I don't believe I ever encounter folks vexing on how beautiful images are from the 50D over a 7D. Or how the IQ from 1ds classic is superior to the predecessors.
Or a the classic Rebel over the T-whatever-i.
The main difference I remember between my 5D and 5DII is that the 5DII had to be returned to Canon twice for repairs in the 11 months I owned it. I owned the 5D for 3 years and it never saw the Canon service center.
I think the biggest issue people have is expecting the 5DII to perform like a 1Ds in terms of post-processing ability, and it just doesn't have the A/D componentry to give you clean shadow detail. The 5Dc's (and 1DsIII's) shadow detail is basically free of quilty noise like the 5DII has.
well you know the way it goes...obviously the 5D2 is better becouse its newer,more MP's,video...ect...cant have an older product be better this would be bad....the earth would stop rotating,dogs would screw cats( DAT's),cats would screw dogs ( COG's)....it would be a total mess...
gdanmitchell wrote:
I've observed something I regard as funny recently.
When digital cameras began to really catch on, a certain contingent stuck by the "classic" film cameras and loudly proclaimed that the older technology was better in so many ways.
Now that we've been through a few generations of digital gear I'm starting to see the very same "classic" preference expressed by those who are wistful not for the old film cameras but for the older digital cameras.
It will only be a matter of time before we'll start seeing post nostalgically recalling the "classic" image quality from the 5D2...
in the times of analog photography, i shot the AE1, A1 and T70. thinking of the most classical body, it was the A1.
when i think of the IQ (and not the ergonomic), of the digital photography, thinking of the two crop-cameras i owned, the 30D was the most classical one than the 50D.
classical IQ could be the effect of the pixel size and the NR algorythms (and other stuff), but generally the harmonious relation between many things.
i own the 1D3 and the 5D2 and i find the 1D3 has a more "classical" look in the photos than the 5D2. why ? because of it's exposure and how contrasts are presented. never owned the 5Dc BTW.
while it is not absurd to look for a "classical" (or kind of neutral) IQ, i agree that one day the 5D2 could be refered as classical, if you imagine futur high-tuned 36mp FF bodies. but even then, the 5Dc will always stay the "classic 5D".
I had the 5d classic.I shot tens of thousands of stills on it...it got stolen along w $30,000 worth of lenses & gear.
I replaced it that week with a 5d2 and have shot tens of thousands on that. I love the lcd,MUCH less dust,Video and better crops on the 5d2. I still cant match the skin tones of the Classic. Close but missing something.
I've shot weddings for 6 years with a pair of 5Dc's, I've worn out two shutters. I'd take the colour, tonality and rendition of a 1D/s III over a 5D any day. It's like night and day for people photography, there is a 1 series magic to skin tones IMO.
The 5D2 is both more AND less like the human eye when you look at it from a more controlled, dispassionate PoV.
The difference between them is that in the generations starting with 50D Canon has changed the classic "R,G,B" type of Bayer colour filters into "orange, warm green, blue". This is, if you do it well, and control your filter parameters well a very good thing for most intents and purposes.
A few things makes the solution less-than-optimal though. When you design a colour filter set, you only have a fixed amount of materials to work with. The materials you use MUST be able to function in the process that physically makes the filters (we're talking about depositing +/-2% amount material onto a very well defined square about 5x5µm large here...) and it has to be non-fade, non-sensitive to certain material used in the sensor surface and so on.
So, to get as close to target as they can, Canon has used a mix of material that sometimes puts the camera into trouble. Especially the "double-hump" in the orange channel in contemporary models can wreak havoc with colour accuracy in the range red>green.
But one does have to separate "accurate colour" from "pleasing colour". Even though the 5D2 and the likes of it have some very real problems (very red orange, and purples are very hard to get right - even in perfect light) it also has some positive effects.
When the light goes crazy (very low K temperatures, fluorescent lights and so on) the 5D2 keeps on top of trying to get skin-tone "about the right mid-orange", and "about mid-high saturation". This is not in any way "accurate", but it's easy to work with.
In good, balanced light spectras (daylight, studio flash) the 5D classic is miles ahead in colour definition and hue accuracy though. You get a much higher "hue-resolution" than with a 5D2. In landscaping, this might be seen as a lot higher colour definition - two trees standing next to each other have a different green colour base. Parts of foliage are more saturated with either phycocyanin, carotene, or xanthophyll chlorofyll base mixes, making them all slightly DIFFERENT green compared to the foliage parts right next to it. Some cameras can differentiate between those (very similar) colours, some just can't.
