Canon EOS 5D Review

Hello everyone,
for those who are interested - my review of the EOS 5D is online now - here
is the link: http://www.gnyman.com/Canon5D.htm

I know it is neither complete nor comprehensive, but I got the camera for
one day only....
George Nyman

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 16:59:24 -0600, "George N.Nyman"
wrote:

Hello everyone,
for those who are interested - my review of the EOS 5D is online now - here
is the link: http://www.gnyman.com/Canon5D.htm

I know it is neither complete nor comprehensive, but I got the camera for
one day only....
George Nyman


Good review, nice images, tonality definitely benefits from the FF
sensor, but this paragraph from your review is questionable.


"Both cameras use CMOS sensors and if one does the math, the D2x with
its smaller sensor corresponds theoretically to a full frame 19MP
camera but as their pixels are significantly smaller, the gain on
theoretical resolution can not be realized due to the less efficient
light collection and processing abilities of the smaller pixel
geometry - which means that one can expect to see a slightly higher
resolution with the D2X but definitely not as much as one could expect
from the difference in pixel size - which confirms again that the size
of the pixels is not the one and only determining factor for
performance and resolution in digital images."

Light collection above a certain point really has little to do with
resolution of detail. If you consider each pixel element to be
individually manipulatable by the incoming light, then if the Nikon
were a FF sensor, you would see more fine detail with it because it's
pixels are smaller. The linear resolution of the Nikon would be
58% greater than the Canon. For instance, if you were to shoot
pictures of a railway track receding into the distance,
if you lost the rails through "resolution extinction" on the Canon
at a distance of 100 yards, the Nikon would still show the rails
as distinct at 150 yards. Larger pixels are more efficient at
gathering light, but as long as the light from the image is
sufficient, the Nikon would display noticeably better resolution.
If you were to image the same subject at the same scale on both
the Canon and the Nikon, the subject would contain substantially more
pixels and thus would show much more detail.
We know that a sensor that is smaller than FF images an smaller angle
with a given lens than does a FF sensor. If you were to "panorama"
two images with the Nikon (enough to match the Canon's coverage) and
take just one image with the Canon, thereby producing the same overall
image in both, the Nikon image would show more detail because it would
contain more pixels. Give it a try with the same focal length lens
and see what happens.
-Rich
-Rich

Rich, I do understand this argumentation and I have had some headache during
writing this paragraph but I can only comment that I cannot see the
theoretically possible better resolution with the D2X as much as I would
like to see it. Have you got an explanation why the resolution of the D2X is
better as expected but not as much as it would be expected from the pixel
count?

I see also what the caveat of the APS sensor is - one needs to compare the
image on the sensor with the same focal length for both cameras, this would
then show that the Nikon is by a factor of about 1,5 better if one takes the
same crop of the field of view but in practial usage, this is not the way it
is done - so one uses a 24mm lens for the full frame and a 20mm lens for the
APS size sensor camera - which I agree is as you stated not completely
correct but in real life the actual comparison. I shall add some wording to
the text, pointing this out....

Thanks and regards

George


"Rich" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 16:59:24 -0600, "George N.Nyman"
wrote:

Hello everyone,
for those who are interested - my review of the EOS 5D is online now -
here
is the link: http://www.gnyman.com/Canon5D.htm

I know it is neither complete nor comprehensive, but I got the camera for
one day only....
George Nyman


Good review, nice images, tonality definitely benefits from the FF
sensor, but this paragraph from your review is questionable.


"Both cameras use CMOS sensors and if one does the math, the D2x with
its smaller sensor corresponds theoretically to a full frame 19MP
camera but as their pixels are significantly smaller, the gain on
theoretical resolution can not be realized due to the less efficient
light collection and processing abilities of the smaller pixel
geometry - which means that one can expect to see a slightly higher
resolution with the D2X but definitely not as much as one could expect
from the difference in pixel size - which confirms again that the size
of the pixels is not the one and only determining factor for
performance and resolution in digital images."

Light collection above a certain point really has little to do with
resolution of detail. If you consider each pixel element to be
individually manipulatable by the incoming light, then if the Nikon
were a FF sensor, you would see more fine detail with it because it's
pixels are smaller. The linear resolution of the Nikon would be
58% greater than the Canon. For instance, if you were to shoot
pictures of a railway track receding into the distance,
if you lost the rails through "resolution extinction" on the Canon
at a distance of 100 yards, the Nikon would still show the rails
as distinct at 150 yards. Larger pixels are more efficient at
gathering light, but as long as the light from the image is
sufficient, the Nikon would display noticeably better resolution.
If you were to image the same subject at the same scale on both
the Canon and the Nikon, the subject would contain substantially more
pixels and thus would show much more detail.
We know that a sensor that is smaller than FF images an smaller angle
with a given lens than does a FF sensor. If you were to "panorama"
two images with the Nikon (enough to match the Canon's coverage) and
take just one image with the Canon, thereby producing the same overall
image in both, the Nikon image would show more detail because it would
contain more pixels. Give it a try with the same focal length lens
and see what happens.
-Rich
-Rich

"George N.Nyman" wrote...
Hello everyone,
for those who are interested - my review of the EOS 5D is online now -
here is the link: http://www.gnyman.com/Canon5D.htm

I know it is neither complete nor comprehensive, but I got the camera for
one day only....
George Nyman

Thank you for an interesting review! There is much detail considering
that you had so little time with the camera.

