PDA

View Full Version : Canon 5D: The REAL Beginning of the End?


RayPA
04-05-2006, 15:50
I was reading up on the Canon 5D late last night. The full-size 35mm sensor is here. As I read the reviews and the spec. sheets I began calculating in my head what I could sell to buy one (a late night flight of fancy).

Plain and simple: Does the full-frame 35mm sensor make a difference? Is it a strong enough lure to pull you away from film. Please "discuss amongst yourself," out loud, of course. :)


:)

dcsang
04-05-2006, 15:55
It won't pull me away from film just yet.
I bought one just yesterday - but this is because it's easier for me to shoot with it for weddings/events more so than "it's better than film" per se.

There are two different camps.. but really... I still have my Leica M3, and IIIc and Hexar AF to keep me happy with my film (mostly B&W). Film and digital can co-exist as long as you can justify it and afford it. :)

Dave

RayPA
04-05-2006, 16:01
Oops! I didn't know I put this in th Polls Forum, but it might make a good poll. :)



:)

GeneW
04-05-2006, 16:23
I bought one just yesterday
You bought a Canon 5D yesterday!!?? Colour me green!

The good news about a 35mm-size sensor (mysteriously called Full Frame) is that wide angle lenses are wide angle lenses. The bad news, from what I've read, is that older wide angle lenses have a great deal of image falloff at the edges because the light doesn't fall on the sensor at 90-degrees.

The image quality of the FF sensor is said to challenge medium format.

Let us know what you think, Dave.

Gene

Gabriel M.A.
04-05-2006, 16:31
I think it's the ending of the beginning of the real.

When you begin / the beguine ... ;)

.......

Seriously, Ray. I don't know. I don't think it would pull me away from film. Just like Medium Format doesn't pull me away from 35mm format. Some have very strong convictions about formats, even about focal lengths. About B&W vs. color-- some don't shoot anything but color, or anything but B&W. Some don't shoot anything but wide angle. Some don't shoot anything but available light, others nothing but with fill-flash.

An affordable full-frame will be very very very welcome. It won't pull me away from film. It may make me shoot digital more.

dcsang
04-05-2006, 16:32
You bought a Canon 5D yesterday!!?? Colour me green!

The good news about a 35mm-size sensor (mysteriously called Full Frame) is that wide angle lenses are wide angle lenses. The bad news, from what I've read, is that older wide angle lenses have a great deal of image falloff at the edges because the light doesn't fall on the sensor at 90-degrees.

The image quality of the FF sensor is said to challenge medium format.

Let us know what you think, Dave.

Gene

Gene,

You'll note that I've got my blad up for sale..

Now.. that doesn' t mean that the blad isn't a good.. nay.. great camera.. but I have put only 3 rolls through it in one year :( - that's because all the couples I've shot over the past 2 years .. no one really wants larger than 8x10 .. maybe an 11x14 occasionally.. but that's about it. I can "get away" with the 20D's resolution for that.. and now with the 5D.. I can have no problem at all.. in that respect. I could, probably, go up to 16x20 if need be.

Will it match the type of "glow" that I got from that Zeiss lens? nope.. not at all.. but with the 85mm 1.2 lens... it comes awfully close to being extremely beautiful :)

Dave

Flyfisher Tom
04-05-2006, 16:37
An affordable full-frame will be very very very welcome. It won't pull me away from film. It may make me shoot digital more.

Exactly, there is still some price settling to be done. Once it hits the $2000 mark, I think it will be pretty hard to say no to a digital SLR for color work.

Further, once they take the 5D full-frame technology and fit it into a M-mount body, with correspondingly smaller camera body size, I would be hard pressed to even keep my film bodies (most of which are M-mount RFs). About the only remaining strength at that time, will be the battery independence of my Leicas.

back alley
04-05-2006, 16:40
if i was trying to make money with my camera, as in weddings etc., then i would have a good digital camera.

but, seeing as how i am an arTisT, i will stick with film...;)

Nick R.
04-05-2006, 17:16
It's an SLR which means you can stick the lens a mile away from the sensor to have a steeper projection. This may be fine for SLR's which are normally a lot bigger than RF's but until the angle problem is solved Leica-like cameras can only exist as either less than full frame digi's or film.

ch1
04-05-2006, 17:22
I think a full frame sensor is liberating for all.

