The only thing I would say is that I've recently added Canon to my equipment because of its FLEXIBILITY: I can choose from an incredible variety of lenses ranging from the exceptional L glass to the well known Zs and Leicas.
This way I can satisfy my personal needs/taste. In a word, I'm FREE. From my point of view, the EF mount is an invaluable source: you can have the best of some worlds.
IMHO!!!
Emanuele
P.S. Hope I've expressed my feelings in a correct english!
Guy Mancuso wrote:
Lou you really don't want me to get into this whole canon lens scenerio but bottom line is they don't cut the mustard in the wide area at all when it comes to FF
I understand about those corners, thats why i prefer to use the better
area of the lens using the crop. I'm not a wide angle kind of guy, i prefer
long lenses with 5 - 6degree angle of view as you can see my picture on the icon.
I guess you guys have to be a diehard corners fan to be doing this to a perfectly good camera . I know if i really want great images i'd take my Hassy with my 645 back out and shoot that. The corners are perfect.
When it all comes down to it...all you guys are building is a poor mans H1 with a Phase1 Digital back. Yes it boils down to money. I know if you had it
people wouldn't be tinkering with cheap Canon 5D cameras and Leica lenses. They will just buy a H1 with a Phase1 digital back. I know i would in a heart beat.
Because there will always be a better images allot sharper and more detailed taken of the same picture you just took with your modified 5D. Now tell me
will that make you upset? breakdown and lose sleep? take a second loan off
your house to buy that setup? ........ probably not because it also has to do with your satisfation. For the majority of people looking at images...they don't care about the corners, they look at the content. ...and thats good enough for them.
Now my question is....
will you be you satisfied with your average image your just took with your modified 5D with leica lens? because the guy next to you just shot the same images with a H1 Hasselbald Camera, a Carl Zeiss lens with a 36MP digital back?
Ok lets say you did take the second out on your house and bought the H1 with the 36MP digital back. will you be satisfied with your "Ok looking 36x24 print? because this guy next to you just shot the same image with a 4x5 camera... will you lose sleep again?
OK, while your figuring this out ...i'm out taking great pictures with my 20D and a "L" lens.
Guy Mancuso wrote:
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that it is very possible that I will have cutoff on the 600mm lens because the image is so tight. Now if this is the case it will only be what I see not what is recorded. The only way to know is try it but I am a little short on the 600.
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. Okay i am not sure I buy it but who knows, it is a theory. i think the mirror is big to handle all there line of glass. Anyone have a 600. ...Show more →
If I had a 600, I'd probably let you give it a try, but I fear that you'd modify it to fit the DMR.
Actually, the 500 is on my short list, but not the 600.
That said, I agree with others that it's good to get Canon's attention. I've heard that they are supposedly aware of the needs at the ultra-wide end, but they haven't put forth any new products yet. Hopefully, Guy's conversation at B&H along with many threads on this and other forums will light a small fire under Canon's chair.
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.
Actually, I does change. For the viewfinder to show what the lens will image on the sensor, it has to be able to intersect the whole image cone (actually a truncated cone) on its way from the exit pupil over its whole area from the lens to the sensor. Traditionally SLR mirrors have been made just large enough so that only a little bit will be cut off from this cone with the most extreme lenses. As noted before, these tend to be very long focal length lenses, particularly those closer to standard construction (not as much telephoto). With these the exit pupil is, or is nearly, one full focal length away. The Leica 400 and 560/6.8 lenses were such. The diameter of the exit pupil is also just about the same size as the entrance pupil, so in the case of the 560/6.8, about 82mm in diameter. Compare this to a wideangle lens with a 10mm diameter rear exit pupil 35mm from the sensor plane. The light cones will be rather different, and if you size the mirror to just intercept the latter the image that you will see from the 560 will be rather vignetted.
In the 60's a lot of the less 'professional' SLR's had shorter mirrors to reduce costs and problems with mirror slap/bounce, and often had severe image cutoff (at the top of the viewfinder) with longer lenses, as did early Hasselblad 500's with the 500 Tele-Tessar.
As for why you would want to spend the time and effort to get higher quality lenses (yes, the wide Leica lenses tend to be significantly better than the wide Canon 'L' offerings) rather than getting a Hasselblad H1, there are a whole lot of reasons, just as there have always been, for using a smaller format camera under some circustances than a larger one. Try getting a 110 degree diagonal view image on your H1. There are also other reasons.
I find this thread very interesting and informative, and am grateful to Kurt and Guy for doing this and sharing it.
But, if you don't see the cut-off part of the mirror in the viewfinder in the first place, how are you going to see that with different lenses? The magnification of the viewfinder does not change with a lens change.
PSquared63 wrote:
But, if you don't see the cut-off part of the mirror in the viewfinder in the first place, how are you going to see that with different lenses? The magnification of the viewfinder does not change with a lens change.
