20D or 5D

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Mark² wrote:


"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Mark² wrote

no pesky built-in flash

Why is a built in flash "pesky"? On the camera I use, you can use the
flip up flash along with a shoe mounted "bounce flash?, adjust the
output
of each independantly so you can shoot a perfectly balanced "bounce plus
fill". That doesn't seem pesky to me and has resulted in the most
natural
looking flash shots I've ever taken.

Great! More power to ya.

Is there an actual down side to a built in flash other than it doesn't
sound "pro"?

Yes, there is.
-By having it built in to the prism housing, you are forced to give up a
larger, more comfortably usable viewfinder.

Why does it have to be in the prism housing?

I suppose it doesn't HAVE to be, but it would sure create a huge bump on top
of your camera if you had a full-size viewfinder AND the folded
flash/housing above that. I wouldn't want my flash shoe to be that high
anyway. Take a look at the 10D or 20D with the flash popped up sometime.
When you look in there, you'll see the angled *actual* prism housing just
beneath it.

And... I never ever use my
built-in flash. I think it's great for many people who would consider
always mounting a 550EX "pesky," but for the rest of us, it's just not
what works best.

Or is it that you can only use one flash or the other on a canon?

No, you can use any currently produced (and even a few no longer produced)
on any of Canon's DSLRs or recently (10 years or more) produced film
cameras. Not an issue.

As to your clever use of both...good idea. But that doesn't work with
the
10D. It doesn't really need to though. The 550EX has a little pull-out
reflector that adds a catchlight to eyes or light fill while bouncing
flash.

So you can adjust the output of this "pull out reflector"

(keep reading)

Take a look at the picture at B&H that I posted of the device.
You can adjust to either full bounce, or 80:20...it will make sense when you
see the picture...

If that's not enough forward fill, then I just stick my 80/20
bouncer (80% light goes up, while 20% bounces forward via the partial
bounce surface) on the flash and get not only fill, but diffused
fill--which gives a much more pleasing rendition of wrinkles, etc. than a
fill flash emitted by such a small source, such as a built-in.

Wow so you know this works better than my solution because you've actually
used mine and saw the results?

No. I know that diffused flash is nicer to wrinkles that non-diffused.
I don't say yours doesn't work, but unless there's a white, low ceiling, a
bounce doesn't work particularly well. It has nothing to do with your
solution except that any time you have a tiny light source providing
significant output, it tend to create more distinct shadows with wrinkles
(as I'm sure you know). If you've got plenty of bounce from a convenient
ceiling, great! If you don't, then you may end up relying on more direct
flash that might be optimal.
Again... If you're happy, then great! Glad it works for you.

All of the above costs around $45, and it always in my bag (it folds and
it quite flat/small).

And my solution is free and is always on the camera.

You can really be defensive sometimes...
Again...(and again)... That's great. Do whatever pleases you.
You asked, so I'm answering...along with my reasons. It's good to explain
why we do what we do.

So to answer your question...no. It has nothing whatever to do some sort
of "professional sound," but it does have a lot to do with excellent
images.


Nevermind, you answered my question..

Never mind what?
??
Oh... I got it. You're disappointed because I actually had a reason, and
that I had a reason spoiled your fun in assuming I was just blowing
"professional sounding" smoke by calling built-in flashes "pesky."
Sorry to disappoint you.

"Skip M" wrote in message
news:uvzOe.2216$sw6.1753@fed1read05...
"ThomasH" wrote in message
...
On 22-Aug-05 17:09, Rob wrote:
Given the review on
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05...canoneos5d.asp

Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the
20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D? I
wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the
non-professional that much easier than the 20D?

Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional? For me, it's seems
to much difference in cost but that's me. I believe the 20D about one
year ago was around $2000 so it fell about $800 over a year.

This is what Michael Reichman of Luminous Landscapes also thinks:
This price will fall down. However what makes me think against
the 5D, is the bizarre set of controls. I miss the EOS-1 like or
EOS-3 like set of buttons on the left. This wheel on the left
is such a waste. Its one of the reasons that I left out EOS-20D.

