So the other day I played around witha 5d at the store and realy liked the new display. This display is also used on the 1d markII n. My question is this has anyone who also owns a 1d markII used the new "N" camera yet. If so asside from the display how does it compare to the regualar 1d mark II ? Go ahead and say what you will about chimping. Chimping is a lot better option than getting the shots in the computer and finding out only then that there was a problem that you could have easily corrected at the time they were shot.
I have a 1D Mark II and recently got to handle an "n" camera in a store, and the new LCD is sweet, makes the camera look more modern too... Nothing I would change camera over, but I am a bit envious of those who get the new version.
this site shows a comparison betwwen the two,,also if you cruise the site, there is another thread with similar comparixons between the 20d 5d and 1dm11 i believe, you may have to register but the site is free,,,
I got my 1D Mk II N (did not come from a 1D Mk II but a 20D ) on tuesday and have compared the LCD with a couple of shooters who have the 1D Mk II I met at a couple of hockey games I've covered this week. The extra 0.5 inches on the display make a big difference in my mind. Most of the people who was there to compare loved it too. That said it's not something that makes or kills your day.
Of course it depends on how much you use the LCD. The pixel count is not higher, just spread over a larger area. I think what you see on the LCD on the Mk II N is a lot closer to real life result and it seems to me that it's easier to see if the shot is in focus. The fact that you have a 170 degree (if I remember correctly) viable angle on the LCD on the Mk II N makes it a lot faster to review pictures. You don't have to have that dead on view.
this site shows a comparison betwwen the two,,also if you cruise the site, there is another thread with similar comparixons between the 20d 5d and 1dm11 i believe, you may have to register but the site is free,,,
From reading this article, it seems to suggest that there's quite a difference in the images coming from the two cameras, which really surprises me. I was under the impression that the changes between the cameras were the size of the LCD and a few menu tweaks?
Can anyone more informed comment on this? I've just about got the cash to buy either a well-priced mk II or bite the bullet and buy a new mk II N, and want to make sure I buy right.
Tredders wrote:
From reading this article, it seems to suggest that there's quite a difference in the images coming from the two cameras, which really surprises me. I was under the impression that the changes between the cameras were the size of the LCD and a few menu tweaks?
Can anyone more informed comment on this? I've just about got the cash to buy either a well-priced mk II or bite the bullet and buy a new mk II N, and want to make sure I buy right.
Mark.
IMO the difference in the jpg quality is night & day.......the "N" puts out much better images (sharp/sat) than the old Mk2. The jpg's were so soft on the mk2 that I returned it. Now that I am shooting with the "N"........and being a sharpness freak, I turned up the sharpening by only 1 in the Standard mode. Reviewing some of the shots, they were to sharp! My normal USM on my 20D is about 170. I had to turn it down to 80 on the "N". So I changed it back. But it's really nice not to have to sharpen over 300 to get a good jpg, and the colors are great........however not real happy with the portriat pic style, it's just too red. but just like every other camera it takes a little tweaking to get used to. After my experience with the old mk2 if you gave me one I would return it for glass..........not even in the same ballpark as the "N'.....IMO. But keep in mind the guys that know their way around PS better than me might feel different........also keep in mind I'm 95% jpg's, so that's important to me.
SeanH wrote:
IMO the difference in the jpg quality is night & day.......the "N" puts out much better images (sharp/sat) than the old Mk2. The jpg's were so soft on the mk2 that I returned it. Now that I am shooting with the "N"........and being a sharpness freak, I turned up the sharpening by only 1 in the Standard mode. Reviewing some of the shots, they were to sharp! My normal USM on my 20D is about 170. I had to turn it down to 80 on the "N". So I changed it back. But it's really nice not to have to sharpen over 300 to get a good jpg, and the colors are great........however not real happy with the portriat pic style, it's just too red. but just like every other camera it takes a little tweaking to get used to. After my experience with the old mk2 if you gave me one I would return it for glass..........not even in the same ballpark as the "N'.....IMO. But keep in mind the guys that know their way around PS better than me might feel different........also keep in mind I'm 95% jpg's, so that's important to me. ...Show more →
Maybe the 1D Mark II you tried having focusing problem. When 1D Mark II used with good glass in the good lighting condition, you even don't need USM .