So what the 5D2 gives you is "average skintone", almost no matter what the circumstances are. This might be seen as good or bad depending on what you prefer. It also introduces some other very serious problems - like the magenta/green chroma noise caused by the unusually large amount of saturation amplification needed to make the raw file red>green range look like real colours. This is a very real "Canon problem", and the colour filter choices they've made is what causes it.
theSuede wrote:
The 5D2 is both more AND less like the human eye when you look at it from a more controlled, dispassionate PoV.
The difference between them is that in the generations starting with 50D Canon has changed the classic "R,G,B" type of Bayer colour filters into "orange, warm green, blue". This is, if you do it well, and control your filter parameters well a very good thing for most intents and purposes.
A few things makes the solution less-than-optimal though. When you design a colour filter set, you only have a fixed amount of materials to work with. The materials you use MUST be able to function in the process that physically makes the filters (we're talking about depositing +/-2% amount material onto a very well defined square about 5x5µm large here...) and it has to be non-fade, non-sensitive to certain material used in the sensor surface and so on.
So, to get as close to target as they can, Canon has used a mix of material that sometimes puts the camera into trouble. Especially the "double-hump" in the orange channel in contemporary models can wreak havoc with colour accuracy in the range red>green.
But one does have to separate "accurate colour" from "pleasing colour". Even though the 5D2 and the likes of it have some very real problems (very red orange, and purples are very hard to get right - even in perfect light) it also has some positive effects.
When the light goes crazy (very low K temperatures, fluorescent lights and so on) the 5D2 keeps on top of trying to get skin-tone "about the right mid-orange", and "about mid-high saturation". This is not in any way "accurate", but it's easy to work with.
In good, balanced light spectras (daylight, studio flash) the 5D classic is miles ahead in colour definition and hue accuracy though. You get a much higher "hue-resolution" than with a 5D2. In landscaping, this might be seen as a lot higher colour definition - two trees standing next to each other have a different green colour base. Parts of foliage are more saturated with either phycocyanin, carotene, or xanthophyll chlorofyll base mixes, making them all slightly DIFFERENT green compared to the foliage parts right next to it. Some cameras can differentiate between those (very similar) colours, some just can't.
So what the 5D2 gives you is "average skintone", almost no matter what the circumstances are. This might be seen as good or bad depending on what you prefer. It also introduces some other very serious problems - like the magenta/green chroma noise caused by the unusually large amount of saturation amplification needed to make the raw file red>green range look like real colours. This is a very real "Canon problem", and the colour filter choices they've made is what causes it....Show more →
Is this due to their choice to keep the high iso better than on the same chip but with more accurate rendition in the 1Ds3? I know the Sony A900 people were saying that the high iso was weak specifically because they had optimised for incredible colour at the lower end of the iso spectrum.
I have tested the 5D2. Didn't like the quality of the images compared to the 5D1. Add to that the quite prominent shadow noise on the 5D2 means my natural lighting and shooting style would be challenged. Kept my 5D1's. When I have assistants shoot with the 5D2 I kinda cringe in post production on most of the 5D2 images until the ISO3200 shots come up. Then I'm wanting ;-)
As for film, people forget that the scanning technique is very important for quality results. Dswiger mentioned issues with his scans until he got a drum scan done on the same negative. That just means the original scanning method was poorly done. Nothing to do with the negative. When I shoot film, it is simply far different than shooting digital. In many ways it's superior to digital and in many ways digital is superior to film. Outdoors I much prefer shooting film. Indoors in a darkly lit room I much prefer digital.
cineski wrote:
I have tested the 5D2. Didn't like the quality of the images compared to the 5D1. Add to that the quite prominent shadow noise on the 5D2 means my natural lighting and shooting style would be challenged. Kept my 5D1's. When I have assistants shoot with the 5D2 I kinda cringe in post production on most of the 5D2 images until the ISO3200 shots come up. Then I'm wanting ;-)
As for film, people forget that the scanning technique is very important for quality results. Dswiger mentioned issues with his scans until he got a drum scan done on the same negative. That just means the original scanning method was poorly done. Nothing to do with the negative. When I shoot film, it is simply far different than shooting digital. In many ways it's superior to digital and in many ways digital is superior to film. Outdoors I much prefer shooting film. Indoors in a darkly lit room I much prefer digital....Show more →
What are you smoking.....gimme a draw.
Film is different, not better. Otherwise, we would still be mass producing that antiquated technology.
I think film handles hard contrast a little more gracefully than many digital cameras. I don't have any science to back this up, but that seems to be the perception.
theSuede wrote:
The 5D2 is both more AND less like the human eye when you look at it from a more controlled, dispassionate PoV.
