I was looking at the eyes of that shot and thought, something is really wrong with this photo (along with disappointment). Then I realised that she was wearing colour contact lenses. That changes things - the colour contact lenses I've seen have had a chunky bayer dither, strong colour on edges to weak/clear in the centre. So looking at the eyes of this shot, one has to keep this in mind.
Maybe this has already been answered in the 2706 posts in the thread, but anybody has any knowledge about if the new 5D has a mirror box / mirror position more likely to not have the mirror hit the rear glass of some protruding old alt lenses - like the Minolta Rokkor 58mm...? André
ovredal73 wrote:
Maybe this has already been answered in the 2706 posts in the thread, but anybody has any knowledge about if the new 5D has a mirror box / mirror position more likely to not have the mirror hit the rear glass of some protruding old alt lenses - like the Minolta Rokkor 58mm...? André
Inasmuch as Canon's lens design spec for the EF mount precludes them from designing lenses that would strike the mirror, I doubt they'd go to any time and expense to redesign the mirror mechanism to avoid a problem that could not happen with any of their EF lenses.
jcbenner wrote:
That is not my experience. Even Kodachrome 25 drum scanned at 8000 ppi is well below the 12 MP of a 5D in usable resolution shot with the same lens. A 16.7 MP 1Ds2 really is astonishingly better than K25 and a 21 MP 1Ds3 just widens the gap.
We had scanned thousands on our Howtek 8000 and earlier series scanners, and the detail from K25 was always quite high. I can't speak for your experiences, but I would say that when shot properly, with the correct lens and a camera in proper adjustment, It surely looks the equal of a Canon 1Ds mkII.
Separating detail from grain, is different from detail in digital, where, as long as there is no noise, there is no grain.
skibum5 wrote:
i don't know if it is true, but a few years ago i read that the sharpest 35mm color film maxed (some color print film) out at about 15MP equivalent, but that some B&W films were some degree more than that (not specified).
I think Kodak knows what they are talking about. If they don't have the labs to test this correctly, then no one does. as they also make the most sophisticated sensors, they have no reason to say this, as Kodachrome is being discontinued. While it's true they told me this several years ago, I'm sure they had already saw the handwriting on the wall. They had been predicting the demise of most film for a while.
no matter what we may use, it's going to be very difficult to get the very best out of the equipment and media, no matter how good we think we are, because there are issues out of our control. But, under very good conditions, we can approach it.
At any rate, Kodak was talking about theoretical numbers under lab conditions. I see no reason to doubt them.
We know that we will never get the resolution that a sensor offers either. That doesn't mean that the sensor doesn't have the resolution inherently. The system as a whole won't allow us to get the full benefit of the sensor, which is different.
anorphirith wrote:
Anybody has a noise comparison with the old 5d and the new one? it's the main selling point for me ...
All we really know so far, other than what we see from the unofficial pictures posted, is that Canon states that the mk II will have between 1 and 1.5 stops less noise than the old 5D.
Mel Gross wrote:
All we really know so far, other than what we see from the unofficial pictures posted, is that Canon states that the mk II will have between 1 and 1.5 stops less noise than the old 5D.
Lets hope that is actually true because it certainly isn't true for the 40D/50D.
So far the only way I can see the original claim by Canon that the 50D was 1-1 1/2 times better is if you turn on in-camera NR and NR in DPP. All this does is make it look like it has less noise while decreasing detail.
My primary reason in getting the 5DMKII is for better high ISO noise control. I never expected the 50D to excel in this area but if the 5DMKII doesn't it will not be the camera I want. If they use NR to reach the 1- 1 1/2 stops, at the loss of detail, then it is a sham and no better than the 5D in this area.
i have to say that so far, i have yet to see any high iso shots from the 5DmkII that impressed me. of course, i am going to wait for more real life samples and reviews but so far, i am not impressed
Mel Gross wrote:
I think Kodak knows what they are talking about. If they don't have the labs to test this correctly, then no one does. as they also make the most sophisticated sensors, they have no reason to say this, as Kodachrome is being discontinued. While it's true they told me this several years ago, I'm sure they had already saw the handwriting on the wall. They had been predicting the demise of most film for a while.
no matter what we may use, it's going to be very difficult to get the very best out of the equipment and media, no matter how good we think we are, because there are issues out of our control. But, under very good conditions, we can approach it.