And, I will probably die and never guess why Canon is placing
the on-off button on this strange place. I can switch on and
off my Nikon with one hand while pulling it out of the bag.
Canon better stays on, you cannot reach this silly switch.

Thomas.

Those buttons make it almost impossible to change camera settings one
handed.

I agree with that, as it's also true of my film EOS 3 body.
You defintely need two hands, and...you've got to use at least two left hand
fingers while you use your right thumb, finger, etc. Add tripping the
modeling flash/DOF preview button WAY out on the side of the lens mount, and
you've got to be a one-man-band!!


It is the only thing I don't like about my old 1n. The controls on the 5D
are similar to every other Canon back to Ftd days.
And I have no problem at all getting to the on/off switch on my 20D as it
comes out of the bag, it's right where I can reach it with my hand on the
grip.

The only thing I wish they would add would be an in-viewfinder indicator for
what mode your dial is on. This would be great for those in-the-dark shots,
or those super-quick-reaction grab-shots, where you've got the camera to
your eye before you can even look at the dial. An indicator like that would
allow you to easily see what you were doing in those fast, hazy moments
without having to look at the dial. It's not life or death, but I wish it
was in there.

Mark

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
...
Stacey wrote:

Did you look at the corners of that "super wide angle " landscape image
yet?

Yep. It's pretty bad. On the other hand, it's just one image, so it
would
be premature to leap to conclusions from it. It could have been entirely
the fault of the lens, after all. Or simply due to being a pre-production
camera that had some problems.

Have a look at the macro shot edges though.
It clearly isn't a sensor issue, or it would show up there too. More like a
lens/DOF/distortion issue.

Let's face it, though...most DSLR shooters have forgotten what TRUE wide
angle looks like any more... Having that wide a view means you're getting
things much closer to you than is within view on a crop-factored 1.6 DSLR.
This means DOF in a shot like that is going to look more limited. Add to
this that a 100% view of that image on high-res monitors (this one is
160x1200) becomes a HUGE enlargement of that image. This same factor,
though, is why I was very impressed with the retention of detail and focus
in the macro shot.

Mark

"Skip M" wrote in message
news:1DyOe.2204$sw6.1033@fed1read05...



Rob wrote in message ...
Given the review on
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05...canoneos5d.asp

Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the
20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D?
I wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the
non-professional that much easier than the 20D?

Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional? For me, it's seems
to much difference in cost but that's me. I believe the 20D about one
year ago was around $2000 so it fell about $800 over a year.

It was $1499 on intro, so it's dropped $261 in the year since. And it
would be difficult to justify the extra expense of the 5D over the 20D
unless you need full frame for wide angle lens usage, or you need the spot
meter. The 50% more resolution will only come into play at sizes of
somewhere in the neighborhood of 24x36 inch prints, in my opinion.

With my 6.3MP 10D, its pretty significant.
I like to print with at *least* 240dpi (I think you can get away with this
nicely for a lot of subjects, or even less sometimes, even without upres),
and at that dpi, the sensor takes you from an 8.5":x12.8" max print on a
10D...all the way to a 12"x18" with the 5D. I'd say that's pretty
significant, but it's obviously less so with the slightly higher MP 20D.

Well, why should I accept a 35mm sensor, when I can get a bigger one in
a Hasselblad?


You are just mentioning my current dream digital camera. The Hasselblad H1D
(22 MPixels, 16-bit color, ISO 50 - 400, CCD size 36.7 x 49.0mm) ;-)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ist&sku=383280

Gregor

Mark² mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

Have a look at the macro shot edges though.
It clearly isn't a sensor issue, or it would show up there too. More like a
lens/DOF/distortion issue.

A macro lens won't be dealing with light on the extreme angles that a wide
angle will, though. The issue isn't the edges of the sensor alone, it's
the angle of the light hitting the sensor, which is a problem with digital
but not with film. I really don't know enough about lens design to say for
sure, though, so I'll wait and see.

Having that wide a view means you're getting things much closer to you
than is within view on a crop-factored 1.6 DSLR. This means DOF in a
shot like that is going to look more limited.

I thought of DOF too, but those blurry edges aren't close enough for that.
That wide, at f/8, that issue couldn't possibly be simply DOF.

