Canon 5D - In stock at McBain Camera Edmonton!

Hello, blog system buddy. =) I looked at the quoted sentence for a while and figured it needed clarification. However, I was fishing for a response from some Canon users. =) I should have elaborating by saying "a system with few fast OEM wide angle lens options which give corner to corner sharpness with no vignetting and low or no chromatic aberration." I think that Canon lacks strong lenses in the wide angle range, especially zooms. The 16-35/2.8, 17-40/4 aren't great lenses, in my opinion. Arguably, the 17-40/4 is a fine lens but compared to what's available for DX sensors like the 17-55/2.8, the DX offering is a full stop faster all the way through and has noticeably longer reach with no vignetting and edge to edge sharpness (though my particular sample suffers heavily from CA . . . beyond spec. I'm sending it in for repair as soon as I can). As for primes, the only Canon WA lens that I got satisfactory results with was the 35/1.4. When I had a Canon 1Ds, didn't even own any Canon lenses. I used a Bob Shell adapter with my Contax/Yashica mount Zeiss wide angle primes in manual focus and aperture stop down. No vignetting, edge to edge sharpness, no noticeable CA up to 20 x 30 enlargements. The 24-70/2.8 seems usable and though I don't have personal experience with it, Michael Riechmann's review of the lens shows that there is significant loss of corner sharpness below 35mm which means that a 17-55/2.8 DX affords me effectively 10mm of sharp, wider angle than a Canon full frame system. I don't agree with the "using all your lenses just the way they were ment to be". The 35mm format field of views and how they relate to focal lengths is a well-understood and accepted standard but it is just as arbitrary as any other standard. The same old argument applies here - you have a new capture medium, are you bound to what worked with the old 35mm format? I look at Olympus and I believe that they have the right idea. The smaller sensors have allowed them to produce commercially viable F/2 3x (or longer) zooms. Because Canon is married to the old 35mm standard, they can't even produce F/2.8 3x wide angle zooms. The faster lenses give you faster shutter speeds in lower light or the ability to run at lower ISO. They also bring increased depth of field control which may have been lost due to the effective focal length multiplier. I think that Canon has incredible sensor technology. Their ability to make sensors with great dynamic range, extremely clean high ISO transfer, and fast data transport from the sensor are, in my opinion, unrivalled. I look with envy at many 5D user's sample shots taken at ISO 3200 which still have decent colour reproduction, detail retention, and exposure latitude and for that I wish I was a Canon user. But coupling that sensor with a body that I've heard has focusing issues (I'm waiting for Jonathan to start posting here . . . he works at McBain Camera and the store he's at has a 5D which has front focusing issues and another one had a focus mirror fall out of it right out of the box), poorer-than-D2X low-light focusing capability, and, in my opinion, a complete lack of a good wide angle zooms makes the Canon system incomplete. I'd only use ISO 3200 in low light . . . if I can't focus in low light, there's no benefit. If lens softness is affecting the sharpness of my images, how much will faster shutter speeds do to improve sharpness? Thanks for your reply. Greatly appreciated. =)

Backward compatibility often comes at the cost of progress and technological superiority. It may be argued that the reason why it took us so long to get from the ISA bus to the PCI Express bus is due to the want of backwards compatibility and all of the people sitting on ISA and PCI devices saying "good enough" without trying the new system. All technology advances towards standardization. Between 32 bit, 33MHz PCI and PCI Express were several PCI standard extensions which eventually converged into PCI Express. I believe that mainstream digital photography will eventually converge to fewer formats and camera buyers will separate themselves into two groups: one group that thinks it's "good enough" and another that believes that there's more to technological innovation in photography than just resolution. The standard 24 x 36mm standard form factor may be one of the standards to stay but I feel that there is a limited market of individuals where this form factor will suit them best in the long run. Perhaps you are one of them . . . one who doesn't use ultra wide angle and is completely content with the focal lengths covered by your existing lenses and perhaps even the resolution available to film of this size. However, I believe that a smaller sensor gives us the ability to expand our focal ranges with the same bulk of glass and with the same speeds if not faster and for similar costs. Yes, perhaps new formats are more suitable for those who are willing to build up a completely new system or who may have never owned an SLR system before. Canon 1Ds ownership scared me away from digital for a few months but upon discovering the S2 Pro I was warmed again to the virtues of instant gratification. I personally do not believe that 24 x 36 is the ultimate format . . . merely one that provided adequate resolution for up to 20 x 30 crisp enlargements from ISO 100 slide film. But since I'm paying more for my gear with a similarly equipped bodies, why shouldn't I get more out of my entire system? The Sigma 24-70/2.8 isn't critically sharp wide open, not even in the centre. On a full frame body, I don't even want to image what it's like near the edges, especially at 24mm. The focal range is nice and the price for the lens is awesome but other than getting the mystical "full frame" can this zoom lens fully utilize all of that extra sensor resolution that you paid for? I'm tempted to believe that you could have picked up a Fuji S3 Pro with a 17-55/2.8 DX and could have gotten sharper photos with better colour, longer zoom range, reasonably sharp F/2.8 and still be around the cost of the 5D. You effectively lose a bit off the wide angle but gain a fair bit on the long end with that lens. And I believe AF would also be faster on the S3 Pro. I am also eagerly awaiting for this E-3 to materialize. That extra stop plus vibration reduction on all lenses could be the difference between making a sellable shot or just wasting time deleting photos after the fact.

