you do have your rights as a UK consumer.
Thanks for listening / reading
Chris Gatcum
| TerryS |
| () |
| 08/06/2006 11:57 |
|
|
|
Re: 5D and 1Ds II comparison / 5D woes
|
Quote:
James_Symington wrote:
On the basis of this rough but revealing test - admittedly just with my sample of one 5D and one 1Ds II - I can conclude that this alleged 5D vignetting problem occurs in equal, identical measure to the 1Ds II. Duff 1Ds II? Maybe. Or maybe I just have one of the few 5Ds in the country that works.
Many thanks for your tests James - they are precisely what is needed in order to draw reliable conclusions about this issue. So it appears that there is no vignetting problem that is specific to the 5D - in this respect it performs identically with Canon's other current full frame body, the 1DsMkII (albeit that this conclusion is based on a rather small sample size!). The next step is to determine whether there is a difference in vignetting between Canon's full frame sensors and 35mm film, for which we eagerly await David's tests. Although really it would be better to compare James's 5D against a film SLR (using the same lenses), since otherwise we won't know whether any differences are genuine or are because David has a 'bad' 5D.
I think it is worth emphasising that your results show that "pronounced" vignetting does occur in some (identical) circumstances for both the 5D and 1DsMkII, since in this discussion (and previous discussions here and elsewhere) there have been claims that in these circumstances these bodies show no vignetting. Not only have such claims muddied the water as far as ascertaining whether or not the 5D has a specific problem, but I always thought that they were a little incredible and, indeed, unrealistic, since optical vignetting is an inherent property of any lens and is unavoidable. The question is not 'Does the 5D/24-105mm show vignetting at 24mm?' (the answer to which is inevitably yes), but rather 'Does the 5D/24-105mm show additional vignetting compared to that shown by the 1DsMkII or a 35mm film SLR?' and 'Does the 24-105mm show excessive (and unacceptable) vignetting at 24mm with all full-frame bodies?'.
Quote:
James_Symington wrote:
... I only had the 5D with the 24-105mm and hand-held at f8 the results were sparkling with no vignetting that you would notice. It is the greatest all-round zoom lens I have ever owned even with its known limitations.
Although I am using the 24-105mm on a cropped sensor body (the 30D), I totally agree with you James. With its overall optical quality (vignetting aside), focal length range, image stabilisation, handling (including nice size & weight) and build quality, I fully concur with your comments. In this context I also agree with what you said in your first posting in this thread - optical vignetting is nothing new and exists to some degree with every camera (both film and digital) and lens combination. Consequently, in the case of the 5D there is a danger of blowing this issue out of all proportion, although in my opinion the 24-105mm does appear to vignette excessively (unacceptably?) at 24mm, as was concluded in an earlier article in the British Journal of Photography. Although as you have pointed out vignetting is easily corrected in software, such as the excellent and free PTLens available as standalone application or Photoshop plugin, see: PTLens Plugin and PTLens & Canon EOS 5D.
Quote:
David Steel wrote:
On the other side of the coin, it does suggest that Canon sees issues with full-frame such that it continues to put effort into developing lenses for APS-C size sensors.
I think that this is more a recognition by Canon that the manufacturing costs of full-frame sensors will always be high and this cost factor will put them out of the reach of most beginners and many amateurs. Other than cost, I don't think Canon sees any "issues" with full-frame.
Terry
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 08/06/2006 12:09 |
|
|
|
The 5D Vignetting Issue
|
Many thanks for your input Chris. I myself have never had any doubts about AP's impartiality though I might suspect that a few manufacturers ensure that they only send out 'top-notch' examples for review.
Though I am still testing and formulating my conclusions, I am suspecting that there is considerable variability in the cameras being shipped. It's worrying because the manufacturers' publicity and test reviews set users' expectations and there will always be the concern amongst buyers whether their particular camera is sub-standard or not.
I am now on body #2 and the vignetting performance appears to be similar to the first one (my side-by-side comparison with the same lenses on a film body is still being assembled) and this may not be too much of a surprise since there isn't a great deal of difference in the serial numbers suggesting that they are from the same batch.
For my part, I simply want a good body that works well with my lenses when used wide-open (that's what I bought them for in the first place) but the dilemma is whether there is an inherent design flaw meaning that I should forget this particular model and use something else, or whether there are good examples out there and I should keep striving to find one. I'd much rather be taking photographs for my pleasure than be endless testing to prove to my dealer or the manufacturere that a fault exists.
I feel that manufacturers should be more approachable and open about such issues and not leave consumers to do all the leg work and effectively QA the product for them - this is not the right approach. After buying Canon cameras over the years (Canon EXEE, T70, EOS100, EOS50E, EOS3, D30, 10D, 20D and now 5D) my brand loyalty has weakened somewhat. Thankfully, my local branch of Jessops is as keen to find an answer as I am.
| chrisgatcum |
| () |
| 08/06/2006 12:20 |
|
Re: The 5D Vignetting Issue
|
David
Although I cannot respond in an 'official' capacity I would largely concur with your suspicions regarding 'variability' in cameras - a friend and I almost came to blows after I recommended the 5D and the one she got exhibited severe vignetting. She's on her third body and it's an entirely different camera (ie no vignetting...)
I sense a discussion with the 'big C' is imminent...
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 08/06/2006 12:25 |
|
|
|
Re: The 5D Vignetting Issue
|
Wow! Thanks Chris - it gives me hope.
| SteveEM |
| (Persona non grata) |
| 08/06/2006 12:27 |
|
Re: The 5D Vignetting Issue
|
Hi all,
Here is my two penneth..I am neither a user of Canon, Nikon, or Olympus, so have no axe to grind.
It seems to me that almost all the major camera makers rushed their DSLR's to market a little fast, to gain market share and before proper thought was given to the 'light' needs of digital sensors. We know they have 'depth' unlike film and so require light to hit them at 90 degrees. But most of the SLR makers simply popped digital sensors into conventional SLR bodies and used them with conventional lenses...and here the problems start. It is just that the full frame sensors highlight the issues more and are effectively a compromised design..as the bad vignetting issues show.
It seems to me that only Olympus with their E digital system designed PROPERLY from the ground up, with properly designed digital lenses have the issues 'sorted'. Of course they have suffered sales-wise because they came to the party later, but I think they have the answers..
Cheers Steve.
| TerryS |
| () |
| 08/06/2006 12:35 |
|
|
|
Re: The 5D Vignetting Issue
|
Quote:
Although I cannot respond in an 'official' capacity I would largely concur with your suspicions regarding 'variability' in cameras - a friend and I almost came to blows after I recommended the 5D and the one she got exhibited severe vignetting. She's on her third body and it's an entirely different camera (ie no vignetting...)
