Canon have officially anounced the new 5D today. This full frame and high resolution (12.8MP) DSLR looks well suited to underwater photography.

This is a very useful camera for Canon shooters as it allows them to shoot 180 degree (corner to corner) fisheye shots (with either the Sigma 15mm or Canon 15mm FE) for the first time in a sub-1DS camera.

This camera is intended to sell for $3300 USD, and may well appeal to pro-Canon shooters as a second body.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/

Unfortunately for underwater photographers the camera is a new body - a bit larger than the 20D - so it is going to require a new housing. The race is on...

Alex

Sample stuff on the Canon website (which is taking a bit of a beating at the minute!):
http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos5d/eos5d_sample-e.html

I fell in love
but housing it is far far away ...

Julian

So who is placing bets?

Judging on recent form. Ikelite are usually the fastest. But they don't always do housings for the most expensive cameras. Subal were very fast with the D70, 20D (& D2X)...

Alex

My bet: UK-GERMANY will be the first 5D housing. I put three magic filters on that

Julian

lots of details and specs:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/C...White_Paper.pdf

Julian

So what is going to happen to the D1 Mk2? Beside a better pro body and may be AF system, look like the 5D will pretty much replace it?

No very different cameras. 1D Mk2 (and new N version) is still the choice for sports/action shooters. The 5D is higher resolution, as well as being smaller and lighter. Better for landscapes etc. It would also be a good back up for many pro shooters. Not weather sealed - but doesn't need to be if it is going to live in a bag most of the time.
Alex

Just a thought. This camera is bigger than the 20D, but might it fit in older D60/10D housings?
Alex

Interesting points.

The one reason I just got the 20D was for the 5fps and buffer that is greater than the 300D. I see more wildlife and sports in my shooting so I am not sure this new 5D would be the choice for me.

Now, what does this mean..."compatible with WFT-E1 wireless transmitter" (is this wireless download?) Now that would be nice if possible through housings.

That said, for underwater the full frame obviously is great. My hope and speculation is they will still get a WA out for cropped sensors. They started with EF-S lenses lets hope they didn't plan on stopping now.

All that and the price tag is still a little steep in Canadian funny money.

Hi Todd,

I remember your thread about topside wildlife telephoto lens choice. Was it the 100-400 L IS USM finally?

I am a bit afraid that EF-S could stay limited in comparison to Nikon's DX line-up as it is today. Camera manufactures have a very strange imagination what camera users have to use what kind of lenses. So they release a cheapish 18-55 with a 300D, a 17-85 with a 20D and L glass for the pro bodies.

With the release of the 5D EF-S has been put into a certain class of cameras. I am afraid they would not come out with EF-S lenses like 10mm f2.8, 10mm fisheye, 18-50 f2.8, and so on. Those stupid marketing guys sometimes won't imagine high end glass on sub pro camera bodies. Different to what we want.

Maybe I am completely wrong and they will surprise with some EF-S L glass and some decent wideangles and a 180° fisheye. Or maybe Sigma does it.

Julian

Good memory

Yes, I did go with the 100-400L and that most certainly was the right choice. I was out photographing the skittish endangered burrowing owls which are the size of a small bird and found I needed every inch of the 400mm end.

I still can't justify the big price tag in the end for the 5D so I won't stress over it.



Cheers

Todd

great choice Todd

Even on a 1.6 crop camera I used the long end a lot as well. 70-200 simply doesn't have enough reach.

nice photo, calling for even more reach.

Julian

Todd,

I recommend adding the Canon 1.4 TC to extend your reach. I use it with the Fred Miranda taped pin trick to get AF from my 10D. I get great (published & sold) bird shots with it.

That said, I've got a 5D on order. I just hope I can get it to fit into my Subal C10...if not then the 10D stays in the Subal for UW and the 5D for everything else! I can't wait to get back the 8mm of width from my 16-35L!

Stu

Does Canon make a 1.6x converter so that all your lenses have the same angle of coverage on 5D as you have been used to for the last few years?

I do make a fair point. I have several lenses that would work on FF but I have only shot them on APS-C sensor sized cameras. I'd need a 1.6x to adjust!

Alex

Use the photoshop digital zoom. That'll get you a higher dynamic range cropped sensor with lower resolution which is the trade-off that I usually prefer.

On the other hand, if you put a 1.4x teleconverter on and shoot ISO 200 to make up for the loss in light vs. ISO 100 on the cropped sensor, you'll still have better signal-to-noise on the full frame sensor.

