Canon 5D image faults fixable (in November)

Discussion in 'Canon' started by Pix on Canvas, Oct 4, 2005.

  1. Following on from my suggestion the (cough) "Master stroke" from Canon;
    Their 5D, might need some special consideration in regards to lens
    choice because of Chromatic Aberrations (Purple Fringing) due to it's
    sensor size and the fact there are no (Canon) lenses specifically
    designed for digital that fit this camera...

    DxO labs have just made a monumental announcement that their RAW
    converter - The latest version 3.5 yet to be released - has been
    developed especially to address this problem.

    So much for the true believers who don't/won't accept that the fabled
    and severely overpriced Canon "L" series lenses are riddled with image
    faults. The fact that this is the "Professional" version and not the
    cheaper, consumer one, should not be overlooked either.

    From their announcement:
    " In particular, this version will include the second generation of DxO
    Optics Engine. DxO Optics Engine V2 will be able to eliminate a much
    broader range of unwanted color fringes in your images and in particular
    “purple fringing”.

    DxO Optics Engine V2 also preserves a greater surface of the image when
    correcting distortion and takes our Lens Softness correction to a new
    level of performance.

    You’ll also find user-defined cropping of the image in 3.5.
    Version 3.5 will also improve processing speed by up to 100% by taking
    advantage of multiple processor or dual-core computers.

    Additionally a number of workflow and UI enhancements will be included
    in this version. A final this version will be free of charge for all
    users of version 3.0!"
    Pix on Canvas, Oct 4, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Pix on Canvas

    Skip M Guest

    And it specifically mentions Canon, and particularly "L" lenses, where?
    Just got my 5Ds today, we'll be shooting with them this weekend. I might
    have a chance to go back down to Petco Park and shoot the facade again,
    before that. I'll let you know, Doug, what I find out. Not that it will
    matter, since you claim to see distortion in the images I put up, and there
    is none, even relative to a steel straight edge.
    Oh, and what about the Nikons you purchased? How are they working out for
    you? All you've mentioned is Olympus...
    Skip M, Oct 4, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. How much do you get to pimp for them?

    And how many "L" lenses do you use and get paid for the images they

    Don't see it doing anything ACR doesn't.

    As for Olympus:

    "What About Four Thirds?
    Though I know these are fighting words, I'm afraid that I regard the
    4/3rd concept is an evolutionary dead-end. A -2X sized sensor may have
    made some sense five years ago when 35mm sized sensors were nearly
    astronomical in cost. But now this differential has shrunk
    dramatically, and will continue to do so. The promised smaller size of
    camera bodies due to the use of smaller sensors is modest at best. For
    example, the Olympus E-1 is only 150 grams lighter than the Canon 5D.
    True, Olympus lenses are smaller and lighter, but this hasn't turned
    out to be all that compelling a sell..
    Anyone owning 4/3 format lenses then will have no escape. They will be
    limited to using cameras with a 2X magnification ratio because their
    lenses are unable to cover a larger image circle. If we assume that
    the price differential between small and medium sized imaging chips is
    going to decrease, then a 4/3 based camera will always suffer from
    smaller images or lower image quality by comparison, because while the
    number of pixels can be increased (this is accomplished by making the
    pixels themselves smaller), by making them smaller image quality is
    reduced. It's just physics. Anything that Kodak does to the 4/3 format
    chip can also be done to larger ones, so the differential will


    "It is a good thing to read books, and need not be a
    bad thing to write them, but in any case, it is a
    pious thing to collect them."

    Frederick Locker-Lampson
    John A. Stovall, Oct 4, 2005
  4. Pix on Canvas

    Frank ess Guest

    I wonder if DxO Optics ever feel a need to string their customers
    along, or pump up their product image?
    Frank ess, Oct 5, 2005
  5. Pix on Canvas

    Ed Ruf Guest

    Now Frank, why would you wonder that? From a technical standpoint what I
    did not understand is why there where user inputs to vary the strength of
    the various corrections. I mean if they quote measure the problems, why not
    just correct them, period?
    Ed Ruf, Oct 5, 2005
  6. Pix on Canvas

    Lourens Smak Guest

    You are aware that that is a pretty stupid assumption?

    In the digital world, EVERYTHING moves to a smaller state, not because
    it's so cool or whatever, but because manufacturers make more money
    then. Therefore it is also unavoidable.

    Considering smaller sensors are already good enough for professional
    use, (and have been for years, since the D1x) that can only mean FF is
    going to die slowly. In a few more generations of camera's FF will have
    no benefit at all, just the optical flaws, the huge price, and the
    weight will remain.

    Lourens Smak, Oct 5, 2005
  7. Pix on Canvas

    C Wright Guest

    Olympus? What happened to the Nikons you bought after selling all of your
    Canon equipment?
    C Wright, Oct 5, 2005
  8. Pix on Canvas

    Rich Guest

    No it won't. There is an army of people hanging on to outdated Canon
    glass that just WILL NOT give it up. Therefore they have to have
    FF. Heaven forbid Canon should design lenses optimized for a digital
    platform, even though they have what, 6 DSLRs now?
    Rich, Oct 5, 2005
  9. I only bought one.... It's fine thank you.
    The Oly's are the new toy this week!
    Pix on Canvas, Oct 5, 2005

  10. Did anyone ever tell you, it's always a wise thing cock the hammer
    before pulling the trigger? Your opinion is one thing. I'll defend your
    right to have it too. But to then attempt to force it onto others, is
    just showing you up for the ill mannered person you are.

