I'm glad the review worked for you. I even talked myself into buying a 5D, sorta putting my money where my mouth is so to speak.

Mr. Brooks,

My friend let me hear the shutter on the phone. It sounds like the hatch of an A1 Abrams tank closing. We think it may be a new design that enables this camera's shutter to last for up to 100,000 picture captures though not sure. Is the larger mirror a factor? Despite the sound it takes very sharp photos! The files I'm told need less PS processing making the digital work flow much easier than previous cameras.

The BG's are very smooth compared to other Canon DSLR's. I can't wait to get a file to print with my R1800.

Your reviews for both the R1800 and R2400 were also most excellent. I bought the R1800 before the R2400 came out. I think Epson has made two excellent printers.

______________________

Charlie Wesley

St. Augustine Beach, FL

Charlie,

Thanks. Glad what I try to do works for you. Interesting, although the Canon 5D has a new shutter design I did not notice its sound to be unusual at all.

For my own work I use Raw files. All do require by their nature color correction and adjustment, and what you use to do that can make some difference. But also did not notice the 5D files required anything all that different than many Raw files I've worked with, although the camera's metering is incredibly accurate and consistent even with varied subjects and conditions.

Mr. Brooks,

Thanks for the heads up on the metering. I currently use a 1D Mk.1 but also owned a 10D previously. I use evaluation metering with aperture priority most of the time. With white objects especially birds, I use the spot meter on the 1D and subtact about 1 1/2 stops or so. I always use the luminous histogram to compare results. I think Canon handles highlights very well. The blinking highlight are good but small areas may not show which I understand. I would not want to overly reduce the exposure on a photo.

Do you use the luminous and RGB histogram when shooting or an incident meter? I have one but don't use it like I should. I too am impressed with the meters in Canon DSLR's.

Also, did you use the faithful picture style or just the standard setting?

Your photos of the buildings in L.A. where excellent choices for exposure evaluation tests. If your happy with exposures on the 5D, I know I'll be very pleased.

Thanks for all your hard work and knowledge!

___________________

Charlie Wesley

St. Augustine Beach, FL

near Alligator Farm

( We have Rick Sammon and Rob

Sheppard attending our First Coast

Birding Festival again this May )

Charlie,

I also switch metering modes much as you do and carry an incident meter with me at all times. I use the handheld meter less and less though as the Canon metering is pretty dead on putting the gamut in the center of the histogram almost every time.

I am glad I did not try to photograph the Disney Hall right after it was built when all the surfaces had a mirror finish. That only lasted a short time, and they brushed almost the entire building to soften the reflections, as some of the rooms with large windows across the street were measuring daytime temperatures in excess of 125 degrees F. But even after brushing the surface the scale of the gamut exceeded the range of the 5D, but it would have been as much of a stretch for film I'm sure.

Now I'm just waiting for spring, which is going to be very early as I am seeing California Poppies in bloom already. So. I'll be out with the 5D before long.

Mr. Brooks,

I reread your review on the 5D today. Your picture of the rare hibiscus was very revealing to me. The color, saturation and clarity is remarkable. I love shooting flowers. With the 5D it seems one can get greater detail in both the texture and clarity even when most features are the same hue.

Did you use the "faithful" selection from picture styles or standard. I think picture styles is a huge advancement in photography. From what I understand it the equivalent of shooting different film stocks say like Kodachrome vs. Velvia. This gives every photographer another tool in the creative process. The hibiscus "pops" off the page.

I read that Canon already offers new picture styles online. My friend with the 5D updated the firmware to make the LCD brighter but could not find the picture style for telephoto lens. It according to Canon removes glare. If Canon does continue to upgrade picture styles, all photographers are sure winners.

I wonder how you felt about the improved AF? My 1D is very quick to focus. I hear the 5D does focus just as quick. Even in portrait work this improved AF will produce even better pictures. Do you AF with the center spot or say with a vertical move off center and is it almost as fast grabbing focus?

