Comments on: Canon 5D is finally unveiled

By: Danny Church

Danny Church — Fri, 04 Nov 2005 13:47:54 +0000

5D or not 5D!that is the question? I`ve traveled the World with my trusty 10D,won more awards than I ever could have imagined,did I miss my true wide angle capability,not really! Am i angry that canon gives you less than one year honeymoon period before your new camera becomes yesterdays techno-trash,yes i`m angry! so why is it i can`t stop thinking about that 5D full frame,full frame,full frame I`m going Mad!

By: Jamison a Nikonman

Jamison a Nikonman — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 05:12:59 +0000

Nikon makes its optics from start to finish. That means from a grain of sand to actual “Glass” optics. Canon does NOT make its own optics AND it is “NOT Glass” optics. Canon’s optics expand due to heat, so Canon uses light colored outer shell to restrict optic expansion. I feel that a good set of lens is the key to a great picture, and I find that Nikon is better by far with its lens. Who cares about FF that Canon offers. Vignetting is a big problem with the images that Canon FF creates. The images are sharpest and cleanest in the mid section of the image, so who wants FF. Canon seems to attract those who are all interested in the bigger numbers, not the quality of a picture.

By: Gary Sivyer

Gary Sivyer — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:06:47 +0000

Having been convinced of the joys of the digital slr by purchasing the D100 a few years ago I was/am ready to commit to a professional level system. Initially I was sold on the 1Ds mkll – the 16mp, that beautiful pro body, 3 tilt & shift lenses, the MPE macro, all those stabilised lenses, the Do’s etc etc -I have hung on hoping that canon would eventually reduce that hefty price tag. Well, 10 months have passed and very little has happened to that price, and I am still no closer to purchasing my dream combo! So, here is my dilemna; canons pricing may not have changed but the market has, we now have the D2x and the 5D – what to do ? I have read every available internet and magazine review of the contenders (accept the 5D of course), viewed all the samples, fondled the bodies. Whats my conclusion you may ask (or may not!) In reality it does not sound as though there is too much between them. The 1Ds mkll has the edge with higher iso noise (800+). But others have said nikons offering contains slightly more image detail. At the very least it must be said that the image quality of the D2x seems pretty close to the 1Ds mkll, despite being a smaller 12mp sensor. There are two things that trouble me about canon – they definitely have a wide angle problem, I have seen tests that suggest that the 17-40L is canons best for the 1Ds mkll sensor. Well, if it is I am not impressed, the samples I have seen have been very poor. I am pretty sure they will design one specifically for their high resolution sensors, but at the moment there is a gap. Then of course there is the price, in the UK the 1Ds mkll body is two thousand pounds more than the D2x. For that alone l am almost willing to forgo canons splendid lens range. At the end of the day I need to get on and take photo’s, so unless the 5D’s picture quality is practically identical to the 1Ds mkll I am afraid I will have to go with the D2x.

By: steven de meer

steven de meer — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:11:00 +0000

Nikon’s refusal to come out with a FF sensored camera is in fact going to force me to get the 5D. To me Nikon has their thumbs up their butts, and their service department can’t fix a darn thing properly. I’m a Nikon fan gone bad, and that is Nikon’s fault. I hope many will follow and switch to Canon, how else can we make Nikon understand that you have to at least provide your customers with at least one FF digital SLR, AT LEAST 1!!!!

By: Bill Stone

Bill Stone — Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:24:06 +0000

Nikon seems to be treating their development of digital bodies the same way they did film bodies – slowly. The dirty little secret with film bodies was it didn’t matter which one you used – they were basically black plastic boxes with different features to suit different market levels. THE LENS AND FILM were the only critical components to great image quality. With digital bodies, the sensor is the most critical component since it is not interchangeable. Nikon has now fallen way behind Canon due to their inability to come out with a full frame DSLR body. Nikon slapped their customers in the face by only offering APS sized sensors that crop the images of their existing lenses by 50% yet so many Nikon fans were suckered into buying these off-format bodies. (How many of you switched from 35mm film to APS film cameras!?) The highly rated Nikon 17-35 zoom becomes a mere normal to normal zoom in Nikon’s digital world. What a waste of a wonderful lens. Asta la vista, Nikon. Hello Canon 5D.

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:32:24 +0000

Get real you Muppets …… Just because you’ve spent all your welfair cheques on 20′ds, don’t start running down the 5d to justifuy your own stupidity, You know you wan’t it, you tart.