    The thing about my posts that has obviously escaped those of you who
    have "ideas" gleaned from the Internet but in reality haven't got a
    fucking clue that I have never posted a single comment about any
    equipment I do not or never have owned. I have never made a single
    comment about a process I have never done and I have never knowingly
    posted a single lie about anyone else... What does that say about the
    likes of you?
    Pix on Canvas, Oct 5, 2005
  11. Pix on Canvas

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Paul J Gans, Oct 5, 2005
  12. Pix on Canvas

    JackR Guest

    stuff bloody Olympus, if they bring back the OM systems and piss off the
    non-standard XD memory cards and that 4/3rds system then and only them
    would I consider buying one of their cameras again
    JackR, Oct 5, 2005
  13. Do I understand from this that you have owned every single Canon L lens?

    (Quote from first post in this thread): "So much for the true believers
    who don't/won't accept that the fabled and severely overpriced Canon "L"
    series lenses are riddled with image faults. The fact that this is the
    "Professional" version and not the cheaper, consumer one, should not be
    overlooked either."

    Do I understand you have owned every single non-1-series DSLR made by

    (Quote from thread "Mystery of EOS 5D"): "Every DSLR Canon has ever made
    for "Enthusiasts" has had design flaws, manufacturing faults and
    compatibility problems. Why would this offering be any different?"

    I thought you may have made similar blanket claims about all Canon wide
    angle lenses, but I can't find a quote, so let that one lie on the table

    David Littlewood, Oct 5, 2005
  14. Pix on Canvas

    Douglas... Guest

    Ahhh yes... Well The E300 which takes a compact flash card, is on-topic
    here. The little point and shoot ones which use the XD card are off-topic!

    4/3 is the traditional aspect ratio of "Real" photography. Why on earth
    would you want to dump that in favor of format produced to use left over
    movie film but instead of the same aspect ratio of a movie camera, they
    made it use the film sideways and produced a landscape shape which is
    sooo out of place in a portrait as to even "look" wrong. Each to their
    own I guess!
    Douglas..., Oct 5, 2005
  15. I am curious to know which formats you have in mind as having the
    "traditional aspect ratio of real photography" of 4/3 (1.33).

    No sheet film size current of recent manufacture (i.e. many decades)
    matches it or comes close.

    In roll film, only 8x6 (the least common of all the 120 formats) matches

    In smaller film, 35mm is of course 3/2 (1.5).

    Oh, of course there is the universally-used half-frame format of
    24x18mm. Wait, that is a crap format produced from left-over movie film,
    so it can't be that one you are thinking of.

    Even going back into the mists of time, obsolete formats such as quarter
    plate (1.30) half plate (1.36) and whole plate (1.30) were only vaguely
    in the area you specified.

    I'm not trying to knock 4/3 as format. It has its place, as do all the
    others. I just think you may be going off on one.

    David Littlewood, Oct 5, 2005
  16. Pix on Canvas

    Skip M Guest

    What led you to this conclusion? Large format is 4:5 (Both 4x5 and 8x10) MF
    is either 1:1 (6cm x 6cm), close to 2:3 (6x4.5) or the indefinable 6x7
    Really curious...
    Skip M, Oct 5, 2005
  17. Pix on Canvas

    wilt Guest

    Large format is 4:5 (Both 4x5 and 8x10) MF
    is either 1:1 (6cm x 6cm), close to 2:3 (6x4.5) or the indefinable 6x7
    (3:3.5?) <<

    My Bronica ETRSI 645 frame is 42.5mm x 55mm in size...almost exactly
    4:5 proportions!
    wilt, Oct 5, 2005
  18. Pix on Canvas

    Douglas... Guest

    You're an ass David. By attempting to elevate your standing here with
    the lowest of low attempts at belittling someone else, you are showing
    yourself up for the insignificant wanker are.

    What is it about you and Skip Middleton that compels you both to seek
    recognition over and above everyone else who has something to contribute?

    What is it about you in particular that makes you think, when someone
    else makes a post you can't accept could be true, you have to try and
    make a issue of it? Of course I've owned the things I post about... I
    part own (Amongst several other businesses) a second hand camera store,
    for Christ Sake!
    Douglas..., Oct 5, 2005
  19. Pix on Canvas

    Douglas... Guest

    Go back further... Go on, you can if you really try.
    Douglas..., Oct 5, 2005
  20. Pix on Canvas

    Skip M Guest

    Well, if you're talking glass plates, they came in a variety of sizes, and
    before that, the medium was governed by the taste of the individual
    photographer who made his own. In fact many of the people who used glass
    plates made their own.
    Since many of the photographers from the late 19th century on used 8x10, I'm
    not sure what the devil you're talking about.
    So, give me more info, Douglas.
    Skip M, Oct 5, 2005
    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.