First off, most commercial photogs have already migrated to digital for their work (be they PJ's, wedding, etc etc)

So they now get they (i.e. the older ones with established kits) now get to use the full features of their lenses.

And it also means that we will no longer have to endure FID threads. The choice will simply be preference.

I am an amateur photog - I will probably buy a full-frame sensor SLR (when Nikon produces one) to take advantage of all my lenses - but I still LIKE film.

Imagine that - choice based on what you enjoy.

Oh yes, film will get to be more of a "specialist" item - that's why we have "art stores". They live by stocking all that esoteric stuff!

rover
04-05-2006, 17:37
I am thinking hard on the 30D. I simply won't spend the money for the 5D and if I really wanted it to, the Rebel XT will do well for me. I need something for faster shooting, chasing my son as he does more, and something easier for me to get images on my computer. Perhaps the best compromise is to buy the XT and get a film scanner too for my B&W film stuff.

John Camp
04-05-2006, 17:47
I don't know how much difference the 5D makes, or the Nikon D200, for that matter (the D200 body-only is $1700 at B&H.) Most people using film didn't shoot SLRs anyway -- they shot film point 'n shoots; and are migrating to digital point n' shoots. One reason that film isn't sinking completely isn't so much that "art" users still shoot it, is that not all people with film point n' shoots have gone out and bought digital yet. Film will be in much more serious trouble when you can no longer get it processed at Walmart. Single-use cameras are still fairly important for film, I think; cell-phone cams could dent that; we'll see. My personal feeling is that film will last quite a while.

JC

peter_n
04-05-2006, 17:54
[snip]Plain and simple: Does the full-frame 35mm sensor make a difference? Is it a strong enough lure to pull you away from film. Please "discuss amongst yourself," out loud, of course. :)Not at all. I'm already digital. The combination of the look of film and a film scanner does it for me. Personally, I have no interest in this 5D, in the Epson RF or the forthcoming digital Leica M either. What I'd really like is another M7... ;)

T_om
04-05-2006, 18:05
I have two 5D's.

Dave Sang and I are fellow members of the DWF as is Sean Reid. We use them for weddings primarily.

The 5D is the digital camera I was waiting on. It finally met, and exceeded, medium format quality in a very light, easy to handle and inexpensive camera. And that is correct, I used the term "inexpensive". It is cheap for what it produces.

No 35mm form-based digital camera, with the exception of the 1Ds Mk II can produced the output quality of a 5D file. None. And the 1Ds Mk II is NOT "inexpensive". The 5D is.

If you have been holding back from digital because of a perceived lack of quality in the output, wait no longer. If the files from the 5D cannot make you happy, no camera can make you happy.

Tom

T_om
04-05-2006, 18:09
I am thinking hard on the 30D. I simply won't spend the money for the 5D and if I really wanted it to, the Rebel XT will do well for me. I need something for faster shooting, chasing my son as he does more, and something easier for me to get images on my computer. Perhaps the best compromise is to buy the XT and get a film scanner too for my B&W film stuff.


The 30D is some nice camera. For your use, forget film and a scanner.

Get the 30D and the new EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens an be happy for a long time to come.

Tom

ZeissFan
04-05-2006, 18:10
I don't want or need the "benefits" of digital.

T_om
04-05-2006, 18:12
...I am an amateur photog - I will probably buy a full-frame sensor SLR (when Nikon produces one) to take advantage of all my lenses - but I still LIKE film.

Imagine that - choice based on what you enjoy.


That is the way to make choices, based upon what works for you and not what someone says you should be using.

Tom

T_om
04-05-2006, 18:13
I don't want or need the "benefits" of digital.


