My 1Ds2 is quite a bit sharper (fine detail) than my 5D.
You're doing something differently than I am, or the majority of postings I've read.
Can you explain a little further:
0) Are you shooting low ISO, 100 or 200?
1) Are you shooting RAW?
2) What program are you using for post-processing? DPP, or LR3?
3) What sharpening levels are you using?
For JPEG's, the prosumer Canons, like the 5D, do somewhat more agressive in-camera processing (sharpening and noise reduction) on JPEGs than pro cameras, like the 1Ds2. This gives slightly more 'snappy' JPEG files from the 5D at the expense of a small loss of image detail. I guess it's because Canon envisions that pro users who shoot JPEGs, like newspaper sports photogs who need to upload images on a deadline, want more control over the post processing than amateurs, who are more likely to turn over their straight-out-of-the-camera JPEGs to a lab for printing.
If you want to compare apples to apples, start with unprocessed raw files. The 1Ds2 is significantly better than the 5D at all ISO's if you start with raws and do the same post processing on the files from both cameras.
Raw gives you so much more options after the shot. Why shot jpeg only ? That just sticks you with the settings that were used at shutter press.
In cam jpegs are fine if you nail everything at the time.
Even if you just stuck the raw file thru DPP you could play with different sharpness settings. And then batch proccess to get the jpegs.
Why not for a while just set the cam to raw + jpeg and see what if any benefit a raw file will give you. ..?
gheller wrote:
Let's assume I am sticking with jpegs.
Then lets assume you don't really want to get the best image quality out of your gear. Sorry if that's harsh but it's only using 3 gears of a 5 gear car.
Jpeg is a compromise whichever way you look at it. Shoot RAW and learn some processing techniques and your images will shine
gheller wrote:
does anyone know how to boost the sharpness in camera on the 1Ds2? I did a Google search and FM search to no avail.
Look at the section in the 1Ds2 manual "Setting the Processing Parameters" starting on pg58.
The manual's on-line at the Canon web site if you don't have a copy.
So far as I know, all the 1D series cameras default to "no in-camera sharpening", but you can set them to do a little or a lot, if you want.
is there any benefit to sharpening in camera vs. in PS?
The biggest disadvantage to sharpening in camera is that it destroys image detail at the time of capture, which you can never get back in post processing. There's also a small increase in noise as you increase the amount of in-camera sharpening, The only advantage I can think of to doing any sharpening at all in-camera is that it gives you very slightly nicer preview images to look at before you start your post processing.
There are lots of advantages to sharpening in photoshop (or in some other program):
- more control: more sharpening algorithms are available, and they're more sophisticated
- ability to choose sharpening methods and parameters based on the image content
- ability to do selective sharpening (e.g. to apply more sharpening to a subject's eyes than to their skin by using masks and layers
- ability to undo any sharpening decisions you make during post processing
Let's assume I am sticking with jpegs.
I'm going to make my case for shooting raw, anyway ...
You can lose a lot of image information when the camera takes the 12 bits of data (from the 1Ds2 sensor) and attempts to cram it into an 8-bit JPEG. When you shoot raw, you get all 12 bits of data to play with in post processing which can help you fix exposure errors and allow you to keep highlight and/or shadow detail that the in-camera JPEG engine would have discarded.
The middle ground is to set the camera to raw+JPEG. I started that way when I first began using raw files, but eventually ended up switching to "all raw, all the time", when I found that using raw instead of JPEG didn't add much time to my post processing.
gheller wrote:
Coming from my 5D, I thought I would be blown away with 30% more pixels to play with.
There is a way to translate a percentage increase in pixel count into another measure that is more intuitive in how it helps resolution.
First, we convert the increase in pixel count into a linear measure, how much increase it is in each direction.
sqrt(130/100) = 1.14
Then, we can recalculate that into a ratio of number of pixels. To find the smallest whole number that is approximately correct, I do this:
1 / (1.14 - 1) = 7
The resulting ratio is approximately is (7+1) / 7 = 8/7.
