Canon 5D image faults fixable (in November)

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

  1. It is regrettable that you should respond to a valid challenge to back
    up your assertion with obscenity.

    But not that surprising.
    David Littlewood, Oct 5, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Pix on Canvas

    DoN. Nichols Guest

    [ ... ]
    I'm afraid that as a metaphor this fails for anyone who knows

    Most modern revolvers, and some auto-loaders as well, have a
    feature known as "double-action". You can cock the hammer and then pull
    the trigger if you have time for slow aimed fire. But, in an emergency
    (and at close range), you can pull the trigger and *it* will cock the
    hammer and release it to fire the weapon. The trigger pressure needed
    to fire it in this way is greater, and makes careful aimed fire more
    difficult, but for the conditions under which it is designed to be used,
    it is a very serviceable way to do things.

    Some revolvers, designed for hidden carry, don't even *have* an
    accessible hammer. It exists, but is entirely enclosed. This is
    because the hammer is likely to snag on clothing during a quick draw,
    and such a weapon is expected to be fired only at close range.

    Others have a "shrouded hammer", which can be accessed for
    cocking, but very little of it protrudes.

    Sorry for the off topic, but I felt that this needed to be
    pointed out. :)

    DoN. Nichols, Oct 5, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Wrong. In digital world everything moves to a _more_ _highly_ _integrated_
    _state_. Higher level of integration - that's what allows manufacturers to make
    more money (Mooore's law). And in the chip world higher level of integration
    does not mean "smaller". It means "denser" and "bigger". Note: _bigger_, not
    smaller. The assignment of priorities between making chips denser and making
    chips bigger depends on many different factors, but in case of imaging sensors
    we can already say that further increase in density is no longer a priority,
    becuase with existing sensor technologies we already hit the limit where it no
    longer results in better image quality. In the areas where real image quality is
    of importance (read - professional equipmment) the only way to go is bigger
    sensors. That's what's unavoidable.

    Best regards,
    Andrey Tarasevich, Oct 5, 2005
  4. There are lots of single action handguns that come to mind, the Colt 1911
    for one isn't double action, but the Beretta 97 is. I think we got his
    point, though.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Oct 5, 2005
  5. Pix on Canvas

    DoN. Nichols Guest

    Shortly following the sentence which you *did* quote, came this

    Most modern revolvers, and some auto-loaders as well, have a
    feature known as "double-action".

    The 1911 falls under the category of auto-loaders, which from my
    wording would indicate that it is less likely to have the double-action
    feature than "most modern revolvers". It is *certainly* not a
    "revolver". Neither is the Beretta which you mention.

    And I said "most" instead of "all", because I also knew that
    there are some quality revolvers still made which duplicate the
    single-action design of the original Colt revolvers and similar.
    Perhaps so -- but the technical inaccuracy got in the way of my
    being comfortable with it as stated.

    DoN. Nichols, Oct 6, 2005
  6. Then there are Glocks with constant trigger pressure, "Glock Safe


    "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 6, 2005
  7. I think when someone says, "I'm afraid that as a metaphor this fails for
    anyone who knows handguns" using the word "handguns" really paints all of
    them with a very broad brush. That being said, I have no problem
    understanding and relating to the OP's statement. I think anything after
    that depicting "types" of guns is simply splitting hairs.
    Again, I think this is really and irrelevant hair.
    Yes, there are some nice single action modern "revolvers", the Ruger
    Blackhawk .44 comes to mind.
    That's my whole point, there wasn't anything technical being implied by the
    OP's use of that statement. I'm sure that him and many others didn't catch
    my misuse of the "97"? It should have been a Beretta 92. It's fun to be
    technical, but there is too much uptightness in this group with seeking that
    elusive quest. Lets just have fun and take great pictures.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Oct 6, 2005
  8. What is it about you in particular that makes you think, when someone

    David makes a perfectly good point. Just because you part own a camera store
    doesn't mean you have used every single Canon L Lens and you have indeed
    made blanket statements in the past and on top that your assessment that
    canon's have had 'design flaws' is based on what exactly?

    Selling second hand cameras is half a world away from being able to critique
    the entire Canon L range of lenses.

    If you worked for a medical supply company would you feel qualified on how
    to remove a kidney? You sell things to people who use them for a living, you
    don't make your living out of using the equipment....
    Steve Franklin, Oct 6, 2005
  9. Pix on Canvas

    Stacey Guest

    Anyone owning lenses designed for film are the ones who will have no escape.
    Stacey, Oct 6, 2005
  10. Pix on Canvas

    Douglas... Guest

    You are right about not using every single "L" series lens, I'll agree.
    I have yet to use the 1200mm "L" series and a couple of other in the
    range which are scarce on the ground in Australia and Turkey ...but then
    I think you'll find this is my first mention of that lens too.