Then shoot "film".

Tom

dazedgonebye
04-05-2006, 18:34
I'd love to have a 5D.
I'm scanning a 6x7 neg from my $50 koni-omega right now because I can't lay out that kind of money for a hobby. Film gets me there cheaper...only because I do not shoot professional volumes or under professional time constraints.
I have to admit, it's been fun shooting film again, just for the challenge and novelty.

Bertram2
04-05-2006, 18:35
Plain and simple: Does the full-frame 35mm sensor make a difference? Is it a strong enough lure to pull you away from film.
:)

No, it doesn''t. Actually the oldfilm lenses do not work properly with that sensor, you would neea new type of (wide) lenses to get the full potential out of this chip.
The limited dynamic range is still there compared to film, it still tend to blown out highlights and closed shadows in bright outdoorlight, the vinyl look is not as bad as the smaller chips show it but it still looks digital and it does not achieve the more natural look of the Leica DMR back. And of course the B&W pics aren't comparable to silver film.
This camera is clearly better than the 20d, but still not good enuff . At least for me. And it is as much as a new MP !! ;-)

Regards,
Bertram

RayPA
04-05-2006, 18:37
I've no clue how close Nikon is to a Full Frame Sensor, but that would be my preference too.

Like Ralph, I'm interested in the speed of shooting with a DSLR. I see that the 5D isn't targeting the sports photography market (?), that was a let down. I understand that it is fast (low shutter lag time, quick startup) but the fps is low(er). That was a bummer for me, because I shoot a lot of soccer matches, and kid's sports.

I'll shoot film for as long as it's available. I love film, my Leicas, my lenses, but as far as taking the step toward a really good prosumer DSLR, this is what I've been holding back for. I'm not rushing out to get one, but I'll be watching closely from here on out. My interested is more than piqued.


:)

kaiyen
04-05-2006, 18:54
I have to admit that I'm not sure if I've just bought the hype, but I am just fine if Nikon sticks with its DX-sized sensors. I put a 12-24 on there and I have a nice, wide lens with remarkably low distortion and I'm pretty happy.

In my opinion, what I've been waiting for is the D200. And it's here. So everything from now on should meet my needs.

allan

FrankS
04-05-2006, 20:12
When I can no longer buy film for my cameras, then I will stop taking pictures. But that's just me.

(Oh, and welcome back, George! :) )

amateriat
04-05-2006, 20:54
Plain and simple: Does the full-frame 35mm sensor make a difference? Is it a strong enough lure to pull you away from film. Please "discuss amongst yourself," out loud, of course.

Short and semi-sweet: these "advanced" full-frame sensors, for the moment at least, reside exclusively within SLRs. And SLRs, for about 95% of my work, are in my past, not my future, for a number of reasons, both practical and slightly esoteric.


- Barrett

wintoid
04-05-2006, 23:07
I came to film from the world of digital SLRs. I'm struggling to get some of the flavour of film into my digital shots. In the end, I'm resigned to using both.

photogdave
04-05-2006, 23:22
It took shooting a wedding on a 20D for me to realize that:
A) For that kind of work digital looks great.
B) Although I like the ultimate control over my images, shooting film and working with a good lab is faster and less of a headache.
C) A 17mm may "look" like a 28mm with the crop factor, it still distorts like a 17mm. You have to watch your framing!
If I did this kind of work on a regular basis I would get rid of my Nikon kit and get a 5D, no question!
BTW Leica R lenses on the 5D = sooo nice!

jonasv
04-06-2006, 01:20
why do you need fullframe other than the hype?

have you actually seen the output from a D2x, D200, 1D or S3? I would take any of those over a fullframe body, even for wide-angles - aps-c sensors are great, finally no more mad vignetting!

Sure they are great cameras but saying that no other DSLRs come close to matching the output of a 5D is laughable.

