The images you are asking about are not loading for some reason. They look to be links to your mac.com posting, but I keep getting asked to log in to share your iDisk or something. Might just be my browser (Safari), but cannot comment on things as they are not posting or linking properly.
LCT it was working when you first posted it, now it just prompts password all the time.
LCT, your image links are also creating a load error on our page, so I am deleting the links. Try using the actual full url for the images themselves and not the tiny urls...
DPReview has a whole sample gallery up on line that can be downloaded. They are all jpeg as there are no RAW developers yet.
Yes, just had a look at those images. the high ISO images there seem a bit better, but then, taking pictures of cameras with controlled light source can be handy. at ISO 25600 the banding on the image is so bad, it can only be used for web publishing. I have some images taken with the 5D with pushed ISO 25600 approx. they look about the same.
So far from the JPGs we have seen, the high ISO performance seems very similar to the 5D, although it is not what Canon claimed the 5D mk ii would be and should be better than than the 5D. But giving consideration for the much higher resolution sensor, I think this can be excused.
The London Tower bridge pic taken at low ISO 200 i think, shows amazing resolution and detail, but then looking closer, the bricks on the tower, as super smooth. ie have no texture, and seems super clean. where the towers hit the water, the green moss growing on it, seems like it is painted on. It seems, Canon may have pushed noise reduction even at lower ISOs giving an exceptionally smooth image. Even the battle ship in the image, although extremely detailed appears super smooth and clean. Was this really like this. who knows.
check these out
Quite interesting comparing D700 at ISO6400 vs 5dmk ii at ISO6400
However, that said, I want to thank Mazor for sharing the link as I think it is interesting to see just the additional jpegs; more data never hurts
Not disagreeing with you, but I do think that the context of experience you describe does have an influence. If you shoot a lot of people shots, and you consistently see what you describe as a waxy look, then this sort of comment for the 5DMkII may be more apropos. I shoot a lot of people also, but most are not close-up portraits, so the waxy issue never really comes into play. And I do not see it in other non-people things, so that makes it a bit harder to pin down. (Macro shots in good lighting of something like flowers or plants does not render them waxy looking, from my experience. All shots do tend to require more sharpening, and maybe that is the element that strikes me more.)
Further, my biases against Canon is more around some colors, and whenever I see files, that tends to capture my attention faster. (A good example, even from off-hand shots linked to above comparing the 5DMkII and the D700 jump right out at me.) I think I understand what you are interpreting. For whatever reason, it does not seem quite as obvious to my eyes, and some of the initial observations were more influenced by OOF areas. Not saying that there was not a more aggressive smoothing, as there probably is, and that can create that more lifeless look at times.
Again, I am not trying to defend the look from these shots, or from Canon in general. As you point out, for the longest time they were the only real game going. For a lot of my shooting, I was happy to be able to get rather decent shots in extremely challenging lighting conditions. Whenever NR was applied, things did get more lifeless or waxy looking, and much more so with the Canon files than anything else, so that could be an underlying quality of the files and how things break down. The resolution starts out good. Once you start to pull out luminance noise, details start to break down to a very smoothed look, more than I see with other files. Perhaps that is what is going on, and why I thought it worth looking at RAW files.
P.S. LCT's reposts look more than acceptable to me. They do not have the pore etching look one may get from shooting the same model with stronger sidelight and a more "clinical" rendering lens, like a Zeiss, but the softened skin looks more like what beauty retouchers tend to prefer, I think.
Overall, for whatever reason, most of the images looked somewhat "flat" to me. Maybe that is the contrast, saturation, sharpening defaults, or whatever, but none of the images seemed to sparkle or jump. The resolution looks good, but everything just looks too flat to me. (This is not about DOF, but more about edge sharpness and color transitions. Both look too smooth and somewhat boring. Not sure how much life can be brought back with a bit of processing magic, but initial looks are detailed bland to me.)
Just my first impressions of JPEGs posted to the Web and viewed under all the compression and other uglies
The flat look could be additional DR with the added bit depth, (which needs a steeper curve to get the pop back in the file) and that could be a good thing
I totally understand the new 5Dii isn't for all types of shooters and may lack some key features that are in the D700 which those type shooters need.
However, I for one need the extra Mpixels. For what I shoot (landscapes with trees or bushes) and how I print (canvas), 12MP only gets me to about 20x30 with my best exposures. I am hoping 21MP gets me to 24x36 with more exposures. I don't need super weather sealing because I'm not shooting in those conditions. Better AF doesn't help me much because I'm shooting mostly manual focus lenses. Different strokes ... as they say ... the 5Dii has what was on my list (20+MP, live view, better LCD, dust system) for a very competitive price and I suspect there are many others like me.
So, lets do some serious and fair comparison of the image quality which is what the big news of this camera ... and we need the 5Dii raw files to do that and the same lens used on both bodies.
