Monthly Archives: July 2008

Canon sensors and the 5D

Canon 5D

Old but still topical.

I came across these two on my hard drive – both white papers were released by Canon about the time of the 5D’s debut and still make fascinating reading.

Download either PDF by clicking the pictures below.

Both are fairly lengthy, with the first having an especially interesting discussion of the development of CCD and CMOS sensors, clearly explaining the differences.

Why publish this now when the 5D is about to be updated and obsoleted? Because if you can live with the modest maximum framing rate and the absence of dust removal, I believe the 5D lightly used market will be flooded with cameras from upgraders and will, as a result, offer an enticing opportunity to enter the world of full frame imaging at a very attractive price. If your print size is limited to 24″ x 30″, you cannot go wrong with this body and sensor – just don’t use Canon’s truly execrable cheap zooms on it. A good sensor deserves the best glass – primes if you can swing it as no zoom compares to a like prime for definition and overall performance. Plus most of Canon’s primes are far cheaper than their L zooms and are generally superb – I use the 20mm (not so superb), the 15mm fish eye, the 50mm f/1.4, the 85mm f/1.8 and the 100mm macro. The last four are as good as anything I have used at any price and run $300-400 new, with lots of used bargains out there.

Five criteria

Cameras

What really matters when choosing a camera?

Twenty years ago I used three cameras most of the time.

A Leica M3, a Rollei 35 and a Rolleiflex 3.5F. You could not find three more different pieces of equipment, with fitness for purpose dictating that there should be three rather than one.

While I’m not that sure about the level of objective analysis which went into the buying decision, now that I think it through there were just five criteria dictating the choice of each. Those same five criteria apply today, though now I manage to get by with two cameras rather than three.

They are:

  • Speed
  • Bulk
  • Noise
  • Definition
  • Price and it’s bedfellow, fear.


British and proud of it, 1976. M3, 35mm Summaron, TriX.

It’s useful to keep these in mind when making the buying decision.

Speed means speed of operation. Back then the Leica was the street shooter without equal. A flip of the thumb advanced the film, the shutter was quiet (if not as whisper quiet as blinded Leica worshippers would have you believe; for that listen to a twin lens Rolleiflex), lens changes were fast and you were generally unobtrusive thanks to the blisteringly fast manual rangefinder focusing.

Bulk is an issue if you travel a lot and for that the Leica, small as it was, was simply too bulky. That’s where the Rollei 35 came in, with its collapsible lens, silent shutter and barely larger than a film cassette or two. Mine traversed the world many times and served me well, after the obligatory breakdown out of the box. Rollei’s Singapore craftsmen had yet to learn about quality control.

Noise and unobtrusiveness go hand-in-hand for the candid photographer, so the Leica’s quiet shutter did the trick.

Definition and freedom from grain became issues with any Leica enlargement greater than 8″ x 10″. For large smooth areas of sky or skin you had go to the next negative size, which came with the Rolleiflex 3.5F, maybe the finest camera ever to leave the factory of Franke & Heidecke. 16″ x 20″ (that was ‘big’ back then) was no problem with the Rollei TLR.

Price and fear are bedfellows. The Leica was expensive, the lenses more so, and you were always scared of getting mugged, whacked or otherwise resented or abused. Once the Japanese SLRs took over the 35mm market the fame of the Leica – and hence the ability morons had to recognize it – faded and with it the Fear quotient. But it was always there. Not for one moment did I care if someone pinched my Rollei 35 and the 3.5F was pretty much a studio camera.

These thoughts came to mind in discussions with a friend whose Canon Digital Rebel finally gave up the ghost and for which an urgent replacement was needed. Now this friend does the occasional wedding – surely there can be no field of photography more greatly imbued with the fear of failure – yet reliability simply did not come up in our talks, any more than it features in the list above. Bottom line is that all the better cameras from the big names are reliable in all but combat conditions. Rather, the focus of our discussion was on noise. You simply cannot have a DSLR machine-gunning away in a quiet church where a sacred ceremony is underway. When all was said and done, my friend opted for Canon’s 40D which would both take her existing Canon lenses and offers a ‘silent mode’ in Live View whereby the mirror is moved out of the way and the LCD becomes the viewfinder. Not ideal as LCD viewfinders are genuinely awful, but when you hear how quiet the shutter is in this mode you might well conclude that the trade-off makes sense.

When buying my 5D I was much more studied about what I wanted than in days past. And because I no longer wanted to mess about with clunky medium format gear, I wanted the best possible definition out of a smaller package. On the other hand, I realized that small size was not consonant with that dictate, so my choice was pretty much limited to full frame digital. Further, I wanted my wide lenses wide, not cropped. Cropped sensors have improved greatly since then but 30 months ago the difference between Canon’s cropped and full frame sensors were significant, not least in their ability to hide noise at higher ISO settings. One look at the definition of the images, aided by some good, realistically priced lenses from Canon, suggested that the 5D could replace both 35mm and medium format film, and such proved to be the case. The ease of use of a 35mm SLR with the definition of medium format film. Sweet. I bought one. It was only one of two full frame DSLRs available, the other being Canon’s very expensive 1Ds.

