Canon 50D 5D

Discussion in 'Canon' started by Gedeon Herschberg, Sep 5, 2008.

  1. With the imminent appearance of the Canon 50D, the price of the 5D has
    fallen (there will be a new one in this line).
    Thus if I can get either the 50D or the 5D for a similar price, which
    would you suggest?
    One is old technology but full sensor and the other new technology dust
    prevention and APS-C sensor.
    With good but not very good lenses, I am told the full sensor is better.
    But one would not get the digic 4 and various functions. So what?
    Opinions with some explanations, would be most appreciated.

    Regards,
    Gedeon


     
    Gedeon Herschberg, Sep 5, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Write down your preferences based on what you´d like to shoot and buy the
    camera that suits your needs best and cheapest. Invest your savings in good
    glass.

    I had a 20D and got myself a 40D but returned that in a hurry and bought the
    5D b/c i could not accept to have worse per pixel sharpness at 100% view
    than my old 20D. I´m happy now.

    Regards,
    Markus
     
    Markus Fuenfrocken, Sep 5, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. grab the new 5D instead:

    http://www.canon.com/moon/en/index.html
     
    Maurice Blanchard, Sep 5, 2008
    #3
  4. Gedeon Herschberg

    saycheez Guest

    Despite objective measures to the contrary some continue to insist that no
    APS sized sensor can have noise levels as low as or lower than "full frame"
    sensors.
    Some people believe John McCain is the candidate of change, despite the
    objective evidence of his voting record in the senate.
    The facts should never get in the way of a good opinion.
    if your brain says that a camera cannot be any good if it does not have the
    form factor of a 1936 Exacta with the same dimensions for the image capture
    media then in your hear you know which is the right camera for you.
     
    saycheez, Sep 5, 2008
    #4
  5. Maurice Blanchard, Sep 5, 2008
    #5
  6. Gedeon Herschberg

    Ray Fischer Guest

    If you don't _know_ why to get a 5D then get the 50D, or even a 40D.
    Or, for that matter, an XTi.
     
    Ray Fischer, Sep 6, 2008
    #6
  7. Gedeon Herschberg

    RichA Guest

    If price is a major point, get the 50D as you are much more likely to
    find affordable Canon lenses that'll support it compared to what
    you'll need for the 5D.
     
    RichA, Sep 7, 2008
    #7
  8. Gedeon Herschberg

    John Guest

    Explain please?

    John.
     
    John, Sep 7, 2008
    #8
  9. Gedeon Herschberg

    Robert Coe Guest

    :
    : > The full frame 5D requires either the very best film lenses you can find
    : > to maximize performance or new lenses specifically designed for a FF
    : > digital sensor. Nikon has some, Canon has few if any.
    :
    : This is a common myth. Any halfway decent lens makes lovely sharp images on
    : the 5D. The only exception are the Canon superwides, but even the superwides
    : make sharp images out to the corners at f/16.
    :
    : I wonder about the 50D, though. The 5D's Nyquist frequency is 60 lp/mm, so
    : decent contrast in the 40 to 50 lp/mm range is required for sharp images.
    : But the 50D's Nyquist frequency is 105 lp/mm. How many lenses have decent
    : contrast in the 70 to 90 lp/mm range?

    I'm having trouble grasping your point, presumably because I understand the
    underlying physics so poorly. Are you saying that with a lens of average
    quality, aliasing will be a more serious problem on the 50D than on the 5D
    because of the finer granularity of the 50D's sensor? And that as a result the
    50D requires better lenses than the 5D does? Or am I missing it altogether?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Sep 8, 2008
    #9
  10. No, to the contrary. He said that you need *very* high resolution
    lenses (70-90 cycles/mm)for 100% pixel view on the 50D opposed
    to merely high resolution ones (40-50 cycles/mm)for the 5D.

    Contrast is what makes a zebra crossing bvlack&white versus gray on
    gray --- and the 50D wants lenses that show even very tiny patterns
    (very high resolution) at good contrast. Few lenses can deliver.
    In other words, the 50D outperforms most lenses, thus low contrast
    and/or low resolution of the lens will be very visible at 100%.
    (It won't be visible in normal print unless you print well beyond,
    say, 20x30cm, nor will it be visible in web presentations.)

