Canon 5D and limited lens choices

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Canon "designed for digital" lenses which will cover a sensor the size
of a 35mm frame are pretty thin on the ground. This means early buyers
of 5D Canon DSLRs could experience "purple fringing" or Chromatic
Aberrations off the sensor's micro lenses far worse than 'crop factor'
camera users. Just using 'made for 35mm film' lenses will not overcome
the issue.

Of course all those Pro's using 1Ds Canon's and Kodak Pro DSLR cameras
already know about this effect and probably try to avoid situations
where this will occur. Pretty easy if you are a fashion photographer.

Action Photojournalists and sports photographers who often have no
choice in their subject location and buy a 5d thinking they'll get
better results will discover this problem real fast and go back to their
'crop factor' cameras.

Canon will point out (if you push them) the 5D is not a Professional
camera and they do market 2 different Pro camera so you have a choice of
which to use for what type of photography. Of course! It makes perfectly
good sense. The 1Ds for studio and controllable subjects and the 1D for
sports photographers... Now why didn't I think of that! The "s" on the
end of 1D is for "STUDIO".

The purple fringe problem occurs when adjacent photo detectors overload.
That is to say when the contrast range between the elements in a
photograph are outside that which the camera is capable of recording
detail in... Shooting a branch or building edge with bright sky will do
it as will shooting into the sun. Pretty much anything that will produce
CA in a lens, will add the sensor to the area of responsibility. CA from
the micro lenses is not yet fully understood (by me at any rate) but it
has been found to exist in laboratory tests.

Steve has some information most people should find easy to understand
(it's in picture form) about lens design to prevent or at least try to
prevent the problem ...which is currently being built into Olympus
digital lenses. http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/e300_pg2.html

The Canon "S" series digital SLR lenses that are suitable for 300D, 350D
and 20D won't work on a 5D. I'd expect Sigma, Tokina and Tamron "made
for digital" lenses to pick up sales as people discover these are the
only currently offered digital lenses to fit a 5D.

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Pix on Canvas" <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4337ab37$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Canon "designed for digital" lenses which will cover a sensor the size of
> a 35mm frame are pretty thin on the ground. This means early buyers of 5D
> Canon DSLRs could experience "purple fringing" or Chromatic Aberrations
> off the sensor's micro lenses far worse than 'crop factor' camera users.
> Just using 'made for 35mm film' lenses will not overcome the issue.
>

Any of Canon's standard EF lenses will work fine, of which they have quite a
large selection. What makes you say they won't?

Mark
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <4337ab37$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>Canon "designed for digital" lenses which will cover a sensor the size
>of a 35mm frame are pretty thin on the ground.

[snip scratched record]

Were your parents blown up by a cannon when you were young, leaving you with
lasting emotional damage, or something? I offer the following two tips which
may make you happier:

1) Don't buy one.

2) Get out more.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pix on Canvas wrote:
> Canon "designed for digital" lenses which will cover a sensor the size
> of a 35mm frame are pretty thin on the ground. This means early buyers
> of 5D Canon DSLRs could experience "purple fringing" or Chromatic
> Aberrations off the sensor's micro lenses far worse than 'crop factor'
> camera users. Just using 'made for 35mm film' lenses will not overcome
> the issue.

Perhaps you need to look at the thread titled:
Full-frame sensors can't do wide angle - NOT!

Check the link to the image below, a corner crop from a 12mm lens.
It proves chromatic aberration from the sensor's micro lenses
is not a factor.