I sense a discussion with the 'big C' is imminent...
Thanks for the response Chris. So (off the record
) is it your opinion that the vignetting that is being reported with the 5D body and 24-105mm lens (at 24mm) is more likely to be due to variability of the 5D body rather than variability of the 24-105mm lens? This is important because if an individual buys a 5D/24-105 kit and they don't have access to another full frame body then he or she has no means of determining whether the 'fault' lies with the body or the lens. Also, in my case, I am using the 24-105mm lens on a cropped-sensor 30D body (and have long since sold my Canon 35mm film SLRs) and so have no means of testing the lens for vignetting issues.
Terry.
| Benchista |
| (Which Tyler) |
| 08/06/2006 13:14 |
|
|
|
Re: The 5D Vignetting Issue
|
Quote:Quote:
Although I cannot respond in an 'official' capacity I would largely concur with your suspicions regarding 'variability' in cameras - a friend and I almost came to blows after I recommended the 5D and the one she got exhibited severe vignetting. She's on her third body and it's an entirely different camera (ie no vignetting...)
I sense a discussion with the 'big C' is imminent...
Thanks for the response Chris. So (off the record
This is important because if an individual buys a 5D/24-105 kit and they don't have access to another full frame body then he or she has no means of determining whether the 'fault' lies with the body or the lens. Also, in my case, I am using the 24-105mm lens on a cropped-sensor 30D body (and have long since sold my Canon 35mm film SLRs) and so have no means of testing the lens for vignetting issues.
Terry.
Terry, look at Les' experience with the 24-105 - it is my firm belief that there is variability in both lens and camera, and that there are two choices if you want a 5D/24-105 combo - don't buy it, or keep on trying until you get one of each you're happy with.
I know I've stated that I'm 100% sure that there are non-vignetting examples about and have been unable to produce any evidence - well, my first piece of evidence is that I've got 100% confidence in Chris Gatcum, and the rather more tangible evidence is in the form of RAW files from two different cameras belonging to two pro 'togs in the US. I have not got their permission to post any of their images here, or even to distribute them onwards, so unless and until they change their minds, I'm afraid that's all I can say. Suffice it to say that I'm still personally in the market for a 5D, but I am indeed not happy at the prospect of having to do QC for Canon - however, I personally consider it worthwhile for the superb quality that the camera can produce, and the prospect of not having to upgrade for a VERY long time afterwards.
| jchrisc |
| () |
| 08/06/2006 13:17 |
|
|
|
Re: The 5D Vignetting Issue
|
Quote:
I sense a discussion with the 'big C' is imminent...
Part of the problem in all of this, is the difficulty of sustaining a dialogue with Canon. If you manage somehow to get an email into their almost impenetrable structure they reply with a "it's not good replying to this address" type email. They supply a link for a further enquiry i.e. you have to start all over again, but even that link expires and becomes unusable the following day.
I have never met a firm that made it so difficult to talk to them.
| alanS |
| (The Flameproof Dr Dust) |
| 08/06/2006 15:24 |
|
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
"On the other side of the coin, it does suggest that Canon sees issues with full-frame such that it continues to put effort into developing lenses for APS-C size sensors."
Indeed David,
My point is that a machine works best with components most fit for the task. In the case of cameras I'd humbly suggest that the properties and characteristics of digital and film bodies (and similar types from different manufacturers) differ and would be best used with lenses designed specifically for those properties or characteristics. There is no universally accepted standard after all. If we try to use components which are not specifically designed for the task then subtle issues may arise.
Anyway, sorry to intrude.
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 08/06/2006 17:37 |
|
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Quote:
...a machine works best with components most fit for the task. In the case of cameras I'd humbly suggest that the properties and characteristics of digital and film bodies (and similar types from different manufacturers) differ and would be best used with lenses designed specifically for those properties or characteristics.
I quite agree. So tell me, Alan - what lenses from Canon's range do you recommend I use with a full-frame digital SLR?
| rephoto |
| (member) |
| 08/06/2006 18:13 |
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
I shoot with a 1ds and have experienced the full horror of vignetting in the coreners. That said it is only really pronounced on what one might call the super-fast lenses (i.e 50 1.4) and tends to disappear by f2.5
I think it is a the trade off that you have to accept when buying a full frame dslr and it may be some time before the appropriate R&D is invested into completely solving this issue.
Another factor worth noting, and I am just guesing here, is that a fair amount of the canon glass on the market was not designed with the DSLR in mind nad has been in production, in some cases, for over a decade. Once these lenses have been redesigned we may see an improvement in the performance of th 5D. Then again, we might not. It may just be one of the charaacteristics of DSLRs that we have to get used to.
Out of curiousity, a bit of a wild card, but I know quite a few people use contax to eos adapters to run Zeiss glass on their canon bodies, largely because of Canon's weakness in its wideangle range. Does anyone know if the zeiss superfast lenses exhibit the same vignetting?
| John_Hine |
| (member) |
| 08/06/2006 18:38 |
|
Re: OK, some samples...
|
I read the above comments and was fascinated. I also had a bit of a "could have told 'em so" moment. A company that creates a full-frame digital camera is practically implying that buyers can happily use the lenses they bought for their film cameras. However, I understand from my reading of Ap etc. that film lenses do not emit light in lines that are parallel enough to suit a flat sensor. The corners of the image are therefore going to suffer. The possible answers are: a) give up any idea of using the same lenses for film and full-frame digital (so maybe just forget full-frame digital) or b) design a sensor that suits the light emission pattern of film lenses. It would have to be part-spherical rather than totally flat. Is that a big problem? Apparently Leica have taken a timid step in this direction with the skewed photo-sites in the corners of their Digi Module's sensor (but rather weird product is not full-frame, of course).
| SteveEM |
| (Persona non grata) |
| 08/06/2006 18:44 |
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Hi all,
David...I think you are up the creek mate. It seems If you want a 5D, or any other Canon Full frame DSLR to work 'properly' with all lenses at all apertures, then you need to do Canon's QC for them, as it seems they are not doing it themselves. I really hope Mr Gatcum or anyone else can get some official line from a Canon rep, but If they make it virtually impossible for anyone to e-mail them, that tells me they do not care a fig about customer service...so I am not holding my breath. I hope AP pursues this MUCH further.
I remember being quite shocked when I read the AP test of the 5D, because shortly before I read the 'Professional Photographer' magazine review and they clearly brought up the vignetting issue, which they spotted during testing, so I was expecting AP to spot it also...but apparently not....and yes I am aware this issue has existed with film cameras for ages, but it seems Canon DSLR's have taken it to an new level of unacceptability...