Socke
04-06-2006, 01:21
Plain and simple: Does the full-frame 35mm sensor make a difference? Is it a strong enough lure to pull you away from film. Please "discuss amongst yourself," out loud, of course. :)


:)


I've used my film SLRs once in two years but use the "old" Canon d60 at least twice a week.

I'm seriously considering the 5D for next years carnaval in Salvador, Brazil. Not for the 12 MPixel which I don't need, but for the better viewfinder and the fact that a 24-70 is the only lens I'd need.

BUT, have you hold one in your hand? It' BIG !

So it will not drag me away from my Contax Gs at all.

darkkavenger
04-06-2006, 02:09
AFAIK I am satisfied with shooting film and I feel no particular lure for digital cameras. A colleague owns a 20D and I agree with him that it is a very nice camera per se, but I don't feel any interest in using a digital.

However, if photography would ever become something more than just a passion, I might reconsider my opinion.. but that will not drag me away from my film cameras :)

hinius
04-06-2006, 02:18
Yes, the full-frame makes a difference compared to smaller sensor cameras. You're dealing with several noticeably advantages:

- You can use small fast primes again at the correct focal length. This is such a wonderfully cool thing; there's nothing like going back to a small 35/2 or 28/1.8. You just can't do that with a Canon 20/30D or a Nikon D200.

- Depth of field. Depth of field is back to the way it should be. This means smoother transitions and a more film-like tonality compared to the reduced-sensor cameras. I didn't think this was a big deal when I first bought the camera, but boy it really is. The images definitely look different compared to my old 20D.

- Viewfinder. Compared to those pathetically pathetic viewfinders you find in say, the Nikon D70, Canon 350D or any of the Olympus cameras, you're back to using a big viewfinder. Sure, it's not a Zeiss Ikon, but it's definitely more than servicable.

- Noise. The camera has awesome control of noise; better anything that Nikon have at and over ISO 800. ISO 3200 is quite practical with a minimum of processing.

If you're going to be shooting at 17-24mm at f2.8/4, yes vignetting is going to be evident. But there are several tools that clean it up easily, if you find it a problem. I use PTLens (http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/).

Keep shooting film, by all means. As everyone has said, it's not an either/or proposition. I do appreciate the exposure flexibility and most importantly, the lack of time wasted developing, scanning and spotting my negatives, but I'm not giving up my film RFs. But mastering RAW development and Photoshop are going to be quite essential to get the best out of the 5D, so if that scares you, well, it's your loss really :)

Azinko
04-06-2006, 02:23
The 5D is not really for 'camera enthusiasts' it's really for people who are serious image makers who care about getting the best results they can but who can't really go as far as the 1Ds for reasons of cost.

Many very good photographers are changing to 5D from 'aps' DSLR's.....here are just 2...

www.cambridgeincolour.com

http://www.durhamtownship.com/portfolio/

Brian Sweeney
04-06-2006, 02:27
> BUT, have you hold one in your hand? It' BIG !

Ha. As my daughter says, "It's a teeny little camera". That is when you compare it with my Full-frame camera.

http://dslrexchange.com/forums/showthread.php?t=193

And I do like the full-frame aspect of it, grab it a lot more than the D1.

Between my three DSLR's, I've got almost 6Megapixels.

rovnguy
04-06-2006, 03:50
I like to work and play with all my toys. I shoot digital with a Canon G3 and 20D. I shoot film with A whole slew of vintage RF cameras, Olympus and Canon. I shoot half frame with Olympus, Canon and Yashica. I love the challenge my Minox B brings to the arena. Many times I scan the negatives and go digital from that point on. Then again I love to develop my own Tri-X and Pan-F and print in my makeshift darkroom. The only thing I don't care for is all the hype generated by the manufacturers and their goons.

taffer
04-06-2006, 03:56
I'm only going DSLR when Seagull finally puts in the market that manual focus MD mount DSLR they announced on April's 1st...

