fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              8              10       11       end
  

Archive 2008 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!

  
 
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #1 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


Strid3r wrote:
Put this in the g*d d**n 5D thread!


the gdan 5D thread is like 300 posts long, mostly about rumors, now we need a specific thread for each camera and can only talk about it there even if everyother post would be about a totally different topic dealing with the cam?

that thread was made just to absorb all the rumors and pre-release talk

anyway brainiac was 100% correct, the 5dmkii is soft:
ISO1600, 100% crop:
http://skibum4.smugmug.com/photos/426887595_jCwzC-O.jpg


Edited on Nov 30, 2008 at 02:26 PM · View previous versions



Nov 29, 2008 at 06:38 PM
CarlG
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #2 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


skibum5 wrote:
the gdan 5D thread is like 300 posts long, mostly about rumors, now we need a specific thread for each camera and can only talk about it there even if everyother post would be about a totally different topic dealing with the cam?

that thread was made just to absorb all the rumors and pre-release talk

anyway bian was right the 5dmkii is soft:
ISO1600, 100% crop:
http://skibum4.smugmug.com/photos/426887595_jCwzC-O.jpg


what glass? Softness has a lot to do with glass and/or user error....it rarely has to do with the body.



Nov 29, 2008 at 08:23 PM
francishmt
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #3 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


Daan B wrote:
I am Daan B, and I approve this message


.... good one.



Nov 29, 2008 at 09:11 PM
mark petri
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #4 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


sharpness is overrated.

Listen to the OP and stop chasing hype and perception. You'll find more time for shooting.




Nov 30, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Sean Mills
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #5 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


mark petri wrote:
sharpness is overrated.


So are Ferraris but they look damn good.
That said, no you cannot expect the same results from 21mp as you had from 12mp.... the degradation, flare, fring, etc were all there before. You were just never close enough to truly see it.

And amen, just shoot until you're dizzy.



Nov 30, 2008 at 01:10 PM
stiksandstones
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #6 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


brainiac wrote:
I want to pre-empt an inevitable controversy.

BE WARNED, there is certainly going to be a lot of gnashing of teeth and wailing about how noisy and unsharp the 5DmkII is after it ships, and people start comparing 100% crops with their old 5D's. Ignore it. This will only happen because people will fail to uprez their 5D files to 21 megapixel before comparing 100% crops.

Even reviewers like DPReview and Luminous Landscape routinely make this methodological error when comparing cameras.

There is a simple way to see what your new files are really like: uprez the 5D file to 21 megapixels, and
...Show more


Are you saying that 100% crop is unsharp in the corner??
It looks amazing to me.




Nov 30, 2008 at 01:47 PM
mark1958
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.9 #7 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


I do not want to get into some of mis-stated arguments in this thread. However, I do want to show you a comparison that I think was done quite well. It compares image quality of the 5D2 and 1DsmkIII in a studio setting. In the first posting there were some mis-focusing issues but those were fixed so scroll down a bit. You will see at low isos the image quality between the 5DII and 1DsmkIII are quite similar. I believe the lenses used were the canon 90mm TSE and canon 135mm f2.0.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29821



Nov 30, 2008 at 01:54 PM
Brent Ward
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #8 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


I found it interesting (& surprising) that they thought both cameras were better than the p25.


Nov 30, 2008 at 02:21 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #9 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


CarlG wrote:
what glass? Softness has a lot to do with glass and/or user error....it rarely has to do with the body.



well I though the obvious sharpness would make the obviousness of the sarcasm obvious and then with the for good measure I thought it would obviously make the obviousness of the obvious sarcasm obvious, haha, but once again I learn the dangers of sarcasm and joking on the internet

anyway, brainiac's point was NOT that the 5DMkII is less sharp, but I was just playing on that and tossed up a really sharp 5DMkII picture and between how sharp it was and the ' ' I thought everyone would get it but apparently not one got it hah.

anyway the lens is the 70-200 f/4 IS



Nov 30, 2008 at 02:32 PM
brainiac
Offline
[X]
p.9 #10 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


brainiac wrote:
extreme bottom right corner:
http://cyberphotographer.com/1ds3/stevestevemarc_bottomright.jpg


stiksandstones wrote:
Are you saying that 100% crop is unsharp in the corner??
It looks amazing to me.