In that thread David Littleboy said:
>>>Lenses designed specifically for digital sensors, direct the light at 90
>>>degrees to the sensor plane and avoid CA from the micro lenses on the
>>>sensor (or at least try to). Conventional film camera lenses direct
>>>light to the film at angles other than 90 degrees. This causes Chromatic
>>>Aberrations from the sensors themselves. Simple digital logic, Brian.
>>
>>Yeah, too bad angle of light incidence and chromatic aberration aren't
>>directly linked.
>>
>>Additionally, you fail to explain why angle of incidence would cause
>>color shift... because it doesn't.
>
>
> To say nothing of explaining how a high angle of incidence can even occur in
> a dSLR in which the rear element of the lens has to be far enough from the
> sensor to allow the mirror to swing, limiting the maximum angle of incidence
> to well within angles which microlenses have no problem handling. Oops.
>
> To reiterate, the high angle of incidence "problem" isn't a problem at, it's
> just is marketing FUD.
>
> If you don't believe that, crop out 2400 x 1980 pixels from the very upper
> right corner (the other corners are in shadow and too dark) of the following
> image, sharpen by 120%, r = 1.2, t = 0 (or whatever pleases), and print at
> 8x10. (This is an 8x10 crop from a 12x18 print.)
>
> http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/31744-2346-14-1.html
>
> Of course, we'll hear a chorus of "it doesn't look all that great to me"
> from folks who bought into that fud, but anyone who's head isn't wedged up a
> warm dark place, and realizes that this is from a 12mm lens producing a full
> 12mm FOV, will have trouble getting their jaw off the floor.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Pix on Canvas" <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4337ab37$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> snip

What makes you say this? This isn't not the first full frame DSLR produced
by Canon, it's their third. Have you seen this condition in the previous two
iterations? Have you tested any of their lenses with the 5D to determine if
any of what you say is true?

Sorry, I'm not buying any of this nonsense. If you can prove any of it,
please do so. Show me where a FF DSLR is more prone to fringing than a
sub-frame DSLR.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 9/26/05 3:03 AM, in article 4337ab37$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au, "Pix on Canvas"
<canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:


>
> Of course all those Pro's using 1Ds Canon's and Kodak Pro DSLR cameras
> already know about this effect and probably try to avoid situations
> where this will occur. Pretty easy if you are a fashion photographer.
>

Most of your total BS snipped.
It's funny I use a Canon 1Ds and I don't "know" anything about this effect!
Others have already addressed the absurdity of your other claims so no need
to say anything further.
Do you even realize that you have turned into nothing more than a troll?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:59:10 +0000, C Wright wrote:

> On 9/26/05 3:03 AM, in article 4337ab37$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au, "Pix on Canvas"
> <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Of course all those Pro's using 1Ds Canon's and Kodak Pro DSLR cameras
>> already know about this effect and probably try to avoid situations
>> where this will occur. Pretty easy if you are a fashion photographer.
>>
>
> Most of your total BS snipped.
> It's funny I use a Canon 1Ds and I don't "know" anything about this effect!
> Others have already addressed the absurdity of your other claims so no need
> to say anything further.
> Do you even realize that you have turned into nothing more than a troll?
You got his point all wrong, it was his dress he was talking about.
--
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:29:37 +0000, Chris Brown wrote:

> In article <4337ab37$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
> Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>Canon "designed for digital" lenses which will cover a sensor the size
>>of a 35mm frame are pretty thin on the ground.
>
> [snip scratched record]
>
> Were your parents blown up by a cannon when you were young, leaving you with
> lasting emotional damage, or something? I offer the following two tips which
> may make you happier:
>
> 1) Don't buy one.
>
> 2) Get out more.
Please don't inflict him on us - I would rather he stayed in more. The
smallest room comes to ming.

--
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email
 

Rich

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
325
0
18,930
0
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 07:08:15 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:

>Pix on Canvas wrote:
>> Canon "designed for digital" lenses which will cover a sensor the size
>> of a 35mm frame are pretty thin on the ground. This means early buyers
>> of 5D Canon DSLRs could experience "purple fringing" or Chromatic
>> Aberrations off the sensor's micro lenses far worse than 'crop factor'
>> camera users. Just using 'made for 35mm film' lenses will not overcome
>> the issue.
>
>Perhaps you need to look at the thread titled:
> Full-frame sensors can't do wide angle - NOT!
>
>Check the link to the image below, a corner crop from a 12mm lens.
>It proves chromatic aberration from the sensor's micro lenses
>is not a factor.
>
>In that thread David Littleboy said:
> >>>Lenses designed specifically for digital sensors, direct the light at 90
> >>>degrees to the sensor plane and avoid CA from the micro lenses on the
> >>>sensor (or at least try to). Conventional film camera lenses direct
> >>>light to the film at angles other than 90 degrees. This causes Chromatic
> >>>Aberrations from the sensors themselves. Simple digital logic, Brian.
> >>
> >>Yeah, too bad angle of light incidence and chromatic aberration aren't
> >>directly linked.
> >>
> >>Additionally, you fail to explain why angle of incidence would cause
> >>color shift... because it doesn't.
> >
> >
> > To say nothing of explaining how a high angle of incidence can even occur in
> > a dSLR in which the rear element of the lens has to be far enough from the
> > sensor to allow the mirror to swing, limiting the maximum angle of incidence
> > to well within angles which microlenses have no problem handling. Oops.
> >
> > To reiterate, the high angle of incidence "problem" isn't a problem at, it's
> > just is marketing FUD.
> >
> > If you don't believe that, crop out 2400 x 1980 pixels from the very upper
> > right corner (the other corners are in shadow and too dark) of the following
> > image, sharpen by 120%, r = 1.2, t = 0 (or whatever pleases), and print at
> > 8x10. (This is an 8x10 crop from a 12x18 print.)
> >
> > http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/31744-2346-14-1.html

Kind of clear that there is CA going on in this image. Check the
> >
> > Of course, we'll hear a chorus of "it doesn't look all that great to me"
> > from folks who bought into that fud, but anyone who's head isn't wedged up a
> > warm dark place, and realizes that this is from a 12mm lens producing a full
> > 12mm FOV, will have trouble getting their jaw off the floor.
> >
> > David J. Littleboy
> > Tokyo, Japan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Pix on Canvas" <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4337ab37$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Canon "designed for digital" lenses which will cover a sensor the size
> of a 35mm frame are pretty thin on the ground. This means early buyers

Of course they're thin on the ground you tit.
'Designed for digital' lenses are designed for less than full frame sensors,
not a full frame sensor, such as in the 5D.

And the rest of your ramblings: utter deluded ramblings.

Go away.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark B. wrote:
> "Pix on Canvas" <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4337ab37$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>>Canon "designed for digital" lenses which will cover a sensor the size of
>>a 35mm frame are pretty thin on the ground. This means early buyers of 5D
>>Canon DSLRs could experience "purple fringing" or Chromatic Aberrations
>>off the sensor's micro lenses far worse than 'crop factor' camera users.
>>Just using 'made for 35mm film' lenses will not overcome the issue.
>>
>
>
> Any of Canon's standard EF lenses will work fine, of which they have quite a
> large selection. What makes you say they won't?
>
> Mark
>
>
Didn't say the existing lenses "won't" work. I said because of their
design they will probably produce more purple fringing than the smaller
sensors. No doubt Canon will address this issue when there is a
groundswell of complaints and not before.

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <4337ab37$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, canvaspix@yahoo.com.au
says...
> The purple fringe problem occurs when adjacent photo detectors overload.
> That is to say when the contrast range between the elements in a
> photograph are outside that which the camera is capable of recording
> detail in... Shooting a branch or building edge with bright sky will do
> it as will shooting into the sun. Pretty much anything that will produce
> CA in a lens, will add the sensor to the area of responsibility. CA from
> the micro lenses is not yet fully understood (by me at any rate) but it
> has been found to exist in laboratory tests.

Yeah... no. "Blooming" doesn't occur with modern CCD or CMOS sensors...
so, no... you lose, sorry.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gormless wrote:
> "Pix on Canvas" <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4337ab37$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>>Canon "designed for digital" lenses which will cover a sensor the size
>>of a 35mm frame are pretty thin on the ground. This means early buyers
>
>
> Of course they're thin on the ground you tit.
> 'Designed for digital' lenses are designed for less than full frame sensors,
> not a full frame sensor, such as in the 5D.
>
> And the rest of your ramblings: utter deluded ramblings.
>
> Go away.
>
>
>
It's very curious that all the replies here are personal attacks. Could
it be that the EOS devotees are so (un)knowledgeable about their
interest that they have no understanding of the issue? Quite likely.

At least half of the images offered as examples of how good the camera
is, have substantial flaws yet a lot of 'gatta-haves are about to sell
the family jewels to buy one. The rest of you probably deserve Canon
products.

--
Douglas...
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Pix on Canvas" <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:43384f52$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> It's very curious that all the replies here are personal attacks. Could it
> be that the EOS devotees are so (un)knowledgeable about their interest
> that they have no understanding of the issue? Quite likely.
>
> At least half of the images offered as examples of how good the camera is,
> have substantial flaws yet a lot of 'gatta-haves are about to sell the
> family jewels to buy one. The rest of you probably deserve Canon products.
>

You've offered no proof of what you are claiming, other than some sweeping
statements:

> Of course all those Pro's using 1Ds Canon's and Kodak Pro DSLR cameras
> already know about this effect and probably try to avoid situations where
> this will occur. Pretty easy if you are a fashion photographer.

Can you offer any examples?

You also state the obvious:

> The Canon "S" series digital SLR lenses that are suitable for 300D, 350D
> and 20D won't work on a 5D

Not only are they unsuitable, they have an entirely different mount and
physically will not work.

But this statement has me puzzled:

>I'd expect Sigma, Tokina and Tamron "made for digital" lenses to pick up
>sales as people discover these are the only currently offered digital
>lenses to fit a 5D.

The 'designed for digital' lenses by 3rd party lens makers are specifically
meant for <full frame sensors, and it's generally listed in their specs. I
would expect anyone spending more than $3k on a body would know that. So
I'm curious how you arrive at the conclusion they are the only lenses to fit
the 5D.

Mark
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <43384f52$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>At least half of the images offered as examples of how good the camera
>is, have substantial flaws yet a lot of 'gatta-haves are about to sell
>the family jewels to buy one. The rest of you probably deserve Canon
>products.

OK, how about you leave us soon-to-be 5D owners to our soon-to-be miserable
contemplation on having wasted so much money on an obvious lemon? You've
warned us all about this critical flaw, and we don't seem to be listening to
your cautionary tales about how this non-lens-related, lens-related effect
is going to ruin all our photos. We're obviously beyond help. You can go now
if you like...
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Action Photojournalists and sports photographers who often have no
>choice in their subject location and buy a 5d thinking they'll get
>better results will discover this problem real fast and go back to their
>'crop factor' cameras.

How many sports shooters will be buying the 5D for better results?
ZERO.
Duh!

Perhaps you meant "slower results?"
The rest of your trollish post is equally nonsensical.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Pix on Canvas" <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:43384f52$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> >
> It's very curious that all the replies here are personal attacks. Could

