large prints, which combo would yield better results..

[Jack]

so unless you are telling me that shooting jpegs automatically cancels out all differences between a FF camera and an APS-C camera, my query still lingers.

No. What I was saying is that shooting in-camera jpegs moderates the advantages of the stated 5D2/lens-lens+converter options to where in my opinion, there will be little to zero gain to using one of those combos over the 50D/70-200. In fact, the stated 5D2 option combos may be *worse* than the 50D/70-200 option.

And I know it's a moot point, but conversely, if you shot in raw and learned to optimally convert the raw, I think that maybe then the 5D2 options might in fact offer you some worthwhile gains for large prints over the 50D/70-200 option.

Cheers,

 

[Greg Seitz]

Don,

First off let me say I agree with Don and Jack that if you are looking to extract maximum detail and richness from the files and give yourself loads more control that raw is absolutely the way to go. I'll show you an example below that I think clearly shows this.

Below you'll find the shots that show the range of options we discussed.

I also threw in a shot at 200 + 1.4TC on the T1i just to see how the 70-200mm F/4 IS handles that case. The lens handled the full gamut exceptionally well even on the extreme example with the TC on the T1i. The T1i if expanded to full frame would be a 40 Mpix sensor - add the 1.4 TC on top of that and the lens is resolving at a level of an 80 Mpix full frame sensor which is pretty amazing.

Regarding the 5D Mark II with TC vs the T1i without, I'd say they are a dead heat as coincidentally the pixel density pretty much matches and I'm not seeing a heck of a lot of degradation when using the TC on the 5D.

The files were shot using Raw+JPG large fine on both cameras using the Canon Standard setting for the picture style with white balance set to daylight.

Finally, just to give you a taste of the difference between the in camera raw files and the standard jpgs out of the camera I've included a crop of the 5D+TC shot converted in Raw Developer. I think you'll agree it's creating a much more detailed shot with significantly more clarity and depth.

A zip file of the jpgs for the various combination's shot at F/4 to F/8 has been uploaded to:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/mvminmnlzq5/70-200jpg.zip

I also uploaded a subset of the RAW files (the ones shot at F/5.6):

http://www.mediafire.com/file/tygzfoiywng/70-200raw.zip


Finally, here is a link to the full file converted in Raw Developer. Compare this to IMG_1490.JPG in the jpg zip to see the full impact of the difference.

1490 developed in Raw Developer


Ok, now an overview of the scene I shot:

Now the T1i in-camera jpeg at 200mm F/5.6:

T1i in-camera jpeg at 200mm F/5.6 + 1.4TC:

5D Mk II in-camera jpeg at 200mm F/5.6:

5D Mk II in-camera jpeg at 200mm F/5.6 + 1.4TC:

Same as immediately above, but 5D Mk II raw file converted with Raw Developer:

Take a close look at that branch near the lower left corner and compare the textures in the raw vs the much mushier jpg. I think you'll agree that there is more than a bit of difference in the above raw shot vs the camera jpg and in my experience the difference will definitely show up in prints, even small ones.

Thanks,

Greg

 

[Jack]

Nice example Greg, thanks for posting!

Just to clarify, the first four crops are each various in-camera jpegs and only the last crop is the converted raw? I can edit the text above each crop to say that if you want.

 

[Greg Seitz]

Nice example Greg, thanks for posting!

Just to clarify, the first four crops are each various in-camera jpegs and only the last crop is the converted raw? I can edit the text above each crop to say that if you want.

That's correct. Certainly, go ahead an edit to make that more clear.

It's been so long since I shot jpg that this was a good exercise just to remind myself of how significant the difference can be!

 

[DonWeston]

Greg - I have to admit that I do see a big difference in the last comparison of jpeg to Raw images and the detail in the branch you mention and other areas as well. Can this be achieved in ACR only? DoI need a special raw converter? Is this a common finding in most of your files so converted? Guess I will have to play with my old raw files that I have! I'll take your word that the difference shows in print as well as on monitor. I appreciate the time it took to collect these samples.