Cheers Steve.
| radim |
| (member) |
| 08/06/2006 18:47 |
|
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
I'm really fed up with 5D.
David, as I've promised I've got test. Problem is that it's from different body that I've tested earlier this week. They've already sold it (don't wonder why). Difference? Devastating! Viewfinder looks worse that my old Praktica MTL 5 - full of dust, threads, and some rubbish. It was really hard to say what's the focusing point and what is not!
And test result? (It was problem to find some light and regular surface)
24mm/f4
84mm/f4 (space problem)
As you can see it's disaster. Even from LCD I knew there's really strong vignetting. f/8 results are very similar to these earlier published on this thread.
I really do regret I didn't saved results from first body. But trust me I've tried good 5D body this week.
My advice? Wait for 5D upgrade or be pretty sure you can test body before buying.
Radim
| Gen_bunty |
| () |
| 08/06/2006 19:54 |
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Well Canon are really getting a bad track record IMHO with QC at the moment. They have had the 24-105 flare problem which they recalled for. The 70-300 IS problem that they are going to start recalling and what is starting to look like a 5D problem. I thought it was just a design fault, but with varied reports of vignetting, I wonder more about QC.
From my experience of 1 body, the 5D is simply not up to the job even with a lens that we assume was designed with the idea of full frame in mind (24-105). Is the 24-105 not a new design ? If not, why the hell do they bundle it with a full frame camera ?
OK, so maybe the older L lenses need a redesign, but please explain to me Canon why you sell an L lens with a 5D when it clearly vignets at F8. I don't call F8 extreme.
If Canon fail to deal with this issue, I personally will be keeping a closer eye on what Sony have to offer. Canon are no longer the only big player that make their own sensors.
James
| SteveEM |
| (Persona non grata) |
| 08/06/2006 20:10 |
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Hi...all you unhappy 5D owners..
Why not take them back for a refund? under the UK consumer laws, if an item is 'not fit for its purpose' you can return it to the seller (NOT manufacturer) AND you do not have to do it within the first 12 months...retailers always quote this 12 month guarantee thing...but it is RUBBISH. You have a 'reasonable' time in UK law to return an item and the more an item costs, the law assumes it must last longer.
Currys fell foul of this about 2 years ago, a customer bought a fridge costing £500 and it failed after about 15 months, the local Currys quoted the 12 month guarantee and told the customer to go see the manufacturer, they instead saw their local trading standards office, who told them the law and they successfully took Currys to court.
Stop whining and take the darn things back...make Canon take notice...
| radim |
| (member) |
| 08/06/2006 20:14 |
|
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Steve, although I don't have one if think reason why we're 'unhappy' is mainly because it's outrageous to have such a QC problem with camera that tends to be advanced amateur/professional body.
| Gen_bunty |
| () |
| 08/06/2006 20:27 |
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Steve,
I did take mine back and got my money back. David is on his second and it looks like he will be returning that one too.
The point is, as has already been pointed out, that this kind of performance is simply not acceptable and Canon seem to be doing nothing about it, but I take your point that if enough of them are returned, then Canon will have to start doing something.
James
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 08/06/2006 22:39 |
|
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
If only life were as simple as that!
I want a camera of the 5D specification and if good models do exist, then I want one. What I don't want is to have to test a series of cameras to find one I like. At the moment, there is no alternative to the 5D if I want that Mp and full-frame at that sort of price.
| merton |
| (newbie) |
| 08/06/2006 23:24 |
|
Re: New and already confused!
|
'From my point of view it's good to buy 30D and wait for 5D upgrade. Let's hope Canon will bring soon (I hope next year) valuable upgrade. But again you have to buy non EF-S lenses as EF-S lenses are not compatible with full frame bodies (and of course 1.6 crop with 30D)'
Radim or anyone
can you tell me which Canon lens are suitable for a full frame camera. And maybe someting about the difefrence between EF-S and non EF-S lens I am a little confused (again). Hope you dont mind these questions
peter
| radim |
| (member) |
| 09/06/2006 08:16 |
|
|
|
Re: New and already confused!
|
Peter, good comparison of APS-C and full frame is here. It's for you to better understand differences.
The lens selection for digital full frame photography is point of this discussion. Canon released 5D as a fully-fledged full frame camera. But even the lens designed for it is not enough. In general (as David addressed in new post) you have to be happy with limitations or go for 1Ds.
Generally every single EF lens should be suitable for full frame camera. But as you can see it's myth. At least with 5D.
Radim
| alanS |
| (The Flameproof Dr Dust) |
| 09/06/2006 09:09 |
|
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
David - I have absolutely no idea. If you are having difficulty what chance do us lesser mortals have. Generally though I get the impression that manufacturers could certainly be making more of an effort to design lenses to suit the characteristics of the bodies they also produce.
I genuinely don't know enough about the subject to make any recommendation or to advise others. As a relative outsider looking in though it does seem to me, and as has been picked up on by a couple of others, that some manufacturers lenses are not well suited to the characteristics of some of the bodies that the same manufacturer produces. Presumably then either new lenses or bodies is the answer.
In my own polite way and with no slight intended, that's my point.
| eirikhj |
| (I've got a Title) |
| 09/06/2006 16:53 |
|
Re: Dilemma
|
David,
You have probably seen this on dpreview, but I'm posting it anyway.
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 09/06/2006 17:07 |
|
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Thanks Eirik.
That's me under my old name (I changed it three years ago when I got married) only, like eBay, I can't easily change my name without jumping through hoops of fire.
I made the post in the hope that the trigger-happy audience there would provide lots of samples from their 5Ds so I could see if there was some pattern to all this. Unfortunately, the thread was diverted off course by self-opinionated lens theorists determined not to tell me what I want to know but what they think I ought to know.
I suppose that's why I seldom post there these days. At least the people on the AP forums are much better behaved, constructive, and think before they post without trying to get one over on you.
| eirikhj |
| (I've got a Title) |
| 09/06/2006 19:19 |
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Quote:
Thanks Eirik.
That's me under my old name (I changed it three years ago when I got married) only, like eBay, I can't easily change my name without jumping through hoops of fire.
I made the post in the hope that the trigger-happy audience there would provide lots of samples from their 5Ds so I could see if there was some pattern to all this. Unfortunately, the thread was diverted off course by self-opinionated lens theorists determined not to tell me what I want to know but what they think I ought to know.
I suppose that's why I seldom post there these days. At least the people on the AP forums are much better behaved, constructive, and think before they post without trying to get one over on you.
Oh...hehe...I didn't know that of course, but yes DPR is not the place to post much anymore because most of them has become self righteous bstards...it doesn't apply to all of them though...some really nice people over there too, but they are a minority.
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 09/06/2006 22:39 |
|
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Quote:
DPR is not the place to post much anymore because most of them has become self righteous bstards...
