If the Canon 5D is real...

Dave - Wilt, believe me you fellows make sense if concern was centered
upon using old fast glass. But lets assume a new digital FF comes in at
about $5,500, at that price I do think it best to re-evaluate and
consider the advantages of selling old glass and using lower cost new
glass, one f-stop slower with variable ISO changes.

Just yesterday I was shooting in a situation that could not be solved
entirely by merely setting a faster ISO on the digital...Shooting
people speaking at a symposium, about 40 feet away in relatively low
light (showing slides pertaining to medical topics). Had to use flash
to provide illumination, and using a powerful Metz 'potato-masher' for
that, and shoot from the back of the room for the requested shot of
speaker with audience in the foreground. With the zoom lens and its
variable max aperture, I was wide open at f/5.6. The flash could not
output enough light with ISO 400 on the camera to light adequately.
ISO 1600 would have been too noisy for the intended use (glossy
brochure photo). f/5.6 would only let full light output of the flash
be enough to 35'. But if my lens was my 90mm f/2.5 or my 135mm f/2.8
lens, no problem because it would reach out to 70-90 feet! So here is
a situation where the 'old fast glass' would have met the need
perfectly. OK, so my example is with telephoto, but you can easily
imagine someone shooting wide angle with a much less potent flash unit
trying to get wide shot with a wide zoom that is f/4 at best case, but
this real situation illustrates the need.

--Wilt

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 23:25:24 -0400, Darrell wrote:

The real information is covered under a NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement)
therefore all information from within Canon is under an information
embargo. The images on the PDF show a different camera front and back
view. This is possibly a mock-up. Canon does need to do something about
their info "leaking" out..

If I was inside Canon I would make sure that information like that did
leak out. As often as possible.

--
Save photography | shoot some film today!
email: drop rods and insert surfaces

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 18:36:27 +0000, Jeremy Nixon wrote:

I don't get it. Look at the specs for that alleged 5D. It's *way* below
the D2x in every way except pixel count, and the fact that it's
full-frame. It's not a pro-level camera. It wouldn't have turned my head
one little bit when I was looking to buy a D2x.

The specs of the camera don't interest me. What does is the sensor. Full
frame is very important to me.

On the other hand, I have no desire to go full-frame; I don't see the
attraction. The minor benefits don't interest me compared with the
problems that will likely invalidate half of my lenses. I really hope
Nikon figures out how to stick with 1.5x for the long haul.

I hope they do bring out a full-frame digital some day. What I hope they
don't do is have a knee-jerk reaction and bring out a product that is not
up to the usual high standards that Nikon have just to play "catch-up".

I'll wait...

--
Save photography | shoot some film today!
email: drop rods and insert surfaces

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 02:36:00 +0000, Brian Baird wrote:

Then you must not be as picky as I am when it comes to noise reduction and
detail preservation. Compared to any of the Canon dSLRs, the D2X's high
ISO performance leaves a lot to be desired.

I take it you have used a D2x then?

No? Didn't think so.

--
Save photography | shoot some film today!
email: drop rods and insert surfaces

Slack wrote:

Stacey wrote:


Like with ANY electronics. Do people become unhappy because faster PC
CPU's or video cards are released and the one they bought is selling for
less than they paid for it?


What the heck do you think has been fueling the computer industry for
the last decade or so?


Of course this is what fuels it but like I said, who is dumb enough to not
expect there to be progress and get upset/unhappy over it when it happens?
--

Stacey

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
[]
On the other hand, I have no desire to go full-frame; I don't see the
attraction. The minor benefits don't interest me compared with the
problems that will likely invalidate half of my lenses. I really hope
Nikon figures out how to stick with 1.5x for the long haul.

I'd like to see Nikon making bodies and lenses for the 4/3 system, as I
wonder if full-frame will exceed even professional requirements in a
couple of year's time, and the 4/3 will be adequate.....

David

Skip M wrote:
"nick c" wrote in message
...

Dave R knows who wrote:


Off the top of my head I would think it would interest old pros with old
glass who don't want to deal with magnification issues, and a few of us
newbies want their fisheyes to be 180 again. Like you said, niche. And it
has niche pricing to go along with it!

Dave - Wilt,

Both comments are sound. There's a great deal of merit in what you both
say. My mind hadn't traveled down the 'already have fast, old glass road'
that can be used with FF digital cameras.

Along that line of thought though, I wonder how serious a concern should
be given to having fast, old glass lenses. I can understand wanting fast
lenses in a lens inventory, but that was with cameras that had set ISO
speeds. Stepping into the digital world, I think it best to re-evaluate
old habits and thoughts concerning lenses. Dslr cameras are not
handicapped by fixed ISO speeds so instead of stocking a costly f2.8 lens
why not go one stop slower and if shooting on automatic, let the Dslr
select the best ISO and F-stop for the scene or if going aperture (my
preference) select whatever ISO speed that suits the f-stop intended to be
use. I was once going to buy the Canon 16-35 f-28L lens until I awoke and
said to myself, I've been doing great with the slower 17-40 f-4L lens in
areas I once thought the f-28 speed would be highly advantages. I found it
was old habits that were driving me.