And I was no longer particularly fixated on street snaps which, in any case, had become much easier to make as cameras became ubiquitous. No one cared if you pointed a camera at them.

So my priority order for the Five Criteria had changed.

Originally it was as listed above. Now it was:

  • Definition
  • Noise
  • Price and it’s bedfellow, fear.
  • Bulk
  • Speed

Definition was A Number One and Price now mattered – it irked me to have so much capital tied up in a hobby and I resolved to avoid that when changing equipment. Fear was not an issue – I stick black electrician’s tape over the obnoxious ‘Canon’ logos and go on about my unobtrusive way. Noise still mattered. The 5D is hardly ideal but it beats a Pentax 6×7 or a Rolleiflex 6003/6008, which sound like one of Krupp’s finest when they go off. Bulk worked out well. The 5D is not small but any time you get medium format film quality in a 35mm SLR package, buy it and run. Price never mattered. It’s not that I’m Rockefeller but judicious buying and a disciplined approach to life makes the price shock that much less noticeable. This is one of my key interests after all, not a passing fling. And as with Porsche drivers, you get two kinds – those who love the gear and those who can drive. I’ll let you decide which camp I am in.

But I still need two cameras. When it comes to something pocketable which can go anywhere I use the Panasonic LX-1. Sure, it has lots of limitations (needs a viewfinder, shutter lag, grainy/noisy images) but so did the Rollei 35. But it more than suffices in those times when you simply cannot haul the 5D around.

My two cents worth of advice suggest that you make a like list prioritizing your needs then choose the camera which is the best match. Forget about brands. The major makes offer so much choice that it does not have to be Canon or Nikon – just choose something that scores most on your short list of essentials. That way the noise of brand loyalty (a dumb idea if ever I heard of one) is silenced. And do not discount the idea of more than one camera. Horses for courses and all that.


Antiques, 2006. 5D, 24-105L, IS on, 1/30, f/6.3, ISO 200. Processed in Lightroom.

Cutting your losses

Photography

As in getting emotion out of the equation.

As a money manager and investor one of the key disciplines I adopt is one of cutting my losses. For the most part if a stock hits a predetermined drop off the highest price I have owned it at – this may be after a few days or few years of ownership – it is unceremoniously sold. The old saying that ‘buy-and-hold’ is the only long term investment strategy capable of success is bunk. Great for twenty year bull markets, like the one that just ended, but dumb as they come otherwise. (Money managers love it as it annuitizes their management fees from the boobs who buy in). Imagine, you lose 30% in a quarter on a position but you gut it out and hold on. It may take you five years or more to recover those losses, garnering you a 0% return over that period. The disciplined seller, meanwhile, has limited his loss with a trailing stop percentage order at 7-10%,moving on to better things.

A disciplined exit strategy is consonant with success in all areas of life. How many of us know people who have remained for far too long in an abusive relationship but dare not venture into alternatives? Years of happiness lost. The sell discipline applies as equally in emotional as in financial matters.

When it comes to photographic hardware I believe the same applies. Unless you absolutely love the whole processing/retouching/slow turnaround cycle of film, for example, you are simply crippling your competitiveness compared to the guy with a good DSLR.

And lest I am accused of not following my own advice, let me clarify things.

For over thirty years – from 1973 through 2005 – I used one or more of these:

Yesterday’s news

While I tinkered with SLRs this worked for me and, in truth, if the optimal mix of quality lenses, a rugged body (well, reasonably so) and fast response was sought, the rangefinder M Leica was the only way to go.

Then, of course, digital came along and once sensor design settled down even those with poor eyesight (like me!) could see that film quality had not just been surpassed, it had been blown away. Add a 5 minute processing cycle as opposed to a seven day one and that was all she wrote. Time formerly spent on scanning, retouching, filing and on and on now became time wasted. And, like you, as every day shortens my life expectancy by 24 hours, why waste time?

So, a tad late in the day, I decided to apply my stock management philosophy to my photographic hardware. The goal was not so much to realize the best exit price for obsolete hardware – film cameras – though that is a nice side effect, but rather to maximize productivity through the use of modern technology, which is what technology is all about. Your time is worth far more than your hardware, so resale value is not the driver here. Anyone looking for long term appreciation from obsolete camera gear is probably waiting for the second coming, too. Could be a while.

Those Leica Ms, myriad Wetzlar lenses (all superb), a Leicaflex, Rolleis galore, a Mamiya or two, a couple of Pentaxes moved on. Paperweights. Digital had arrived and it was mature. Instead I spent some time learning how to properly profile my screen so that what I print matches, I moved to the very efficient Lightroom after struggling with the abomination that is Photoshop, paid up for a really great large format dye printer (the HP DJ90) and got on with the merry job of making pictures.