I think the lens is limiting sharpness in the corner. It's a tiny proportion of the frame, and it's still a good result, but it isn't perfect. There are lenses which can resolve perfectly in the corners at f11 on a 1Ds3, but my copy of the 17-40 isn't one of them. Some landscape shooters care about this, and why shouldn't they?



Nov 30, 2008 at 05:36 PM
anthonygh
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #11 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


Does anyone on here ever visit galleries and view any of the worlds most iconic photographs?

It now seems there is photography (pixel peeping etc)...and photography (creating great images)....don't let the two become confused...anyone who can't create great images with a 10D or EOS 3 isn't much of a photographer...whatever he or she knows about pixel peeping!



Nov 30, 2008 at 07:18 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #12 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


anthonygh wrote:
Does anyone on here ever visit galleries and view any of the worlds most iconic photographs?

It now seems there is photography (pixel peeping etc)...and photography (creating great images)....don't let the two become confused...anyone who can't create great images with a 10D or EOS 3 isn't much of a photographer...whatever he or she knows about pixel peeping!


https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/712779/1#lastmessage



Nov 30, 2008 at 07:29 PM
lskelly
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #13 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


Looking at the test shots on Luminous Landscape, I think the 5Dii has slightly better DR in all the images. You can see it in the label of the Chivas bottle, and the orange berries in the image of the currency.

For sharpness - they look very, very close, though I think I see a very minor improvement in the 5D ii images.



Nov 30, 2008 at 09:36 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #14 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


skibum5 wrote:
well I though the obvious sharpness would make the obviousness of the sarcasm obvious and then with the for good measure I thought it would obviously make the obviousness of the obvious sarcasm obvious, haha, but once again I learn the dangers of sarcasm and joking on the internet

anyway, brainiac's point was NOT that the 5DMkII is less sharp, but I was just playing on that and tossed up a really sharp 5DMkII picture and between how sharp it was and the ' ' I thought everyone would get it but apparently not one got it
...Show more

That's funny as I do not find that image obviously sharp. Lots of contrast to be sure but if you look for actual resolved detail in the bark, its not there. The image has simply been over sharpened and you can see this when you look at the veins in the leaves. The detail is not there at the pixel level. Having said that, this image looks damn good for ISO 1600 and the sort of sharpening performed would probably look very good in print.



Nov 30, 2008 at 09:48 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #15 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


moondigger wrote:
That constitutes a different sensor, in my mind. Who's to say what specific kinds of changes to a sensor constitute a 'real' change? The RGB filtering is an important component of sensor design and (at least in this case) the sensor's light sensitivity has been improved by altering the filters and electronics.

Two stops higher native (not "expanded") ISO is not something you can get by tweaking software in Digic IV. You need a real change (or changes) to the sensor to achieve that. Whether the changes are to the filters and electronics or the microlenses and gaps between them
...Show more

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29896

Looks like to me the 1dsIII might actually perform better and that all the talk of the superiority of the 5DII sensor was all Canon marketing BS.



Nov 30, 2008 at 10:16 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #16 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


Tariq Gibran wrote:
That's funny as I do not find that image obviously sharp. Lots of contrast to be sure but if you look for actual resolved detail in the bark, its not there. The image has simply been over sharpened and you can see this when you look at the veins in the leaves. The detail is not there at the pixel level. Having said that, this image looks damn good for ISO 1600 and the sort of sharpening performed would probably look very good in print.


well i beg to differ to but to each there own.
I see plenty of bark details there down to the pixel level with all sorts of 1 pixel very sharp transitions and it looked pretty sharp even before I did any sharpening. Maybe you don't like or are not used to my sharpenign action or maybe you are used to DPP which can gie some more bite in certain ways but at the expense of more random de-mosaicing artifacts than ACR.

anyway i also posted the original raw so you could peek at that if you wanted to althoughi'm not sur eit's worth it, to take the sharpening out of it, but it sure looked about as sharp as I see unsharpened RAWs.

if you find that blurry enough to take as someone complaing about blur, not sure what to say, since i've used 135L, 300 2.8, 70-200 f/4 IS and so on and this looks good to me, you must have some fine copies of lenses or maybe the original 5D and the notoriously weak AA filter on it is in fact THAT notoriously weak.