Thanks for all your responses!
______________________
Charlie Wesley
St. Augustine Beach, FL

I am afraid I was not as impressed with Picture Styles, except that you can set contrast, sharpness, saturation for a style to accommodate a special situation, which I find valuable. I did not find the Faithful PS to be any particular advantage. I do a lot of flower photography largely because it is a good subject for evaluating color reproduction response, and because I live in a commercial flower growing area - convenient.

Picture Styles to some extent as long as you are recording Raw is a function I'd rather do in post-processing, which for me is more comfortable and controllable. But then I've been doing computer digital darkroom work for 15 years, so I should have a handle on it.

Canon AF functioning in their last film SLR's was always entirely satisfactory to me and I noticed little if any difference in the way the 5D focused. However, with close-up work like flowers I am more inclined to focus manually as it is easier to set the focus plane within the depth of the subject. And, I still also use some special manual focus lenses a lot. So I may not be as critical about AF as say someone shooting sports or car racing.

Enjoyable article. Not enough to make me give up my Nikon F5 or my Toyo, but enjoyable anyway.

I want to second Charlie's kudos. I have re-read the review, and I am seriously debating myself over whether to buy a 5D or go with a Toyo 45CF. It isn't simply a "film vs. digital" debate (man, I would seriously doubt my sanity if I were carrying on that particular conversation with myself!), it is more about where I want to go with photography -- the simple, manual, "old school" philosophy of the large format, sheet film, all-manual camera, vs. the highly-automated but complex philosophy exemplified by a high-tech camera like the 5D.

But then, who knows, maybe I'll do both?

David, I do have one question, though: is the full-frame sensor of the 5D really that much of an improvement over the 20D, considering the fact that the camera costs almost twice as much?

OK, so I have two questions: has anyone done the "TV Remote" test on a 5D to see if it will do I/R photography?

-EdT.

Ed,

As I mentioned my testing of the 5D also convinced me to dive in and purchase one for my personal use. However, I often tend not to use very much of the automation either auto-exposure or auto-focus. It essentially is for me a replacement for 35mm color slide film photography, which if I still did, I would scan anyway.

I owned and used a Toyo field both 4x5 and 8x10 for many years, but shot B&W film exclusively with both. I no longer have a wet darkroom so that is for me out of the question, and also all of the films I used in the past are no longer made so that is for me a dead issue. But if I had the financial resources (about $50,000) I would love to try using a large format scanning back configured for high resolution monochrome, panchromatic capture. I've seen this done and the prints are unique and well beyond anything I've ever seen done on film.

the 5D's full frame sensor was for me one of the deciding factors. First the 5D has the focus screen brightness and clarity of the Canon professional 35mm bodies, and second the angle of view for all of the quite a few top quality lens I have in EF mount work the same as with a 35mm camera, and for that reason much more effectively than they do with all of the smaller chip Canons I have used the lenses with. To me the full-frame sensor is everything I want and need and the APS sensor is a poor compromise.

Candidly from what I have seen in results from doing "IR" with a digital, except those with true IR sensors, I have not been impressed, and don't take it seriously. And, I have been doing IR with film since using Aero Ektachrome IR with aerial cameras in the military in the 50's, and since with both 35mm true infrared color films as well as black and white (my favorite was the special Konica 120 IR roll film).

Ed,

I would strongly encourage you to explore IR for whatever camera you choose. I don't have a Canon 5D, but I do have a Nikon D70 and with a Hoya 72 filter it makes stunning IR images. Look at the attached photo of an old, rusty steam engine in Roaring Camp, Felton, California.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Frans,

That is simulated IR with the image formed from the visible spectrum. Digital camera sensors have a filter layer that will not allow much radiation in the IR band to pass. That is clearly stated in the technology documentation on CCD/CMOS sensors used for cameras. True IR using infrared film and at least #29 filtration creates an image that is formed by radiation almost entirely below the visible spectrum and looks quite different.

David,

I have to disagree. The Hoya R72 filter has a 50% transmittance point at 720 nm; it blocks almost all visible light. Calling this "simulated IR with the image formed from the visible spectrum" is inaccurate and misleading.