Add to this that a 100% view of that image on high-res monitors (this
one is 160x1200) becomes a HUGE enlargement of that image.

Yes, but the problem is bad enough that I'd reject the image on technical
grounds alone, if it were mine. And I doubt it would be accepted for
publication or make it past QC at a stock agency. I can't believe that
Canon's marketing department let it into the wild (and frankly, I can't
imagine Canon releasing a high-profile camera with results that bad, so
I'm expecting to see that the production models don't show the problem,
or that it was the lens, or whatever).

This same factor, though, is why I was very impressed with the retention
of detail and focus in the macro shot.

No doubt. But it's the super-wide-angle that people (largely) want full-
frame for, so that's where the attention will be.

--
Jeremy |

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
...
Mark² mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

Have a look at the macro shot edges though.
It clearly isn't a sensor issue, or it would show up there too. More
like a
lens/DOF/distortion issue.

A macro lens won't be dealing with light on the extreme angles that a wide
angle will, though. The issue isn't the edges of the sensor alone, it's
the angle of the light hitting the sensor, which is a problem with digital
but not with film. I really don't know enough about lens design to say
for
sure, though, so I'll wait and see.

Ya, I think that question came up when the first 1Ds full frame came out.
I don't know enough about that either. Most lense's back elements stop at a
similar distance from the sensor--at least with wides I'm aquainted with...
But I have some teles that pull significantly into the lens for differnt
focal lengths. This alone would introduce less extreme angles of light
projected onto the sensor. I dunno... Some of our engineer types here will
know...

Having that wide a view means you're getting things much closer to you
than is within view on a crop-factored 1.6 DSLR. This means DOF in a
shot like that is going to look more limited.

I thought of DOF too, but those blurry edges aren't close enough for that.
That wide, at f/8, that issue couldn't possibly be simply DOF.

After looking again, I agree. It's not a DOF thing. Look at the lower
right wood-pile at 100% view and it becomes clear that the mush gets worse
than could be induced simply from shallow DOF.

Add to this that a 100% view of that image on high-res monitors (this
one is 160x1200) becomes a HUGE enlargement of that image.

Yes, but the problem is bad enough that I'd reject the image on technical
grounds alone, if it were mine. And I doubt it would be accepted for
publication or make it past QC at a stock agency. I can't believe that
Canon's marketing department let it into the wild (and frankly, I can't
imagine Canon releasing a high-profile camera with results that bad, so
I'm expecting to see that the production models don't show the problem,
or that it was the lens, or whatever).

I've posted this elsewhere, but I agree that they kinda goofed by releasing
that shot.

This same factor, though, is why I was very impressed with the retention
of detail and focus in the macro shot.

No doubt. But it's the super-wide-angle that people (largely) want full-
frame for, so that's where the attention will be.

Good point.

-Mark

In article t_yOe.8373$Us5.2198@fed1read02,
Mark² mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:
Once that happens, there isn't any room left in the
form-factor of 35mm based gear, and so little remains but noise reduction
*while simultaneously pushing sensitivities upward to 6400 and beyond. Low
noise advantage will always lean in favor of those using larger pixels.

I think a split in different models is much more likely. Just like
there is currently the high speed/high res split.

Very high resolution will limit both dynamic range and low light performance.

There are a lot of situations where the contrast is not that big, and where
you want good color accuracy and the highest resolution that is still
practical.

On the other hand, for really low light situations, it might make a lot of
sense to reduce losses due to filters, etc. as far as possible, even if that
results in less color accuracy.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

In fairness to Pixby the only place my 300D has had reliablity problems
was in tropical Queensland.
On two separate occasions I was in the rainforest when I got the
dreaded Er99.
Never had that problem before and never since. No problem with the
camera in +45 dry desert heat or at -20 on a glacier.

Nick

In article ,
GTO wrote:
Sure enough, Canon seems to be moving faster than Nikon most
likely anticipated. Once Canon offers a full line of DSLRs with the 35mm
format (from US$1000 to US$5000+), Nikon must match this feature or come up
with a CCD that offers true 14-bit A/D.

Well, when cameras with full frame 35mm sensors sell for less than $1000
it will be time to invest in some medium format gear...


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency