Here's a sample pic captured by a Canon 5D ("borrowed" from dpreview)...
And here is a 100% crop out of the bottom of that frame...
I don't know...the sample pics dpreview posted are with the 24-105 lens and the 5D. I'm pretty impressed!
08-25-2005, 07:19 PM
08-25-2005, 07:54 PM
08-25-2005, 08:27 PM
08-25-2005, 11:25 PM
08-26-2005, 12:10 PM
canon obsoletes themselves every handful of years.
08-26-2005, 08:46 PM
The full frame sensor on the 5D is the only thing I'm interested in, not really the resolution.
09-06-2005, 05:20 PM
Canon has been making EOS bodies since 1987 or so. Canon EOS EF-S lenses will only work on the 20D, 300D and 350D. Basically, they obsoleted all the FD manual focus lenses when they went to autofocus in '87 but they've been very good about it since. I wouldn't call that every few years.
I have a lot of Nikon gear but my 70-200VR is pretty useless on my F3T because it doesn't have an aperture ring. Similarly, my 105/1.8 AIS lens is a bit tough to use on my D100 because the D100's meter won't work with AIS lenses.
09-06-2005, 05:20 PM
09-07-2005, 10:31 AM
changes their lens mounts every 6 years on average (three times in 18 years).
That's WAY too many, in my eyes and many others. I am not the first pro to say this is ridiculous.
You are also expecting all features to work, retroactively. That is impossible. Just like asking AF to work on an F1 body. But you can put a 1955 50/1.8 on your D2X and it will work. Not with all of the modern functions, but it will work.
As for Canon, the lenses won't even mount/work on cameras of three different generations in 18 years. That's ridiculous.
You want to argue that Nikon's system isn't fully functional with all lenses and cameras,and compare it to cameras and lenses from Canon that won't even mount to each other (might as well try and mount a pentax lens to different generation Canon lenses).
I don't get it. Exposure Lattitude, 6x6's meant to be cropped and now defending Canon's multiple lens mount changes.
You certainly have different opinion than most and hold them over general, professional photographic conventions.
09-07-2005, 10:32 AM
09-07-2005, 12:31 PM
It's good that you're a photographer not an editor because your reading comprehension needs work. Your math needs work too because '87 to '05 is 18 years with one minor offshoot to their lens mount (EF-S).
They came out with a few EF-S lenses in the last few 2 years specifically for 1.6X dslrs. What were the other lens mount changes? When did this happen and what Canon lenses don't work with which Canon bodies. The 70-200VR lens can mount on an N90S but you can only use it in shutter priority or full auto. That's not useful IMO. Less useful is that it only works on an F3 wide open. Who cares if it physically mounts at that point. Not being able to meter an AIS lens on my D100 isn't very useful either.
Also, the 1955 lens will not mount on a D2X unless it's been converted to AI. Pre-AI lenses will crush the aperture tab on the body. Oh, there's also the Nikon DX lenses which mount on an F3 but leave dark circles in the corners because (like the Canon EF-S lenses) they won't cover a full 35mm frame. I don't call that very useful either.
So, once again, tell me how Canon has changed their lens mount every 6 years. I don't see it since an EOS lens from '87 will work just fine on the latest 1Ds II or Drebel. Maybe other pros say it happens too often but Canon is outselling Nikon in the pro market at this point so pros must not care that much. Are there any pros still using Canon FD bodies?
And your arguement that very little post processing should be done on digital images is just stupid btw.
09-07-2005, 01:59 PM
They are uneeded and immature.
Had you been of integrity, you'd have answered my post regarding your "exposure latitude" statement.
You cited an qote that contradicted yourself. How's your reading comprehension? Like proving yourself wrong?
I am a successful professional photographer working world wide. My resume speaks for itself. I don't need to defend myself and things that are fact against your statements and opinions.
When you familiarize yourself with basic photographic terminology and understanding, let me know and we can talk again.
It's a pretty simple and generally accepted by the masses in the photographic world that Canon has screwed their customers over the past few times with self obsolesence. Do even the most limited of searches on the net and you will see authorities in the photographic worl asserting this. It is also generally accepted that Nikon has always had the same basic lens mount and 99% of Nikon lenses will mount and function on any Nikon body from the start of their SLR sales. This was the while point of my post above 10 days ago.
If you don't know or get it, I am sorry. It's not opinion, like cropping's value, etc, it's fact.
The definition of exposure latitude is fact as well. There is a generally accepted definition. This is not the same as your definition. So, should the forum accept your unquantified definition or that of pros online? Or of Kodak for that matter?
The exposure latitude of a D70 vs a D2H is fact as well. Regardless of your feelings. I think you'd argue this with Rick Houghton of Nikon, who I offered to put you in touch with. You know, in the note you didn't respond to.
I think you'd argue the color of the sky.
Remember, an opinion doesn't equal fact, no matter how long you've held it.
To some people, photography is a hobby. To others, it's their entire business, livelihood and therefore life. You can speculate all you want, the basis of some of your photographic conclusions have often gone against facts, period.
I'm done wasting time with this. Insult me all you want, it still doesn't change the facts of the situation.
09-07-2005, 04:39 PM
So I don't know where you're coming up with 3 mounts in 18 years. They changed once, 18 years ago. When were these other changes again?
And I'm sorry about the insults but if you re-read some of your earlier posts, they were thinly veiled insults. Your completely dismissive attitude is, itself, insulting considering you have no idea what I do for a living or what my background is (it might surprise you).
As for your thoughts on what I've said, I can say the same about your attitude towards cropping and post processing on digital images. Cropping should be completely avoided? That's just ridiculous. Leave camera settings at neutral and display the RAW/JPEG as captured? Preposterous. WHere'd you come up with that btw? As I said, read "The Print" by St. Ansel himself. He cropped. If it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me. Oh wait, he didn't shoot sports.
You're also saying things about equipment (Canon in particular) that are completely wrong. Canon has not changed their lens mount since '87 when they came out with EOS AF cameras. FD (manual focus) cameras overlapped for 5 years or so and that was it. If you bought an EOS 630 in the late 80's, it'll work with a brand new 24-105 IS lens. Similarly, if you put any of the first EOS lenses on a brand new 5D, it'll work just fine (though it'll suck optically). So, you're saying things that are just incorrect. Considering (you say) you're sponsered by Nikon, it comes off poorly.
And yes, I have both a 70-200VR and an F3T and it pisses me off that the new lens is virtually useless on the F3T considering how much Nikon has touted backwards compatibility. I'm not expecting the VR or AF to work on the F3. I'm just expecting to be able to set the aperture. It's not that much to ask.
09-07-2005, 05:21 PM
You lost all credibility with me when you argued exposure latitude to no end, then came back with a kodak definition that proved yourself wrong (my peronal favorite) and then had no integrity to respond.
You also blew my mind when you claimed the D2H has roughly the same exposure latitude as the D70. I offered you one of the top nikon directors personal email for HIM to tell you that you were wrong, but no response.
I will just ignore your posts in the future, unless you go on expressing your opinion as fact again. Otherwise, you are free to post whatever you want without any worry of me contradicting you.
Done wasting my time. I'm on-shoot or traveling to or from on 270 days per year and don't need to waste valuable off time (1-2 days per week) arguing with you.
09-07-2005, 05:34 PM
I've asked questions that you haven't answered and you are simply wrong on a number of things here. The Canon lens mount one being most obvious. I also made the point about published shots in magazines. Not a lot of square images in magazines, some but not nearly as many as were taken with a Hassy V series.