I don't see how the ISA-PCIx analogy isn't applicable here. Both the transition from 35mm film to digital and the transition of computer buses are essentially technological transitions through several intermediate phases. Perhaps the photo side isn't exactly "there" yet, but eventually it will get there. Both are stories of support and acceptance. Both are potential examples of how forcing compatibility and backwards functionality with previous standards may produce poorer performance. Why don't you think that it's applicable? I wasn't suggesting to go with an APS-C sized sensor . . . in fact my one explicit and hypothetical suggestion was to try out a Fuji S3 Pro with an F-mount and replace the Sigma 24-70 with a 17-55/2.8. Furthermore, just like how in 1996 Mac users could make the claim that there was this enourmous code base available for their platforms and virtually no software available for the new Win9x platform, the argument of having huge lens selection for a full frame sensor isn't totally watertight - how many of those lenses are actually worth using, even on a cropped frame sensor? How many of those lenses would produce good optical results on a full frame sensor? How many of those lenses would you even need to cover all of your needs and focal lengths? My philosphy is to go with a system that covers the focal lengths I need the best with a body behind it that can produce results that I need for myself and my clients. In my case, the system needs to have a pro body with a sensor that can produce photos that will enlarge up to 40 x 60, even with some cropping, have excellent in camera metering, awesome low light auto focus capability, usable ISO 1600 (in my case, I can't say that it's totally there in the D2X, though . . . probably one of my few complaints). Back to your question about EF-S . . . if Canon is really going the way they appear to be going, EF-S seems to be an intermediate standard that may soon be abandoned. But I don't know enough about this standard to make an intelligent comment so I shall say no more about this subject. If you feel that the 4/3's stuff lets you part with your film stuff entirely, why don't you go that route? And not that I'm trying to push you in the F-mount direction but what's preventing an F-mount solution from achieving your goals? I think that it is important to consider solutions as systems. Despite the concerns over the body's durability and QA, I actually don't mind the 5D. In fact, on paper, I would very much like to have one. But finding the lenses that suit my needs is a different concern. To me, the 5D has very limited value . . . I would be using my C/Y mount zeiss glass on it and maybe the Sigma 14/2.8. My biggest peeve with the Sigma 24-70/2.8 EX Macro (I'm assuming that you have this version, the latest one) is the lack of HSM. In fact, had it had HSM, I would probably have picked it up to cover the 35-105 range (roughly) as I don't use it frequently but the price is so good that the benefits could easily justify the purchase. For objective testing I don't have much to comment. I'm not a lens tester but what I do is shoot and look at my photos. I have found that the 24-70/2.8 Sigma is sharper at its sharpest aperture value at 24mm than the Canon 24-70/2.8 but I found that the Canon is sharper at F/2.8 on the wide end . . . especially nearer to the edges. If I recall correctly, the Sigma also isn't as sharp as the Nikon 28-70/2.8 AF-S at the long end wide open nor at the Nikkor's wide end. One of my friends owns the 24-70/2.8 EX Macro for his D70 and he seems to like it a lot but he also has complained that it isn't critically sharp wide open though I don't know specifics. It could well be that my friend has a not-as-nice sample and I happened to have tried two different versions which were bad samples of the same lens. Now you have me thinking . . . I'm going to try and see if I can compare the 17-55/2.8 on a D2X to the Canon 5D with the Sigma and, if possible, with the Canon 24-70/2.8. Maybe Jackie will see this post and bring the two 24-70/2.8's to the Kingsway store and hopefully there will be a 5D to use.

PCI-X and ISA aren't backward compatible. I was just referring to motherboards in general where manufacturers felt forced to support both ISA and PCI, then stick to PCI even after many devices have outgrown this interface thus create many intermediate, non-standard "standards" to temporarily overcome this problem before finally agreeing on PCI-X. As I mentioned before, the 5D (and full frame in general) looks great on a spec sheet (bigger photo sites, greater dynamic range, familiar magnification, depth of field control which is handy for fashion and portraits, etc.) but look at some 5D photos taken with zoom lenses wider than 70mm when used wide open and you'll get vignetting, chromatic aberration (many wider angle lenses have CA . . . but full frame cameras suffer more of this), and softer edges. The Sigma 24-70/2.8 EX Macro is actually supposed to be a noticeable step forward from the 24-70/2.8 Aspherical. I've never tried the older lens, though, especially not an FF digital body. There are few complaints about either lens in online reviews especially when one keeps in mind how relatively little one pays for an F/2.8 3x medium zoom when comparable OEM lenses are triple the cost but there will be notes that the lens isn't sharp at 24 or 70 or wide open. Focusing is supposed to be slower on the old one (though the new one isn't that fast either since it doesn't have HSM). Reviews for the lenses: http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-zoom/Sigma/PRD_88759_3128crx.aspx#reviews http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-zoom/Sigma/PRD_332057_3128crx.aspx