:D

Now seriously. A digital back for the F2, a fully mechanical one ;)

JohnL
04-06-2006, 04:05
I have a 5D for almost two months now. One of the lenses I use on it is the Sigma 12-24mm zoom. This is a rectilinear lens, not a fisheye. Granted it's biggish. There is a slight amount of vignetting. Not a significant problem. A small 12mm lens like the CV (the only other FF 35mm 12mm there is AFAIK) would probably not fare so well because of the low-angle incidence at the edges. The image quality of the 5D is at least as good as 645, very close to 6x7 IMHO. However, I'm sure a reasonaly sized 24mm could be made to perform decently on a FF digital sensor on a rangefinder body.

Solinar
04-06-2006, 04:59
IMHO, the Canon 5D represents the end of the beginning. However nice the camera is, the beast is larger than what I'm used to and not within the budget of this photohobbyist. Still, two thumbs up to Canon for bringing down the price of full-frame digital to a lower level.

One thing I'd like to add. The APS format isn't as bad as some claim. Realistically, it will provide wonderful 8x10 prints from an ISO 800 exposure and even an larger enlargement from a ISO 200 exposure. The cameras are more compact and there is less light fall off in the corners than when shooting at the wide angle end of a zoom due to the less than full frame APS sensor.

Solinar
04-06-2006, 05:19
I still shoot medium format film. One thing that I've noticed with the current crop of APS DSLR's is their field of view, (FOV), with a 35mm focal length lens is similar to the FOV I get with a 105mm lens on one my antediluvian 6x9 medium format cameras.

The depth of field for the 35mm focal length lens is pretty broad. That means, to me at least, that when shooting close in with a 35m focal length on a APS DSLR it is impossible to capture that vintage look 1930's look. The narrower depth of field of medium format for the same (FOV) reallly isolates the subject from the foreground and background in my opinion. The narrow DOF draws the viewer's attention to the intended subject. This is just a minor quibble I have with the APS format.

A second quibble I have a lot of the ink jet B&W prints I've been seeing from APS digital capture is they look like desaturated color prints. I don't know what is missing. Is it the grain? Exposure lattiitude? It's a different look is all I know.

Add the desaturatured color look to the DOF/FOV quibble and much of the recent ink jet B&W portraiture I've seen is lacking when compared to the old school of photography. It is still photography, but it is a different look.

Thanks for reading my boring early morning quibbles.

JohnL
04-06-2006, 10:30
Solinar,
Just a couple of observations ... I agree with nearly all that you say above.
The 5D is about the same size as most film SLRs. It's bigger, for example than the Rebel series, or the old Olympus OM series, but it's very little different from the 10D or 20D. It's a question of mm only. It's a lot smaller and lighter than the 1D series, unless you add a grip to it. The real bulk of modern AF SLRs is in the lenses. I could fit all four of my RF lenses inside my usual SLR walk-around lens with room to spare, in terms of volume alone! I could only get about 1-1/4 RF bodies inside the 5D!
I have made adequately saturated ink-jet prints from APS digitals. I think it's really just a question of camera settings (if you shoot JPGs) or post processing, if you shoot RAW.

dazedgonebye
04-06-2006, 10:58
A lot of the black and white you see from digital may actually BE desaturated color images. There is a lot more to making a good monochrome from digital than removing the color and many people are way behind the power curve on that one.

I still shoot medium format film. One thing that I've noticed with the current crop of APS DSLR's is their field of view, (FOV), with a 35mm focal length lens is similar to the FOV I get with a 105mm lens on one my antediluvian 6x9 medium format cameras.

The depth of field for the 35mm focal length lens is pretty broad. That means, to me at least, that when shooting close in with a 35m focal length on a APS DSLR it is impossible to capture that vintage look 1930's look. The narrower depth of field of medium format for the same (FOV) reallly isolates the subject from the foreground and background in my opinion. The narrow DOF draws the viewer's attention to the intended subject. This is just a minor quibble I have with the APS format.

A second quibble I have a lot of the ink jet B&W prints I've been seeing from APS digital capture is they look like desaturated color prints. I don't know what is missing. Is it the grain? Exposure lattiitude? It's a different look is all I know.