Don't I know it! The arrogance of some of them is unbelievable. One tonight said Go take pictures and stop trying to find excuses why yours aren't all masterpieces. Words fail me.
| Jonathon |
| (n00b) |
| 09/06/2006 22:57 |
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Quote:
Quote:
DPR is not the place to post much anymore because most of them has become self righteous bstards...
Don't I know it! The arrogance of some of them is unbelievable. One tonight said Go take pictures and stop trying to find excuses why yours aren't all masterpieces. Words fail me.
That just makes me laugh
Some people are so damned pathetic, why are people not allowed to report major faults in their expensive equipment!?!!
| eirikhj |
| (I've got a Title) |
| 09/06/2006 23:00 |
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Quote:
Don't I know it! The arrogance of some of them is unbelievable. One tonight said Go take pictures and stop trying to find excuses why yours aren't all masterpieces. Words fail me.
In a lot of situations that would have been an appropriate thing to say if you just were sitting there moaning, but this is in my opinion equipment failure and that really takes the fun out of photography for sure. But in the end it must be a solution to this problem. I think I will go down to Jessops and take a few pictures with my 17-40 and my 24-70 2.8 fully open on a 5D when I get my Sigma lens back...if they let me though. They are nice people so I don't think that is going to be a problem
. I have seen fantastic pictures from 5D's without any vignetting must be a fix for it!!!!
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 10/06/2006 08:23 |
|
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Quote:
I have seen fantastic pictures from 5D's without any vignetting
I've got fantastic pictures out of the 5D too. The problem is that there seems to be a narrow range of conditions under which you can get these fantastic pictures. If shoot around f8-f11 with most lenses, you'll be a very happy bunny. Trying to use bigger apertures especially with the 17-40 and 24-105 lenses will lead to the vignetting issue and then the misery starts. Of course, if you only occasionally shoot at wide apertures and are happt to fiddle in Photoshop, you might still be happy.
Unfortunately, I'm one those sad photographers who enjoy shooting in low light conditions and at the maximum aperture a lens was designed to be used at.
| eirikhj |
| (I've got a Title) |
| 10/06/2006 08:54 |
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Quote:
Unfortunately, I'm one those sad photographers who enjoy shooting in low light conditions and at the maximum aperture a lens was designed to be used at.
Oh you sad sad man, want to use your equipment for what it's meant too...well..well, I don't think Canon new you existed and didn't think about that when they designed the 5D. I have to agree with you though. I want my equipment to work perfectly no matter what as long it is inside the acclaimed technical specifications!!!! I was going to buy the 5D, but have some biiiig doubts now.
| Knockmore |
| (enthusiast) |
| 10/06/2006 11:48 |
|
Re: Dilemma
|
David I have just read through that discussion on DPreview forums. You did well to keep such an even keel in the face of such abuse, I think I would have blown my top way earlier. What is wrong with these people, they are so angry! So bloody sure that they know better than anyone else and so rude. Some people really need a good slap!
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 10/06/2006 12:10 |
|
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Quote:
David I have just read through that discussion on DPreview forums. You did well to keep such an even keel in the face of such abuse, I think I would have blown my top way earlier. What is wrong with these people, they are so angry! So bloody sure that they know better than anyone else and so rude. Some people really need a good slap!
ROFL.
I know how you feel. I sometimes enjoy writing my robust responses to their silliness. Fortunately, their behaviour isn't mirrored on this forum and I have never needed to respond in such a way here. I guess it's why I've been associated with the AP forums so long - we treat each other as intelligent adults and with respect. Long may it continue.
| Mondas42 |
| (member) |
| 10/06/2006 17:49 |
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Quote:
Quote:
David I have just read through that discussion on DPreview forums. You did well to keep such an even keel in the face of such abuse, I think I would have blown my top way earlier. What is wrong with these people, they are so angry! So bloody sure that they know better than anyone else and so rude. Some people really need a good slap!
ROFL.
I know how you feel. I sometimes enjoy writing my robust responses to their silliness. Fortunately, their behaviour isn't mirrored on this forum and I have never needed to respond in such a way here. I guess it's why I've been associated with the AP forums so long - we treat each other as intelligent adults and with respect. Long may it continue.
David
Good grief, they certanly get upset don`t they!
Martin
| eirikhj |
| (I've got a Title) |
| 10/06/2006 18:07 |
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Quote:
David I have just read through that discussion on DPreview forums. You did well to keep such an even keel in the face of such abuse, I think I would have blown my top way earlier. What is wrong with these people, they are so angry! So bloody sure that they know better than anyone else and so rude. Some people really need a good slap!
Don't you ever say that on DPR....you would start yet another low life argument over who is the best slapper
....hehehe...
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 10/06/2006 18:09 |
|
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
All I can say is that newbies shouldn't venture there unless they want to know what it is like to dip ones toe into a piranha tank.
| eirikhj |
| (I've got a Title) |
| 10/06/2006 18:37 |
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Second that!!!!
It was sooo much better a few years ago...let's keep AP forums as they are today for a loong time to come!!!!
| merton |
| (newbie) |
| 10/06/2006 19:57 |
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Hi David
I spent a couple of hours in Jessops today playing with the D5 and various lenses. After some terrible advice from the sales guy (trying to fit all sort of lenses onto the body and i am sure they damaged the body) i tried the D5 with various lens and checked for vignetting at f5. Although it varied enormously one conclusion i came to, was as a rule of thumb the poorer the quality of the lens the worse the vignetting.
I am noy sure this helps
peter
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 10/06/2006 20:40 |
|
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Thanks for that Paul - an interesting observation. One wonders how they could sell a product that isn't entirely compatible with a significant number of lenses in their range. I accept that not everybody will be bothered or even notice but I would have expected better from a semi-pro camera.
| merton |
| (newbie) |
| 10/06/2006 21:55 |
|
Re: Dilemma
|
David
i am finding buying my next camera frustrating! However the 5D is still om my list if i can find one that i am happy with.
I am considering the 30d or even the EOS-1D Mark IIn in the meantine, do you reccomennd or have any experience of these.
In the meantime i will continue with my 300d and film (there is still someting about the delay in picking up your prints which i enjoy!)
Peter
| Gen_bunty |
| () |
| 10/06/2006 22:48 |
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Hi Peter,
The 1D MK IIN is a very different camera to the 30d. The 1D MK IIN weighs about twice as much, costs 3 times the price and will not take EF-S lenses.
On the other hand, it will shoot 3.5 frames a second more than the 30d (8.5 vs 5), not sure if anyone other than Burgy really needs more than 5 fps.