Other than my "free anal" blog entry, this entry has officially become the busiest entry in my blog's short history. Cool. =) I have no brand loyalty nor am I a brand fanatic (except perhaps to Contax, which I don't use anymore and is now out of the camera game.) However, it is reports like these that make me not want to shoot a brand. In this particular case, Canon. Still . . . of the 4 people at Kingsway that sent off their cameras, wasn't one sent off because the shooter dropped his 20D or something along those lines . . . it wouldn't be fair to say that it was a defect-driven repair. Still, the 5D record scares me. And you forgot the biggest reason why not to shoot Canon . . . his name starts with "P" and ends with "rick". I think noise registration depends heavily on how a shot was exposed, scene content, and the RAW converter used. Here I have to disagree . . . if using Phase One Capture One, arguably the RAW converter with the nicest in-converter noise reducer, most extensive colour correction tools, and greatest dynamic range extraction capability for Fuji, Nikon D2X, and Canon 20D and Rebel XT RAW files, noise from Canon sensors are without a doubt cleaner than virtually all comparable sensors in Nikon, Kodak, and Olympus cameras and, more recently, rivaling even the Fuji S3 Pro. I also don't believe that a particular camera can be more prone to getting sensor contamination than another but I'm not a camera body expert. I have to argue that even if you pay for F/2.8 L glass, you still may not get good glass. I've used every F/2.8 Canon zoom lens released in the last few years on at least one APS-C sensor-sized dSLR and, in some cases, full frame sensor cameras, and I have used every F/2.8 Nikon zoom lens released in the last couple years on the Fuji S2 Pro, S3 Pro, D2X and not once would I have traded a Nikkor for an EOS equivalent . . . and there is no EOS equivalent of the 17-55/2.8. You're right . . . the Canon lenses cost more than comparable Nikon lenses but other than the 70-200/2.8 IS, I haven't found one worth owning and in no cases were the Canon premiums justified. Actually yeah . . . the sales staff at Kingsway is pretty cool. A couple of the lab staff are annoying, though . . . and that one weenie that shall remain unnamed.

One thing I missed about the Contax/Yashica mount was that Carl Zeiss reportedly tested every single lens that came off the assembly line before it was packaged and shipped through the distribution channels. Never once have I had a bad sample of a Zeiss lens. Sample variance isn't unique to just Canon. I think that the 3rd party brands have the most trouble with it which is why I'm refusing to pick up this Tokina 12-24/4 until a Canadian distributor makes it available here so that whoever sold me the lens is within throwing distance. But even with Nikon we have sample variance issues. I know of a few early 70-200/2.8 VR's, possibly one of Nikon's most celebrated zooms, to have had extremely harsh bokeh that was not supposed to be characteristic of this lens. Sure, it normally isn't that creamy anyway but these lenses were especially bad. Even my own 17-55/2.8 has really awesome CA recently which no one seems to have seen before that I've shown the photos to. In fact, most people couldn't believe it was from the 17-55. Can't wait to send this thing in for repairs . . . pretty upset about it. I wish that I noticed this when I bought it. Have you tried Phase One Capture One? For the images that are in focus, your 20D should be capable of producing really nice colour with reasonably low noise in its entire sensitivity range. Which RAW converter are you using?

Try Phase One Capture One pro a shot. Free download from http://phaseone.com/ (it's linked all over a couple recent entries. =P) Hahah . . . Noise Ninja isn't a RAW converter . . . just a noise reducing utility that's pretty good at what it does. And no . . . say if we were shooting film. Even though we think we aren't doing any adjustments after shooting, the lab machines often do automatic corrections for you. If none were done, contrast would be kind of flat, colours would have a more muted affect of having really wrong white balance (which could affect noise . . . try shooting with a blue gel-covered light as your only light source at ISO 100 and white balance to try to bring back "natural" colour and you'll see what I mean) . . . that sort of thing. And yeah . . . it depends on what your tolerance of noisy is and how big you're printing. True . . . a lot of my S2 Pro existing light files were shot at ISO 1600 (http://klyment.com/portfolio/dark/goldiestandard.jpg being one of them) but when you blow them up to 12 x 18's you definitely see noise. The S2 Pro has an exceptional and unique sensor . . . but as far as conventional CCD's and CMOS chips goes, Canon tops the heap for low noise. We should compare up sometime . . . 5D at ISO 400 through 3200 and D2X at ISO 400 through 3200 with same exposure settings and maybe two sharp primes (probably 100mm macro for Canon and 60mm macro for Nikon or perhaps we should only be varying distances from the surface) and maybe compare an EOS-mount Sigma 24-70/2.8 Macro to a D2X mounted with a 17-55/2.8. I can supply the Nikon side . . . maybe you could help with the other side. =) I'm confident that the same settings will yield cleaner images on the 5D than the D2X though pixel level acuity up to about ISO 400 or 800 would probably (hopefully) still be better on the D2X.