The GetDPI Photography Forum
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!
Canon 5D Mark II
- Thread starter Chuck Jones
- Start date
LCT,
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.
LJ
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.
LJ
Robert Campbell
Well-known member
Ditto, idisk.mac or whatever comes up three times, asking for login and passwords.
LCT
Member
Sorry guys it is not my iDisk and i don't now what happens. Better attach the files directly:
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.
Mazor
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.
Mazor
check these out
http://www.flickr.com/photos/erikfive/sets/72157607357934354/
Quite interesting comparing D700 at ISO6400 vs 5dmk ii at ISO6400
Mazor
http://www.flickr.com/photos/erikfive/sets/72157607357934354/
Quite interesting comparing D700 at ISO6400 vs 5dmk ii at ISO6400
Mazor
Ben Rubinstein
Active member
I sharpened it up a bit, the detail becomes sharper but there is little more detail apparent as usually happens with a 5D image, the noise reduction is set to 'standard' and at least on smooth areas there does seem to be smoothing. On the other hand it is likely to be the sharpening alogorithm for the jpg's which ignores smooth areas, it does look like they are using a basic edge sharpening, I really don't think we can come to any conclusions until we see the RAW's.
How is it interesting?
It's not brain surgery. If one has extensively used other preceding Canon cameras (in all sorts of conditions) that produced the smoothing waxy look, and then sees examples of that same look on a new Canon camera ... it's natural to be suspicious and skeptical. At one time there wasn't many other choices, Canon had a lock on the FF DSLR ... that time has passed.
A good point to elaborate on. Why do folks post a new camera's internal jpeg against their own camera's raw? I mean if you can't or don't want to convert the new camera raw, shoot your own camera in jpeg mode; at least this way we are comparing something we can draw comparisons from.
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
Marc,
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.
LJ
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.
Just looked through those images. I agree that they do not look too bad. Not as impressed with the ISO 25600 as I maybe was hoping. The ISO 12800 is not bad, and could serve well for some snaps....just not critical work.
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
LJ
Good point, Jack. I had not thought about the impact of higher DR. There is a lot of detail in the shadows of several of the shots, so it could be that the overall DR is noticeably higher, therefore creating that more "flat" look. As you say, if that is the case, it is a good thing, as one can always bring stuff out as needed. At first blush, the initial JPEGs posted just looked like they needed something to make them pop a bit more. Plenty of detail, and that is good also.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
Cheers,
LJ
Guys,
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.
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.
Steen
Senior Subscriber Member
I for one fully agree, Jon, it simply doesn't make all that much sense to judge Image Quality from jpeg files out of a high end camera. Too many silly discussions in the past about exactly that topic.
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 ?
/Steen