The 1D MKIIN shutter is suppose to last twice as long as the 30d and the battery pack will go on for nearly twice as many shots. The auto focus is better, but probably only noticeable in extreme situations - low light or fast moving action.
The 1D has weather sealing, so you can shoot in extreme weather where the 30D can't, if you need to shoot in the rain. The view finder of the 1D is brighter and larger.
The 1D MKII N has a built in grip and of course has a 1.3 crop factor vs 1.6 on the 30D. If you want to go wider than 21mm (16-35 2.8 L for example on a 1.3 sensor), then you will need a 14 mm prime vs the 10-22 EFS lens on the 30D (16-35 on 1.6 crop). At the other end of the scale your tele lenses are of course shorter on the 1D than on the 30D.
I think the 1D also has slightly lower noise at higher ISO, but no idea how big a difference this is.
In my opinion (for my purposes anyway) the 1D MK II N is too expensive for my use and far too heavy to lug around. For my use there are no major advantages of the 1D. I don't shoot fast action in the rain.
I would buy the 30D and spend the £1500 difference on some nice lenses.
James
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 10/06/2006 23:40 |
|
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
The 30D has to be the optimum choice right now. The 5D was heavy enough if you add in some decent lenses but a 1D MkII would too big and heavy for an extended period of use.
I currently have a 20D that I'm very pleased with. I might even consider a move to the 30D instead of the 5D.
| merton |
| (newbie) |
| 10/06/2006 23:43 |
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Thanks for that James
I use my camera for travel photography - especially in the developing world, so it needs to be robust. I usually have to pack my stuff in plastic bags and towels because of weather extremes and the knocking about they take.
I thought the 5D would be perfect as the 1Ds seemed out of my price range (although they may be less expensive in the US and i could pick one up next month) so i am now a little unsure how to proceed!
i have been told if i purchase a 30d i will not be able to use the same lenses on a full frame digital; so later upgrading to a full frame maybe falso economy as i would need to purchase a new set of lens.
who knows what to do? I don't.
peter
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 10/06/2006 23:52 |
|
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Quote:
i have been told if i purchase a 30d i will not be able to use the same lenses on a full frame digital
Not entirely correct. If you purchase EF-S lenses designed for 1.6x crop sensors then that is true but there is nothing stopping you from buying EF lenses that will work equally well on both. For example, the kit lens in an EF-S lens but you could buy the body only and buy whatever EF lens take your fancy.
I shoot a 20D (excluding the 5D for the moment) and all of my lenses are EF lenses except for an EF-S 10-22mm that I know I'd have to sell if I went the 5D (or other full-frame) route. All my other EF lenses work equally well on the 20D as they do on 5D (apart from the vignetting issue that is).
| merton |
| (newbie) |
| 11/06/2006 00:07 |
|
Re: Dilemma
|
David
do Jessops still offer a 30 day refund if you are unhappy with a product?
cheers
peter
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 11/06/2006 08:11 |
|
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Quote:
do Jessops still offer a 30 day refund if you are unhappy with a product?
I sincerely hope so because I'll be making use of it!
| Gen_bunty |
| () |
| 11/06/2006 11:17 |
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Hi Peter,
In terms of sealing, only the 1 series currently have sealing that I am aware of. So the 5D would be no better in these environments than a 30D. Build quality wise, I believe the 5D and 30D to be equal, but no comparison with a 1 series tank. For absolute reliability in extreme environments, a 1 series would be worth the money if you are happy with the weight.
In terms of lenses, as David says it would only mean no EF-S lenses will fit a full frame.
For me, the only EF-S lens worth buying is the 10-22, as I like to shoot wide and have a number of EF fit lenses that I use with my film camera.
If you don't need anything wide, don't bother with the EF-S lenses. That is the only reason they exist IMHO.
If you do need wide, I would just say that IMHO Canon have yet to design a sensor and/or wide lens that plays nicely on full frame. So this may take a few years and probably cost quite a bit. In my experience the 5D is not it.
If you compare the 10-22 to the equivalent EF (full frame coverage) 16-35 2.8 L, just in terms of price, then the 10-22 is half the price. Further, Canon are giving you £70 cash back on this lens till the end of the year if you purchase a 30D.
OK, the 16-35 is 2.8 and of L build quality, but for me wide angle stuff is always F4 or beyond and I don't want the extra weight or cost of the 16-35. The 16-35 is better equipped for extreme conditions, but will add considerable cost and weight.
If you look at it this way, if you do go full frame and in the worst case are unable to sell the 10-22, then you have lost £450. The reality is that there will still be a large number of cameras out there that will take the lens and I'm sure you would get 50% of the value.
Anyway, enough typing. I intend to buy a 30D before the end of the year, unless something drastic happens with the 5D in the next few months, and the only EF-S I will buy is the 10-22.
James
| Gen_bunty |
| () |
| 11/06/2006 11:20 |
|
Re: Dilemma
|
David,
Let us know how you get on with Jessops. I have to say that in my case they had no problem with refunding me in full, both quickly and efficently.
Sorry to hear that the second 5D suffered fromt the same issue.
It looks like Malcom's camera also has the same problem.
James
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 11/06/2006 14:53 |
|
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
I agree with James. I already have a 10-22 lens and am very pleased with it. It increasingly looks like the 30D is the way to go for me. It has all the mod-cons of the 5D (Picture Styles, large LCD, spot meter etc.) but without the big sensor and the vignetting issues that go along with it. Even the 30D shutter sounds a lot quieter like the 5D (as opposed to the noisy 'clack' of the 20D).
So, I think James and I will be happier bunnies with the 30D and will wait until things get better further down the road.
| Riza |
| (newbie) |
| 11/06/2006 16:52 |
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Hi David, Im one of the unhappy EOS 5D buyer, All the reason why its the same with you its vignet or light falloff whatever they call it, still for my eyes it is something annoying.
Canon Reps. office in my country allow me to exchange it with 30D with some refunds., but for me its not the point.
I want to have a pro-camera from the no.1 brand in the world, seems that I have pick the wrong choice.
No further answer from Canon Asia Pacific, Im just being ignored.
If you have a contact email for the more responsive parties at canon it would be good, just want them to announce some kind of firmware, or somehow fix the problem or else.
Right now I just dont feel happy to use my "expensive" camera arround.
Regards.
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 11/06/2006 17:41 |
|
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Hi Riza
I did get your e-mail and was going to respond tonight but it's great that you have joined us here.
The conclusion that I am coming to (as well as others - see evidence here for example), is that this is a purely optical phenomenen that we never noticed when shooting on film and wouldn't see with a cropped sensor. It may not be a fault with the camera just the compromises made in designing lenses to fit a 35mm frame.