Edited on Nov 30, 2008 at 10:31 PM · View previous versions



Nov 30, 2008 at 10:22 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #17 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


Tariq Gibran wrote:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29896

Looks like to me the 1dsIII might actually perform better and that all the talk of the superiority of the 5DII sensor was all Canon marketing BS.


OTOH, the people who have looked at the RAW RAW data with rawanalyzing programs (a MUCH more uniform test than the LL one) have found the 5DII to have almsot a stop less read noise at high ISO so at least at higher ISO it's hard to see the 5DII being worse....

edit: note, even if it bears out 1 stop better read noise is not the same as 1 stop better



Edited on Dec 02, 2008 at 02:31 AM · View previous versions



Nov 30, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #18 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


skibum5 wrote:
well i beg to differ to but to each there own.
I see plenty of bark details there down to the pixel level with all sorts of 1 pixel very sharp transitions and it looked pretty sharp even before I did any sharpening.

anyway i also posted the original raw so you could peek at that if you wanted to althoughi'm not sur eit's worth it, to take the sharpening out of it, but it sure looked about as sharp as I see unsharpened RAWs.

if you find that blurry enough to take as someone complaing about blur, not sure what to say,
...Show more

The image looks good to me overall, particularly for ISO 1600 and I certainly did not mean to imply it was in any way blurry, I just do not see much actual detail in the bark myself. I did see much better per pixel detail from my 5D, but then I seldom shot at ISO 1600. I would think that at ISO 100-400, the 5DII would give much greater detail as well. I used wider alternative lenses which required very little sharpening in general compared to their Canon counterparts, particularly the Zeiss lenses, though I do know the lenses you are using are among Canon's best, particularly the 135L.



Nov 30, 2008 at 10:34 PM
brainiac
Offline
[X]
p.9 #19 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


Tariq Gibran wrote:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29896

Looks like to me the 1dsIII might actually perform better and that all the talk of the superiority of the 5DII sensor was all Canon marketing BS.


Although this is heading off topic, that link is very important reading. I hate to have to say 'I predicted this', but I did, and that's why I bought a 1Ds3 last December. Looks like the 1Ds3 is still about on a level with the D700 and 5D2 at very high iso. ;-)



Dec 01, 2008 at 05:44 AM
brainiac
Offline
[X]
p.9 #20 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


http://skibum4.smugmug.com/photos/426887595_jCwzC-O.jpg
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The image looks good to me overall, particularly for ISO 1600 and I certainly did not mean to imply it was in any way blurry, I just do not see much actual detail in the bark myself. I did see much better per pixel detail from my 5D, but then I seldom shot at ISO 1600. I would think that at ISO 100-400, the 5DII would give much greater detail as well.


Eek! You know what I am going to say: this is a 100% crop from a 21 megapixel frame, so forget per pixel detail - it's creaming a 5D for image detail. You need to imagine uprezzing your 5D file to 21 megapixels and then comparing a 100% crop.

If this crop could be more detailed, then I would be inclined to look first at the noise reduction algorithm, and then the lens. When you push up iso on a 1Ds3 (and 5D2), the image detail degrades gracefully - the higher you go, the less detail is retrieved. That's normal.

For 1600 iso at 21 megapixels this is a great result - every bit as good as the class leading 1Ds3. Tariq, I'm afraid that your comment is exactly the kind of "5DmkII less sharp than 5D" comment which I set this thread up to pre-empt. ;-)

Proceed without caution.



Dec 01, 2008 at 05:49 AM
1       2       3              8              10       11       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              8              10       11       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account