Agreed! I would even say it is becoming readily apparent the 5D was a LANDMARK camera for Canon...One conclusion I've gleaned from these tests is this: The 5D is a great camera.
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Agreed! I would even say it is becoming readily apparent the 5D was a LANDMARK camera for Canon...One conclusion I've gleaned from these tests is this: The 5D is a great camera.
Jack,Agreed! I would even say it is becoming readily apparent the 5D was a LANDMARK camera for Canon...
Having owned and shot ALL the cameras being discussed, I've found they are all good for the tasks I've used them for... with the 5D being quite a value for it's time ... and still a relative bargain given the images it's capable of producing. IMO, it is proof that the size and quality of the pixels in a given space combined with the available optics can produce images beyond expectations of the specs.Jack,
Not having owned a 5D, but having seen lots of files from it, I would also tend to agree that as an imager, it really is outstanding. I still like my 1DsMkII, and at this point am glad that I did not upgrade to a MkIII for it or for the two 1DMkII bodies I still shoot with. I do wish they had some of the newer features, but the images they deliver for me are still quite good, and in focus more often than folks are still reporting for the MkIII bodies.
LJ
I'm in the process of learning how to optimize the 1DMKIII. Having learned Lightroom and Aperture with an R-D1s and M8, I find post-production especially challenging/disappointing. I suspect this is largely because I am not accustomed to applying sharpening and/or shooting toward the right side of the histogram. Any chance you could share some of your lessons learned with the 1DMKIII?I've figured out the 1DMKIII and most of the 1DsMKIII. I do not have any focus issues with either camera and find them more responsive than any previous Canon I've owned. I'm sure there are nuance AF issues still lingering with the 1DMKIII as reported, but they are so specific that they have never effected me given my shooting style. I can say with certainty, it is much more AF capable than the 5D ... and the mirror hasn't fallen out : -)
Absolutely agree Jack ... so that makes .04 worth : -)Mark:
I suspect the processing of the 1Ds3 files will improve and progress as folks gain familiarity with the files --- they have mostly done so in the past. But given your comment, I think I need to reiterate my concern: My issue isn't over the detail the 1Ds3 can produce, it is about the overall "look" of the file. Smoothness of tone and sparkle. For whatever reason, Canon files since after the 1D have always looked somewhat flat or "plastic" as some others have said. I don't see that changing much with raw processing technique. I developed strategies to alleviate that look in my Canon files, but it takes a lot of post work in CS to do it; I have three actions I run on every file, then have to add a fully manual step in. By contrast, I don't need to do that with my AA-filterLESS CCD cameras, yet if I do, it can sometimes even make those look better
Now to be clear, I think that plastic look can be a huge benefit for shooting fashion, where you may want to have skin and fabric look smoother and more consistent, like the models were always shot under a bank of huge soft-boxes. With the Canon, you get there right out of the raw converter and the detail is there to boot, so that may in fact be an advantage for some. However, for MY uses, mostly landscape and travel images I like to print large, I want more sparkle and punch.
Again, my .02 only,
Even at the lower detail settings posted later in the thread, one can still make these out, though just barely. Those patterns are far more evident at high ISO (or any ISO with a small sensor camera) and are one reason I don't use ACR/LR anymore since ACR 4.1/LR1.1. I use C1 for the 5D, and Raw Developer for everything else.Jack:
Your detail extraction is creating those brush stroke type artifacts that RAWShooter used to have. Do they go away at lower detail extraction settings?
Robert
Amen Marc, we are in agreement, except I use the Leica for travel and still have a view for some of the commercial and landscape workAbsolutely agree Jack ... so that makes .04 worth : -)
I use the two Canons for nothing but wedding photography and have not used a Canon for anything else for years. Commercial, portrait & Travel = MF digital. Street, personal travel and documentary (including a lot of wedding) = Leica.
Thanks for your reply. I'll have a look at it, but I am keenly interested in views from posters on this site who in the past have saved me from myself, or, made my economic situation worse but my photography better.Ralph - Another spot to do some reading is John Black's site, www.pebbleplace.com. Start with the home page and go thru the blog - including the MF part. Lots of comments relative to the 1ds3 in there.
Here are my experiences in a nut shell Ralph (experiences using all of this stuff for a huge range of different work from in-studio and location commercial assignments to 8 hr hectic stints shooting weddings):Thanks for your reply. I'll have a look at it, but I am keenly interested in views from posters on this site who in the past have saved me from myself, or, made my economic situation worse but my photography better.
I'm a little confused by this shot; how can the figures be in focus and both in front and back NOT be. It looks frankly like a cut in. It looks too good to be true, maybe it is.Mark, did you get a chance to handle the H3D/31-II? All I can tell you is that camera is FAST. I've been using it (H3D/31) now for some time and it seriously put a crimp in the use of my Canon 1DsMKII at weddings. I do a lot of lower light candid work with it using on camera flash with a light modifier,
and the files are WOW! ISO 800 is very good, and the new software/firmware will push my H3D/31 to 1600.
The Canon still is the go to high ISO solution and lightening quick AF, but quite frankly I personally don't need an $8,000. camera for that task.
If you get that H3D/31-II, you are in for a serious shock as to what it can do compared to a 35mm DSLR.
Here's a marginal example ... marginal because I used an ambitiously slow shutter speed that recorded wind movement .... stuff like that really shows up due to the tendency to print these files really large ... because you can : -)
Excellent eye Victor. 2 quick exposures in sequence ... one because the lighting was directly on them in the opening, so the forest went quite dark, then another to open up the forest which produced wind movement ... then merged in PS using layers and history brush.I'm a little confused by this shot; how can the figures be in focus and both in front and back NOT be. It looks frankly like a cut in. It looks too good to be true, maybe it is.
Itherwise these are the most steady models in history, while all around them is quaking in the wind.
Anyway, can someone explain? Did you have stobes on the figures and drag? Very clever whatever it was! "Hats off"
Victor
Victor, it is rumored that the H2F will accept other backs, but that hasn't been confirmed yet. It will accept the CF line. The V lenses work on any H camera with the CF adapter.Very nice!!figured there was some neat action going on.
I must watch for similar oppotunities. So you were able to blend from ambient, without strobes. The overall effect comes out quite natural looking, a great improvement on just using studio cut ins.
Now, about that H3D. Why did you go that route rather than staying H2 and leaving open other backs? A big question will be whether the new H2F has an open system (in which case I may consider switching my P45+ to an H2 mount if that exists, and using Contax for film, or even getting a P30+ which I have been lloking at.
The more these other people raise issue the more I see some of the restrictions in even a mount that takes all the hassey Contax AND some Leica lenses.
Also, the Fuji versions of the hasselblad seem every bit as good as the Kyocera versions of the Zeiss. And I assume that ALL V lenses would work on both the H2 and H3 lines.
The alterantive is to add a Sinar and the Hy6 with Rollei AF.
I need to take some time to test this stuff. NY is so great, Wsahington DC is like the boonies by comparison.
regards
Victor
I am pretty sure you can use the CF adapter on any H camera, film or digital. But I'd check with Hasselblad Tech on that just to be safe.Marc
Is there a CF adapter for V lenses to the H1?
Thanks
Woody