Simulated IR is an image editing process that manipulates a normal color image - not very successfully in most people's opinion, including mine - to look like infrared. Images created this way are very easy to distinguish from images taken with digital cameras and IR filters like the Hoya R72.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Frans,

I'll not argue with you. But you should have checked what the filtration applied to digital sensors will block and what it will pass before believing the claims of a filter maker.

David,

"But you should have checked what the filtration applied to digital sensors will block and what it will pass before believing the claims of a filter maker."

You assume I did not do my homework and take IR filter manufacturers' claims at face value? David, you should know me better than that. I thoroughly researched the issues of digital camera IR sensitivity in general, Nikon D70 IR sensitivity in particular, both for unmodified and modified cameras, IR filter characteristics and other people's experiences and results, in particular for the Nikon D70. After I had a pretty good idea of what to expect, I bought the Hoya R72 IR filter about a year ago and used it extensively with very good results. I can post more examples if people are interested.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Frans,

The Hoya IR 72 filter is as you say it is. But the narrow band the Hoya filter passes (720nm) is on the edge of the visible spectrum, and referred to in the physics literature as "near infrared".

The last Kodak IR film I used available to consumers (not an SO product) was Kodak High Speed Infrared Film 4143, and had sensitivity to 900nm, and if used for infrared exposure only with a Wratten 87 filter the exposure range was from 700 to 900nm. No visible light passes through a Wratten 87 filter.

And, that is why I used the term "real", and stated the results you are obtaining in terms of images are distinctly different than what is obtained with film. More like what is reproduced using B&W IR film and a medium red #25 filter, which passes quite a bit of visible light.

If you were exposing in the 700 to 900nm range you would also have a very substantial focus correction problem due to the wavelength of the radiation. Of course some older lenses did have red IR focus correction marks on the lens barrel, but since AF those have pretty well disappeared. With a 300mm lens on a 10x10 aerial camera the focus correction was about half an inch of lens movement at infinity.

Color IR film was very different (Kodak Aero Ektachrome) because it had a different purpose, primarily to distinguish and identify camouflage. So it had normal visible light color sensitive layers and an IR sensitive layer. However, the RGB layers did not map to CMY, The G sensitivity layer mapped to M, the B to Y and the IR/R to C, depending somewhat on what filter was used chosen by the kind of subject, a forested area or one that was sand and rock.

If rather than a normal photographic RGB digital sensor, you were using one that had a sensitivity range in the 700 to 900nm range, then you would use the Hoya RT 830, and you would get IR images comparable to using IR B&W film with an 87 filter.

David,

What infrared effects people like or dislike is an issue of personal preference.

However, I take exception to you calling the process that I use "simulated IR". As I explained, "simulated IR" is something altogether different.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

>>What infrared effects people like or dislike is an issue of personal preference.<<

Frans,

The popularity of infrared photography blossoms into a fad every so often in photography. It was a fascination in the 50"s with many photographers and B&W IR film was readily available in many sizes. There were even IR coated flashbulbs (strange looking because they were black) so photographers could take pictures in the dark without the subjects seeing a flash of light. It was even popular with some architectural photographers taking shots of new, modern buildings because of the dramatic effect of a black sky.

There was another flurry of interest in the 80's with Konica's excellent 120 roll film size B&W IR film. And I saw many studio photographs of people, portraits and nudes shot producing a strange ethereal quality. And tried it myself in the studio.

When the exposure is in the near infrared range when the image is formed by both invisible, true infrared radiation and some visible light, which has been the case with much of the B&W IR photography done over the last 50 years, what words you choose to describe the effect is largely irrelevant, an exercise in semantics little related to anything of significance.

Well, whether "real" or "simulated", I happen to like the effect it produces. However, that won't be the deciding factor for whether or not I purchase a 5D -- on Saturday, I found a K-M X1 at the local camera store, and with a Cokin P007 held in front of it, it does a perfectly fine job (see the attached photo - the only post-processing was resizing it.)