The difference between them is that in the generations starting with 50D Canon has changed the classic "R,G,B" type of Bayer colour filters into "orange, warm green, blue". This is, if you do it well, and control your filter parameters well a very good thing for most intents and purposes.
A few things makes the solution less-than-optimal though. When you design a colour filter set, you only have a fixed amount of materials to work with. The materials you use MUST be able to function in the process that physically makes the filters (we're talking about depositing +/-2% amount material onto a very well defined square about 5x5µm large here...) and it has to be non-fade, non-sensitive to certain material used in the sensor surface and so on.
So, to get as close to target as they can, Canon has used a mix of material that sometimes puts the camera into trouble. Especially the "double-hump" in the orange channel in contemporary models can wreak havoc with colour accuracy in the range red>green.
But one does have to separate "accurate colour" from "pleasing colour". Even though the 5D2 and the likes of it have some very real problems (very red orange, and purples are very hard to get right - even in perfect light) it also has some positive effects.
When the light goes crazy (very low K temperatures, fluorescent lights and so on) the 5D2 keeps on top of trying to get skin-tone "about the right mid-orange", and "about mid-high saturation". This is not in any way "accurate", but it's easy to work with.
In good, balanced light spectras (daylight, studio flash) the 5D classic is miles ahead in colour definition and hue accuracy though. You get a much higher "hue-resolution" than with a 5D2. In landscaping, this might be seen as a lot higher colour definition - two trees standing next to each other have a different green colour base. Parts of foliage are more saturated with either phycocyanin, carotene, or xanthophyll chlorofyll base mixes, making them all slightly DIFFERENT green compared to the foliage parts right next to it. Some cameras can differentiate between those (very similar) colours, some just can't.
So what the 5D2 gives you is "average skintone", almost no matter what the circumstances are. This might be seen as good or bad depending on what you prefer. It also introduces some other very serious problems - like the magenta/green chroma noise caused by the unusually large amount of saturation amplification needed to make the raw file red>green range look like real colours. This is a very real "Canon problem", and the colour filter choices they've made is what causes it....Show more →
Good distinction between accurate and pleasing skin tone. Most post work with human subjects is really about the latter.
deepbluejh wrote:
I think film handles hard contrast a little more gracefully than many digital cameras. I don't have any science to back this up, but that seems to be the perception.
It does. Newer cameras like the Nikon D7000/5100 and the Pentax K-5 can be coerced into mimicing this behaviour to a certain extent, but only so far. Film has a very big LATITUDE, but a very small PRESENTATION DR.
deepbluejh wrote:
I think film handles hard contrast a little more gracefully than many digital cameras. I don't have any science to back this up, but that seems to be the perception.
Ok but I still havent seen a side by side comparison of that.
deepbluejh wrote:
I think film handles hard contrast a little more gracefully than many digital cameras. I don't have any science to back this up, but that seems to be the perception.
The one thing that I think film can handle better than digital is overexposed highlights. With film (esp. negative film) the overexposure "rolls off" in a more pleasing way, while with digital it essentially "clips" at the point of highest luminosity value. In the end, this just requires a different approach to exposure in certain situations with digital so that the blown highlights are avoided. Not better. Not worse. Just different.
Beyond that, I'm hard pressed to think of a way in which film is objectively "better" than digital capture. This is a different issue that those folks who say they like the quality of film better than that of digital. I happen to disagree, but that is a highly subjective matter.
A though experiment occurred to me recently. Imagine a world in which photography does not yet exist - there is no history of "how things have been done" in the medium. Suddenly two photographic technologies are invented. One is "chemical" (film) photography at the level of the AD 2011 state of the art. The other is digital at the 2011 AD state of the art.
It is hard going on impossible for me to imagine that any person would choose the film technology over the digital technology in such a case.
chez wrote:
Humans always like to take the path of least resistance. That is digital. Does not mean that path produces the best results...it's just the easiest.
That blanket statement is unsupportable. Humans sometimes take the path of least resistance, but sometimes they take other paths as well. Sometimes they take the path of greatest reward, or of highest quality, or of more power.
And those who really understand and use digital technologies to their full potential are not just taking the "least resistance" path at all. Most choose this approach because it gives them more control over the process and the results and because they/we believe that the results are exceptional.
In fact, there are many cases of photographers who developed strong instincts and skills in the use of film technology and found the switch daunting because, for them, the new technology was less convenient, at least in terms of the learning curve that they would have to overcome. It is also interesting to talk to a number of them who eventually did make the switch - they hardly ever say, "I did it because it is easier." Instead they tell you that it let them do their photography better.