I do have the Kenko 1.4 and was using it for some shots too. But, as you mention, was having to use manual focus. I'll have to look up how to get AF with it mounted. These Owls just seemed to have a comfort range that was not very close. I have heard of others that are more accepting.

Now, if you can sell a few of my shots I too might be able to get that 5D after all

This shot was with the 1.4 and manual focus. This was as close as this female would let me get. Reminds me of the old days before I was married

Then you should get the 1DMk2n first... the transition from 1.6-1.25-1 is easier.

Actually my biggest peeve about APS-C lenses is that they are not "crop" adjusted focal lengths. I mean the 10-22 is made for the APS-C camera so it's really 16-35 so why not say that? APS 16-35 vs making us do the math everytime. Really makes no sense for the EF-S and DX lenses to be marked with 35mm focal lengths when they are not.

I disagree. A 10mm lens is a piece of glass with focal length 10mm. It's simple. A photographer should understand the camera body he's using and what that implies. I think it's more confusing to give specs with assumed fudge factors.

Keep the faith Todd this owl can be had from a closer distance.
Contax N1, 70-300 at F4, Velvia 50, rated at 40 iso, full frame scan.

Phil RudinClick to view attachment

Phil if that is the Florida version it is the non-transient and not on the endangered list. The version in Canada is the transient version and endangered. The Biologist that took me out explained this to me so I can't take credit for the showing of knowledge.

Nice shot!

While your on the subject of lenses and sensor size, can anyone tell me if the new Canon EF-S 60 mm macro shots life size (1:1) or an image the size of 35 mm at 1:1?

Phil Rudin

All I know about this bird is that they had to stop building an addition to the airport becaues of these birds being within the construction area.

Phil

Maybe it is then. That sounds like the protection they are offered here. Still a great shot either way!

Hi Todd,

I have it easy...the birds fly to me!



10D, EF 100-400L @ 400mm, ISO 400, f5.6, 1/1600

Stu

As far as I know 1:1 still means the image on the sensor is the same size as the subject. I haven't seen any lens makers using a fudge factor on it.

Well, I've never adjusted to something like 44.8-112mm f2.8 since owning an APS-C camera. However I think I will try my 15mm fisheye without a transition converter

But you're right. I am used already to my 100-400 L on APS-C. That will definitely be strange to have only 400mm@FF again. And the fisheye with smaller FOV is usable for certain things too which might be unsuitable with 180°. As a Canon user you can not have it all with one camera / image chip size as Nikon photographers can.

Julian

@Stu,

great picture. Imagine what resolution will be left with the 5D when you crop such panoramas. I recently did some 6:2 panoramas, 3 Megapixels left. Wish they would have been taken with a 5D already

Julian

edit: off topic pic removed. simply to excited about this new camera to keep on topic

Sure, i guess that is why Canon users have what? 10 choices of underwater DSLR and we have 3..... now if they would only announce that D200!

Hey I remember that shot from a little while back. Great one. Bird Whisperer

PS Thanks again everyone for the lens selection help awhile back too!

Any word on accessories? like a battery grip?

I wish they had made the 5D with the same weather proofing they did for the D series. I may keep saving my pennies and catch a 1Ds MkII. I'm running in circles of indecision!

Thank goodness for the edit button I answered my own question... 2 more reviews for us fence sitters..at least it won't be out until Oct/Nov.

Techwhack review

Image resource review

I am not familiar with the EOS range. But if I were weighing up the differences between the 5D and 1DS (and 1DS Mk2) I would be interested in whether the 5D have same AF as 1D series? And how does it compare with synch speed with UW strobe?

I think that the small size has to be an advantage for travelling divers. Its a lot smaller and lighter than 1DS and the same will go for the housing.

One thing that Canon shooters should be aware of is that despite what impression you may get from the forums, Nikon DSLRs are far more popular than Canon for UW shooting (about 4:1). So housing manufacturers are not going to support every model in the Canon range. Now I hope that they will see the advantages in the 5D and back it. But I think that like in the old film days you can't just buy a camera and expect there to be a housing.

Alex

@Alex: I thinkt this ratio comes from the days of Analog Shooting where UW-Pg was very Nikon sided. A lot of people don't change because of their investment they made into Glass what I can understand. But what I'm observing is that:

1) a lot of Nikon users are very unhappy whith the products/product strategy of Nikon in the DSLR sector
2) More and more shooter take the jump to Canon regardless of the now unusable Lenses
3) Most newbies to SLRs start with Canon

So if Nikon dosn't do something pretty fast, the Ratio will change pretty fast over the next few years.