Today’s gear – ready to be dumped at a moment’s notice if need be

Do I miss all that great gear from the last throes of the mechanical age? Sure. You use the same Leica for 30+ years and tell me you don’t miss it. But the old Wall Street adage prevails, for it remains one of the great truths:

“If you want loyalty, get a dog”.

And my dog had better watch out. He crosses me and he’s outta here.

The problem with small sensors

Photography

It’s the enlargement ratio.

A friend has set himself the goal of making good 13″ x 19″ prints from a 1/8″ sensor-equipped digital point-and-shoot. Look here and you can see the various sensor sizes. A so-called 1/8″ sensor is 7.2mm x 5.3mm. The more common cropped APS-C DSLR sensor is 22mm x 15mm (most DSLRs), whereas a full frame one is 36mm x 24mm.

So, to get to a 13″ x 19″ print, here are the enlargement ratios for the three sensor sizes:

1/8″ P and S: 65x (yes, 65x!)
APS-C: 21x
Full frame: 13x

Thus, that old 35mm film rule of thumb that you should use a shutter speed no longer than the reciprocal of the focal length (e.g. no longer than 1/500th with a 500mm lens) is nonsense. What’s good for a blur-free 8″ x 10″ print from a 24mm x 36mm negative is not the same as what is called for from the miniscule sensor in modern point-and-shoot digitals. Film just starts to lose it with a 35mm original at 13x enlargement. Full frame digital (based on my 5D) begins to struggle over 24x. Read on how to make the small sensor in a P&S work for you.

My rule of thumb is that the things that most contribute to – or detract from – a good big print are, in decreasing order of importance:

  • Absence of camera shake (solution: tripod, IS, fast shutter)
  • Over exposure which generates noise and blows out highlights (I underexpose 1 stop)
  • RAW not JPG
  • Slow ISO
  • A good lens ($$$)
  • Sensor size (the bigger the physical size the better; forget megapixels)

You can do an awful lot to improve things with the small sensor. First, you need to record images in RAW, not JPG, thus bypassing the excessive smoothing small sensor cameras apply when generating JPGs. The only snag is that the camera concerned is Canon’s A720IS (8 megapixels – some $190 at B&H) and Canon does not include a RAW mode. They prefer to make that available in the far costlier G9 ($450) which has the same lens, the same sensor and replaces the plastic body with an alloy one.

Bad choice.

Metal provides far inferior shock absorption when dropped and will dent. Further, the added weight will simply increase contact force when dropped (force is mass x acceleration, so it’s directly proportional to weight in this example). A G9 is 11.3 ozs, the A720IS is 7.1 ozs, so when you drop the G9 it will suffer 60% more force on impact compared with the A720IS). Plastic is superior in every way in this application except that its light weight connotes poor quality. Wrong! More about serial dropping here.

No RAW in the cheaper camera? Just Google for Canon RAW hacks and you will find an installable hack that opens up the crippled firmware and gives you full RAW capability for a fraction of the price of the G9. The cheap camera has IS to reduce camera shake which, as the data at the start of this piece disclose, you really need to minimize to make big prints. The hack is free and allows all sorts of G9 features to be added to the A720IS.

So now we had RAW installed on the A720IS and could do JPG to RAW image comparisons.

Here they are – the print size equates to about 24″ on the long dimension:

In the two examples below, the RAW/DNG file is on the left (“Select”):


Edge detail. I could not recover the highlights any more in the JPG version.


Center detail. Even on a small computer screen, the increased sharpness of the RAW version is obvious.

Are the big prints as detailed as those on the 5D + Canon 100mm macro + ring flash, as discussed here? No. But absent an A-B comparison, you would be quite happy at 13″ x 19″, provided you refrain from really sticking your nose in them.

I have processed both to be as similar as possible. The detail differences are that the RAW original has superior dynamic range (better shadow and highlight details) and is far sharper given the absence of in-camera compression. With good originals, preferably underexposed by one stop, and bright lighting, a small sensor can produce decent 13″ x 19″ prints; turn down the light, make shutter speeds slower and add the need for a large aperture and, well, you are out of luck. A larger sensor is dictated.

Interested in screen display only? Any camera costing more than $150 is a waste of money, unless you must have a fast motor drive and need exotic lenses. Small computer screens will not show any difference otherwise. Save your money.

And if you need a very capable, small, inexpensive digital which will yield exhibition size prints, consider the Canon A720IS or cheaper variants (but do look for IS, as discussed above) and install the free RAW hack to really make your originals sing. I have no axe to grind for Canon and I’ll bet like results/hacks are to be had from most of the big names out there.


Bargain of the year – the Canon A720IS.

The lens displays a fair bit of color fringing but a quick tweak in PS or Lightroom puts paid to that in short order. Plus you get a real optical viewfinder, not the abomination that is the LCD screen, though you get one of those too.