Guess that leaves me with one final question, and that is, would I be better off without the TC and just cropping the image or with the TC, albeit a 1.4x version? The 70-200L F4 IS gets some really big raves from the sites I have checked and it seems in most cases the 5D2/70-200L even cropped, is better than the 70-300mm IS USM, not just wide open but even stopped down. The 5d2 seems like a no-brainer with its high ISO ability and FF tonality. By the time I need longer then that, I will have to look later at my wallet and specific needs at the time.

 

[Jack]

Greg - I have to admit that I do see a big difference in the last comparison of jpeg to Raw images and the detail in the branch you mention and other areas as well. Can this be achieved in ACR only?

Don, I am not Greg but want to point out that Greg used Raw Developer, not ACR and says so in his thread a few times -- you might want to re-read these threads a bit more carefully to make sure you are understanding the key information being shared...

But more to the point is that choice of raw converter can make a significant -- or at least visible -- difference in the final file. ACR is a very good raw converter, but Raw Developer and C1 are probably the recognized leaders in extracting the best detail and/or color from various raw files.

 

[Don Libby]

Don, I am not Greg but want to point out that Greg used Raw Developer, not ACR and says so in his thread a few times -- you might want to re-read these threads a bit more carefully to make sure you are understanding the key information being shared...

Jack

Checking RAW Developer 1.8.3 website looks like it's Mac only am I right?

 

[woodyspedden]

Here is the same image as above, but converted to Adobe RGB, though still obviously an 8-bit jpeg. I realize we're getting way the OP's question, but it does go directly why I made the reco for the simpler, less expensive solution.

