No I don't Bob. I just packed up the camera today to send it back to Guy. He'll get the camera on Monday. I'm certain he's going to have a few questions to answer once he gets a chance to spend some time with it.
wheaton wrote:
I have to say I am confused by all this. Kurt said that removing part of the miror has no side effects - ie even with the mirror cut smaller you can still see all of the full frame image.
If this is the case, why did canon make the mirror so big in the first place?
I'm thinking, and I could be way, way off, that the mirror has to be large enough to accomodate all Canon's lenses. Yes, the image circle (actually, the diagonal; it doesn't have to be a circle) has to be 43 mm (+/-) as projected on the sensor, but that projection can come from a smaller rear lens circle like my fisheye which has about a 22 mm diameter rearmost lens. Conversely, it can come from longer telephotos which project an image that is almost straight - that is, the corner-to-corner diameter of the rearward projection is close to the 43 mm necessary to cover the entire image circle.
If you drew a ray-trace of the various lenses, the longer telephotos would present long, parallel light rays, while many of the mid-range or shorter lenses would have rays that tend to fan out from a smaller-diameter rear lens. Those longer lenses may be the ones that require the most mirror coverage, and might be the only ones that would show the effects of a shaved mirror in the viewfinder.
I don't think that's the case. If you don't see the shaved part of the mirror in the viewfinder with one lens (or even without one), you won't see it with any other lens. The area of the mirror covered in the viewfinder does not change with what lens is mounted.
"It is slightly amazing to read at the Canon site that they seem to have rediscovered the classical Barnack format of 24 x 36mm as the new standard dor digital photography, in the same period where Leica seems to abandon its own classical format."
You guys keep mating your dogs and cats while I'm out shooting some nice pics. :-)
PSquared63 wrote:
I don't think that's the case. If you don't see the shaved part of the mirror in the viewfinder with one lens (or even without one), you won't see it with any other lens. The area of the mirror covered in the viewfinder does not change with what lens is mounted.
That's true, and the more I think about it, the more I suspect that I wandered out a bit too far on that limb. But there's got to be a legit reason for the mirror being the size it is. Canon's too cheap to make it much bigger than necessary.
10DFT wrote:
That's true, and the more I think about it, the more I suspect that I wandered out a bit too far on that limb. But there's got to be a legit reason for the mirror being the size it is. Canon's too cheap to make it much bigger than necessary.
Hasselblad had an issue with the longer lens on the older bodies not showing all the image. The newer bodies have whats called a gliding mirror, its longer. Just a thought.
Thanks charles354
wheaton wrote:
I have to say I am confused by all this. Kurt said that removing part of the miror has no side effects - ie even with the mirror cut smaller you can still see all of the full frame image.
If this is the case, why did canon make the mirror so big in the first place?
I think I know. It's Canon's conspiracy to make it difficult to use Leica lenses on 5D. But they clearly underestimated resourcefullness(sp?) of Leica fans
Pondria wrote:
3 months from today, On the B&S board,
[ ] The Enhanced 5D will be more expensive than normal going price.
[ ] The Abused 5D will be cheaper.
The answer is yes. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
10DFT wrote:
That's true, and the more I think about it, the more I suspect that I wandered out a bit too far on that limb. But there's got to be a legit reason for the mirror being the size it is. Canon's too cheap to make it much bigger than necessary.
Tom:
I've been wondering about this too, and came up with the same guess re: different ray traces to reconcile the different rear element diameters. However,
Peter: Your point about the mirror view coverage not changing does sink that guess. But here's where I'm stuck: in order for the viewfinder magnification to remain constant across different lenses, don't the edge rays have to take the same path for all lenses?
is it possible to buy spare mirrors to ripristinate the original shape?
and are there any issue with the 1DII camera? (1.3 crop factor)?
should we cut off a piece of the mirror on that camera too?
Paoletto wrote:
is it possible to buy spare mirrors to ripristinate the original shape?
and are there any issue with the 1DII camera? (1.3 crop factor)?
should we cut off a piece of the mirror on that camera too?
I edited my original statement that said that the 5D's altered mirror doesn't show up in the viewfinder to say that it didn't show-up with the lenses I tested. That is more accurate. I don't think that a blanket statement for whether or not the altered mirror shows up in the viewfinder can be made for the modded 5D until Guy has been shooting with camera and lens kit for a while.
kidigital wrote:
I edited my original statement that said that the 5D's altered mirror doesn't show up in the viewfinder to say that it didn't show-up with the lenses I tested. That is more accurate. I don't think that a blanket statement for whether or not the altered mirror shows up in the viewfinder can be made for the modded 5D until Guy has been shooting with camera and lens kit for a while.
Kurt
I second that, Kurt and I'm curious to see how the mod works w/ the Zs (especially the 3.5/15).
Guy Mancuso wrote:
I talked to a couple salesman on Wednesday at B&H , I am in NY at the moment and we spent about a half hour shooting the s..t and they could not come up with a reason either. But one thing was interesting is Canon is somewhat how do I say this spiteful and probably pretty upset at ALL the folks playing around with different glass than there camera's.
Well, at least we have their attention. I'd be perfectly happy if they would fill in the holes and address the shortcomings of the current lens lineup. Or better yet, buy Leica or Zeiss with some pocket change.
"It is slightly amazing to read at the Canon site that they seem to have rediscovered the classical Barnack format of 24 x 36mm as the new standard dor digital photography, in the same period where Leica seems to abandon its own classical format."
You guys keep mating your dogs and cats while I'm out shooting some nice pics. :-)
Josef
I couldn't have said it better! I just don't really understand why people would do this?
Is it for pure science?
Will Canon see enough of the demand that it will come with 2 sets of interchangable mirrors?
Or is it that owners of the 5D just spent their last dollar buying this camera that they don't have enough to buy the spanish brand lenses called the "L Lens" ?
In any case i just don't understand why?
Lou
Edited by lpazxxsh on Oct 14, 2005 at 07:09 AM GMT
The thing is that even if Canon comes up with some 'wow' offerings in the WA prime section for PMA, they will be far more expensive in total than the contax offerings and excepting the 21mm, especially for landscape where decent hyperfocal lens markings are worth far more to me than AF.
