Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 7, 2005, 3:15 PM   #11
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

P.S. -- I've got more (same night, samebar), if you think that one was just a fluke (they are all just about the same sharpness), even at shutter speeds this slow. I've got one at 1/2 second I took a while back I could post, too (I didn't even notice the shutter speed until I looked at it later). I could not get those types of hand held shots with any other camera.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2005, 3:23 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

JimC,

I see your point.

But I could have used a tripod, or bounced a flash off the ceiling and got a better picture.

But your right, in a pinch, you can squeeze a couple extra stops of handlheld speed out of the situation with IS.

As for the cost of antishake, I wouldn't use the low price of the 5D to convince you that it's negligable.

Someone once told me it's cheaper to make digital cams than film cams, and that we're paying a very high mark-up for digicams because of their newness in the market.

Over time we'll seecommoditization that will inevitably reveal the true manufacturing costs of these cams. I wouldn't doubt that the 5D probably costs less than $200 to make, and probably far less than that if they made them in China or some rediiculous place like that.

-- Terry
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2005, 5:09 PM   #13
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

[email protected] wrote:
Quote:
JimC,

I see your point.

But I could have used a tripod, or bounced a flash off the ceiling and got a better picture.
I could have, too. But, I probably would have been asked to leave. I took one flash photo, and one of the patrons complained about it. I didn't do it again. Setting up a tripod would have made patrons nervous, too.

That's also an unprocessed JPEG (I'm surethe raw is better, I just haven't processed it). I've got more, too (just as sharp).

I like taking photos atnearby clubs with live music. That's one of the reasons I got this camera. I've had zero luck getting usable photos there before. I even tried using a Nikon 50mm f/1.8, deliberately underexposingISO 1600 Fuji Superia X-TRA (my film stuff is Nikon). Forget it in this lighting (it's very low).

Not everyone wants/needs antishake. But, it's pretty neat. It's not just for low light either. Want to stop down the aperture for greater depth of field and keep ISO speeds set lower? It helps a lot.

Sure, you can get lenses with IS for those types of shots. But, if you want to take photos in light this low (and it's MUCH dimmer than it appears in this photo), KM is the only game in town.

I think that other manufacturers will probably come out with more alternatives at some point (more IS based lenses, or figure out a way to incororate their own CCD stabilization system). Higher ISO speed peformance could get better, too (reducing the need for stabilization).

Heck, I wouldn't mind having about 3 or 4 more stops of high ISO speed usability for the dim bars around here, even with anti-shake. LOL

Quote:
As for the cost of antishake, I wouldn't use the low price of the 5D to convince you that it's negligable.
Actually, I was mistaken. Someone seeing this thread sent mea PM asking about the deal. I double checked it and the price after the discounts and rebates was $442 with shipping. So, it was less than I thought. But, the deal expired at 2:00PM EST today. So, now it's back to around $600 before rebates.

Quote:
Someone once told me it's cheaper to make digital cams than film cams, and that we're paying a very high mark-up for digicams because of their newness in the market.
I don't know. They may be right. A lot of it is probably supply and demand. For one thing, who is going to buy an entry level film camera now that digital is so cheap? So, prices have dropped on them. Some Pro models still demand a premium, though.

Production numbers probably impact cost a lot, too. I know KM is cranking out around 50,000 cameras per month with the 5D (initial production numbers).That's probably just a drop in the bucket compared to the number of cameras a larger company like Canon is producing. I'm sure the sensor cost is helped by Nikon, Pentax and KM using the same Sony sensors, too. Sony will also be launching DSLR models next year (using KM mount lenses).

Keep in mind that inflation is part of cost, too. Well, at least for thos of us in the U.S.I'm no expert in economics, but the dollar has lost so much value over the past few years that it's impacting our prices on most things here in the U.S. So, $500 or $600 for a camera is not a lot after factoring in the dollar's devaluation. Unfortunately, I think incomes have gone down.

