Category Archives: Hardware

Stuff

Another 10 years?

Canon 5D

The law of diminishing returns kicks in.

A couple of years ago I wrote, with something approaching amazement, about the longevity of the Epson 1270 ink jet printer, dubbing it a Ten Year Digital Device. Indeed, that printer’s current owner will testify to the Epson’s longevity having just picked up a prize for one of his pictures printed on it. Sure, the nozzles clog if you don’t use it frequently and the inks fade in bright sun, but the quality of the prints cannot be disputed.


Canon 5D and friends. A ten year kit?

All of which prompts the question whether the Canon 5D has a similar life expectancy. Sure, it remains a current model and certainly it is not as fast or as slick as newer offerings from DSLR makers. It coasts along at a modest three frames/second, has no dust removal and lacks silly features like live previews. Now given that 3 fps is meaningless to me as I take one picture at a time and avoid sports photography, I can only question who really needs the insane framing rates available today, sports and fashion snappers apart? Live previews are a solution looking for a problem with DSLRs but, yes, dust removal from the sensor would be nice to have. But I can live without it, just as I learned to live with the 1270’s clogging nozzles.

Wear is not an issue for me. After 30 months with the 5D it reports that I am on frame 6,873. That figures to some 25,000 frames over ten years, well below the 100,000 life expectancy of the 5D’s shutter.

Definition is not an issue. The law of diminishing returns suggests that all those latest pixel-heavy sensors are running into noise issues, and that the modest 12.8 megapixels of the 5D make for a perfect compromise between definition and noise.

Sensor size is an issue. I like what I have. As I want my 20mm lens to be 20mm, not the 32mm that I would get with a cropped sensor, and I like the depth of field a standard lens offers on the big sensor, my alternatives are limited to full frame cameras of which there are but two from each of Nikon and Canon. It’s clear we will have more large sensor DSLRs (Sony is rumored to be releasing one soon) and choice is always a good thing but the bottom line is that the images from the 5D’s sensor are so crisp, noise free and well defined that trading for more pixels or a medium format sensor make no sense.

Build quality is fine, too. Doubtless the big Canon and Nikon offerings are tougher but I’m an amateur snapper, for heaven’s sake, and not a photojournalist in a war zone.

Lens choice is fine and will only get better. A really good 20mm would be nice, Canon’s wide primes being less than thrilling unless you get the ridiculously bulky and expensive ‘L’ variants. Unless Canon does something truly dumb – like changing the lens mount – I am set.

Dynamic range, the biggest bugaboo of digital cameras (as in they have too little), is something I have worked around. Under-expose 1/2-1 stop and bring things back as needed in Lightroom, and all is well. Further, there will have to be some serious breakthroughs in sensor technology before DSLRs start exhibiting enhanced dynamic range. So for now I watch the highlights and let the shadows look after themselves at the exposure stage. Much as in the Kodachrome days….

Given that digital was a joke ten years ago and has now plateaued at a level significantly higher than film, it’s foolish to try to predict what will be on offer ten years hence. That plateau was reached a few years back by the Canon 1Ds Mark I and the 5D. So until some shattering new technology comes along that offers the image quality of the 5D in a package half the size, weight and noise – and I’m not holding my breath – I’m going to stick my neck out and suggest that maybe the Canon 5D really is a ten year digital device. That’s assuming I am not completely gaga 7 years hence and can still lift a camera to eye level without wetting myself. No calling that one.

Canon 1Ds Mark III

Cameras

The poor man’s medium format digital.

The English site DP Review has an exhaustive test of Canon’s top of the line full frame digital camera, the 1Ds Mark III, reflecting no fewer than eight months’ use. What is surprising in their conclusions is that they compare the images to ones taken on a medium format digital sensor. I have long maintained that my 5D easily equals medium format film results, so despite its $8,000 price tag, the big Canon body remains a bargain when you look at the cost of medium format digital bodies, with their bulk, slow speed of use and limited lens ranges.

Do I have any interest in one? No. Total overkill for me and why would I want to spend all that money when I routinely make large prints (18″ x 24″ is my idea of ‘large’) from the 5D? I can easily print from half the frame at that size – equivalent to a 36″ x 24″ print from the full frame – with negligible quality loss. And I don’t mean from just the ‘best’ snaps – pretty much from every frame.

On a related note, the review suggests that sensor noise is now beginning to rise with pixel density – the far less dense 5D sensor is more than a match when it comes to absence of grain. Maybe there are new breakthroughs around the corner but it’s hard to change the laws of physics.

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.

Spot the difference

Cameras

Not pretty.

Money quote “I can’t think of any camera – or for that matter any electronic device I have recently used – that so thoroughly fails to live up to its potential and its heritage.”

If the name was not disclosed, you would be hard pressed to tell whether the author – who strikes me as experienced and credible – was talking about Apple’s wireless technology or …. well, read it and see.

Click the picture to read the article.

My vote is for Apple’s rushed-to-market, shoddy and undebugged wireless technology, but this photojournalist might differ.