Add the desaturatured color look to the DOF/FOV quibble and much of the recent ink jet B&W portraiture I've seen is lacking when compared to the old school of photography. It is still photography, but it is a different look.

Thanks for reading my boring early morning quibbles.

kbg32
04-06-2006, 11:08
I was reading up on the Canon 5D late last night. The full-size 35mm sensor is here. As I read the reviews and the spec. sheets I began calculating in my head what I could sell to buy one (a late night flight of fancy).

Plain and simple: Does the full-frame 35mm sensor make a difference? Is it a strong enough lure to pull you away from film. Please "discuss amongst yourself," out loud, of course. :)


:)


Ray,

In a word "yes". I've had the 5D for 5 months or so. It replaced my 20D which I really loved. I shoot a lot for stock and the 5D is one of the "approved" cameras for my agencies. The large sensor and megapixel count really do make a difference. If anyone tells you it doesn't, they are fooling themselves. This camera, like all, is only a tool to get what one needs. Nothing beats digital for low light work with no flash. Noise is virtually nonexistent, even at high ISOs, and what is there, Noise Ninja takes care of it. Yes, it is a big camera. It works, and it works just fine, thank you.

If you don't need it, don't get it. There is nothing to criticise. There are plenty of other fine dslrs out there, full frame chip or not.

vincentbenoit
04-06-2006, 12:31
For me it's a matter of (full) frame of mind.
Using a dSLR makes me feel brash and arrogant.
Using a film rangefinder makes me feel quaint and unassuming.
Guess what I'd rather be...

Vincent

vincentbenoit
04-07-2006, 10:30
Hey Hin,

These are truly great pictures. Street photography at its very best. You definitely have a style of your own. Goes to show that what really matters in photography is (1) to have a vision and (2) to be comfortable with one's equipment.
Your work really makes all the gear-focused debating (digital vs film, SLR vs RF, etc) seem futile and vain.

Cheers,

Vincent

hinius
04-07-2006, 13:24
Hey Vincent,

Thanks for the kind words; needless to say, your stuff kicks butt :)

Magnus
04-07-2006, 13:40
It won't pull me away from film just yet.
I bought one just yesterday - but this is because it's easier for me to shoot with it for weddings/events more so than "it's better than film" per se.

Dave



.... good news Dave, this means that it'll be up for sale again pretty soon just like all the other stuff you buy and have have bought...... and have sold again .. I will certainly keep an eye open ....

nrb
04-07-2006, 13:44
I was reading up on the Canon 5D late last night. The full-size 35mm sensor is here. As I read the reviews and the spec. sheets I began calculating in my head what I could sell to buy one (a late night flight of fancy).

Plain and simple: Does the full-frame 35mm sensor make a difference? Is it a strong enough lure to pull you away from film. Please "discuss amongst yourself," out loud, of course. :)


:)
For the past months since the 5D came into being, I've been wondering when full frame cameras price will democratize too. That will be my next gear acquisition aside from a better film scanner...

dazedgonebye
04-07-2006, 13:57
I was inspired to go put my hands on a 5D at lunch. I'm feeling mighty GASy. Unfortunately, I have yet to find a buyer for my older son...untill then, I'll just have to dream.

RayPA
04-07-2006, 13:57
Ray,

In a word "yes". I've had the 5D for 5 months or so. It replaced my 20D which I really loved. I shoot a lot for stock and the 5D is one of the "approved" cameras for my agencies. The large sensor and megapixel count really do make a difference. If anyone tells you it doesn't, they are fooling themselves. This camera, like all, is only a tool to get what one needs. Nothing beats digital for low light work with no flash. Noise is virtually nonexistent, even at high ISOs, and what is there, Noise Ninja takes care of it. Yes, it is a big camera. It works, and it works just fine, thank you.

If you don't need it, don't get it. There is nothing to criticise. There are plenty of other fine dslrs out there, full frame chip or not.

