Just caught the new 5D review, before going to bed (it's nearly midnight here. ) I've been waiting eagerly for it, because I was almost certain I want one. Only had time so far to read the conclusion (it is a long report). the conclusion gives pros and cons, and almost suggests that for many people the full fraame main advantage is wide angle access. It suggests that for many people, a 30D with 10-22 mm zoom would be better value for money. Maybe.
For me a critical factor is wide angle low light photography (photographing the interior of the headman's house in a minority tribal village in the mountains of Northern Lao PDR, without using tripod ore flash.) currently, my 24/1.4 acts on my 20D like a 38 mm. Nothing fast is available really wide. The 5D would make it a 'real' 24 mm, and deliver what I need.
But of course, I then also need a 50mm 1.4, and an 85, and the 24-70/2.8 and.... In the end, it is a matter of need for quality vs what price you put on it. My decision to go the 5D way will be guided by my 'AHA' experience, when I added the 24L to my only lens before on the 20D, the 17/85. The zoom is handy, but optically (e.g.quality wise) it fades away in comparison to the 24L. Thank guys for the review, I'll read the detail tomorrow...
One thing I think Dave didn't include, possibly because it's very controversial and a corner-case, but great for us hobbying types: Mention of: the flexibility of the EOS mount. Simply, you can add many different types of used lenses to the EOS mount via simple adapters. Even the legendary Leica 2.0 50mm or 35mm 2.0 or 2.8 lens for much less than the Canon glass. IMHO, the images will be better with the cheaper Leica glass than the more expensive Canon L glass, but I digres.. If you want really high res and great color- and don't have to have autofocus (and with wideangle it's less essential), the Leica-R-to-EOS adapters are under 50 bucks and the lenses are everywhere, used. 60 mm macro from Leica is extremely fine and not expensive to own.
24 Leica R f2.8 is sometimes around for about 600 if you look. Zeiss glass also works with a Zeiss to EOS adapter. The Zeiss 85mm f1.4 is excellent 600-700 alternative to the canon 85 1.2 or the Leica 80 1.4 (both about 1600 each). Many similar bargains for superior glass from Leica or Zeiss abound for use with the adapters on the EOS mount. you don't get the diaphragm automation or the auto focus.
And then the camer will do the metering and set the shutterspeed automatically for you. All you do is focus and stop the lens down before you press the shutter. It works just fine for me. If I need speed, I can use an autofocus lens, but so far, if I didn't get it because I WAS TOO SLOW, then the autofocus didn't matter, either. bob A terrific 90mm f2.0 portrait lens goes for 3-6 hundred, you use it wide open and so the automatic diaphragm is less essential.
The only limitation is certain Leica R lenses have back ends that could hit the mirror. list of what works is on photo.net and possibly elsewhere, be sure you check before you buy...
Thanks for that hint on adapters. does the adaptere that works for the Leica R lenses also apply to the very first ones? I have a 1967 Leicaflex (first model) with four great lenses, wonder how they'd measure up if I can get them working on a 5D. Anyone know of adapters to fit my 10 yr old Contax rangefinder leneses on a 5D? the mind boggles, maybe all that very expensive old glass can serve some purpose after all, apart from serving as doorstops...
Good news: The Leica R lenses that fit the older model R series cameras will fit without exception. The ones made for the R3 camera and later sometimes have protruding rear elements that could hang the mirror on the EOS. Yours sound ideal for the EOS. Get an adapter and try it. You should be greatly pleased with the results. Make no mistake, the latest Leica R lenses are something to wonder at with their amazing corrections, but the earlier ones still make images that go beyond the subtleties lenses by the other big makers even today.
Some people, myself included, will keep an older Leica R lens around for it's thumbprint, even if they own a later version. They were artistic tools in their day, and they are still. Each one is unique, each one makes images with a special appeal, or they don't make it. Never get rid of those Leica lenses. The Contax rangefinder lenses will most likely not work, due to the shorter distance to film plane for rangefinder lenses vs SLR lenses.