By: Joe Mammy

Joe Mammy — Sun, 28 Aug 2005 19:07:13 +0000

Finally, the camera I’ve been waiting for! Don’t assume that all pro photogs need 8 fps, 45 AF points, etc. This camera provides outstanding resolution in a compact package. That is all I want. I have been a Leica shooter for years and a firm believer that simple and unobtrusive is good. For the kind of photography I do, this camera represents a real triumph. Finally we’ll be able to go back to real focal lengths and know exactly what we’re getting when we read the numbers on a lens. Sportshooters, I understand its not for you, but I can’t wait ’til they hit the shelves!

By: Jose Zakany

Jose Zakany — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 05:01:00 +0000

I shoot professionally and I have to say that the high ASA performance of the 20D is excellent. Significant enough to make it a worthwhile upgrade from the 10D. This new 5D is definitely an eye catcher for Pros not shooting sports.

The 5D may have a significant upgrade in its lowlight performance, since the 1600 ASA is not being accessed from the menus, so Canon feels that it is good enough for mainstream use? The 3 fps speed is an upset but not much slower than the MKII Ds speed of 4 fps at less than half the cost. I don’t shoot in burst mode, exept at fashion runways.

The full frame sensor is a great advantage for overall signal to noise ratio and light gathering capability in low light (why I think that this camera will perform very well in lowlight). In my mind the extra megapixels from a low-density sensor is a godsend. Yes, I do not often print 20×30 but I do often crop. I will tell you that with any kind of crop from my 20D you definitely see the difference from a cropped image and an uncropped image. Having 5 extra magapixels will definitely give you much better quality in cropped images that have to be enlarged to 8×10 or larger. Also, having wide angle back is great for me.

Another advantage for me is the extra resolution that this camera will generate. The 20D has 1800 lines of resolution (which is great). The 5D should reach numbers comparable to the D2x of 2200 lines of resolution. This extra resolution is invaluable when shooting groups of people, landscapes, and fine art images where I want the absolute best image possible. Try shooting a group of 3 to 5 people from head to toe and then, zoom in on an individual face: you will see that you want as much resolution as possible. This camera would also be great for shooting some assignments were you would shoot medium format. This is a great advantage.

The 3 fps tradeoff is a welcome trade to the extra resolution. The lower sync speed is another matter, but the 1/3 stop loss from 250 is still not bad since you have access to 50 ASA setting which gives you an extra stop to shoot outdoors with flash.

Keep shooting.

By: fxk

fxk — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:54:46 +0000

My first step into digital was with a 10d. I liked the controls and features, and the lens lineup. At the time, only the d100 was the competition. So I’m invested with only three lenses – the 17-40L, 70-300 DO-IS, and the 28-135 IS. I’ve seen what the 17-40 and the 70-300 DO-IS can do on a full-frams sensor – just look at the Luminous Landscape. I know the lenses will perform on the 5d. The 28-135? Jury is out. We’ll see… Largely because of the 10d, I have full-frame glass. I see the small image circle lenses cementing the 1.5 and 1.6 sensors, but I’d like to have my 17 perform like a 17. The 1.6 factor only robs me of that possibility, and really only crops the 300 tighter – the image is still the same size. I can cut off the edges of film to make the image larger in comparison to the total film – which is what the 1.6 sensor does. – I will still need the same blow-up factor to make a 16×20 regardless of the sensor size. The lens makes the same size image regardless of the receptor. I see the smaller sensor heavily “spun” as to it’s advantages. As for 3fps, the speed of the 10d was never a problem, but the buffer size was. I think it was the largest of its day. With the 5d I get 60 jpegs deep, or 17 raw deep before the camera effectively locks up. No, I do not shoot sports. Maybe that “perfect” shot is in those miliseconds between 3fps and 6fps. For me, just not an issue. But I do a lot of single frame or slow burst, and the buffer is critical for me. All in all, the 5d with the ff sensor, and the price point well below the 1dsm2 seems like a good fit for my needs. And I’ve seem what my glass can do on a 1ds in the proper hands. I’ll be on the waiting list.

By: Joao Paulo

Joao Paulo — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:15:03 +0000

Eos 5D I love it, but very expensiv (why???) and Why only 3f/s Why not 5f/s?!?!