And rightly so - you don't know what you're talking about so we have to
attack you personally. Simple.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Pix on Canvas" <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4337ab37$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Canon "designed for digital" lenses which will cover a sensor the size of
> a 35mm frame are pretty thin on the ground. This means early buyers of 5D
> Canon DSLRs could experience "purple fringing" or Chromatic Aberrations
> off the sensor's micro lenses far worse than 'crop factor' camera users.
> Just using 'made for 35mm film' lenses will not overcome the issue.
>
> Of course all those Pro's using 1Ds Canon's and Kodak Pro DSLR cameras
> already know about this effect and probably try to avoid situations where
> this will occur. Pretty easy if you are a fashion photographer.
>
> Action Photojournalists and sports photographers who often have no choice
> in their subject location and buy a 5d thinking they'll get better results
> will discover this problem real fast and go back to their 'crop factor'
> cameras.
>
> Canon will point out (if you push them) the 5D is not a Professional
> camera and they do market 2 different Pro camera so you have a choice of
> which to use for what type of photography. Of course! It makes perfectly
> good sense. The 1Ds for studio and controllable subjects and the 1D for
> sports photographers... Now why didn't I think of that! The "s" on the end
> of 1D is for "STUDIO".
>
> The purple fringe problem occurs when adjacent photo detectors overload.
> That is to say when the contrast range between the elements in a
> photograph are outside that which the camera is capable of recording
> detail in... Shooting a branch or building edge with bright sky will do it
> as will shooting into the sun. Pretty much anything that will produce CA
> in a lens, will add the sensor to the area of responsibility. CA from the
> micro lenses is not yet fully understood (by me at any rate) but it has
> been found to exist in laboratory tests.
>
> Steve has some information most people should find easy to understand
> (it's in picture form) about lens design to prevent or at least try to
> prevent the problem ...which is currently being built into Olympus digital
> lenses. http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/e300_pg2.html
>
> The Canon "S" series digital SLR lenses that are suitable for 300D, 350D
> and 20D won't work on a 5D. I'd expect Sigma, Tokina and Tamron "made for
> digital" lenses to pick up sales as people discover these are the only
> currently offered digital lenses to fit a 5D.
>

I have only heard of the EF 14mm showing much of a problem, even then it
might just be lens CA. Most people using the 1Ds do not have problems,
unless you are paranoid enough to think they are concealing it.

Telecentric lens designs would help but I don't think are the limiting
factor yet.
 

Stacey

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
1,595
0
19,730
0
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pix on Canvas wrote:


> It's very curious that all the replies here are personal attacks.

You didn't post "Canon is the only camera people should buy" so of course
you get personally insulted. You expected something else?

--

Stacey
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Kennedy,

A purely educational question. You talk about 'telecentric' lens
designs.
I had never heard of this and looked it up on the web. From what
I could understand, a telecentric lens maps objects of the same
dimension
to the same size on the film plane regardless of object distance from
lens (i.e.
no 'perspective distortion'). Is that what you are referring to or
something different?

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> In article <341_e.10010$w74.7940@trndny05>, SamSez
> <samtheman@verizon.net> writes
> >
> >So then why do Sigma, Tamron, Nikon, and yes, [lower your head respectfully],
> >even Canon, all use the phrase 'Optimized for digital SLR*' for SOME, but not
> >all of their products???
>
> Because most of the lenses bearing this tag are designed for a smaller
> field coverage, eg. all of Canon's EF-S range, and therefore do not need
> the overhead in glass, mount and movement that is requird to cover the
> full field. Sure, some of them are allegedly closer to telecentric
> design, but then most wide angle lenses for SLRs have to be closer to
> telecentric than those for P&S cameras simply to provide enough room for
> the mirror to flip out of the light path when the exposure is made. All
> such inverse telephoto (where the distance from the optical centre to
> the focal plane is longer than the focal length) designs are partially
> telecentric - it is a consequence of the geometry. For focal lengths
> greater than the mirror height, the non-telecentricity is negligible in
> term of the ray-bundle offset between the filter and the silicon, which
> gives rise to the CA you are sputtering about. In short, the problem is
> negligible in an SLR design in any case, although it may well be a
> problem with P&S cameras, particularly small pixel devices.
> --
> Kennedy
> Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
> A lovely little thinker, but a ah heck when he's pissed.
> Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Tim Weiss Digital Cameras 3
L Digital Cameras 1
L Digital Cameras 0
Bdubb11 Digital Cameras 1
H Digital Cameras 1
H Digital Cameras 1
D Digital Cameras 2
E Digital Cameras 0
D Digital Cameras 0
H Digital Cameras 1
S Digital Cameras 1
1 Digital Cameras 1
R Digital Cameras 1
T Digital Cameras 1
G Digital Cameras 0
P Digital Cameras 1
G Digital Cameras 0
A Digital Cameras 3
B Digital Cameras 1
P Digital Cameras 1

ASK THE COMMUNITY