That's just a physical limitation, but no adapter can change the optical distance, so you are stuck. Save those for the rangefinder version cameras that probably will come out later. You never know... bob..
Also, the adapters sell on ebay for about 30-50 with shipping. No need to pay more. The ones from kawaphoto are ok, I have about 12 of them. I was foolish, bought one for each lens, then realized, the best way to go is to leave adapter on the camera, and let it take up the wear and tear. Anyway, it's an easy thing to do, and it is the real reason I wanted the EOS type of camera, to use the Leica glass on it. b..
I am skeptical regarding with my out of the box Canon 5D delivered last week (firmware 1.0.5). The colors seems flat even in fully automatic mode. Anything blue is particularly paler than real. I tried every possible settings with no result.
When I compare on the LCDs the very same scene taken outside with my little Powershot SD550, there's no doubt that this 5D has a problem. Maybe the sensor? I am using a set of four EF "L" lenses of top quality. This 5D is my fifth Canon digital camera (the 20D that I just sold was a wonder) and it's the first time I encounter such a problem.
See sample images here:.
Any comment will be much appreciated.
Michel, I don't think there's a problem with your 5D. The SD550 colours in your test shots are definitely more saturated and the contrast is higher. That's very typical for a P&S. They also have a slightly cooler colour balance to my eye. Dave measured the colour saturation of the SD500 at 112.7% (that's 12.7% oversaturated); especially blues and reds. For the 5D, he measured 108.5%, or 8.5% oversaturated, mostly in the red, so the 5D is more accurate (no surpise there; DSLRs defaults are usually more accurate and often seem dull or flat to people used to P&S colours).
That's usually not the case for P&S's versus DSLRs, and Dave's measurements confirm that for the SD500 versus the 5D. You weren't wearing sunglasses, were you? When you tried everything possible, did you try increasing the colour saturation and contrast settings on the 5D? Did you try doing a manual white-balance setting, or setting it to daylight for outdoor shots in the sun? BTW, when I had a Canon S70, I found the colour more vibrant than my Sony P150, especially blues and greens. The sky looked too nice (rather artificial, very similar to your SD550 shots), and foliage looked too green. The Sony colours (which looked more like your 5D shots), were much more accurate compared to what I saw with the naked eye. Dave's Imatest colour accuracy results for the S70 and P150 also confirmed that the P150 (110.2%) was more accurate than the S70 (117.3%), so I trust his results..
Hi Michel, and Hi Maxx!.
I once again have to concur with Maxx! My Powrshot S50 gives really deep blue sky pictures, and the colors tend to be somewhat saturated, with that 'smooth' Canon color. P&S cams tend to all be this way, so the average consumer likes what they see. Sony colors, especiallky outside, do tend to lean towards a cooler color cast, IMHO. I think the colors look ok on your 5D. The hydrant looks better, and some of the neutrals look more real. SD550 is a great little camera, nonetheless. Happy Shooting!.
This is typical. I've got a Kodak slr/c blows away the 5d colors. can't be helped, it's not a kodak. that said, I can get some deeper colors using the "landscape" setting custom mode, and increase the saturation and some other settings to pump the color. The 5d is my nightime camera for the high iso, and for quick shoots, or messing around. But...I took it (saturation and all) to the Conservatory to shoot orchids and other lovely colors.
I took the kodak, and have yet to discard any. Look, I'm sorry. If you want dripping great colors look at the picture of Dave's wife shot with the kodak dc290. Even the lady's skirt is lovely, the whole thing is super. Compare it to any Canon image of that era or later...I still have my dc290 as well as the 14 mp slr/c.
Kodak color science is a trademark, Fuji's color in their Slr is also terrific. Your call, sir. Not everyone agrees with me. Some are color-blind. But then, I think rock and roll is just incoherent shouting and not music!..