Eos 5d

[graham catley]

whilst I appreciate that the 5D is aimed in reality at landscape photographers and has a pretty slow 3fps drive I wondered if anyone has actually bought one for wildlife work (having read the Andy Rouse review on WExpress) to put its performance to a longer term test?

[Hugh Harrop]

whilst I appreciate that the 5D is aimed in reality at landscape photographers and has a pretty slow 3fps drive I wondered if anyone has actually bought one for wildlife work (having read the Andy Rouse review on WExpress) to put its performance to a longer term test?

We had one here in the office for a couple of days Graham and sent it back. It cannot touch the 1D series and is pretty useless for bird photography at 3fps.

Hugh

[graham catley]

We had one here in the office for a couple of days Graham and sent it back. It cannot touch the 1D series and is pretty useless for bird photography at 3fps.

Hugh

thought that would be the case but reviews can be confusing especially when they are a bit short on detail!

[deshojo]

To condemn the 5D as useless for bird photography is a rather short-sighted and sweeping judgement, and seems to be based solely on the 3fps rate.
As far as I can see the higher frame rate of the 1D is about the only real-world advantage it has. How often do you really use 8fps?

I use both the 5D and 30D, and for me the full frame 13mp of the 5D (at the same pixel density as the 1D) and the increased resolution (and effective reach) of the 30D (highest pixel density of any Canon model) coupled with its adequate 5fps, provide a better overall package than a 1D alone, and for about the same price.

As far as general wildlife work is concerned the extra 5mp makes a big difference to the quality of shots, and allows more cropping choice. For macro work the detail recorded is amazing, and noticeably better than 8mp.

Perhaps if you take nothing but bird shots then the 1D may be a better choice for some, but for varied wildlife and nature work the 13mp 5D is an excellent choice, especially coupled with a 30D.

[bpw]

As far as general wildlife work is concerned the extra 5mp makes a big difference to the quality of shots, and allows more cropping choice. For macro work the detail recorded is amazing, and noticeably better than 8mp.
I agree that describing a camera as useless for bird photography because it shoots at only 3fps is perhaps a bit extreme. 8fps with bird photography is very useful, but I used a 10D with 3fps for two years and got some good results.

As to pixel density, I confess to finding this confusing. If the pixel density of the 5D is the same as the 1D, how can the detail recorded be noticeably better? Surely if you cropped a 5D image to the size of a 1D image, the result would be exactly the same?

[deshojo]

Hi Paul,

If you take a photo with the same lens from the same distance and crop the 5D to 8mp then it will of course be exactly the same as the 1D.
However if you are able to fill the frame on the 5D with either a longer lens, or by moving closer, that is when the difference shows, hence my example of macro work where a given field of view is normally recorded.

In circumstances where cropping is unavoidable (such as a wary bird) and will go below 8mp, then the 30D is advantageous as its 8mp is packed into a smaller area that the 5D/1D.

[bpw]

I tend to think purely in terms of bird photography, as many others do (understandable I suppose as it’s a birding forum), where a larger sensor size and similar pixel density are not of much help in terms of image quality (assuming the same lens and getting equally as close). Even then I’m not so sure there would be an obvious difference in quality.

What is the argument for the 1Ds with its 16.7MP? A full frame camera (you need to get closer or buy a longer lens), lower pixel density than the 30D and 350D, ‘only’ 4fps, and that huge price tag? There must be more contributors to image quality than just pixel density?

Anyway, there is a natural tendency to jump to the defence of our equipment choice and the truth is there are advantages and disadvantages to all systems. Until Canon rolls all these advantages into one camera at a reasonable price (dream on), we have to make compromises.

[nigelblake]

The advantages of full-frame 16.7 Mp are as follows

Larger pixels receive more light during exposure and therefore generate a better signal without the need for amplification thus there is less chroma and luminance noise generated. This means that you have better dynamic range and better colour fidelity.

A large number of bigger pixels on a larger overall sensor size may on the face of it seem disadvantageous insofar as you will need to get closer to the subject, however because depth of field reduces as you get closer (with any lens length) you get better control of DOF with aperture. This will mean that you can isolate the subject better from its surroundings without losing dof on the subject itself, or if the subject is smaller, have better creative control of composition, i.e. placement of subject within its habitat without it having reduced pixel coverage (over the subject) in the overall image. From a publishing viewpoint this will give a page designer more latitude with how he/she uses the image without loss of print quality when cropping or using at larger print sizes such as covers or double page spreads.

Higher pixel densities on smaller sensors are more prone to the softening effects of ‘circles of confusion’ this is the result of the different wavelengths of the colours of the spectrum focusing at different distances (apochromatic distortion) and means you do not get a finite point of focus of white light, but a small circle of nearly focused light, hence the newer ‘digitally optimised’ lenses that help to overcome this issue.
These lenses do not overcome the problem of inter-pixel flare; light reflected from one pixel edge to another, which is more pronounced with higher pixel densities, again reducing the fidelity of each individual pixel and softening the overall image, the result of this being more processing and some increase in noise too.

Faster frame rates are not a great advantage either, the higher the frame rate, the less time between mirror actions there is for the a/f to track, the result being a run-off in focus accuracy when shooting sequences.

[deshojo]

Anyway, there is a natural tendency to jump to the defence of our equipment choice and the truth is there are advantages and disadvantages to all systems. Until Canon rolls all these advantages into one camera at a reasonable price (dream on), we have to make compromises.

Absolutely right.

I wonder what the optimum pixel size is. If it's just a case of larger is better, the 5D would be better than the 1DSII. On the other hand if more pixels is better then the tiny compact camera sensors would be best.
As the 5D and 1DS files are essentially indistinguishable in most circumstances, it seems that we are close to the zenith already.
Personally I feel that dynamic range is the most important factor that needs improvement.

I'm sure the next rumoured Canon flagship body will provide many of us with something else to lust over.
With a reported 22mp, that puts it at about the same pixel density as the 20/30D, but with a full frame sensor. My guess though is that it will be around the £6K mark, so as I'm still paying for my 600mm I think I'll stick with the 30D for a while ;-)

[UlfL]

I'm sure the next rumoured Canon flagship body will provide many of us with something else to lust over.
With a reported 22mp, that puts it at about the same pixel density as the 20/30D, but with a full frame sensor. My guess though is that it will be around the £6K mark, so as I'm still paying for my 600mm I think I'll stick with the 30D for a while ;-)
Are there any "official" rumours about the next flagship?