Here is the Adobe RGB image and depending on your computer, browser and monitor, you may see a bit more separation in the greens I mentioned, but still nowhere near the separation you would see out of a good, wide-gamut printer:

~~~

Okay, that was as re color space limitations of jpeg. Now we get into enlargement limitations with jpeg. Simple and quick answer is jpegs will not upscale to large prints as well as a tiff due to jpeg compression and resultant artifacting at the pixel level becoming more obvious and exaggerated on a large uprez.

Cheers,

Jack

A few years ago I attended a printing workshop taught by Charlie Cramer and based on the work that he and Bill Atkinson had done together (I believe Bill is now retired from the teaching business altogether but he was a very positive influence while he was doing these workshops) Anyway, they provided a "reference" image that Bill printed on the then prototype 11440 (probably the wrong number but my memory is notoriously faulty......hopefull you get the point) After you had the opportunity to play with all the controls in Photoshop and the printer drivers you could print an image from the electronic file that Charlie and Bill gave to us to see how close to Bill's reference your system achieved.

Since printing is everything in the final analysis, I found this reference image approach to be a Godsend. If you achieved a close approximation of their printed image you would now be able to print other images, on your own, that were close to the best that could be done with real world images and printer setups.

Nothing magic here........just a simplified approach to producing printed images that are close to the best that can be done at any given moment in time. As new printers and inksets are produced you must, of course, have access to updated references to know where you are now. But the work needed is miniscule compared to the old approaches.

Best

Woody

 

[Greg Seitz]

Greg - I have to admit that I do see a big difference in the last comparison of jpeg to Raw images and the detail in the branch you mention and other areas as well. Can this be achieved in ACR only? DoI need a special raw converter? Is this a common finding in most of your files so converted? Guess I will have to play with my old raw files that I have! I'll take your word that the difference shows in print as well as on monitor. I appreciate the time it took to collect these samples.

Guess that leaves me with one final question, and that is, would I be better off without the TC and just cropping the image or with the TC, albeit a 1.4x version? The 70-200L F4 IS gets some really big raves from the sites I have checked and it seems in most cases the 5D2/70-200L even cropped, is better than the 70-300mm IS USM, not just wide open but even stopped down. The 5d2 seems like a no-brainer with its high ISO ability and FF tonality. By the time I need longer then that, I will have to look later at my wallet and specific needs at the time.

Don,

As Jack mentioned, Raw Developer and C1 are generally considered to be able to extract the most detail but even with camera raw or lightroom you will be able to improve significantly on the jpgs out of the camera.

Raw Developer is a mac only app so that would obviously be a non starter if you happen to run windows. It's my go to raw developer when I want to extract maximum detail especially from landscapes.

The Adobe stuff is nice if you're trying to match what you would expect from the out of camera jpgs in terms of color rendering as they have a number of profiles already created that roughly match the Canon styles but I believe you would need to upgrade to CS4 or Lightroom 2 to take advantage of the latest features.

Also, I believe Raw Developer, Capture One, and Adobe have free trials that will let you experiment with them before commiting.

There are plenty of people here whom I'm sure would be able to offer assistance with getting the most out of any of the options available so I'd give at least a couple of them a try if you have the time.

Regarding your camera choice. I'd say if you never need to go out past roughly 300mm and F/4 to F/5.6 work for your style of shooting that you can't go wrong with the 70-200mm F/4 IS and the 1.4x TC combined with a 5D Mk II if you're looking for a great all around camera.

If you are strictly looking for something to shoot at the long end with, your subjects are relatively static, and you have good light so you can use low ISOs, the 50D would be a fine choice. It matches the detail of the 5D MkII with TC and if you mount the TC to the 50D you would have an even longer effective reach and still pick up more detail but you'll need to have good technique.

If low light factors into your decision then the 5D Mk II is the obvious choice as you'll gain at least one stop in the upper ISO range.

Also, if you are shooting from a tripod they both have the same live view implementation that locks up the mirror and lets you use contrast based auto focus. This lets you pick exactly where you want the focus point to be and I've found the camera almost always locks on perfectly. When you release the shutter you get effectively no shutter bounce because the first curtain is electronic. This is an area that Canon has done a better job than any other implementation that I'm aware of - much better than the Nikon implementation of live view.

Well anyways, hope this info is helpful to you, feel free to ask any more questions and I'll see if I can help.

Thanks,

Greg

 

[Greg Seitz]

Jack

Checking RAW Developer 1.8.3 website looks like it's Mac only am I right?

Don, I'm not Jack :ROTFL: but you are correct, it's Mac only software.

 

[Don Libby]

Don, I'm not Jack :ROTFL: but you are correct, it's Mac only software.

Thanks Greg, that what I thought. Still not switching platforms

Don

 

[DonWeston]

Just out of curiousity, are there differences simply between ACR, Raw Developer and C1. Also what are the relative costs of each? I played last night with a few .nef and .cr files I have taken over the last few yrs and was able most times to see some differences, always giving the raw file the upper hand in sharpness, i.e. less mushy.

 

[DonWeston]

BTW - I am not Jack either , and am sure Jack might think I do not know Jack.... but for some of us, photography is only a hobby....and I can admit that I have much to learn, that is why I am here....so the experts can educate me.....:thumbup:

 

[Greg Seitz]

Just out of curiousity, are there differences simply between ACR, Raw Developer and C1. Also what are the relative costs of each? I played last night with a few .nef and .cr files I have taken over the last few yrs and was able most times to see some differences, always giving the raw file the upper hand in sharpness, i.e. less mushy.