    Let me just go into a basic fact of business before I go on to answer to
    you. Whoever you are.

    If grass didn't grow and man was not so lazy... The lawn mower would not
    exist - be no need for it. If there was no need to stand 200 yards away
    from a subject, Telephoto lenses which facilitate filling the frame at
    that distance would not exist either.

    There is not a profitable business in the world that has produced a
    product no one buys and grown their sales with it... Simple Aussie
    logic? Nah... Just plain bloody common sense, mate.

    DxO is an advanced developer of software specifically related to digital
    images. They are pretty good at what they do... They'd need to be
    because their products are expensive. Certainly not something the
    average amateur would buy.

    DxO make a very unique RAW data converter with modules for specific
    lenses. These modules are known to correct consistent and repeatable
    flaws attributed to specific lenses... Read that as fixing the faulty
    images some "L" series lenses create. Keep in mind too, that "L" series
    lenses are not optimized for digital cameras, much less full frame ones.

    One of the most popular RAW converters they sell is for Canon cameras
    (no news in this, Canon sell more cameras than the rest).

    Until quite recently, when you bought the DxO product, you got one lens
    module. Yes... A module devoted to just one lens. Any other lens modules
    you wanted had to be bought on top of the original.

    Why do you suppose up until a few weeks ago when they began bundling all
    the lens error correction modules with the converter, the 24-70 f2.8 "L"
    series Canon lens error correction module was their most popular module
    added to the purchase price?... Hmm? The rest I'll leave to your fertile
    mind to figure out.

    First rule of business. Make sure there is a need for your product
    before you commit a few million bucks to producing it... They did.
    Douglas..., Oct 6, 2005
  11. Pix on Canvas

    Skip M Guest

    Stacey, remind me of this statement in a couple of weeks, when I have a
    chance to test out the 16-35 f2.8L, 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f2.8L IS and 100-400
    f4.5-5.6L IS on my 5D. I'll bet they'll compare favorable you anything you
    have in your lens quiver. I've seen what the camera will do in a quickie
    shot with the 100 f2.
    Can't do the test, right now, because I'm too busy shooting weddings with
    the cameras and my favorite test spot, Petco Park, is a little busy, right
    Skip M, Oct 6, 2005
  12. Look mate I don't have a major beef...but I think if you make sweeping
    statements not just about one lens but a whole product range you need to be
    backing that up pretty clearly.

    People will buy ANYTHING that is made as long as it's at the right price
    point, this is a economy driven by trying not to create products that fulfil
    needs but more creating the need and then selling the product.
    A few points here about the statements you make.
    1. These modules are known to correct consistent and repeatable
    How do you draw this analogy? You state that this product is not really for
    the amateur right? Given that Nikon and Canon make up the bulk of the pro
    market it stands to reason that for this product to exist they would need to
    make modules for these lenses right?

    2. One of the most popular RAW converters they sell is for Canon cameras
    How do you know this? Do you have a breakdown of how many units they sell
    and of what configuration? What is this assumption based on?

    3. Why do you suppose up until a few weeks ago when they began bundling all
    Again there seem to be a few assumptions made here. Why do you suppose they
    bundled this? Why does every version of the windows OS incorporate the most
    successful third party apps available prior to release? To keep market
    share? To compete? I don't think you can draw a direct link from one to the

    Again how dod you know that this was their most popular module? Even it was
    it stands to reason does it? CA is more likely to occur with wide lenses.
    Canon and Nikon are the two most likely lens manufacters given the pro
    status of the software, so it stands to reason that it WOULD be their most
    popular model would it not? It just makes sense. Chromatic aberation is
    function of the property of light and no lens I know is completely free of
    it especially in the wide zoom range.

    Is reducing CA the total functionality of this software? Is it the only
    thing that it does? Or is it just one of it's features? Photoshop corrects
    CA too...amongst many many other things too...

    For the record I use Nikon and have no affinity to any brand really. I would
    be interested to hear how you can back up all your assumptions...
    Steve Franklin, Oct 6, 2005
  13. Pix on Canvas

    eawckyegcy Guest

    You are arguing with a freakin' lunatic FUDster. As far as anyone has
    been able to tell, he just makes it all up as he goes along.
    eawckyegcy, Oct 6, 2005
  14. Pix on Canvas

    Douglas... Guest

    Your entire response is to question me instead of looking at the
    sources. Accusing me of making assumptions when you yourself are making
    some substantial ones. You are doing this even when provided with the
    source to get answers. Open your mind and discover for yourself.

    To question me and demand proof when all you have to do is download a
    free trial and have all the proof you need is just baiting me. Don't do
    it. It's the sign of an arsehole.
    Douglas..., Oct 6, 2005
  15. Pix on Canvas

    Douglas... Guest

    Do I read this right?

