Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Wide angle suggestion
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
The 400D's technology is better on this regard, more advanced.
And the light meter also is much better in the 400D.
LCD is better.
Overall I think the 400D is a better camera, except for the crop format.

Really? I've seen some photos from the 5D and I've always thought it was better then the 400D. I thought the sensor was significantly better. I've also seen iso 1600/3200 photos from 5D cameras with very little noise. But I've never compared them side-to-side with equivalent lenses... So Orio do you think that a 5D in APS-C format would be worse than a 400D?


PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
naplam wrote:
So Orio do you think that a 5D in APS-C format would be worse than a 400D?


The noise at 800 and 1600 is worse in the 400D - but I almost never shoot with such high ISO.

I can not speak for all 5D but I can speak for mine, and compared to the 400D has significant shortcomings:

- the light metering system on the 400D works great with both AF and manual lenses. On the 5D, it works well only (and not always) with Canon AF lenses. If you use it with non-Canon AF, or even worse, with manual lenses, it's completely out of whack. Sometimes I have to set a compensation of minus TWO STOPS to have a shot done right with the 5D and the manual lenses.

- generally speaking, the 5D -like the 300D and the 350D and all the other Canon digital reflex cameras before the 400D- OVEREXPOSES by at least 2/3rds of a stop. The 400D is the first Canon camera -Canon itself stated this- to fully comply to the international protocol of standard exposure values.

- the LCD in the 5D has false colours, making it impossible to evaluate the success of an image colour-wise. On the 400D, the LCD is brighter, sharper, more contrasty, and with PERFECT colours.

- the 400D controls are laid down much more efficiently.

- the 400D has a built in antidust shaker that is a GODSEND. The 5D gets full of dust in both the viewfinder and on the sensor after only a couple of weeks

- the battery life in the 400D is approximately DOUBLE than on the 5D

- the 5D -to my eye- has a subtle but annoying pinkish dominance in the colours. I noticed that even before I bought my copy. The 400D has by default the most natural colour of all the Canon digi reflex cameras I have tried. OK you can fix colour in processing. But having it right from the start saves a lot of time. And the pinkish dominance in the 5D images (that eternal "sunset feel"), is very difficult to remove completely, because it affects hues subtly even after white balancing.

- the 400D has a built in flash, that allows you to take the camera around also in trips without having to fill your bag with a heavy and expensive external unit.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

- generally speaking, the 5D -like the 300D and the 350D and all the other Canon digital reflex cameras before the 400D- OVEREXPOSES by at least 2/3rds of a stop. The 400D is the first Canon camera -Canon itself stated this- to fully comply to the international protocol of standard exposure values.


This I can fully confirm for my 30D, I have often to correct my exposing, special if I,m using lenses with a very low f-value wide open.

Orio wrote:
- the LCD in the 5D has false colours, making it impossible to evaluate the success of an image colour-wise. On the 400D, the LCD is brighter, sharper, more contrasty, and with PERFECT colours.


I'm comfortable with my LCD, perhabs with this exception that show it pictures with a to high saturation.

BTW: If you are using your (canon) cameras, what kind of adjustment of picturestyle are you using?
Neutral? Standard? Faithful? Which for Testphotos? Which for which situation?


Cheers

belba


PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I can not speak for all 5D but I can speak for mine, and compared to the 400D has significant shortcomings:

I see. I guess I'd have to wait for the next 6D or whatever. About the exposure with manual lenses, i've had some problems with the MIR-1V on the 400D, above f/5.6 or so it overexposes by at least 1 stop. By the way, have you tried the alternative focus screens from Canon for the 5D? maybe they somehow correct the exposure. You could also experiment with setting the focus screen custom function to a different focus screen than the one you're using to modify the exposure metering.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 12:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
belba wrote:

BTW: If you are using your (canon) cameras, what kind of adjustment of picturestyle are you using?
Neutral? Standard? Faithful? Which for Testphotos? Which for which situation?


Camera mode is not really important, because I always shoot RAW.
I keep it on "Standard" because it looks good on preview, when you browse the images.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
naplam wrote:
By the way, have you tried the alternative focus screens from Canon for the 5D? maybe they somehow correct the exposure.


I have been thinking about one, but KatzEye don't make it for the 5D. Only Haoda does, as far as I know.

naplam wrote:
You could also experiment with setting the focus screen custom function to a different focus screen than the one you're using to modify the exposure metering.


Ah that's a smart suggestion! I'll try it.
I am also interested in trying Canon's original screen replacement, but I am hesitant about it because they say it's darker than the original.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I am also interested in trying Canon's original screen replacement, but I am hesitant about it because they say it's darker than the original.

One of the three is especially made for big aperture lenses, maybe it's useful for fast mf lenses, I don't know.

belba wrote:

BTW: If you are using your (canon) cameras, what kind of adjustment of picturestyle are you using?
Neutral? Standard? Faithful? Which for Testphotos? Which for which situation?

The ones I use most are standard, portrait and landscape. But I usually adjust that on the computer, on the camera I do like Orio does, standard and raw.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
naplam wrote:
Orio wrote:
I am also interested in trying Canon's original screen replacement, but I am hesitant about it because they say it's darker than the original.

One of the three is especially made for big aperture lenses, maybe it's useful for fast mf lenses, I don't know.

belba wrote:

BTW: If you are using your (canon) cameras, what kind of adjustment of picturestyle are you using?
Neutral? Standard? Faithful? Which for Testphotos? Which for which situation?

The ones I use most are standard, portrait and landscape. But I usually adjust that on the computer, on the camera I do like Orio does, standard and raw.


Here we do the same. Thanks to raw it's not necessary to choose a picture style during the shooting - it's possible to do that during post processing if necessary.

I don't know anything about the exposure using MF lenses with a 400D. I always have to bring it down 1/3 or 2/3 steps on the 5d - but this was the same with my 350D so I'm familiar with it Smile . For me it's a very small drawback compared with the benefit of ff, the large and bright viewfinder and the absolutely low noise.

Michael


PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
rick_oleson wrote:
The trouble is that, even though you only need half frame coverage, all of the old glass was designed for 35mm full frame, so a 17-18mm lens is past 100 degrees of coverage...


Hmmm.... I don't get that. How is that possible?
If a lens is made for 35mm FF, how can it be past 100% on a crop cam?


Luis, it's not past 100 degrees on a crop cam ... it's only about 75 degrees or so. But the lens was designed for full frame, so it had to be designed to cover 100+ degrees. A lens that covers 100 degrees sharply is MUCH more difficult and more expensive to make than one that only covers 75. So, even though on your crop camera you don't get any good out of it, you have to pay for that extra complexity and quality in the WA lens. Because these lenses were very expensive when new, there were not many buyers for them, so they are not available in nearly the kind of numbers that more modest lenses are on the used market.... so you get higher cost there too.

: ) =


PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 8:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ah, OK Rick, that's what you meant. Yes, you're right.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
With split screen you will need to calibrate your light meter for every lenses for a wide angle photography absolutely use less.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
With split screen you will need to calibrate your light meter for every lenses.


With the 5D, I already have to do that.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This a suprise, Oly E-1 just works fine with original screen.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2