Don, there are differences but with tweaking you can generally bring them fairly close. I don't have lots of experience with C1 but Raw Developer makes it fairly easy to get at all the detail without much effort. As a general rule I turn off Noise Reduction and set my sharpening to Hybrid Sharpen Smooth Amount of 7 and Strength to 6 in the SharpNR tab.

In Lightroom or ACR I dial down Color NR to 0, and start with a radius of 0.5, amount 20, detail 78 and then add a touch of sharpening later in PS. You can of course experiment to get things to your liking but for me these are decent starting points. Different cameras will need different amounts of fine tuning. There are many schools of thought on sharpening and the final output that you are targeting definitely impacts your settings so don't take these as gospel just as a general guideline to get started with.

Regarding the relative costs, last time I checked Raw Developer was $125 but I don't know the prices on the other two. You should be able to get prices off their respective web sites.

 

[DonWeston]

Greg - thanks for that info, I plan on using the trial versions this weekend, and comparing to ACR. Wonder when I can't see any differences, those few files where the file did not improve with the raw version, if maybe some shooting issue exists that I never looked to before, will have to check more carefully. I use Mirror lock up and self timer, and have a decent tripod/head for not using very long lenses, but wonder if not using LV, due to cameras not having it, whether focus was slightly off and never noticed it. I just assumed maybe that on a stationary landscape, focus acquisition would not be so difficult....I guess that falls under the old "assume" definition..

Don

 

[Jack]

Hi Don:

Just to add to what Greg already said, yes there are differences, but IMO for you right now the differences between these raw converters are not as significant as shooting raw over jpeg.

As to cost, ACR is free with Photoshop, and is the same conversion engine as LightRoom, and has a simple, usable UI.

My suggestion would be to start with ACR assuming you already have CS3 or 4, and try that for a while and see if the raw workflow begins to suit you better. If it does, then I would explore the alternative converter options.

However, my settings in ACR are different: I dial down *Luminance* NR to 0 and leave Color around 35. I set sharpening to amount 35, radius 0.5, detail to 25 and masking at 0.

Cheers,

 

[Don Libby]

Hi Don

Just to tack on to what Greg and Jack and others have said - and bear with me as I'm on my first cup of coffee...

The biggest factor is shooting RAW. Once you do that you'll have a file that contains much more information than what you've worked with in the past. I've never had problems with ACR in any of the versions of PS however they get better with age and currently CS4 is the best. I've been able to open files I shot with my 1DsII in ACR and fully process them to the point of printing - again all in ACR. A side note here is I've been using PS for many years; I think I started around version 4 (okay showing my age here..).

While I've been shooting MF for several years it's only been months that I've been using C1. The major reason for my late arrival in C1 is they just finally started supporting 64bit. That little bit of history aside, I'm using C1 more and more beyond the LCC for my Cambo.

I've tried LightRoom and for whatever the reason I just can't seem to warm up to it.

I agree with Jack - use the ACR you currently have CS3 or 4 as I believe it'll work for you just fine. As far as settings go - and remember I shoot landscape - I simply don't have any pre conceived settings. I open the image (or images) in ACR and let the image tell me where it wants to go. Listen to you image. And by all means make sure your monitor is calibrated.

Looking forward to seeing some images.

The Other Don

 

[Jack]

And by all means make sure your monitor is calibrated.

Excellent point Don, and MANDATORY for good color output on a print, as is knowing how to print with proper profiles.

Don W, one issue when working with RAW is all of a sudden your color space can be far larger and needs to be properly managed in your workflow right through to print output. Having a properly profiled (not just calibrated) monitor is essential because there is no other way to know that the colors you are seeing AND adjusting are accurate! Next, because the working spaces are often larger than the print spaces, they need to be properly converted to the print spaces to maintain proper appearance -- anything done carelessly can result in disastrous color in your prints.

With a typical jpeg in sRGB, the color space is generally smaller than most modern color printer spaces, so shifts in colors due to careless practices often go largely unnoticed...

So my point here is one downside to the raw workflow: good color management practices become mandatory for good results.

Cheers,

 

[Don Libby]

Sitting here and trying to figure out a visual explanation of the difference between file/information sizes. Figure your coffee cup contains the information found in a Jpeg - now think of a one pound coffee can sitting next to it. That's the difference. (This is what happens as I sit here drinking my first pot of coffee )

You'll be overloaded/bombarded with the amount of information you get with a RAW file and you will have to change your workflow. Don't get discouraged as the effort is well worth it when you produce that kick-a$$ detailed image. Taking this back somewhat you your original question - shooting RAW will make your camera/lens combination work to it's fullest. You'll soon find that you no longer are driving a Yugo - now sitting behind the wheel of a Ferrari on the autobahn. It's not faster - you're just using it as it was intended.

Don

 

[DonWeston]

Jack, Don and Greg - thanks all for the pointers, it will be lots of food for thought this weekend. Raining here anyway, so a good weekend to do PS stuff. Btw - as I told Greg in a PM, some of the bad info I started with here, were from pro portrait shooters locally, I have known for yrs. Their needs are obviously a lot different then mine, I just took things at face value...

If I get real bored, I may check out a free trial for Raw Developer and see if I can achieve better results or not to justify its cost. I also may push off the camera purchase to see if the additional image quality satisfies my current needs. Am sure, they won't get any more expensive while I reconsider...