I am tempted to swap my 5D for a 30D because this isn't going to be fixed overnight - Canon will have to design better lenses for the future and incorporate features in the camera body or firmware to alleviate this. Meanwhile, I'll use a 30D because I'll know that I can then shoot at any aperture without this issue.
I would have expected Canon to issue some kind of statement clarifying the matter in their defence but with litigation law, I doubt that they'd want to admit to anything in case of legal claims even if it is the laws of physics or optics that are to blame.
| Done&rundleCams |
| (Senior Member) |
| 12/06/2006 02:40 |
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Hi David,
I'm not entirely unhappy with my Pentax IST*Ds so should I look at buying an EOS 5D so,perhaps, I can be entirely unhappy?
Dazed and
in Vancouver
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 12/06/2006 07:13 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
I don't think that anybody can be entirely unhappy with the 5D, just that they can be very unhappy with the things that affect them badly.
| Riza |
| (newbie) |
| 12/06/2006 07:17 |
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Thank you David, I have the same intention too, Canon should responsible for this.
Law of Phisics: Heavy things, fall down to earth, but aeroplane can fly.
For image experienced big company, Vignett/Light fall off is something that must be easyly and corectively done,
and all Eos 5D user can return their trust to the company.
| James_Symington |
| (newbie) |
| 12/06/2006 10:20 |
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Dear Riza,
Unfortunately that is not the case - it is extremely difficult if not impossible to correct light fall off on lenses shot wide-open and particularly if they are wide angle. It happens to any lens on any camera of any format always and is just a fact of life like the sun coming up in the east.
All the best,
James
| TerryS |
| () |
| 12/06/2006 11:06 |
|
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Quote:
Peter wrote:
i have been told if i purchase a 30d i will not be able to use the same lenses on a full frame digital; so later upgrading to a full frame maybe falso economy as i would need to purchase a new set of lens.
As others have already pointed out this is completely untrue as long as you restrict yourself to Canon's EF mount lenses and avoid their EF-S mount lenses (and similarly avoid reduced image circle lenses that are designed for cropped sensors from other third-party lens producers - Sigma's DC lenses (DG are okay) and Tamron's Di II lenses (Di are okay)).
Personally I don't particularly care about the size of the sensor per se - I would be happy with 1.6x, 1.3x or full frame as long as the camera body met my other (more important to me) requirements. In this respect I am waiting for Canon to produce a 30D/5D form factor body with the build quality of the 1D series (ie. very robust and with weather sealing) and the excellent AF system of the 1D series, so until such a body appears I am keeping my options open with regard to lenses and buying only full frame lenses (EF or equivalent) for use with my 10D and 30D bodies. For example, for 'normal' shooting I typically use either the 17-40mm f4 or 24-105mm f4 or 50mm f1.4, all of which work perfectly on the 10D & 30D and will continue to work perfectly with whatever I buy in the future regardless of whether it has a 1.6x, 1.3x or full-frame sensor.
Terry.
| alanS |
| (The Flameproof Dr Dust) |
| 12/06/2006 11:56 |
|
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
(deep sigh.)
EF-S (and similar) lenses - lets say £500.
Keep it for a year or two and then sell it, lose, lets say £200. Over a year or two that doesn't seem a lot to lose considering they are good lenses specifically designed for use with the cameras they fit.
I can see however that I'm alone in this belief.
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 12/06/2006 12:28 |
|
|
|
In this day and age...
|
To be fair James, Riza has a point and it is something I have been hinting all along. For example, physics tells us that light is made up of a range of wavelengths and these all converge at different points when focussed by a lens. The solution is to use compound elements made up of glasses with differing refractive indices to counter this and cause convergence onto a single plane. Nearly all lens makers offer solutions doing just this including Canon in their L range.
So, I would dare to suggest that light fall-off is perhaps the biggest single issue affecting image quality right now and in an age where a lens can have a gyro and one or more microcomputers built into the lens barrel to detect and compensate for camera shake by moving a lens element in real time, it is reasonable to suppose that fall-off might by tackled by a re-think of lens design, by improved image processing software, or a combination of both.
| TerryS |
| () |
| 12/06/2006 12:52 |
|
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Quote:
(deep sigh.)
EF-S (and similar) lenses - lets say £500.
Keep it for a year or two and then sell it, lose, lets say £200. Over a year or two that doesn't seem a lot to lose considering they are good lenses specifically designed for use with the cameras they fit.
I can see however that I'm alone in this belief.
No, you are not alone in your belief because I agree that what you say is entirely reasonable, however you are answering a different question to the one that I was addressing. I was correcting the (apparent) misconception that there are no lenses that can be used on both a 30D body and a full-frame body, such that if one were to switch from the former to the latter it would be necessary to upgrade one's entire lens collection. Which is totally untrue.
Clearly it is possible to buy only EF-S (or DC or Di II) lenses and commit oneself entirely to bodies with APS sensors (or a total and (probably) expensive change of kit with any subsequent switch to a larger sensor), or one can choose to avoid these lenses entirely (if one does not mind losing extreme wide-angle capability, which I don't) and thus guarantee future compatibility, or one can choose to have a mixture of lens types, as you propose. I was just pointing out that the second option does exist, contrary to the original suggestion.
Personally, since I am not a great wide-angle user, the only EF-S lens that does tempt me is the 60mm f2.8 macro to complement my Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro which can be a little long (on a 1.6x crop body) for some subjects.
Terry.
| Riza |
| (newbie) |
| 12/06/2006 16:30 |
|
Re: Dilemma
|
If it is that difficult, or might be impossible to avoid vignett/light fall off, So Dont make a full frame sensor in digital camera then., it is just a simple logic right..?
I believe Boeing / Airbuss will not force themself to make a giant plane , but it cannot landing anywhere because no runway is long enough.
(Airbus A380, Giant of the sky, they extend the runways all over the landing airport destinations first before launch it to the market)
(Means, Canon should release also the "Full frame lens" together with EOS 5D when launch it to the market)
If they decided to do so, make sure all the equipment is perfect and available, and will not sacrifice customer's in the dark asking light fall off.
(I dont believe i say this to Canon Inc.....)
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 12/06/2006 18:35 |
|
|
|
I'm likely to be downgrading
|
I spoke to my dealer tonight who in turn spoke to a Canon technical guy today. They've had a number of complaints about this. Their explanation was that in the film days, commercial prints always lost a few mm off the edge so nobody noticed. With users seeing the whole image area, they are now seeing vignetting and are unhappy but it was there all the time.
I also feel that some lenses are worse than others and these lenses have probably been designed more recently for optimum performance is some areas at the expense of others. My dealer suggested using lenses 'designed for digital' to which I replied "Oh, you mean the 24-105 that was launched alongside the 5D and paired with it as a kit lens?" with a hint of sarcasm since that is one of the worst offenders.