Quote:
Over time we'll seecommoditization that will inevitably reveal the true manufacturing costs of these cams. I wouldn't doubt that the 5D probably costs less than $200 to make, and probably far less than that if they made them in China or some rediiculous place like that.
[/quote]

Actually,this one is made in Malaysia, and I wouldn't consider it ridiculous. From what I've heard, the production facilities there are often better than in other areas

Build quality isvery good. Compare it to a Canon Rebel XT.

Added:

Aother 100% crop from a camera produced JPEG with zero post processing. This one was at 1/4 second and ISO 3200 (although I was stopped down to f/2.8 for a bit sharper image overall for it). Want to see 1/2 second? ;-)

Attached Images
 
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2005, 6:01 PM   #14
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

P.S. -- the camera actually works in better light, too. LOL

I haven't taken the time to put many images from it online yet. But, someone was inquiring about the Minolta 100mm f/2 yesterday (they found a good deal on a used one and wanted to know if it was good enough for portraits, trying to decide between it an the 85mm f/1.4).

So,I quickly found a couple of snapshots and processed them so they could get an idea of what the lens can produce.

So, I haven't even sharpened it with USM or anything (ACR defaults only -- I didn't touch the sliders at all since I was in a big hurry):

Minolta 100mm f/2, ISO 400, f/3.5 (it's just a snapshot of my niece why she was walking in the yard at my brother-in-laws). I did use thebuilt inflash for fill:

The full size imageis in this album.

http://www.pbase.com/jcockfield/minolta100mmf2



JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2005, 6:19 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

JimC,

The shot of your niece, what was the shutter speed on that?

Your probably right, anti-shake will become another standard feature on cams.

When I said "ridiculous place like that", I'm meant that China has a very poor human rights record, yet we benefit because they pay their workers low wages.

I've heard inchina that the cops go into places where there's athreat of a union forming and they break their arms with bats (mothers, daughters, they don't care).

At 50 cents an hour they can afford to churn out inexpensive high quality stuff. And they have the threat of thebat.

-- Terry


terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2005, 6:26 PM   #16
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Sorry about that, Iforgot the shutter speed. It was taken atISO 400, f/3.5 and 1/125 second with the built in flash used for fill.

So, technically, the anti-shake helped me get a sharper photo for this one, too (since the flash contributed VERY little to it, and the 35mm equivalent focal length would come out to 150mm). But, I wasn't trying to imply the photo of my niece made use of anti-shake (only that the camera takes good photos in brighter conditions, too).

If you look in the album above, you'll see the camera produced thumbnails with the EXIF in them. Here is is for that one:

ImageWidth - 2006
ImageLength - 3014
BitsPerSample - -11620
Compression - 1 (None)
PhotometricInterpretation - 2
Make - KONICA MINOLTA
Model - MAXXUM 5D
StripOffsets - 8
SamplesPerPixel - 3
RowsPerStrip - 3014
StripByteCounts - 18138252
XResolution - 300
YResolution - 300
PlanarConfiguration - 1
ResolutionUnit - Inch
ExifOffset - 18141404
InterColorProfile - 18138260
ExposureTime - 1/125 seconds
FNumber - 3.50
ExposureProgram - Aperture priority
ISOSpeedRatings - 400
DateTimeOriginal - 2005:11:05 16:45:41
DateTimeDigitized - 2005:11:05 16:45:41
ShutterSpeedValue - 1/125 seconds
ApertureValue - F 3.50
BrightnessValue - 3.50
ExposureBiasValue - -0.30
MaxApertureValue - F 2.00
MeteringMode - Multi-segment
LightSource - Auto
Flash - Flash fired, compulsory flash mode
FocalLength - 100 mm
CustomRendered - Normal process
ExposureMode - Auto
WhiteBalance - Auto
DigitalZoomRatio - 0 x
FocalLengthIn35mmFilm - 150 mm
SceneCaptureType - Standard
GainControl - Low gain up
Contrast - Soft
Saturation - Normal
Sharpness - Hard


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2005, 6:34 PM   #17
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

That sharpness is the lens, not Post Processing. The Minolta 100mm f/2 is incredibly sharp (the sharpest lens I've got).

