i took some photos with the 1D II and perhaps you folks can enlighten me...
It seems it doesn't quite excel on the DR...
Wherever i got dark subjects.....it tends to loose detail.......for instance: a black cat, a black coat....and they were not in the shadow......they are well lit subjects...
I would just chalk these dark subjects lacking detail to the fact that the metering is mostlikely metering to not blow out the highlights. If you want to expose for the dark areas of a scene I would think that spot metering on the dark subject will bring out their detail, but your light areas are then blown.... With out adding some fill flash, it is what it is..
Don't know about the mkII but the mkIII has a feature when using flash in a scene like your second shot, you can expose for the white, and in spot metering mode use the fel button and it will send a exposure flash which is metering on the dog and presto, your snow is perfect and so is the pooch! Works like a charm.
I really love the camera, and this issue is no 'deal breaker'.
I agree with what you've said about the 2nd picture (the crop), and I tend to believe that is the case with the 1st one,although there's no snow or strong 'whites' in the first one....
I'll put the camera through it's paces in the next days.....to get a better understanding of what it's capable of and what are its limits in terms of DR, ISO (noise) etc...
This is the difference between 8Mp vs 22Mp, a few generations of DIGIC processor and two bits of file depth. Include the strong AA filter of the 1DmkII and it explains why your eyes are looking for detail and contrast differentiation that is just not there where in all subtle details the 5DmkII shows it. There is nothing strange in the above posted pictures. Just accept it as a difference in image quality. The 5DmkII is that good! Have EOSfun with the 1DmkII anyway!
I think the hood shot doesn't have a lot of detail in the dark areas, and so you can't see it - it's not there.
OTOH, the dog looks fine. If you want more detail in the dark areas (i.e. the dog's coat), then you should do some HRD work on the original RAW image. There's a lot more visual info there than any single jpeg-conversion can show. IOW, try blending a multi-layered & multi-exposured set of images. I'll bet that you can tease a lot of detail out of that doggie!
eosfun wrote:
This is the difference between 8Mp vs 22Mp, a few generations of DIGIC processor and two bits of file depth. Include the strong AA filter of the 1DmkII and it explains why your eyes are looking for detail and contrast differentiation that is just not there where in all subtle details the 5DmkII shows it. There is nothing strange in the above posted pictures. Just accept it as a difference in image quality. The 5DmkII is that good! Have EOSfun with the 1DmkII anyway!
I wouldn't go that far. These photos are pretty horrible examples to judge IQ as I could take the same pic of a black dog in white snow with my 5DII and it wouldn't look much different. Look in my uploads section and you'll see what kind of detail and DR the 1DII is capable of. Those were shot in the heat of the day with hot light and harsh shadows.
I agree those high contrast examples aren't the best. And I especially agree with Jim, a more balanced image could be had in Lightroom 3 with a boost of fill light and a little recovery of highlights.
I rather like that the 1D2 has slightly more contrast "pop" when you want it.
As artsupreme says, you really should shoot some of these scenes immediately with the 1D2 and 5D2 and see exactly how they differ, rather than extrapolating from memory. You might be pleasantly surprised -- I haven't found the 1D2 to be hard to work with.
P.S. if you want to compare images from different cameras or from different lenses, then you should take care to present the best that you can do from both sources - otherwise, you're just spinning your wheels.
jcolwell wrote:
P.S. if you want to compare images from different cameras or from different lenses, then you should take care to present the best that you can do from both sources - otherwise, you're just spinning your wheels.
Bottom line, I just figured that the same two crappy pictures posted by me would have had a bit more detail in the blacks, if they had been shot with the 5D II...
There's no 'best of what I can do" involved here........it's just how two cameras take pretty much the same picture (in a framing matter of speaking when I say "same picture").
This is turning into me denying the capabilities of a 1D II which is definitely what i do NOT want to look like.
No worries. You have to expect that you'll encounter many contrarian views when you post images. I post many images and I often get the same results. Sometimes, I even 'diss' my own posts.
adrianb wrote:
... this was not a debate on the images themselves, rather than the ability of a / the camera
Wrong.
As soon as you post an image, the debate is all about the image. There are many other layers of debate, but the seminal debate is about the image. After all, that's what we're doing here - making images, eh?
adrianb wrote:
My two examples are just some crappy test snapshots....they qualify below 'test snapshots'...
I just showed them to point out a fact which I was not sure of.
I'm not an expert in neither photography,nor gear....it was just a humble assumption.
I pretty much know what to expect from a body such as the 1D II (given its age, sensor ,resolution etc)..
Yet I fail to understand what artsupreme was trying to say in the post above..
What I was trying to say is that shooting a black dog in white snow and then cropping to 100% is not going to show off much for any sensor. You were exposed for the snow and the dog blacked out (although you should be able to pull detail out as other have stated). Being 8MP this is not the way to test your camera IQ especially if trying to compare 100% crops with against 21MP file. Make it a goal to fill your frame as much as you can instead of trying to crop a black spec in white frame and expect to pull out tons of detail. The MkII will provide plenty of detail but you do a better job at filling your frame and shoot something other than black on white.
As someone who has dabbled twice with the m2n and basically failed to get to grips with the raw files the first time round I think you really have to learn them.
I found it strange that if I shot raw +jpeg I had to work the raw file loads to get even close to the jpeg. But that the jpegs from the camera were really good. It was almost as if I could use the keg as my main image file and only use the raw if something was really wrong with it (sort of raw as the backup file)
Now I know the non n does not have such a good jpeg engine but I think you can get the same results (as the n) if you run the raw files thru DPP .
Try it, it may save you some grief
jcolwell wrote:
As soon as you post an image, the debate is all about the image. There are many other layers of debate, but the seminal debate is about the image. After all, that's what we're doing here - making images, eh?
Wrong:
The 'artistic' quality of those 2 images was zero to null -> hence there could have been no relevant discussion on the images themselves as final product/result, but rather a discussion around the characteristics of the "tool" (body) used to get those images and how different characteristics might have altered the final result
(I love to argue with you:cool
Now some decent / average shots done yesterday and today (I only got the body since yesterday )
All shot in RAW, and mildly altered in ACR.
I only use ACR for my (raw) files.
artsupreme wrote:
What I was trying to say is that shooting a black dog in white snow and then cropping to 100% is not going to show off much for any sensor. You were exposed for the snow and the dog blacked out (although you should be able to pull detail out as other have stated). Being 8MP this is not the way to test your camera IQ especially if trying to compare 100% crops with against 21MP file. Make it a goal to fill your frame as much as you can instead of trying to crop a black spec in white frame and expect to pull out tons of detail. The MkII will provide plenty of detail but you do a better job at filling your frame and shoot something other than black on white....Show more →
I get what you're saying (by the way,the fact that I'm replying does NOT mean I want to contradict you or argue with you ).
It's an easy to understand principle that if you try to expose for the blacks, your highlights will be blow to pieces, it's the same principle when shooting lit up sky and dark ground...
And of course,should I want any details in that anonymous dog, I can crack it easily with exposure/shadow /brush on him...
You misunderstood me for trying to compare 8.2 mp with 21mp..
I have never been a fan of cropping, I always try (as much as possible) try to frame my pictures so I don't have to crop them afterwards. I got used this way with the old 30D (8 mp) and 5Dc (12mp). Of course, 21mp of 5DII started to get me cropping sometimes...but I try not to abuse it.
The crop action on the dog was just to make it more visible to you guys (in the actual picture, the dog was smaller and perhaps, what I had intended to point out...would not have been so obvious due to the size of the animal)
:cool
)