This won't go down well I'm sure, but I just returned my 1d Mk2 and decided to keep my Nikon D70 because the image quality coming from my D70 was superior.
I done many comparisons between the RAW file coming from the 2 cameras and the D70 won over the 1D for sharpness, contrast and detail most every time. Sure the 1D outperformed the D70 for speed etc, but at the end of the day if the image is not as good (even after adding sharpness in photoshop etc) I feel like I am downgrading and not upgrading!
The 1D image for me was always too soft and I struggled to bring it up to the D70 standard even in photoshop. I was using the 24-70mm which I believed to be a great lens. On the D70 I had the kit lens (18-70mm). I had read that there are some bad 24-70mm lenses out there so I got it changed but it made no difference. Finally after finding out that the AA filter in the 1D is too strong I concluded that this was causing the (what I would call) poor image.
I will probably give the D2X a try when I can get my hands on it.
They were both shot at f5, 1/100sec, 70mm, handheld. See the detail and sharpness in the D70 image? And look at the horrible quality around the pot edges on the 1D image?
This was not a one off bad result for the 1D either. I dome MANY tests over a week period. Most of them I deleted.
The D70 has a weak AA filter, so yes it is sharper but at the cost of being more prone to moire effects, which are fairly objectionable IMHO and not easy to remove. Contrast tends to be the inverse of dynamic range and can be tweaked in post-processing.
Ignoring the above, it looks like you've gone for the 1D2 for completely the wrong reasons. What you should have been looking at it for was (1) high speed, (2) high ISO and (3) focus performance. If you don't need these then go back to the Nikon and be happy.
mpaul73 wrote:
My image not loading. Can I not embed the image in the post?
If you can post it on any web site then just put the web address in your message and it should display
did you make the pictures at the same moment or did the light change?
the pictures seem to be exposed differently.
i can see no difference in the sharpness becasue the image is resized without any sharpening tools and all pics lose sharpness and detail when resizing them.
only thing i can see is, that the 1D picture has brighter colors. the colors of the nikon are little bit too dark.
the nikon raw seems toi have more detail but this depends also on the lens.
I don't think my reasons for choosing the camera have anything to do with this. This is an image quality issue and nothing else. Was I wrong to expect a $4000 camera to produce an image that was at least as good as my old $1000 D70?
I don't think any one of them looks particularly good. I suspect the problem may be something more than the equipment.
Here is a simple shot of a plant with a 1DMk2 with moderate sharpening. The detail is demonstratively better than either of your examples. Maybe your unfamiliar with a 1 series camera and need to learn more about how it operates or maybe the D70 is all the camera you need.
In order.
The exposure is noticeably different between the two. The Canon looks to be at least 1/2 stop brighter.
Second, the point of focus is different. The Nikon has locked on to the front of the pot and the leaves are slightly out of focus. The 1D2 has done the reverse.
Thirdly adjusting the brightness of the Canon image shows more contrast and higher saturation.
mpaul73 wrote:
I don't think my reasons for choosing the camera have anything to do with this. This is an image quality issue and nothing else. Was I wrong to expect a $4000 camera to produce an image that was at least as good as my old $1000 D70?
Martin.
If you paid $100M for a satellite spy camera would you complain it was no good for portraits? Price and suitability for the required task are unrelated. The 1D2 is a sports and photo-journalist camera. In those fields it blows the D70 totally into the weeds. It can take a reasonable stab at studio and still life work, but there isn't any magic in it to make it noticably better than the Nikon in these areas. For that you want the (much more expensive) 1DsII.