    You bough a brand new camera a few days ago and you're busy shooting
    weddings with it already? I'm impressed Skip. It sounds like you shoot a
    wedding every day. You must have a pretty big staff to process and
    compile everything. I shudder to thing how big your album account is.
    Your bill must look like a serial number.

    It takes me 2 days just to process the photos from a Saturday Wedding
    and another day (sometimes two) to put the album and CD together. I
    spend another 2 days a week just talking to couples and of course, I
    have to take the pictures too. So for me, shooting a mere 36 or so
    weddings a year, I have to work 6 days a week, every week and only get
    to shoot weddings on Saturdays. Now I know where my time is wasted... Here!

    Maybe you could share some of the secrets you obviously have, that might
    help me avoid passing 20 or 30 weddings a year to other photographers?
    Are you going to keep the 20Ds for backups? how do you propose to handle
    the area coverage difference?

    I looked at a 5D myself and although it "seems" a nice enough camera in
    the store, after the fiasco of my Canon experiences, I won't bother with
    one anytime soon.

    I am curious though, how you are going to address the issue of coverage.
    these cameras are going to be pretty useless at a wedding with a 16-35mm
    lens, which would have been useful on a 1.6 crop. Even at 24mm the
    distortion will be noticeable enough to make you avoid using it.

    I'd suspect the 70-200 would get a good workout - if you can hold it all
    day! Otherwise... I can see some new lenses coming up here. Now wouldn't
    it be convenient if Canon all of a sudden announced a "D" series lens in
    the range 28-120, f2.8, designed specifically for digital cameras? Maybe
    there is a God? Prey Skip!
    Douglas..., Oct 6, 2005
  16. <snip> smoke and mirrors.

    No worries Doug...lets uh leave it there mate.

    Have a good one.
    Steve Franklin, Oct 6, 2005
  17. You are arguing with a freakin' lunatic FUDster. As far as anyone has
    been able to tell, he just makes it all up as he goes along.

    Cheers for that.

    One less brick wall to bash against.
    Steve Franklin, Oct 6, 2005
  18. Pix on Canvas

    Tony Polson Guest

    "It'd be a real first if you ever refrained from passing comment when
    you have nothing to say, wouldn't it?"

    Tony Polson, Oct 7, 2005
  19. Pix on Canvas

    Skip M Guest

    No, I have a day job, too. So I only have time on the weekend days that
    we're not doing a wedding to shoot, and sometimes in the afternoon, at which
    time the lighting on the ballpark isn't ideal and, until either the St Louis
    Cardinals or the Atlanta Braves knock them out of the playoffs, the Padres
    baseball team is still using it.
    My wife does most of the post production work, I help when I get home from
    the pesky day job. Your timeline looks pretty much like ours, 4-5 days,
    8-10 hrs. a day. 30-35 weddings is our max, too. (38 done or booked so
    far, this year. We've kept my wife's cousin busy with our overflow...)
    Yes, we're using the 20Ds as backups, and, frankly, we're not sure how we're
    going to deal with area coverage differences. (I assume you're talking about
    the difference in, say, a 16-35 on a 1.6x and FF.) Hoping we won't have to
    use them, I guess...
    Well, we'll see. It doesn't seem to require the workarounds for proper
    flash usage that the 20D does, on limited testing yesterday. And it has no
    problem focusing in tough lighting situations. Remember, you mentioned
    getting the 20D to focus, shooting straight into a sunset? Well, I just
    made sure that I was focused on something that didn't have the sun glaring
    back at the lens, too. But with the 5D, I don't have to do that. And the
    inadequacy of the 420EX flash for fill in that same situation turns out to
    be an inadequacy of the 20D, with the 5D, there's adequate fill.
    Actually, the reason for the purchase was to get the 16mm width out of the
    lenses, some of the venues we work in, we can't get the entire family group
    in the shot with the 20D and the 16-35 without getting up on a ladder. That
    makes for a nice shot, sometimes, but not always. Plus, it gets a little
    repetitive. The main concern was the 24-70s getting a little short. Thus
    the purchase of the 70-200 f2.8L IS.
    Actually, my wife gets to use the 70-200, we got her a very nice monopod to
    work with it. One of other reasons for the purchase was that Canon seems
    reluctant to put out an f2.8 WA in EF-S mount, as do most mfrs seem to shy
    away from an f2.8 WA for specifically for their 1.5/1.6x bodies.
    Skip M, Oct 7, 2005
  20. Pix on Canvas

    Brian Baird Guest

    That doesn't make you correct.

    It makes you look stupid.

    No one is making an issue out of this except you. Maybe if you stopped
    posting idiotic crap all the time you wouldn't have to.
    Brian Baird, Oct 7, 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.