I'm wondering if anyone who has both-- or has had the chance to adequately test both-- could discuss the respective dynamic ranges of the 5Dmk2 and the X-Pro1?
I'm particularly interested in two settings:
1. 5Dmk2 (jpg from RAW) @ ISO 160 vs. XPro (jpg) @ ISO 200.
2. Both at iso 3200, same file format considerations.
Of course, any other settings would be useful/instructive, but I think base ISO and 3200 make sense as highly usable boundary conditions. And the file format choice is because I want a real-life output comparison aimed a high IQ-- not a theoretical comparison of what the sensor itself picks up. At this point, I think (obviously subjectively) that 5Dmk2 RAW capture output to jpg via Aperture/LR/C1/etc represents an optimized IQ vs. workflow balance, and (given a few RAW decoding quirks) sooc jpg put through one of the same workflows (RAW-focused application not making local edits) from the X-Pro is the same.
So, any thoughts (on the two cameras... not my suggested test conditions)?
Justruss, I have not done extensive testing, but my feel is that the X-Pro1 clips highlights a bit earlier than the 5D MkII (about 1/3 of a stop). On the other hand, the X-Pro1 files can be pushed considerably. Just to show an example, this is a JPG image, and I pushed it i Photoshop 3.5 stops. Yes, I pushed the JPG image, not the RAW file! (And this was just for fun, I did several exposures, from underexposed (this one) to overexposed, so I did not need to push the image). Anyway, the insets are both at 100%, the left the original JPG, and the right the 3.5 pushed one.
Cheers
PS. Forgot to mention that you cannot even push a 5D MkII Raw file this much...
But for critical landscape jobs, I would choose the 5D, and expose it correctly!
I'm asking because I have a 5Dmk2 that I love, and will keep, and an X-E1 (same sensor, same processing as X-Pro1) ordered.
Your suggestions re landscape jives with my intended use. The XE-1 will be carry everywhere, street/people, and backup. My 5Dmk2 will continue to be my workhorse for assignments.
^^ thats what im currently doing with my X-pro1 .. I took both camera to Niagara Falls trip couple weeks ago and used the Xp1 about 90% of the time. I only took the 5D2 with me when I went to the Falls itself and used it when I needed something wider since I only have the 35/1.4 for hte XP1 (+ 90/2.8 Contax G). I had a Zeiss 25/2.8 on the 5D2 for wide stuff. I wish I had the 18/2 for the XP1 but couldn't find a use one in time.
I love shooting with the XP1. I still use the 5D2 too though for weddings and such although Ill bring the XP1 one with me as well for getting ready shots.
I currently use my 5dmk2 + 35L about 85% of the time for paid work (photojournalism/features), then Tammy 17mm SP prime 10%, then the rest (135L, FL 55 1.2, OM 24 2.8) about 5%.
I'm actually thinking of selling my 135L at some point since it's such an exceptional lens, but I use it so rarely, and my general trend has been towards lightening the load. I can always rent anything I need when the job entails it. Each job I carry it on (usually international trips, working on the go) and don't use it I come back thinking... time to let it go to someone who will actually make use of it.
I prefer moderate wide for my work, because it entails getting both people and context, and getting close to my subjects... which I think elicits feeling. So 5Dmk2 w/ 35L and XE w/ 27mm (18mm's equiv.) are about perfect. I might even pick up a cheapish/smallish moderate tele for the XE to make up for the few times I used to use the 135L. MF is probably fine for that, particularly if it keeps size and weight down.
As a total tangential: I can actually see myself, in 5 years, without any DSLRs. Just shooting mirrorless/hybrid systems, with 20-30+ mpx, FF, perhaps one with a fixed lens and one interchangeable. The coming year with an XE-1 will help me figure out the first steps towards the feasibility of the transition-- and how my demanding editors take to the work.
My experience is that the dynamic range of the X-Pro 1 is greater than that of the 5D2. I have owned both and shot them extensively, and the X-Pro 1 files can tolerate greater pushing and pulling despite the smaller sensor. I have not conducted objective tests on this, but I notice it every day when I recover highlights and push shadows in the X-Pro 1 files - the elasticity of the files is quite remarkable. I believe there was a test in the dpreview forums where someone had compared the DR of these two cameras.
olelovold wrote:
My experience is that the dynamic range of the X-Pro 1 is greater than that of the 5D2. I have owned both and shot them extensively, and the X-Pro 1 files can tolerate greater pushing and pulling despite the smaller sensor. I have not conducted objective tests on this, but I notice it every day when I recover highlights and push shadows in the X-Pro 1 files - the elasticity of the files is quite remarkable. I believe there was a test in the dpreview forums where someone had compared the DR of these two cameras.
Know what? Any modern camera today will give good files. Sure, there are some that have a little more resolution or a little more pushable dynamic range etc, but to get the benefit of that extra resolution, you have to have the camera on a tripod and focus manually, and do extensive RAW editing. For those purposes, why not shoot with a medium format, film or digital, or a dedicated DSLR like 5D Or D800.
Handheld, and focus pretty close to the camera, the slightest error in focus (remember that a modern Canon or Nikon has a 10% acceptance of focus error - do not know about Fuji, but seems a little bit less (although will be totally out of focus if used incorrectly)) will result in a file that is not "optimal". The margin is so small between the 5D and Fuji, you have to pixel peep, or make huge prints! In the end, it is the handling and other factors that you should look for, for handheld work. The small Fuji's are fun, easy to carry, and handle great. And the 35mm is very very good! Try one out to see if it fits your style!
I am sure that in a year or two, all these cameras will be considered (by some) totally outdated when it comes to dynamic range, resolution or whatever. But why wait?
justruss wrote:
I currently use my 5dmk2 + 35L about 85% of the time for paid work (photojournalism/features), then Tammy 17mm SP prime 10%, then the rest (135L, FL 55 1.2, OM 24 2.8) about 5%.
I'm actually thinking of selling my 135L at some point since it's such an exceptional lens, but I use it so rarely, and my general trend has been towards lightening the load. I can always rent anything I need when the job entails it. Each job I carry it on (usually international trips, working on the go) and don't use it I come back thinking... time to let it go to someone who will actually make use of it.
I prefer moderate wide for my work, because it entails getting both people and context, and getting close to my subjects... which I think elicits feeling. So 5Dmk2 w/ 35L and XE w/ 27mm (18mm's equiv.) are about perfect. I might even pick up a cheapish/smallish moderate tele for the XE to make up for the few times I used to use the 135L. MF is probably fine for that, particularly if it keeps size and weight down.
As a total tangential: I can actually see myself, in 5 years, without any DSLRs. Just shooting mirrorless/hybrid systems, with 20-30+ mpx, FF, perhaps one with a fixed lens and one interchangeable. The coming year with an XE-1 will help me figure out the first steps towards the feasibility of the transition-- and how my demanding editors take to the work.
in regards to the 135L, you can pick up the Contax G 90/2.8 which would be equivalent to 135 on the XE. Sweet sweet lens. With the 2.0 firmware update, it makes the manual focusing much better. Focusing is a bit differnent since you focus with the adapter but still easy to do. And you can probably find it for under 300
