i like the combination of “canon artifacts” caused by canon cameras and the artifacts of the old lens
it gives a nice touch of old photography without the pain of film

Gotta love the mouseovers!

What exactly are “Canon” artifacts? I don’t really see anything in those pics other than what’s to be expected from a lens of that type and age. Which is beautiful of course but I’ve never heard of Canon artifacts before and I’ve been shooting Canon for quite some time.

Nice, but the focal length of a lens is determined by the image area — unless this is from a 35mm projector, the length is different in this application.

Biozz — the 5D is a full frame camera, so it has very low noise.

One thing I would never spend money for, stupid expensive cannon cameras. Every crappy phone has 2 megapixel cams now.

@ HFH

Just because you have no use for something doesn’t mean it’s crappy.

For starters DSLR’s have way more than 2 megapixels so on that alone its valid.

However the significant difference is that phone-cameras don’t tend to have things like shutters and apertures which are both a must if you want full control of your image.

For example you can’t do a long exposure photograph on a camera-phone because there is no way to regulate light coming in other than to just activate and deactivate the sensor. If you have no aperture to close down the amount of light coming in the image will quickly become blown out.

Simply recording an image for posterity is not synonymous with photography as a medium.

Also, since when are Canon camera’s high noise? They aren’t any worse than any other DLSR like Nikon and such. The noise is just a product of the nature of CMOS sensors. You only really notice it if you bump up the ISO or if you have the sensor running long enough to get hot.

Yeah, I know that. I was just pointing out that if you’re going to judge something based on a raw, face-value approach that doesn’t really leave you with any point.

If just megapixels alone is one’s argument then it falls short because DSLR’s have waaay more.

But yeah, there are tons of factors that have to be weighed if you want to judge what makes a camera good or not.

biozz chill it, troll. Let’s see you pack your Sinar X in a shoulder bag and get on the subway.

why would the quality or name of the equipment matter here, this is art and if you make an image using whatever method you need to produce it then does it really matter which one you chose (unless it has symbolic significance)

The main reason these shots look the way they do is that the lens was probably only intended to cover at most a 16mm frame, instead of the Canon’s full size 35mm sensor, so of course the image goes dim and foggy outside of this zone, and even in its design footprint it’s not as sharp as more modern lenses.

In the other direction you can use surplus copy lenses as mid-range telephotos; they are much longer and heavier than regular camera lenses but because they were designed to cover a very wide, very flat field at very high resolution they make really fine images.

On the other hand, more megapixels are not so bad. In the end More Megapixels end up compensating for noise.

I can go more into debating but then there is no requirement since we are not discussing DSLR’s or image sensors.

When I read “Canon noise” I think “noise specific to Canon” or “unique noise that Canon has.” As if there is this distinct and special form of noise generated from Canon cameras.

But that’s not really what it is. It’s more like older Canon’s were prone to having this generic thing called “noise” more so than other cameras.

My brain is seriously obsessed with language and semantics.

Assuming you’re talking about the same size sensor, but yeah totally.

That’s why I avoid some photo stores. “But this model has a million more pixels than the other model, it’s better!!” Uhh, yeah….

Does anyone happen to know of a good resource that lists pixel pitch, number of pixels and sensor size? That would be awesome.

I think most of the lower consumer model Nikon’s and Canon’s have roughly the same size sensor and pixel count. I know that there is definitely some major overlap when you look at the full lineup. Which is partially why I reject the idea of singling any one particular out as being bad.

I prefer film and my 116 yr-old lens came with my 116 yr-old camera ;)
http://twitpic.com/2sts1l

Most lenses that were built with out a multi-coating will appear to be able to capture a somewhat acceptable image in b/w. But look at a color image and you will notice it right away. Colors will mix and appear over exposed.

This is taught at most photography schools in what most see pre-1960 lenses…. ???

Want some interesting results? Take a Rodenstock lens, called the Imagon, and use it. Creates some very interesting reflective surfaces and generates great skin tones. That is why it was invented for cinematography– it has one convex element and different hole apertures.