Don't use 1D camera if you are not good at PS, but the new picture style may save you...
SeanH
I am glad to find a N shooter who uses a lot of JPEGs. I am the same way. I neither have the time or energy to shoot 1000s of raw pictures. I was considering the N... Canon touts one of the "picture modes" as outstanding with little postprocessing needed. Have you used this mode, and what is your feeling of it vs. jpegs from the 20d/350d or markII non-n
SeanH wrote:
IMO the difference in the jpg quality is night & day.......the "N" puts out much better images (sharp/sat) than the old Mk2. The jpg's were so soft on the mk2 that I returned it. Now that I am shooting with the "N"........and being a sharpness freak, I turned up the sharpening by only 1 in the Standard mode. Reviewing some of the shots, they were to sharp! My normal USM on my 20D is about 170. I had to turn it down to 80 on the "N". So I changed it back. But it's really nice not to have to sharpen over 300 to get a good jpg, and the colors are great........however not real happy with the portriat pic style, it's just too red. but just like every other camera it takes a little tweaking to get used to. After my experience with the old mk2 if you gave me one I would return it for glass..........not even in the same ballpark as the "N'.....IMO. But keep in mind the guys that know their way around PS better than me might feel different........also keep in mind I'm 95% jpg's, so that's important to me. ...Show more →
Unless I'm missing something, the "picture styles" and just presets of parameters that Canon provides, and you could set the parameters to those presets yourself on a 1DII and should be able to get the same results.
In fact, when DPP 2.0 becomes available to 1DII owners, my understanding is that with a 1DII in RAW, you will be able to have access to the picture styles via the software, and once you see what they are, if you choose to shoot jpegs, you can just set your parameters to those picture style settings and should be able to get the exact same results.
Les
I was looking at one site or another and it was implied that the "N" version has a slightly deeper buffer. As long as Canon has not messed anything up in the new "N" body I am leaning towards selling my mark II and picking one up. Mostly for the display (Old eyes ) does any body know what a 1d mark II in good condition would sell for these days? Also does anybody know if the batteries from my body will fit in the "N" body?
uz2work wrote:
Unless I'm missing something, the "picture styles" and just presets of parameters that Canon provides, and you could set the parameters to those presets yourself on a 1DII and should be able to get the same results.
In fact, when DPP 2.0 becomes available to 1DII owners, my understanding is that with a 1DII in RAW, you will be able to have access to the picture styles via the software, and once you see what they are, if you choose to shoot jpegs, you can just set your parameters to those picture style settings and should be able to get the exact same results.
Les...Show more →
Yea your missing something , the old mk2 DOES NOT have the level of in camera sharpening/Sat levels as the "N". It's pretty much common knowledge about the "weak" in camera processing of the old 1 series camera's........I could find a couple websites that state that. This is why Canon made the changes that they did. Why have such a great camera that shoot's weak jpg's?? Canon saw this weak point and fixed it. Yes at first I thought the same thing.........Canon doing some presets in the menu and claiming it's different. But besides the checking I did before I bought the camera, I also can see a big difference in the photo's now that I have the camera. Hey I'm not knocking another Canon........I love Canon's, but facts are facts.
But yes I think guys with the old mk2 will be able to use the pic styles.........but then your back to the same thing.........having to process for great jpg's. Plus that might only be in RAW.
I think the biggest proof of this is the "N"site where it says that the "Standard" setting is the same as pamameter as the 20D's parameter 1, then if you look at Canon's mk2 site it has a section where it shows the in camera processing comparing the dsmk2, mk2, 10D, and 20D. The 1 series max processing covers the parameter 2 of the 10 & 20D (P-2 is the 0 processing for those camera) but can't cover P-1 of those camera's........and that's the standard setting on the "N".