@all
This camera is really on the spot what was missing in the line up.
I would love to take the jump but the investment is high:

2 Bodies (i don't like to make an expensive trip without backup) 7000€.

If there will be a Sea&Sea Housing so that i don't need need new ports it will be probably around 3000€.
If not the best way will be Ike propably -> 1500-2000€ Housing 1000-1500€ Ports.
Seacam, UK or Subal are nice but to expensive.

So Investment will be around 10k-11k € and I don't think i will be able to get too much money out when I sell my current setup.

Two disadvantages that I can see in this camera:
- No real spot, its better then what there is now but still not the real thing.
- Slow sync speed with flash, a real issue in the u/w photography.

Hi Simon,

Do you think that the 5D will fit in your S&S D60 housing - with a few mods? This might be the cheapest option and you wouldn't have to wait for the new housing?

Alex

I was wondering about that. Many of your observation is definitely true for land photographers. However when looking at the underwater side in the last 3-4 years, I don't know how many people housed their Canon D30/D60.
Canon sold a lot of original Rebel dSLR but it had very little housing supports beside Ikelite, same as the new 350D. Most housing manufacturers also skipped over 10D and 20D is really the first Canon in the last few years that had significant amount of supports from various manufacturers. On the other hands, Nikon D100 and D70 had all kinds of housing supports so I would imagine that there were a lot more housings for Nikon sold in the last few years than Canon.

Aquatica was quick to the game on the Rebel housing and have followed up on the 20D.

They have also housed the Nikons you mention

I don't know much about spot metering, and I'm not an experienced topside shooter. Is it really useful to have smaller than 3.5% spot metering? I can't think of a need for that underwater.

Of course a higher sync speed is great up to the point of having it fast enough to start cutting off the strobe light ( around 1/500 for most strobes ) after that reducing the aperture would do about the same for exposure. The difference between 1/200 and 1/250 is about 1/4 stop; not much. The 300D is spec at 1/200, but it works up to 1/320 on manual. It'll be interesting to see if the same is true of the 5D.

Also to add to herb's points. The 5D has a special low ISO setting of 50!

Alex

Don't get me wrong, its looks like a really nice camera with a lot of advances.
But for a camera with that price tag ($3299) It’s looks odd that there are some important features(at list to me) that aren't there but they are in my 'entry level' camera that cost 1/4 of the D5.

I am glad you understand this, lots of people want the newer camera only because it is the new kid on the block, and usually those people don't pay attention to what they need. If the features that are important to you are in an entry level camera, you should by all means get that!

To me, the most important features are the autofocus, build quality or ergonomics (I do a lot of topside too), image quality (color) and resolution, in this order. My personal opinion is that the D2x is better than the 5D in all (don't know about image quality yet) of those features except for resolution (but that's only in paper, I don't know how much of a difference you would see between 12.4 and 12.8 megapixels). Since they have very similar resolution, I think the difference between the D2x and 5D is equivalent to the difference between the film Nikons F5 and F90 (both have the same res. film), so, even with the price difference I would still get the D2x if I was buying today. Now, if Nikon didn't have the 10.5 fisheye I would think twice about the Canon.

The most important difference is signal-to-noise and dynamic range. The difference between 12.4 and 12.8 Mpixels is negligible, and the detail resolution will depend on the anti-alias filter which trades off resolution/sharpness for less artifacts and fringing. The sensors on the 5D are more than twice the area of the ones on the D2x. If Sony and Canon are equal at sensor design and processing, and I'm skeptical that Sony has caught up to Canon this quickly, the 5D sensor records more than twice as much light for the same exposure. ISO 200 is better than ISO 100 for the D2x. This in some sense makes all your lenses one stop better. If you consider that it typically cost about twice as much to buy any particular lens that is one stop better, it's a big advantage.

This thread has been a weird one - pictures of birds and camera bashing! I must be reading DPReview

----

Some news on housings I got on the email from Lee Peterson:

"Nexus will show their Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II housing at DEMA in Las Vegas
Booth # 2513 Toshi Kozawa is also working on the Canon 12 MP EOS 5D."