My dealer also suggested allowing for the vignetting when I take the shot so I can crop it down later but I explained that the level of vignetting varies from lens to lens, from focal length to focal length and from aperture to aperture. I couldn't possibly remember how good or bad the vignetting is with all these combinations and I'd end up shooting in the central area of the viewfinder and probably end up with fewer pixels than a 30D for a given image.
Besides, when under pressue shooting a wedding, I want to concentrate on the lighting and composition and not have to also think about body/lens anomalies.
So, my mind is almost made up now to swap the whole lot for a 30D. Yes, I'm likely to be downgrading.
| alanS |
| (The Flameproof Dr Dust) |
| 13/06/2006 10:00 |
|
|
|
Re: I'm likely to be downgrading
|
Does the 30D offer enough improvement over the 20D? I'd agree that it would be better to buy a 30D than a 20D but is there any incentive to upgrade from a 20D if you already have one?
To be honest I haven't looked at the 30D as I couldn't see any great advantage. I'd be interested to hear what the advantages are and how significant they are.
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 13/06/2006 10:55 |
|
|
|
Advantages of the 30D over a 20D
|
There are no image quality enhancements - it's the same sensor. All the new features are usability improvements and will differ for each person. To me, they are:
- Bigger LCD (it's not until you've used that you realise that this makes image reviewing much better and menus are easier to see as well)
- Quieter shutter (much better for wedding work)
- Picture Styles (may not be a big deal but they certainly seem to create usable JPEGs straight from the camera)
- Ability to change ISO speed without taking eye from the viewfinder
- Spot metering
Other features like the Print button don't give me anything. Hope that helps.
| alanS |
| (The Flameproof Dr Dust) |
| 13/06/2006 11:21 |
|
|
|
Re: Advantages of the 30D over a 20D
|
Thanks for the information.
Of the improvements you list number 3 would interest me but I don't think it's enough to tempt me to upgrade from the 20D at the moment (I feel guilty when spending money on myself.) However, the image stabilisation and sensor clean technology promised by Sony might just tempt me if I can slip away from my girlfriend long enough (and sneak it into the car and upstairs once home.)
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 13/06/2006 11:25 |
|
|
|
Re: Advantages of the 30D over a 20D
|
Quote:
the image stabilisation and sensor clean technology promised by Sony might just tempt me
I've got too much invested in Canon glass to jump ship now.
| Riza |
| (newbie) |
| 13/06/2006 12:17 |
|
Re: Advantages of the 30D over a 20D
|
EOS 5D and 24-105, is my only and first Canon lens &Camera
Im jump off the ship now... bye, see you David.
| Riza |
| (newbie) |
| 14/06/2006 16:19 |
|
Re: Advantages of the 30D over a 20D
|
Hi David, wonder if you might intrested to read this forum
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Gtq2
| Benchista |
| (Which Tyler) |
| 14/06/2006 16:21 |
|
|
|
Re: Advantages of the 30D over a 20D
|
Riza, James has already linked to that thread, I think.
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 14/06/2006 17:02 |
|
|
|
Re: Advantages of the 30D over a 20D
|
Yes, Riza, I'm aware of that one. It was posted by one of our own forum members. We are still probing this and discussing the issues (in an adult manner unlike elsewhere
)Thanks
| bagpuss |
| (Sporadic Pam) |
| 17/06/2006 20:11 |
|
|
Re: OK, some samples...
|
Crikey...
| robc |
| (old hand) |
| 19/06/2006 17:28 |
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
Quote:
...The 70-300 IS problem that they are going to start recalling...
Dont want to hi-jack the thread but,...did I miss something somewhere?
What 70-300 IS problem?
I have one (am one of the few who actually managed to track one down!!). Anything I should know about?
Thanks
Rob
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 19/06/2006 21:48 |
|
|
|
Re: Dilemma
|
See other thread.
| Pascal_Parvex |
| (newbie) |
| 02/08/2006 14:35 |
|
More samples
|
Well, I'm new to the forum, I did not read all the answers here, and I'm late, but here are three more samples for you to look at:
They were all taken with the 24mm 1.4L prime from Canon. The Exif Data is still there, if you are interested. They were all taken at 1.4 and 1/8000.
| Theo |
| (newbie) |
| 06/09/2006 15:48 |
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Hi, found this site earlier this day and these vignetting threads drew my attention. I'm a professional Dutch wedding/portrait photographer btw.
Before the 5D I used Nikon systems (D2X, D70s, D1) and also Fuji S2Pro and S3Pro which share the Nikon mount. These 5D's are my first return to Canon since the analog days.
Naturally I tested both my 5D's -earlier, not today
- and they react the same to the vignetting issue.These are my testresults:
Canon 20mm/2.8 usm: Fine from F8 and up. F5.6 is still quite usable.
Canon 50mm/1.4 usm: Fine from F4 and up. F2.8 is still quite usable.
Canon 85mm/1.8 usm: Fine from F5.6 and up. F4 is still quite usable.
Canon 24-70/2.8 L usm: Fine from F5.6 and up. F4 is still quite usable. (70mm stays a bit behind compared to the other focal lengths).
Canon 70-200/2.8 L usm IS: Fine from F5.6 and up. F4 is still quite usable. (135mm and 200mm stay a bit behind compared to the other focal lengths).
To me these figures pose no real problem. I use flash (and use it well if I may say so) and would up the ISO before upping the aperture during ceremonies due to the desired DOF in these photo's.
As for correcting: since I always shoot RAW I have my images converted. Lately I use DXO for this; it corrects many things automatically during the conversion, e.g. chromatic abbreration but also vignetting! And does a good job at it too.
Theo
| BennyBoy |
| (enthusiast) |
| 07/09/2006 11:20 |
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Sigh, have you shot that 14L at 1.4 on a film body lately - guess what, it's called light fall off and will be there on any EOS film body too. It's physics, not the 5D.
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 07/09/2006 11:52 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Quote:
Sigh, have you shot that 14L at 1.4 on a film body lately - guess what, it's called light fall off and will be there on any EOS film body too. It's physics, not the 5D.
Don't sigh so loudly. My testing has showed that the same lenses at the same apertures do show signs of vignetting on a film body but are nowhere near as bad as the 5D suggesting that the cause is the lens but that a digital sensor may exagerate the effect, as seems to be the case with the 5D.
Before I publish my findings, I need to repeat my film tests (weddings and holidays over the summer have got in the way) as the film camera I shot on had a sticky shutter and many frames were only half-exposed. However, there was sufficient information for me to arrive at my conclusion above.
| Theo |
| (newbie) |
| 07/09/2006 12:03 |
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Hi Benny,
I don't have a 14mm lens, so maybe you replied to someone else's post instead of mine.