The full size image is here (select viewing size from under the photo):

http://www.pbase.com/jcockfield/minolta100mmf2

It's sharper than the Minolta 85mm f/1.4G.

From MTF tests at http://www.photodo.com

85mm f/1.4G

Photodo test result: 3,9
Effective focal length: 84 mm
Weighted MTF for 85 mm: f1,4 0,59, f2 0,71, f2,8 0,77, f4 0,80, f8 0,81

100mm f/2

Photodo test result: 4,4
Effective focal length: 97
Weighted MTF for 100 mm: f2 0,75, f2,8 0,77, f4 0,84, f8 0,85

Gotta love it. :-)




JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2005, 6:51 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

Jim,

Yup that lens did a nice job.

$442 with shipping for a DSLR with antishake is a pretty hard price point to ignore right now!

What is your opinion of the CCD sensor versus the CMOS sensor?

I got trashed a little when I said I didn't like the images the Pentax and the Nikon deliver on another post.

Maybe I'm hair-brained, but to me the CCD sensors seem to deliver that "prosumer" look whereas the CMOS just seems to deliver a smoother image.

Do you notice a difference?

-- Terry


terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2005, 7:15 PM   #19
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I think more of it is the processing.

Canon's pretty good at that. Pentax seems to be lagging in that area (although I personally think the photos look fine, except they could use a little more sharpening).

I think that newer generations of the Sony 6MP sensors have some improvements, too (or perhaps there were some improvements made in the supporting chipsets in the image pipeline).

That's only speculation, but newer models like the KM 5D and Nikon D50 seem to have a bit better higher ISO speed performance from images I've seen, compared to older models using a Sony 6MP CCD.

One of the reasons I went with the 5D over the 7D is that it appears to be about 1/3stop more sensitive to light at higher ISO speeds.

I looked at more than one series of photos before coming to that conclusion, including a series in controlled conditionstaken at ISO 100 through 3200 with the same lenses, same subjects, and same camera settings (manual exposure with both, right down to manual setting of white balance).

Also, by shooting raw, you can process the image using a variety of tools. The photo of my niece was using Adobe Camera Raw (defaults, with no other PP).

Yea, it takes more space on the memory cards and can slow you down if you need to take a lot of photos consecutively with an entry level DSLR like this one (since the buffer is limited to 5 frames shooting raw).

But, that gives you better results in harsher conditions, and raw conversion software is going to continue improving. So, you could reprocess cherished images later on for even better results as that happens.

Dave Etchells atImaging Resourceused Imatest to map out some of it's characteristics. His tests show the noise curve to be virtually identical between the 5D and 7D. Nah... I know better. The ISO speed is fudged about 1/3 stop at ISO 1600 and 3200with the 7D. ;-) I've spent too much time looking at images from them in controlled conditions (and I'm not the only one that reached that conclusion). He was also using JPEG for that test (raw is definitely better).

1/3 stop is not a lot, but every little bit helps if you're going to shoot at ISO 3200 in dim bars. ;-)

BTW, check out Dave's Imatest Results for Dynamic Rangeshooting in raw with the 5D. It's Dynamic Range (when shooting in raw) blows away every other DSLR on the market except for the Fuji S3. So, something must have improved.

P.S. -- Dave's right about ACR pullingout the dynamic range if overexposed. I took some raw+jpeg photos that I was able to pull perfectly good detail out of areas that were totally blown with the JPEG image from the camera.

JPEG could use a bit of work (KM tends to compress the shadows too much with their in camera processing, making it easy to blow the highlights if you're not careful when trying to expose so you get enough detail everywhere else). I shoot almost exclusive in raw (or raw + jpeg).


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2005, 8:54 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

JimC,

Thanks for the info!

Terry
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:44 AM.