In article ,
says...
Hello everyone,
for those who are interested - my review of the EOS 5D is online now - here
is the link: http://www.gnyman.com/Canon5D.htm

I know it is neither complete nor comprehensive, but I got the camera for
one day only....
George Nyman



Your pages are too wide to read comfortably on a 1024x768 screen
resolution. Try reducing the size of the table a bit.

--
DD (everything is temporary)
www.dallasdahms.com

In article , DD
writes
In article ,
says...
Hello everyone,
for those who are interested - my review of the EOS 5D is online now - here
is the link: http://www.gnyman.com/Canon5D.htm

I know it is neither complete nor comprehensive, but I got the camera for
one day only....
George Nyman



Your pages are too wide to read comfortably on a 1024x768 screen
resolution. Try reducing the size of the table a bit.

Works very well on 1280x1024. This clearly shows the advantage of a
full-frame monitor, I think.

OK Dallas, I'll turn the humour by-pass on again now....

David
--
David Littlewood

In article , George N.Nyman
writes
Hello everyone,
for those who are interested - my review of the EOS 5D is online now - here
is the link: http://www.gnyman.com/Canon5D.htm

I know it is neither complete nor comprehensive, but I got the camera for
one day only....
George Nyman


George, thanks for taking the time to prepare the review. I certainly
found it very well presented and helpful, especially in view of your
time constraints.

In the Mamiya RZ67 comparison, are you sure the 120 film is not just
resolving texture on the concrete panels which the smaller digital
sensor is not resolving? Probably not, but it's hard to be certain just
from the small web images. Either the originals or inspection of the
walls themselves should clarify.

David
--
David Littlewood

David Littlewood wrote:
In article , DD
writes
In article ,
says...
Hello everyone,
for those who are interested - my review of the EOS 5D is online
now - here is the link: http://www.gnyman.com/Canon5D.htm

I know it is neither complete nor comprehensive, but I got the
camera for one day only....
George Nyman



Your pages are too wide to read comfortably on a 1024x768 screen
resolution. Try reducing the size of the table a bit.

Works very well on 1280x1024. This clearly shows the advantage of a
full-frame monitor, I think.

OK Dallas, I'll turn the humour by-pass on again now....

David

Actually, the lines are too long to read at full screen width, so that
page shows the /disadvantages/ of a full-frame monitor.....

David

David J Taylor wrote:
David Littlewood wrote:

In article , DD
writes

In article ,
says...

Hello everyone,
for those who are interested - my review of the EOS 5D is online
now - here is the link: http://www.gnyman.com/Canon5D.htm

I know it is neither complete nor comprehensive, but I got the
camera for one day only....
George Nyman




Your pages are too wide to read comfortably on a 1024x768 screen
resolution. Try reducing the size of the table a bit.

Try increasing your resolution a bit.

Works very well on 1280x1024. This clearly shows the advantage of a
full-frame monitor, I think.

Actually, the lines are too long to read at full screen width, so that
page shows the /disadvantages/ of a full-frame monitor.....

What rez and size monitor?

Page looks fine on my 19" monitor- takes up about 2/3 the width, but my
resolution on this is higher than most would like, [or can get]: 1900x1200.

It's amusing, tho, that the comment comes from a guy whose website says
you'd better have Windows and IE 6 or summat like that.

--
John McWilliams

In article , David J
Taylor

writes
David Littlewood wrote:
In article , DD
writes
In article ,
says...
Hello everyone,
for those who are interested - my review of the EOS 5D is online
now - here is the link: http://www.gnyman.com/Canon5D.htm

I know it is neither complete nor comprehensive, but I got the
camera for one day only....
George Nyman



Your pages are too wide to read comfortably on a 1024x768 screen
resolution. Try reducing the size of the table a bit.

Works very well on 1280x1024. This clearly shows the advantage of a
full-frame monitor, I think.

OK Dallas, I'll turn the humour by-pass on again now....

David

Actually, the lines are too long to read at full screen width, so that
page shows the /disadvantages/ of a full-frame monitor.....

David


As I said, works absolutely perfectly on my system. You must be doing
something different.

David
--
David Littlewood