And, yeah, I will likely buy the 5D this coming weekend -- I want it in time for bluebonnet season!
-EdT.

Ed,

There is nothing wrong with liking an effect as long as it is not assumed to be something it isn't. In fact if the digital IR were really entirely exposed in the true infrared range that might be a lot less popular than the "effect". What I am suggesting is that making a photograph by only infrared radiation excluding any visible light, produces a much more extreme result compared to the digital IR samples I have seen posted.

Quote:
...In fact if the digital IR were really entirely exposed in the true infrared range that might be a lot less popular than the "effect"...

Which is why FLIR will probably never be a success, outside of the military and other government circles.

Ed,

I would agree, and it is similar to how most enthusiasts used IR film in the past with a medium red #25 filter rather than the #87 that blocked all visible light. With the latter shadows didn't get any exposure density at all, which resulted in rather stark looking photographs.

Well, I picked up my new 5D today -- so far, so good (though with the weather as dreary as it has been today, I didn't get to take too many photos.) I haven't done the TV Remote test yet (I just need to put it on a tripod for the test), but I have played with it a bit, and other than the shutter being noisier than the 10D, I really like the thing. As I type this, I am installing the software on the PC, so I can read a RAW file (a photo taken of an old - mid-1800's old - photo of an ancester, where the "film" was a piece of glass!), and if I get it to work OK I will post a copy here.

-EdT.

My father-in-law has an old photo, possibly from as far back as pre-Civil War. We think it is of his grandfather (my wife's great-grandfather), who was a Texas Ranger. The photo was taken on a glass plate, and it appears to be reversed (notice the buttons on the left hand side of the coat.) The shooting data is:

Canon EOS-5D, Quantaray 50mm macro, hand-held
ISO-3200
1/60 sec
F/4.0
bounce flash off the ceiling
Custom WB, using Expodisk

Admittedly, I could make a much better image with a tripod, special lighting setup, etc -- but my father-in-law wanted something quick that he could send out to a relative, and this was the easiest way I could figure out to "copy" this type of photo.

-EdT.

Nicely done, Ed. Your father-in-law should be very happy with that. I think you're right about the image being reversed - the lapel buttonhole is another clue.

Ed,

Glad you like it. It has been a long time since I used a 10D so I did not notice the shutter being particularly loud, in fact it is quieter by a considerable amount than some other dSLR's I have used recently.

I to have not shot all that much with my 5D as yet. I can't blame the weather that much although finally California is getting a little winter, but until things start to grow here it is very brown and dull so not inspiring to go out and shoot. But the wildflowers will beckon soon.

In the meantime I did some simple tabletop product shots and was amazed how little adjustment was needed to obtain ideal prints that were dead on.

The 5D is really the first digital camera I can be thoroughly enthused about using and am really looking forward to what I can do with it this year.

Hi,
The image is actually a negative -- it's the original--on a
front surface mirror in effect. Since it's a mirrored (silvered) surface it gives the appearance of a positive. That is why the image is reversed. This tecnique was quite
popular in the early days of photography. It also gave nearly instant results. Treasure it because it is very fragile.

Quote:
...But the wildflowers will beckon soon...

As they will here. And I intend to take full advantage of the opportunity.

Quote:
...In the meantime I did some simple tabletop product shots and was amazed how little adjustment was needed to obtain ideal prints that were dead on...

I noticed the test shots I took (as well as the photo of the old photo) were the same. All I had to do was a bit of sharpening (and with the old photo, dust/speck removal first) and I was totally satisfied. I didn't have to touch the colors/levels whatsoever, which was a pleasant surprise (unlike the 10D, where I was always tweaking levels/removing minor color casts/etc, unless the lighting was just so.)

AWB with indoor lighting produced a warmer tone than I got with the Expodisc, which is also true of the 10D.

I will say one thing, though -- when I noticed my 640MB card would only hold ~ 24 exposures (RAW + L), I was a wee bit surprised for just a minute.

-EdT.

Ed,

I just set mine on Raw only and the file size is usually under 12MB each, so a 512MB CF card holds 40 some shots.