Also, whereas the extra pixels may not help us all but helps only some ... where it can help us all is putting additional pressure on the MF vendors to reduce their prices. If the 20MP+ in 35mm gets us closer to the MF look, that will both allow folks who can't afford a MF system to get closer to it with 35mm and drop the MF prices.
In fact I'm convinced everybody here can agree on that, and I suppose we are just smalltalking about the initial jpegs out of plain curiousity while waiting for a RAW converter that understands the 5DII RAW files.
Btw. I've always wondered why DSLR beta testers are so often not equipped with the native software that comes along with a new DSLR camera model even if the ultimate and final software profile for the camera is not yet quite ready ?
Just redone my maths, to switch entirely to Nikon with a brace of D700's, 3 flash units, whole bunch of lenses, etc would cost me after the sale of my canon gear exactly £2300 which interestingly enough is the price of the 5D mkII! Now how's that for ironic!
D700 seems to be the in camera, with excellent weather sealing, slightly faster default 5fps upgradeable to 8fps by adding a vertical grip and batteries. The only thing really lacking from the D700 is the ultimate resolution that the 5D mk ii offers, and of course 1080p recording, which for some will not really come into the equation.
Others such as Model have said the art if finding the picture in the negative.
I think both work. It was easy the recompose in the darkroom also as long as you didn't think there was something sacred about the diamissions of the paper. However, a variable framing easel and/or paper cutter fixed that.
Mabe in the future, we can just carry say a 50mm lens, and use super high resolution sensors, which we can crop in to simulate 400mm super zooms .
Another term for cropping in images could be considered as digital zoom found in some mobile phone camera optics.
The thing is that you do have to crop when shooting with primes, at least for weddings which is what I do, you are shooting moments and can't always have an exact composition in the way that you can with a zoom. On the other hand there is so much resolution and sharpness shooting a 5D and primes that as long as all the necessary detail has been resolved, you just don't need any more and you have plenty room to crop before you reach that buffer in most cases. One thing that I've learned is that shooting with top primes will bring a huge boost in resolution compared to even top L zooms. Shooting group shots with my cheap 50mm f1.4 at f5.6 absolutely creams my 24-70L for detail and contrast (and I've owned 3 copies of the zoom!) and my 85mm 1.8 is much better than that even.
It does of course boil down to your needs, if you are shooting in a controllable enviroment then you shouldn't need to crop, it's not a problem to get everything right in the viewfinder. If you're shooting in an uncontrollable situation then there is little that needs that level of resolved detail.
I do think that 12-13 megapixels is the sweet spot for a 35mm form factor DSLR, big pixels with great DR, easy to work with files and providing good glass, enough resolution to satisfy the vast majority of needs.
Last edited by Ben Rubinstein; 22nd September 2008 at 01:48.
hehe true. Will be good to see if the dynamic range from the new 5d mk ii will be improved. With 14 bit, theoretically this a supposed to be the case.
Mabe Canon will see this and correct it in the final release 5d mk ii
The video is truly impressive....
Here is the back story
Terry is just trying to plug her old city
But thanks for the links all the same
Chris. The irony in your comment is that for one week every year most New Yorkers wish we didn't live here and this is that week. The UN General Assembly is in session and we have all the world leaders with their staff and security trying to get around the city. Charming!
Last edited by Terry; 23rd September 2008 at 06:05.
Terry - been in NYC during such UN sessions - nothing but commuting hell.
Life is an ever changing journey
I have searched and have not found what I need to know.
After thinking about it. I may be able to use the video part of this camera more than I originally thought.
Does anyone know if you can shoot unlimited amounts of video or is this a 30 second clip camera??
Somebody will surely have the exact spec, but I think I remember reading it's 4 GB chunks which translate to roughly 3 minutes or so of full res video at one time... So a 16G card and you could basically have 12 minutes of video.
Some of the details are addressed Here. Michael R. mentions a 13 minute limit due to the 4GB FAT 32 file size limitation. I suppose that firmware updates may address this. His remarks pertain to a pre-production sample of the camera.
Thanks Jack and Dale..
I checked out the review and sample vid he had up.
I think it will be fine for shooting what I need it to. I do some weddings with the Canon GL2 so this would make a good companion camera and it would be way easier to use on location shoots. 1 less camera bag to cart around and keep track of..
Looks like i'll be getting one as soon as I can. I guess I also need to upgrade my computer to handle the file size when editing..
And being able to plug the card into the card reader is a lot easier than transferring form the camera.
Here's an ISO 800 JPEG from Romy Ocon that shows off the image quality pretty well -> http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/ima...12263/original
Here is a link to all the images he has from this test day.
Some interesting stuff here. The screen grabs and the 3200 ISO image. Very interesting..