SeanH wrote:
IMO the difference in the jpg quality is night & day.......the "N" puts out much better images (sharp/sat) than the old Mk2. The jpg's were so soft on the mk2 that I returned it. Now that I am shooting with the "N"........and being a sharpness freak, I turned up the sharpening by only 1 in the Standard mode. Reviewing some of the shots, they were to sharp! My normal USM on my 20D is about 170. I had to turn it down to 80 on the "N". So I changed it back. But it's really nice not to have to sharpen over 300 to get a good jpg, and the colors are great........however not real happy with the portriat pic style, it's just too red. but just like every other camera it takes a little tweaking to get used to. After my experience with the old mk2 if you gave me one I would return it for glass..........not even in the same ballpark as the "N'.....IMO. But keep in mind the guys that know their way around PS better than me might feel different........also keep in mind I'm 95% jpg's, so that's important to me. ...Show more →
This is my exact concern.... I also shoot a lot of jpegs (sports stuff for newpapers), and the thing I love about the 1D is how little post-processing I need (a little levels tweak plus a bit of USM and I'm good to go). The temptation for me at the moment is to pick up a well-priced mk II for around $3000, but the stories of image quality difference with the 'N' are making me wonder whether I should hold out and pay a little extra for the 'N'.
Anyone else able to give a side by side comparison?
sjms wrote:
price anywhere between $2900-$3300 depending on the war wounds and for the shutter freaks the click-o-counter.
the battery is the same throughout the 1 series. so yes it will
With regard to the used price of a 1DII now. Let's say that it is around $3000. A year from now it will probably be around $2500. If a used 1DII, a year from now, sells for $2500, it is likely that a used 1DII N will be selling for around $2700. That means that, if you upgrade from a 1DII to a 1DII N now, and, a year or so from now when Canon announces the 1DIII or the unified 1-series, and if you then decide to sell that 1DII N to buy the new body, having done so is going to cost you $800 because it will cost you a net of about $1000 to trade up to the 1DII N now, but you will only get back about $200 more for the 1DII N than the 1DII if you sell it a year from now.
For me, while the "improvements" in the N might be nice to have if I were just starting now, they don't mean enough to me that I'm willing to spend $800 to get them now. I'd rather put that $800 toward the money that I'll be spending
in 12-18 months for the 1DIII or unified 1-series. I don't chimp much, so the bigger LCD doesn't mean much to me. I've never shot a jpeg with my 1DII and don't plan to. So, even if jpeg performance is better (I'm still skeptical of that), it doesn't mean anything to me. Having a RAW buffer that is two shots deeper means nothing to me because I've never filled the buffer of my 1DII or even come close to doing so, etc. I suppose that, if I was willing to have an unlimited budget for photography, I'd be getting the 1DII N. If it could take better pictures, I'd probably want one. Considering, however, that the pictures are still going to be the same, I'd rather use the net $800 that it would cost me to trade up to an N for other priorities, either photographic or
not photographic. Again, I know that the next real upgrade of the 1DII will have improvements that really do affect the picture quality and that I will want to get it. I've already had my 1DII depreciate. I'm not interested in also paying the price of a 1DII N depreciating just to have a temporary minor upgrade on the way to the next real upgrade.
Les
i agree with colin. in my experience there is no difference. this is based on my own recently bought mk2 and speaking to a canon rep giving a demo of both the 5d and mk2n in a local store. he assured me there was no difference in image quality between the 2 mk2 cameras, just different ways of getting the same end result. with the sharpness at +2 jpgs are as sharp as i want, but if you want more you can crank it up to +5 and cut your eyeballs.
) does any body know what a 1d mark II in good condition would sell for these days? Also does anybody know if the batteries from my body will fit in the "N" body?