ejpeiker wrote:
I am the one that conducted the tests and they were very tightly controlled. All shots were taken in RAW and converted with DPP with all software processing (sharpening, saturation, contrast, curves, styles, etc) turned off. All were taken with a Canon EF180mm Macro lens at 1.3M and at f/5.6. There is a marked difference between the out of camera sharpness and detail rendering between the two samples in use (note that there is most likely quite a bit of camera sample variation and if you get two different cameras, the results might be different). The white swatches were properly exposed. If you read the commentary as to why the dark swatches were underexposed you would know that it was simply a way to test how much detail can be dug out of shadows - something that is important to me in my photography. Also, I did the comparison using another RAW converter that is not on the market yet that had similar results from a sharpness perspective.
Finally, the 1D Mark II and 1D Mark IIn are not the same caera from a picture file standpoint. The RAW format is quite different as is the internal processing of those files. In this case, its not a simple changing of the camera identifier in the software code. The RAW conversion algorithms actually ahve to be rewritten between the 1D Mark II and 1D Mark IIn....Show more →
this begs the question...can a firmware change (hack?) give the old MKII the same image qualities? I sure don't know but I do know that I'm not into firmware hacks myself. Just curious.
Thats a good question. On the non-n side (1D Mk II), I have tested 6 camera bodies though and 5 of them were relatively soft and detailess compared to other DSLRs, one was not - a very interesting result that was repeated several times with identical results.
I don't suppose you ever did this with a 1D mkI (4.1mp)? I'm currently using that and wonder just what the difference is with all the new electronics and CMOS vs CCD.
Thanks gang! All this "N" hysteria allowed me to get a GREAT deal on a used 1D MkII (non-N)! I'll suffer along with the "old", "outdated" non-N model and its questionable image quality while I'm also suffering with an extra $1200 in my pocket!
there seems to be a difference in the quality of the LCD preview. the image does seem to be darker - i have to keep checking the histogram to make sure my image is not underexposed. this is on the default LCD brightness setting. it also seems that the color temperature of the LCD seems cooler on the IIn.
as for the raw files, I have compared shots from a II with IIn and also find noticable differences. raw images from the IIn seem to show better detail with slightly lower contrast when processed under the same settings with DPP 2.0.
If the new LCD is in fact darker than the old...what is Canon thinking? They do a good thing in making it bigger, then go and shoot themselves in the foot by not addressing the other issue...how visible it is. A large LCD is great, but whats the point if you can't see it!
Shiromochi...can you elaborate on your testing? I too would like to see some samples. I keep going back and forth on the II and IIN. Right now I think getting a great deal (missed the $2200 one yesterday) on a II is the way to go. Then upgrade should the IIN be worth it. At that time prices should be lower.
Hey Mark, for me i bought a 1dmkll. I can't rationalize the extra for a larger screen and a few other goodies. Coming from a 20D, and the way cameras are changing so fast.I might be upgrading in a few years. By then i'll take less of a hit in price with the mkll.
on a trip right now, and will be back monday evening. i'll post my examples, and if i can find a host, will also post my raw images for people to play around with and see for themselves.
as for the lcd 'brightness' it almost seems as though canon played around with the gamma values of the lcd. i think the way images display with the default camera settings, the IIn definately shows a dimmer image. if you set the lcd brightness 1 or 2 notches up, it equals the brightness of the II.
ctyankee - the differences between the 2 are really not significant. the 2 pimary advantages in features i see with the IIn, that i regularly use:
1. larger LCD - images display and change faster as well
2. ease of switching between CF and SD card
3. able to see iso value in viewfinder
i have been playing with picture modes, and like the way pictures look with the in-camera processing, though this is something that is very easily done in photoshop.
in hindsight after playing with the camera for a good week or so, i probably should have kept my mark II and bought a new 24-105 instead of getting the IIn.
shiromochi wrote:
on a trip right now, and will be back monday evening. i'll post my examples, and if i can find a host, will also post my raw images for people to play around with and see for themselves.
as for the lcd 'brightness' it almost seems as though canon played around with the gamma values of the lcd. i think the way images display with the default camera settings, the IIn definately shows a dimmer image. if you set the lcd brightness 1 or 2 notches up, it equals the brightness of the II.
ctyankee - the differences between the 2 are really not significant. the 2 pimary advantages in features i see with the IIn, that i regularly use:
1. larger LCD - images display and change faster as well
2. ease of switching between CF and SD card
3. able to see iso value in viewfinder
i have been playing with picture modes, and like the way pictures look with the in-camera processing, though this is something that is very easily done in photoshop.
in hindsight after playing with the camera for a good week or so, i probably should have kept my mark II and bought a new 24-105 instead of getting the IIn.
Thanks for the tips. Its always good to get opinons from people who aren't blinded by the fact they spent $$$$ and the hype. While some of these test may draw out differences, I'm still waiting to see how these impact every day use.