One reason is depth of field, the f4 still won't get as shallow as an f2.8.

A point made, Skip. But at 2.8, the tip of a nose may be sharp while
eyeballs would be on the edge of fuzzyness.

The other is noise. Even with the strides being made in controlling noise
at higher ISOs, it still does increase the higher you go. So, if I can use
my 16-35 f2.8 at 100 ISO instead of a 10-22 f4.5-5.6 at 200 or 400 ISO, I'll
do it.

Mum's the word, on my part. Another point made that I can't opinionize
on 'cause I haven't made comparitive tests (using the 1DMKII) to see
different effects. I guess I'll have to cede the point made.


Dave - Wilt, believe me you fellows make sense if concern was centered
upon using old fast glass. But lets assume a new digital FF comes in at
about $5,500, at that price I do think it best to re-evaluate and consider
the advantages of selling old glass and using lower cost new glass, one
f-stop slower with variable ISO changes.


But if the rumored 5D comes in at $3500, as, again, rumored, it becomes a
viable alternative, if it is indeed full frame, for those of us with
extensive inventories of what Stacey calls "legacy glass."

Put an order in for me. I don't have old Canon glass but I'll give it a
shot, if the camera checks out. Old glass is easy to get.


Having said that, I don't have a sensible counter proposal to offer that
would compensate for already having wide 'rectilinear' glass or
architectural glass. But I can see having to dish out mega bucks if
there's no other (workaround) alternative and the use of these type
established lenses are of paramount importance. Yep, it would definitely
be a niche (expensive) market.


And then there's my 15mm f2.8 Fisheye, which shows virtually no distortion
on my 20D. On a full frame, I'd get the full 180deg. diagonal and the
distortion for which I bought it.

I'm not into Fisheye, soooo ya got me podner.

wilt wrote:
Dave - Wilt, believe me you fellows make sense if concern was centered
upon using old fast glass. But lets assume a new digital FF comes in at
about $5,500, at that price I do think it best to re-evaluate and
consider the advantages of selling old glass and using lower cost new
glass, one f-stop slower with variable ISO changes.


Just yesterday I was shooting in a situation that could not be solved
entirely by merely setting a faster ISO on the digital...Shooting
people speaking at a symposium, about 40 feet away in relatively low
light (showing slides pertaining to medical topics). Had to use flash
to provide illumination, and using a powerful Metz 'potato-masher' for
that, and shoot from the back of the room for the requested shot of
speaker with audience in the foreground. With the zoom lens and its
variable max aperture, I was wide open at f/5.6. The flash could not
output enough light with ISO 400 on the camera to light adequately.
ISO 1600 would have been too noisy for the intended use (glossy
brochure photo). f/5.6 would only let full light output of the flash
be enough to 35'. But if my lens was my 90mm f/2.5 or my 135mm f/2.8
lens, no problem because it would reach out to 70-90 feet! So here is
a situation where the 'old fast glass' would have met the need
perfectly. OK, so my example is with telephoto, but you can easily
imagine someone shooting wide angle with a much less potent flash unit
trying to get wide shot with a wide zoom that is f/4 at best case, but
this real situation illustrates the need.

--Wilt


I follow your reasoning, Wilt. Point made - your side.

Brian Baird wrote:

Then you must not be as picky as I am when it comes to noise reduction
and detail preservation.

You know the noise reduction is optional, right?

Compared to any of the Canon dSLRs, the D2X's high ISO performance leaves
a lot to be desired.

At 1600+, maybe.

--
Jeremy |

"Darrell" wrote in message
...

The images on the PDF show a different camera front and back view. This is
possibly a mock-up. Canon does need to do something about their info
"leaking" out..

It doesn't look like two different cameras front/back to me.
It seems to match quite well, actually.

Also--note that the front of the body differs from any other camera yet
produced.

-Specifically, the lack of pop-up flash (like the 3), and yet the presence
of the screws and seam below the prism housing (more like the D30-20D
bodies). Note that the smooth contour of the prism housing as it
transitions to the body? That's also there on the rear niew--unlike the 20D
or 300/350D or others. Also, the presence of grip material on the front
side near the lens mount release button. No cameras have this save the 1D
series, and theirs is different.
If it's a mock-up, it would have to be one heck of an artist, because the
picture parts do not exist in other Canon bodies...neither front, nor back.

Button layout differs (very similar to 20D, but not the same), and the
screen size matches it's uniquely large description ferfectly.

We'll see...but this leak would be just about perfectly in line with Canon's
past tendencies to leak this time of year.
Again... Anyone wanna wager?? I still say it's legit.

-Mark²