Alex

Herb - 1:1 traditionally means that the image on the 35mm fram is the same size as the subject, so the APS crop is actually larger than 1:1. This leaves the question whether the EF-S 60mm lens is 1:1 on the EF-S sensor, or really greater than 1:1.

Unfortunately I don't know the answer.

My real question is - why would canon build this lens? Why make it EF-S instead of a FF lens? I must be missing something here - cost? size? It doesn't seem much cheaper than a FF variety would be, is it smaller?

Hi Kasey, I don't know the answer to either questions. Have you seen lens makers make reference to 1:1 for anything other than 35mm format? My bet would be that the EF-S 60mm is really 1:1. That is the image is the same size as the subject at maximum magification, but I don't really know. Your second question is even more puzzling , considering that the 60mm cost the about the same as the EF 100mm full frame, which is an excellent lens.

My pet peave is the opposite that of Dru. I think it is confusing to put in fudge factors for specs that has clear physical meaning, like the focal length of a lens and 1:1 magnification.

I'm sorry if you consider my post bashing, and I can't do much about pictures of birds. It is after all a thread on the introduction of the Canon 5D, and comparisions between it and the D2x were first made by others, which I don't think is inappropriate either. More generally the question of FF vs cropped sensors will be raised now that there is a FF camera priced below a cropped sensor camera. I'm making the case for one advantage of FF. Of course, there are other considerations as many have pointed out.

Regarding 1:1, it has nothing to do with 35 mm, it means life size. If you use a 6 x 7 camera with a 1:1 lens at life size then the image is the size of the film (i.e 6 x7) not the size of 35 mm. An 8" x 10" neg at 1:1 would be an image 8" x 10". An image on the Olympus 4/3 format is the size of the sencer at 1:1. The Oly 50 mm macro is a 1:2 lens but produces an image which is life size for 35 MM because the chip has what you would call a 2x crop factor. The image also has twice the DOF because it is a 50 and not a 100 mm.

Phil Rudin

I know, I know it is all my fault, I started the camera bashing I think comparisons between these two are going to be inevitable, either here, on dpreview or anywhere because of the reasons that Herb mentioned (FF cheaper than cropped), because of the close pixel count and because this will be a great underwater camera (just like the D70, dRebel, 20D, etc). Anyways, who hasn't compared the D70 and the 20D or dRebels here at wetpixel?

Now, Herb pointed out advantages of the FF that I didn't know. Thanks for that, I am sure it will be useful for anybody that shoots in high iso. I am more interested in low iso, the most appealing feature of the 5D for me so far is iso 50. Now, if the pixels in the D2x are smaller, there are more pixels per unit area, does this translate into higher resolution?

Herb I don't get how a sensor that is twice as large gives you twice as much light, I.E. 100 to 200 iso. If I use 100 film in a 35 mm camera with the lens set to say F8 at 250 I will get the same exposer as using a 6 x 7 camera with 100 film and F8 at 250th. The 6 x 7 film is four times larger than the 35 mm but it dosen't increse the exposure at all. am I missing somthing?

Phil

The first point is simple. For a given exposure, a FF chip will catch 2.25 (1.5x1.5) times more light than a 1.5x cropped chip. In the cases that we're look at the pixel count is about the same so each sensor on the FF catches 2.25x more light than the ones on the 1.5x cropped chip. There's an efficency factor in that a little area is taken up by transistors and wires needed for the amplifier and read out and partly made up for by micro lens which basically takes the light that would otherwise fall on this area onto the sensor. The basic scaling should be pretty close.

The ISO does not change with this scaling. I should have been more clear on that on the last post. The lowest ISO depends on how much exposure it takes to fill the storage capacity of the sensor which is independent of area: the bigger sensor catches light at twice the rate but is twice as big so will fill up at the same rate as the small sensor. What is generally true given the same processing technology and circuit design is that the noise level does not depend on sensor size. So if you correctly expose a shot with the small sensor at ISO 100 and take the same shot with the big sensor at 1/2 the exposure and bump that up to ISO 200. You'll still have a cleaner image with the bigger sensor given the assumptions above. In that sense the bigger sensor is more than one stop better.

To briefly address the point Rocha broght up about shoot always at the lowest ISO and higher ISO performance does not matter. There are cases, like shooting a sunburst shot where some shadow details are underexposed due to the need to keep the sun from being overexposed, where it does matter. These details can be brought out with curves in photoshop, and the quality of these details depend on how well the sensor performs at low light.