Just posted it a few minutes ago!
Just posted it a few minutes ago!
Thanks for this great review!
It almost reflects my observations to 99%.
I like the 5D2!!!
I seem to retrieve the waxy look i did not like when i tested some 5D2 jpegs a couple of months ago. Not sure if it comes from a smearing effect but a lot of details seem to have disappeared on the subject's skin compared to the M8. Now the DoFs are not exactly the same and it's hard to compete with the Summilux asph obviously.
Seems to be more detail and less smearing in the canon file than the M8 if you look under the eye. I think you would have to have equal focus/DOF (i.e. more than a mm in focus) and equal density/colour for a real comparison.
That said I don't like the look of the 5D mkII files either from the RAW files I've worked on, it looks like it has a bottle thick AA filter which I really don't like. My 5D has just such beautifully sharp and detailed files for all that it's only 12 megapixels.
I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz
Yes, the 5DII does seem to have a THICK AA filter, and shooting JPEG, the iimages look like they have a coating on them. To even come close to matching the M8 you have to shoot RAW, and sharpen quite a bit. I have a ton of side by side M8/5DII shots that I did not even post. I still prefer my M8, though do like the low light capabilities and video of the 5DII.
Thanks for checking it out!
On a Canon DSLR you will notice a HUGE difference in color delivery and resolution shooting adapted premium lens from Leica, Zeiss, CV, etc. Damn near floored me first time I tried it years ago. Never went back. Some things are worth stop-down and manual focus.
That said, AA filter will always be a disadvantage.
Would be interesting to test 5DII and M8 with M and R versions of two lenses with similar formula. Rule the glass out of the equation.
Yes or 5D vs 5D2 with the same Leica or Zeiss lenses. I like much the results of the 5D with R lenses so i wonder if the waxy look out of the 5D2 would disappear then.
LCT I doubt the waxy look will disappear on the 5D2 when using R lens. The problem is not the optics here, but rather the way Canon is handling the sensor and noise reduction. I personally believe the 5D2 sensor is not cut out to what everyone makes it out to be. Unfortunately prior to the release of the 5D2, there was alot of pressure on Canon to produce a replacement for the 5D which was the noise king at the time. As Canon really had not developed any new breakthrough technology, except for micro lens design, they were forced to release a higher Megapixel replacement for the 5D, but using nearly the same technology as the 5D sensor. The close proximity of the pixels in the 5D2 may have allowed for this higher Megapixel, but in the process, noise was too increased. To counter act this noise and to bring it back on par and if not better than the original 5D noise, the Digic 4 processor has applied Pre noise reduction to the image, even before we get to see the RAW file. This is the reason why even at ISO100, one can see this waxy look or what I call water color Picasso effect, a byproduct of inhouse Digic 4 noise reduction.
As for the AA filter being too strong. I am baffled to why Canon would even consider putting in a stronger AA filter in the 5D2 over the 5D. Theoretically with the advent of higher density high megapixel sensors, the Moire effects should be less of a problem, as resolution of the sensor gets close to out resolving the resolution of the lens.
Thank you Mazor. Looks like i'll stick to the 5D for some time then.
Mazor has a very good point. Alternate lenses will vastly improve color, clarity and resolution, but only a different camera will fix the manner in which Canon (in this case) seem to be working NR.
As for AA filters - don't get me started.
I have Leica R lenses and I use them with my Canon DSLRs, but I am not so much overwhelmed by their quality in this combination. AND - it gets really slow working with non Canon lenses on a Canon DSLR.