20D or 5D

"GTO" wrote in message
m...


There is one thing that might kill the DX format image sensor in the
future anyway. How small can you make pixels before you can very
noticeably see the difference when comparing the image quality with the
output from its larger, 35mm format, sibling? One thing I really like is
the 8.2 um x 8.2 um pixel size of the Canon 5D.

I think this final factor is going to become the key factor in forcing
Nikon's hand. 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.
This alone may be what finally forces Nikon to commit to full frame, as you
suggest.

"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. 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.

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.
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.

The 80/20 diffuser is pretty cheap. You might find that you really like it.
It comes with little velcro inserts so that you can also use it as a full
bouncer, or the 80/20 configuration. Also, it has a translucent attachment
for more direct, but diffused light...AND...it also comes with gold and
silver bounce inserts.

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

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.

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:9hzOe.8378$Us5.5975@fed1read02...

"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. 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.

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. 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.

The 80/20 diffuser is pretty cheap. You might find that you really like
it. It comes with little velcro inserts so that you can also use it as a
full bouncer, or the 80/20 configuration. Also, it has a translucent
attachment for more direct, but diffused light...AND...it also comes with
gold and silver bounce inserts.

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

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.


Just in case you're not picturing what I'm talking about, here it is at B&H,
with pictures fo it mounted on a flash in it's 5 different configurations.
Only $39.99.
Tiny URL version: http://tinyurl.com/8apvx

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

A GREAT little device I think anyone with a external flash would do well to
carry. It's especially beneficial for candid people shots within 10-15
feet, as it not only gives better skin textures, but also speads the light
for tight group shots at close range (which can be problematic with
flash...more light in the middle. when you either don't have a ceiling...or
it's not white...or it's too high, etc.).
While some people swear by a 3x5 card and rubber band, those can't do
gold/silver, nor can they do 80/20 or direct soft-box diffusion.

-Mark

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?

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?


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"


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?



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.


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..

--

Stacey

"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. 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.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"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.

I almost never turn my 10D off. You really don't need to.
The battery life is fantastic, and it "wakes up" after automatic shut-off
times by merely pushing the shutter one time. Now THAT...you can do with
one hand!

Seriously. Forget turning the thing off if it's a hassle! No need, unless
you know for sure you won't need it any time in the next month or something.
And just in case someone thinks this is bad for the camera...it isn't. -At
least it hasn't been for mine, and I've been shooting with mine since
shortly after the 10D was released...AND...I'm still using my old D30
batteries from 5 years ago. -They're holding up well.
-Mark

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.

--
Jeremy |

"GTO" wrote in message
m...
Depending on the power consumption of the 5D in standby-mode, you may not
have to always switch off your camera. While moving around taking
pictures, I try to avoid switching off my D70 even when putting it into my
bag. - But perhaps the EOS type of cameras drain the battery too quickly
when turned on (?).

If it's anything like the 10D, stand-by mode consumes almost no power at
all.
(See my response to him)
-Mark



Gregor

"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.

GTO wrote:

But the 35mm community of photographers is a different story. People will
ask, why should they accept DX format CMOS sensors when Canon can make them
larger.

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

There is one thing that might kill the DX format image sensor in the future
anyway. How small can you make pixels before you can very noticeably see the
difference when comparing the image quality with the output from its larger,
35mm format, sibling?

Yeah, full-frame is probably in our future, sooner or later.

--
Jeremy |

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

Stacey wrote:

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

Yep. It's pretty bad.

Mush is a good word for it..


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.

And that says what about their QC if they can't even get a good sample! I
doubt that's the problem.

Or simply due to being a pre-production
camera that had some problems.


I've seen this same sort of thing from samples of wide canon glass used on a
1DsmkII.
--

Stacey