    Aliasing occurs if the sampling rate (pixel density) is not
    high enough to really capture the detail offered (by the lens),
    and then a 'false' pattern of a lower frequency can be recorded.
    AA-filters guard against this, as they optically (try to) remove
    too high frequency patterns. To have such high frequency patterns,
    you need lenses capable of resolving them for the given sensor.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 8, 2008
    #10
  11. Gedeon Herschberg

    RichA Guest

    Would that it was true. A 17-40L is incapable at f5.6 (as an example)
    of rendering decent edge quality with that camera. Having to stop
    down to f16 to achieve this is pretty bad.
    Take the best Canon wide lens and try it on the 40D and the 5D and
    look at the corners. The centre area (inner 2/3rds) of both images
    will likely be good even at relatively wide apertures, but the 5D's
    edges will not look as good as the 40Ds simply because the glass
    cannot support the image circle the way it should. It's not the
    height of resolution that should concern people, it's the aberration
    at the edges.
     
    RichA, Sep 8, 2008
    #11
  12. Gedeon Herschberg

    RichA Guest

    Canon does have some good telephoto lenses. Too bad about the wider
    ones. The idea of the digital lens is that the light beam is as
    perpendicular to the plane of the sensor as possible to avoid optical
    problems created when it is not. Olympus (granted, easier for them
    owing to sensor size) has made lenses to this "ideal" since they
    released their E-1 in 2003. Nikon is now doing the same. You can SEE
    the differences in their images compared to the old film lenses, even
    some so-called lenses designed for digital sensors (to cover a 1.5
    crop instead of FF) are not ideally suited to the task. If a lens is
    incapable of supporting the edge when fully open or near fully open,
    IMO, it is not a good lens for digital.
    So, this example I've posted before. Shows a Nikon 18-70mm lens (DX
    lens) and an Olympus 14-42mm lens, both wide open on an Olympus body.
    Notice that despite being made for a 1.5 sensor, the Nikon cannot even
    support the edge properly on the 4/3rds sensor? Because it wasn't
    produced as a digital lens should be. The Olympus lens does support
    the edge very well.
    http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/93686092
     
    RichA, Sep 8, 2008
    #12
  13. But there is!
    Take a very long, thin tube. Place a grounded screen at one
    end and tape that to your camera instead of an "analog" lens.
    Point the other end towards your target. Afterwards, reduce
    the resulting image to either 0% (black) or 100% (white) and
    a pixel size of 1. That's a digital lens!

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 8, 2008
    #13
  14. Gedeon Herschberg

    Archibald Guest

    So if the 50D is better than the lenses, would there be any point in
    upgrading from the 40D? Is the better sensor in the 50D throwing away
    quality?

    Archibald
     
    Archibald, Sep 8, 2008
    #14
  15. Gedeon Herschberg

    Eric Stevens Guest

    There is something wrong with the Nikon image. Did the camera move
    during the exposure?



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Sep 8, 2008
    #15
  16. Gedeon Herschberg

    Me Guest

    It's the usual fallacy of conducting a test to /prove/ a conclusion that
    you've already formed.
    The Nikkor @18mm ~= 27mm (equivalent focal length on 1:1.5 crop)
    The Olympus lens @17mm ~= 34mm (equivalent focal length on 4/3)
    The Nikkor is at the extreme of zoom range, the Olympus lens isn't.
    So calling that an Olympus vs Nikon "kit lens test" is just a very silly
    thing to do.
     
    Me, Sep 9, 2008
    #16
  17. Gedeon Herschberg

    Eric Stevens Guest

    There is more than that to it in this case. All the lights in the
    Nikon image have a small tail. All the tails seem to be of the same
    length and pointing in the same direction. If the tails were caused by
    a problem in the lens I would expect them be pointing to the centre of
    the lens and and of shorter length closer to the centre. Neither of
    these aspects are present. Camera movement seems to be the logical
    explanation.



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Sep 9, 2008
    #17
  18. Gedeon Herschberg

    RichA Guest

    It hasn't worked out that way with some brands (notably Olympus) but
    for FF, Canon has a large bayonet so it shouldn't be an issue.
     
    RichA, Sep 9, 2008
    #18
  19. Gedeon Herschberg

    RichA Guest

    That coma you see, not movement, it turns the edge point sources into
    teardrops or comet-shaped things.
     
    RichA, Sep 9, 2008
    #19
  20. Gedeon Herschberg

    RichA Guest

    Not really, the Nikon is supposed to be able to support a 1.5 crop
    sensor to its edge, which is far wider than a 4/3rds crop sensor which
    was asked to support, but couldn't very well. The extreme of the zoom
    range is no guarantee of poor performance, often, the poorest
    performance is on the long end. The Olympus lenses just happen to
    work very well at controlling aberrations including CA, coma and
    spherical aberration.
     
    RichA, Sep 9, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.