Hi Keith,

If the 5D is big, the the EOS 1Ds MkII must be HUGE (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS5D/Images/sidebyside.jpg) (I've not see either, yet)!

@NRB it is tempting to wait and see what happens with the prices once other models come out.

:)

Socke
04-07-2006, 14:04
Hi Keith,

If the 5D is big, the the EOS 1Ds MkII must be HUGE (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS5D/Images/sidebyside.jpg) (I've not see either, yet)!


It is! Run around with two 1D MkII and a couple of lenses in the 70-200 and 400/2.8 calibre and you apriciate rangefinders even more :-)

Hm, a long time ago in the mid 60s when I learned to read with fathers Playboy collection there was a joke in one showing a boy with a very muscular right and a very thin left arm. The caption read "Yes son, it is all right to masturbate 20 times a day, but you should use your left hand for a while"

Maybe that boy was a photographer with a Canon 1 series camera and long L zoom?

Andy K
04-07-2006, 14:14
and most importantly, the lack of time wasted developing, scanning and spotting my negatives,

Many who use film do not consider that as time wasted (well, maybe the scanning part is time wasted which would be better spent making photographs in the darkroom).

Andy K
04-07-2006, 14:22
. Nothing beats digital for low light work with no flash.

Nightshots, no flash.
1 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/Agfa%20Isolette%20BW/Nightshots/NS15.jpg)
2 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/Agfa%20Isolette%20BW/Nightshots/NS3.jpg)

Patman
04-07-2006, 14:27
The image quality of any camera is only as good as the lens you are using. Your raving about the quality and using a medicore lens. I find Sigma lens extremely soft and defeating the purpose of a camera that can produce hires images. I've tried several Sigma lens and none of them compare to my Nikon glass and i'm sure would be sub standard against a Canon lens as well.

Kin Lau
04-08-2006, 05:20
Nightshots, no flash.
1 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/Agfa%20Isolette%20BW/Nightshots/NS15.jpg)
2 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/Agfa%20Isolette%20BW/Nightshots/NS3.jpg)

Try it with people in the scene, and colour too :)

Tri-X or NP1600 or Delta 3200 in Diafine... that's the way to go.

Andy K
04-08-2006, 05:26
HP5+ @ 3200 in Rodinal 1+25 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/Prints/TiggerBX20-HP5-3200-Rod1-25.jpg) works quite well too... :)

Byuphoto
04-08-2006, 05:35
I was reading up on the Canon 5D late last night. The full-size 35mm sensor is here. As I read the reviews and the spec. sheets I began calculating in my head what I could sell to buy one (a late night flight of fancy).

Plain and simple: Does the full-frame 35mm sensor make a difference? Is it a strong enough lure to pull you away from film. Please "discuss amongst yourself," out loud, of course. :)


:)
This is absolutely hilarious :D . Not what you are saying but the marketing ploys. When Kodak brought out the last of their DSLR' in full frame. I bought one in Canon mount to use in wedding/studio. Canon and Nikon ads made a point of runiing them in the ground and claiming superiority of there APS sensors. Other pros both here and online dogged me about giving up my Canon 1D MKII :( . Now it has come full circle and it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. :bang:

Socke
04-08-2006, 05:48
Although I find the colours in the various samples just a tad undersaturated, I'll try HP5 @3200 in Rodinal next week.

Just packing for the trip to Madrid

http://www.hett.org/folder.php?id=73

Socke
04-08-2006, 05:58
The image quality of any camera is only as good as the lens you are using. Your raving about the quality and using a medicore lens. I find Sigma lens extremely soft and defeating the purpose of a camera that can produce hires images. I've tried several Sigma lens and none of them compare to my Nikon glass and i'm sure would be sub standard against a Canon lens as well.

I have a Sigma 17-35 EX DG for my Canon D60 and it's my main lens on that camera.
Compared to a, not too well regarded, Canon 24/2.8 it is a bit softer but good enough up to 8x12.

Good enough that I now know a couple of girls who think it's too sharp :)