This means that if you have a small crop of 8x8 pixels with the higher resolution camera (1Ds2), the same crop would be represented by 7x7 pixels with the lower resolution camera (5D). Now it is easy to understand why you don't see a big difference.
As an aside, when new cameras with higher resolution are released, and people see little difference, this is often misinterpreted as we are outresolving the lens, and that a further increase in resolution would be a waste. The truth is more likely that a larger increase in pixel count would actually be necessary if you want a visible improvement.
dhphoto wrote:
Then lets assume you don't really want to get the best image quality out of your gear. Sorry if that's harsh but it's only using 3 gears of a 5 gear car.
Jpeg is a compromise whichever way you look at it. Shoot RAW and learn some processing techniques and your images will shine
I agree 100%. Speaking from personal experience, my images really are more fun since I started shooting raw. It really invigorated my already intense obsession/compulsion for photography. I even shoot sports raw and accept the slower buffer, less files it takes to fill a card etc etc.
I was once told that I am using a fraction of my cameras ability when shooting jpeg. Anyway I would say just try shooting raw and experience all that can be done in the conversion stage and then decide if jpg is the way for you.
But hey, my wedding partner and photog mentor only shoots raw when he knows I am doing the editing, but he is like the golden child with a camera, he just gets it right in camera, me on the other hand
I just hope you are having fun no matter how you shoot. Oh and I don't think your two examples are a fair way to judge the 1dsII sharpness, to many variables that could have influenced the sharpness, lens, shutter speed, iso, settings, motion blur, shaky hands, you get the point.
I absolutely realize that shooting RAW is the way to go to maximize the camera's ability.
That being said, 75% of my business is simple family portraits and I doubt they will ever be printing anything larger than an 8x10.
My issue is that, when comparing apples to apples, the 5D files seemed to be sharper (with no noticeable artifact). I am starting to experiment with RAW, but would have loved to keep the same workflow and have an increase in sharpness.
The renovations on my studio are just about done, so I will be able to really compare the 1Ds2 files to the 5D using exactly the same settings.
gheller wrote:
That being said, 75% of my business is simple family portraits and I doubt they will ever be printing anything larger than an 8x10.
If that is true, why are you bothering to compare them at 100+% view on a computer? The differences you are seeing would most likely never be perceptible at those print sizes...
also dont forget, that its the 1 series, different from the other models, in your case `5`. canons pro lines have low defaults, as you have the pro camera you should know what your doing with pp, and with that they expect 1 series pro users to shoot raw.
Greg -- I normally shoot RAW, but this last week I played with 1Ds2 and two 1D2's in JPG to adjust WB and compare image qualiities.
I set my cameras to "5" or maximum sharpness in all these cameras (although it doesn't translate using LR, but does for DPP when shooting RAW). In the main menu, first tab, go to Parameters > Set-up to find the settings for Sharpness and Contrast. I found the 1Ds2 to be overly-agressive, right on the edge of too much sharpening and CA (using the same lens on each body) -- it was haloing many straight edges and glowing on hot edges. The 1D2's were less influenced. I don't know why, since they all use Digic 2 processor.
You can adjust your sharpness, but I wouldn't go too low. Try 3 or 4, even 5 for comparison purposes. I add one unit of contrast usually too, so that may affect the edges a little more.
Your Color Matrix can also have a big influence. I use the most saturated, 3H (it's not that saturated, if you've seen my images). But you might check, and dial it down to Standard, or if that was what you used, then Portrait for a softer contrast and color balance.
The 1Ds2 is different than the 5D, and you will benefit by testing the various settings to see what they do. I know at sounds old-school, but it's true. I'm amazed how many possible variations there are in even the 5D, let alone the 1D-series!
RAW is good, but you should be able to shoot your type of picture with JPG and be pretty happy.
And as was said, the jump from 12.7MP to 16.7MP isn't that high of a percentage of image area. It is a useful improvement along with an overall pro package, but not like doubling resolution would be to 25MP.
Hope all the advice from the members is helping you get a handle on how to get teh shots you want.
