While I was doing research on new lens and camera (5D2,1D4,7D,etc) I came across a few posts where people claimed that the 5D2 file looks "digital" and not as "organic" in comparison to the 5D Personally I have not use the classic 5D before so I have no idea what it means about not being organic. Can someone please explain(or show me) about these digital and organic look and what causes it? Is such claim for real or was it just an imagination and a side effect from drinking too much Coolaid??
I've been shooting a 5D2 next to a 5D (amongst others) and am unable to spot this difference. In fact, I've traded my 1D3 for a second 5D2 as I'm that fond of the latter. If and when I find some time I'll shoot the two next to eachother, downsample them to the same size and show you. Output from both 5D and 5D2 is amazing, the 5D2 being the better camera if only for the improved LCD screen. When printing big I prefer to have 21 Mp to start from instead of 12 Mp, though I've printed up to 40 inches on the long side with a 5D and was amazed by the quality.
I shoot both as well and don't see the magical difference. Both great camera's but for my purposes if both were available to me I would take the 5D2 for it obvious advantages.
Sounds like BS. Neither one looks remotely organic to me (if they mean analog, e.g., film, by organic). Both look better than any film I've shot in the Portra series, Sensia or Provia series. Now film tends to show more grain at higher ISO and even in skies at ISO 100. Both the 5D and 5DII are really smooth in comparison, so maybe that's the "digital" look they're referring to. And, yes, the 5DII is a little smoother than the 5D at ISO 1600 and higher. To be smooth looks more natural than grainy.
I can't even see that much difference IQ wise between my recent upgrade from T1i and 5D2.
Sure the colours seem a tiny bit better. Perhaps sharper but I haven't done side by side comparisons. And of course low and high noise go to 5D2 but even still ISO 100 T1i vs. ISO 100 5D2 is pretty similar.
I think IQ difference among the canon bodies is overblown.
I upgraded for features more so than IQ. The meter on the 5D2 is much more accurate and reliable.
I think it's laughable anyone could ascertain the 5D2 as "more digital".
yauyi wrote:
While I was doing research on new lens and camera (5D2,1D4,7D,etc) I came across a few posts where people claimed that the 5D2 file looks "digital" and not as "organic" in comparison to the 5D Personally I have not use the classic 5D before so I have no idea what it means about not being organic. Can someone please explain(or show me) about these digital and organic look and what causes it? Is such claim for real or was it just an imagination and a side effect from drinking too much Coolaid??
Well, IMHO, probably the latter
I've been shooting Canon digital now for almost 15 years. I just traded in my 6 year old 1Ds Mark II for a 5D Mark II. I really like the 5D Mark II*. After shooting with it for the last couple of months, I'm very pleased with the images it produces. It's amazing that I can get organic photos like these out of a digital camera with very little post-processing:
* sure it has it's short falls, heavy color noise at ISO 100 and 200, but I've managed to get over this and move on to use it as my main tool for photography and steer clear of ISO 100.
Digital? What would be natural example in compare to digital? It is great FF camera, bit slow and not perfect on AF but I am fine with it. Some 5D2 shots I did last month:
Breitling - Your first sunset with the tree and the bird formation is a great example of how a digital capture can look, well, digital. The giveaway of is the yellow concentric band around the sun and how that transitions into the surrounding sunset. It's also that most digital captures have a shortage of midtone contrast compared to film and a much harsher transition from highligihts into specular highlights. Shoot that on film and see how much better that will look on a similar sunset. There is also the raw converter used, and if you haven't tried RawDeveloper (http://www.iridient.com/products/rawdeveloper.html) specifically for those types of images, you're missing out on what your files are capable of delivering. What RD can do for a sunset, once you've figured out the myriad of options available to you will make you think you had used a different camera.
Most of what makes digital images look "digital" is the person doing the post production. While the 5D did have a very nice look, I don't prefer those files over those from the 1DsMKII and MKIII I have owned. But maybe a well exposed ISO 100 image from the original 1Ds.
Peter, you are commenting on the appearance of a digital representation of the image on a screen. Scan your most organic film photo and post it and you will see it appearing digital. Digital photos when printed look better than they do when posted online.
Savas K wrote:
Peter, you are commenting on the appearance of a digital representation of the image on a screen. Scan your most organic film photo and post it and you will see it appearing digital. Digital photos when printed look better than they do when posted online.
Peter Figen wrote:
Breitling - Your first sunset with the tree and the bird formation is a great example of how a digital capture can look, well, digital. The giveaway of is the yellow concentric band around the sun and how that transitions into the surrounding sunset. It's also that most digital captures have a shortage of midtone contrast compared to film and a much harsher transition from highligihts into specular highlights. Shoot that on film and see how much better that will look on a similar sunset. There is also the raw converter used, and if you haven't tried RawDeveloper (http://www.iridient.com/products/rawdeveloper.html) specifically for those types of images, you're missing out on what your files are capable of delivering. What RD can do for a sunset, once you've figured out the myriad of options available to you will make you think you had used a different camera.
Most of what makes digital images look "digital" is the person doing the post production. While the 5D did have a very nice look, I don't prefer those files over those from the 1DsMKII and MKIII I have owned. But maybe a well exposed ISO 100 image from the original 1Ds. ...Show more →
Peter Figen wrote:
Shoot that on film and see how much better that will look on a similar sunset..
To compare something you should have example Very high ISO, handhold, no noise, etc I don't think film is capable to perform like this. Also rings around sun depends on your monitor output abilities, I can't see them much.
What Peter described sounds more like a monitor/display issue, if you change your display property from the Color section from 32bit to 16bit(or lower) you'll see a heck lot more of those type of harsh transition!!
yauyi wrote:
What Peter described sounds more like a monitor/display issue, if you change your display property from the Color section from 32bit to 16bit(or lower) you'll see a heck lot more of those type of harsh transition!!
Personally I have not use the classic 5D before so I have no idea what it means about not being organic. Can someone please explain(or show me) about these digital and organic look and what causes it? Is such claim for real or was it just an imagination and a side effect from drinking too much Coolaid??