The cone of light from the 560/6.8 is demonstrably much larger in diameter when it intersects the position of the mirror than the cone produced by the wideangle lens with 35mm backfocus. Work out the geometry.
Think of looking at your monitor, with your eyes centered, perpendicular to the image plane, with your eyes, say, 10 inches from the monitor. Now place a sheet of paper at 5 inches from the plane, or better yet hinge a piece of paper from the top at 45 degrees, and cut away all the paper that does NOT obscure your view of the monitor. Consider that the condition analagous to the wideangle lens.
Now step back so that you are about 13 feet away from your monitor, and move your eyes around in a circle that is about twice the diagonal of your screen, centered on the perpendicual to your screen.
Not surprisingly, you will be able to see past the piece of paper, both at the sides and particularly at the bottom where the paper is furthest from the screen, and see the screen behind it. That is analagous to the condition of the 560/6.8. Your lines of vision to the screen that go past the paper are those parts of the image cone that the sensor sees, but you can't see in the viewfinder due to the mirror (paper) being too small.
lpazxxsh wrote:
I guess you guys have to be a diehard corners fan to be doing this to a perfectly good camera . I know if i really want great images i'd take my Hassy with my 645 back out and shoot that. The corners are perfect.
When it all comes down to it...all you guys are building is a poor mans H1 with a Phase1 Digital back. Yes it boils down to money. I know if you had it
people wouldn't be tinkering with cheap Canon 5D cameras and Leica lenses. They will just buy a H1 with a Phase1 digital back. I know i would in a heart beat.
lpazxxsh wrote:
will you be you satisfied with your average image your just took with your modified 5D with leica lens? because the guy next to you just shot the same images with a H1 Hasselbald Camera, a Carl Zeiss lens with a 36MP digital back?
The guy next to me must have splashed out on an expensive V-H adapter then, as the H1D and H2D take Fuji lenses
Guy Mancuso wrote:
... The latest zooms will make them money and tons of it but they need to get back to the basics quality, control, optical lenses built for digital , get sharp corners, smaller lenses , Aspherical , Apo and sveral other things to give us a better product.
You gave the answer first then ask the the question What would be Canon's incentive to produce optically superior lenses while they can make money without doing so ?
... I know the stock price is the ultimate goal but Japanese pride needs to come back to the companies culture
Again, You gave the answer first then complained The pride has made Leica fail as a company. You can demonstrate how Macho you are in front of your buddies and girls. But it may cost you a lot
If any lens is affected by the mirror mod it will be the 600mm which does need the larger mirror to show the whole image in the viewfinder - I seem to recall that Canon mentioned that there was no cut-off in the finder when using the 600mm in their info on the 5D, but can't find it at the moment.
I modded a 18-55mm kit lens to fit on a 10D and that camera body needed a little shaved off the mirror surround for proper clearance - as this surround is plastic there is not quite the same aprehension in doing this as with the 5D!
YAWN!... I am sure Pondria's "Macho" was directed to Leica, and not Guy... (coffee anyone?)
But I actually welcome this kind of techno-delvings... it is useful that technicians go as far as altering their precious bodies for us photographers to take advantage of their discoveries... :-)
Been using the Sigma 15-30 on my 5D and have no problems getting decent photos.... (I don't pixel peep). The realtor's that use the photo's love them, so I am happy also.
Btw, seems that the Tokina 17mm pro lens was designed for 1.6 cropped bodies. I had one for quite a while and was pleased with it on the 10D but not so much on the 1D / 1DMKII.
spartan
Edited by spartan123 on Oct 20, 2005 at 07:30 AM GMT
I would be interested in seeing the results. Please post a few when you get a chance.
spartan
sreidvt wrote:
I'm hoping that the Tokina 17 does quite well on full frame. Proofs in the pudding so I'll know early next week. If it isn't good, I'll return it. Worth a try though.
sreidvt wrote:
I cannot mount my Zeiss 18/4 on the 5D as is because of the mirror clearance.
Cheers,
Sean
[SNIP]
Hi Sean,
if u look at the compatibility list I've made, u'll find that the 4/18 AE works great w/ the 5D (Cameraquest adapter). The version that has problems is the "MM". Check it out here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/293080/0#2458048.
Hope this helps!
PhotoPhreak wrote:
YAWN!... I am sure Pondria's "Macho" was directed to Leica, and not Guy... (coffee anyone?)
But I actually welcome this kind of techno-delvings... it is useful that technicians go as far as altering their precious bodies for us photographers to take advantage of their discoveries... :-)
Yes, it is directed at Leica or ( any other company ) which does the things to prove that they can. Now, here I have to also say that I have no clue as to if Lecia actually did so or if it has anything to do with their financial trouble.
. I know if i really want great images i'd take my Hassy with my 645 back out and shoot that. The corners are perfect. 