IF your message was a reply to my post, well, in that case I don't know what you are trying to get across.
Regards,
Theo
Ps
I'm well aware what vignetting is. My post only shows at what aperture the vignettting is gone for specific Canon lenses when used with a 5D.
| Theo |
| (newbie) |
| 07/09/2006 12:09 |
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Oh dear I now see the "quick reply" simply puts my answer to Benny's message under that of David...hmmm
Guess I better not use the "quick reply" anymore
Theo
| Benchista |
| (Which Tyler) |
| 07/09/2006 12:13 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Good call - Quick Reply is not very helpful!
| Lounge Lizard |
| (Old Wrinkly) |
| 07/09/2006 13:00 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Theo
I shoot weddings too and sometime do use apertures as low as f2.8 where I don't need good DoF or where I deliberately want a shallow DoF. So, the vignetting wide-open intially perturbed me. I now use DxO Optics Pro as well and think that it does a good job making the 5D usable at these apertures.
Though light fall-off is an optical effect, I feel that the design of the sensor magnifies this and it is an issue that camera-makers should address either by improved sensor design or by incorporating DxO-like software into the camera body.
Over many years of camera development, all optical quirks due to the laws of physics have been largely overcome. Vignetting or light fall-off has always been there but not enough to cause concern, until now. Consequently, I can see more R&D effort being needed to knock this one on the head. After all, digital introduced a new problem of dust on the sensor and solutions are starting to be introduced right now.
| Theo |
| (newbie) |
| 07/09/2006 17:09 |
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
David,
Of course I use low apertures as well. But not as often as I use F5.6
Anyway, until a week ago I shot with Nikon D2X. I used F5.6 the most, followed by F4 and F8. And those in their turn -at some distance- followed by F2.8 and F11.
Now with the 5D is a new ballgame. The dof of F5.6 on the D2X is about the same are the dof of F8 on the 5D, even a bit more. So I guess I will be using F8 a lot on the 5D followed by F5.6 and F11 etc. We'll see how this developes.
They might create lenses that deal with this vignetting but I'm afraid these lenses are going to be a bit costly. Time will tell.
I do have a question for you regarding the 5D Raw files and the DXO software:
When I used DXO on my D2X files, even the lenscorrections where performed for the lenses known to the software.
But now, with the 5D, using lenses known to DXO, the focusdistance appears to be missing in the exif data of the 5D files. Therefore DXO cannot perform lenscorrections on those files. I get a warning message about that everytime I have the 5D files converted. Bit of a pity. Is this your experience as well? Or is this a setting I'm missing?
Regards,
Theo
| BennyBoy |
| (enthusiast) |
| 07/09/2006 17:45 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
I think any processing that gets done in camera is a Bad Thing(tm), best to leave it to post processing and the choice of the photographer (in RAW anyhow).
I do agree with you David that the sensor photosites/microlenses may have a contributary effect since they prefer light to be incident at 90 degrees to their surface - with most lenses being retrofused the angle of incidence can be quite acute (so I believe).
Until I see controlled tests shot in a studio with identical lighting and subject matter, I'll reserve judgement.
| TimF |
| (Taking it strictly) |
| 07/09/2006 22:35 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Quote:
Though light fall-off is an optical effect, I feel that the design of the sensor magnifies this and it is an issue that camera-makers should address either by improved sensor design or by incorporating DxO-like software into the camera body.
As Leica already have with the DMR - all compatible R-series lenses were mapped by Imacon for correction of vignetting, distortion etc, obviously ROM lenses are needed to get the full benefits here - and from what I've heard the forthcoming M8 employs a similar internal solution, hence the "barcoding" that has been introduced for many lenses both current and old.
Quote:
with most lenses being retrofused the angle of incidence can be quite acute (so I believe).
I might be talking out my ass here, but surely a retrofocus wide angle should have a less severe angle of incidence than a non-retrofocus design, such as rangefinder wides (especially older ones which were around prior to in-camera metering), and (again) older mirror-up wide angles for SLRs. The basic point is undoubtedly true though, film is simply far more forgiving/versatile (delete according to preference!) in its response to the angle at which light strikes it.
| BennyBoy |
| (enthusiast) |
| 07/09/2006 23:40 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
You're probably right Tim, I may have my incidence back to front based on design - but that seems to be the main problem (which affects all digital sensors - just more pronounced at the edges).
A post higher up compared the 5D dof at f8 to that of the D2X at f5.6: That is precisely correct, the smaller sensor (and thus differing circle of confusion) is a direct factor in the perceived DOF of photos taken with a camera. I find myself shooting at f/8 to f/16 predominantly these days.
| TimF |
| (Taking it strictly) |
| 08/09/2006 08:54 |
|
|
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Quote:
A post higher up compared the 5D dof at f8 to that of the D2X at f5.6: That is precisely correct, the smaller sensor (and thus differing circle of confusion) is a direct factor in the perceived DOF of photos taken with a camera.
I can't really agree with that conclusion. With film the frame size is a factor in determining how large a print can be made before the quality declines below acceptable levels, and CoC and DoF are part of that too. With digital, the maximum print size that is attainable (without ressing up) is determined by the number of pixels, and the output resolution chosen at post processing. So, in theory, prints of equal size and quality can be produced from a 6 Mp DSLR and a digicam of the same pixel count. In practice the DSLR will give a better print, especially at larger sizes, but that would be more to do with the size of the individual pixels.
So, IMHO, there is no direct correlation between CoC and DoF as there is with film. At least, not until you start making enlargements, ie, ressing up.
The real reason for the increased DoF with cropped frame DSLRs (and much more so with digicams) is simply due to the fact that the smaller frame size requires a shorter focal length lens to achieve the same angle of view. Many have noted that with a digicam it is almost impossible to have limited depth of field, even at f/2; hardly surprising though, seeing as these cameras typically have zooms of around 7mm to 28mm true focal length.
With the Canon 5D, you mount a 50mm lens to get a "normal" view. With the D2X (or similar cropped DSLRs) you need to use a 28mm or 35mm to get a similar AoV. The lens remains a 28mm or 35mm though, with the increased DoF over a 50mm that is the norm.
| Malcolm_Stewart |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 08/09/2006 09:19 |
|
Re: EOS 5D Woes
|
Quote:
With the Canon 5D, you mount a 50mm lens to get a "normal" view. With the D2X (or similar cropped DSLRs) you need to use a 28mm or 35mm to get a similar AoV. The lens remains a 28mm or 35mm though, with the increased DoF over a 50mm that is the norm.
And the above, Tim, is the clearest exposition I've seen on this hoary old chestnut!