At any rate, Kodak was talking about theoretical numbers under lab conditions. I see no reason to doubt them.
We know that we will never get the resolution that a sensor offers either. That doesn't mean that the sensor doesn't have the resolution inherently. The system as a whole won't allow us to get the full benefit of the sensor, which is different. ...Show more →
oh please who are you going to believe kodak engineers or pop photo?
Jim Victory wrote:
Lets hope that is actually true because it certainly isn't true for the 40D/50D.
So far the only way I can see the original claim by Canon that the 50D was 1-1 1/2 times better is if you turn on in-camera NR and NR in DPP. All this does is make it look like it has less noise while decreasing detail.
My primary reason in getting the 5DMKII is for better high ISO noise control. I never expected the 50D to excel in this area but if the 5DMKII doesn't it will not be the camera I want. If they use NR to reach the 1- 1 1/2 stops, at the loss of detail, then it is a sham and no better than the 5D in this area.
I would wait until people can see and compare RAW images from the 5D2 before reaching any conclusions. We have no idea what kind of NR the JPG engine is doing.
skibum5 wrote:
oh please who are you going to believe kodak engineers or pop photo?
I would say pop photo because those people there talk about going for an operation and I am home as topics for photography which are facts, while kodak engineers only talk about how to improve on photography which is only prediction.
Jim Victory wrote:
Lets hope that is actually true because it certainly isn't true for the 40D/50D.
So far the only way I can see the original claim by Canon that the 50D was 1-1 1/2 times better is if you turn on in-camera NR and NR in DPP. All this does is make it look like it has less noise while decreasing detail.
My primary reason in getting the 5DMKII is for better high ISO noise control. I never expected the 50D to excel in this area but if the 5DMKII doesn't it will not be the camera I want. If they use NR to reach the 1- 1 1/2 stops, at the loss of detail, then it is a sham and no better than the 5D in this area.
I don't recall them saying that it was only true if you turned noise reduction on. Also, the preliminary review of the 50D from dop, don't seem to agree with that.
hans98ko wrote:
I would say pop photo because those people there talk about going for an operation and I am home as topics for photography which are facts, while kodak engineers only talk about how to improve on photography which is only prediction.
What?
Kodak invented Kodachrome, not POP Photo. Besides, I think he was being facetious. Can you point to an actual POP Photo article on this?
Kodak invented Kodachrome, not POP Photo. Besides, I think he was being facetious. Can you point to an actual POP Photo article on this?
Sorry Mel,
I was just poking fun at the two choices we were given to choose from.
Of cause we know what kodak does best but for the pop photo now a days? Not too sure where they are heading because some of the most respectable people there have gone missing in action. One good example is DrJalapeno
hans98ko wrote:
Sorry Mel,
I was just poking fun at the two choices we were given to choose from.
Of cause we know what kodak does best but for the pop photo now a days? Not too sure where they are heading because some of the most respectable people there have gone missing in action. One good example is DrJalapeno
Yeah, sad. Keppler's death depressed me. He was one of the first people I read when I started out as a kid in the mid sixties. I met him several times over the years, and always looked forward to his columns.
POP Photo is still pretty good in the technical end of testing, but I did work with Kodak.
When we started our company, which was devoted to running a professional Kodachrome film line, and I worked on the design of our machine and chemical mix and storage facilities, we hired Dan Jones, who just retired from Kodak at age 62. Dan was the chief Kodachrome chemist for a number of years at Kodak. So Kodachrome is something I do know a fair amount about.
Mel Gross wrote:
I don't recall them saying that it was only true if you turned noise reduction on. Also, the preliminary review of the 50D from dop, don't seem to agree with that.
NR is turned on as default both in-camera and in DPP. If you process a raw file in this manner it will show less noise than with the default settings turned off. The only problem is you lose detail at these default settings. The 40D didn't have default NR in-camera or in that version of DPP.
My guess is they are doing the same thing with the 5DMKII and the real results will only be obtained when you can turn NR off both in-camera and in DPP.
André