Mel Gross wrote:
Uh, we're kinda waiting for the mkII you know.
Make that large print for us now, so we can end this.
I think george's point is that since the 5DII uses an improved version of the 1DsIII sensor, why not compare the print from 5D to the print from 1DsIII to get an idea of how the new 5DII will compare to the original 5D. To me, it makes much sense than comparing to 50D.
Mel, so your saying that because some people perceive the 50D to have more noise than the 40D, then the 5DII should have more noise than the 5D? So then in effect, more megapixels equals more noise accross the board and then we shouldn't go above 10MP on a crop and 12.8MP on a FF? I'm not sure then how every camera manufacture hasn't stumbled upon your epiphany including the medium format people. Seriously, I'm not sure how you can make an argument of two unrelated cameras to draw out any reliable conclusion about another camera. If I had a DsIII, I would make a print and compare it to my 5D, but I'm not sure how that would help you or anyone else on the board. With the 5DII not available yet, the DsIII is the next best predictor to see what the noise may look like given that they are both based on the same sensor and the DsIII is available now. Nobody knows until we get the real article, but it is certainly more reliable than comparing it to differences between a 40D/50D.
To me, more important than the sound it makes is the viewfinder blackout time, and that's the same pathetic time. Don't know of any other camera with such a long blackout time, actually - even my 1Ds (mk1) had a shorter one, even though it was just 3fps.
stanj wrote:
To me, more important than the sound it makes is the viewfinder blackout time, and that's the same pathetic time. Don't know of any other camera with such a long blackout time, actually - even my 1Ds (mk1) had a shorter one, even though it was just 3fps.
The guy from Imaging-Resource stated in his Youtube vid that it had dramatically improved. Maybe he just perceived it to be so.
i will see the camera tomorrow thursday. i am mainly interested if i can mount my zeiss(c/y-mount without mirror-problems? i have four dslrexchange-adaptors but more lenses. these AE-lenses are actually mounted: 18/4, 35/2.8 pc, 50/1.4, 85/1.4. my other zeiss are: 28/2.8, 45, 60/2.8 1:1, 35/2.8, 28/2.8, 50,1.7 and 135/2.8.
i will open a new thread(hope a similar one does not already exist). i will now check the website(s) which has a lens table regarding mirror-problems on 5d.
michael przewrocki-basel-switzerland
www.europanorama.tk
3dstereo-aeropanoramas
marsspanoramas in 3dstereo
stanj wrote:
To me, more important than the sound it makes is the viewfinder blackout time, and that's the same pathetic time. Don't know of any other camera with such a long blackout time, actually - even my 1Ds (mk1) had a shorter one, even though it was just 3fps.
The blackout of my Mamiya RZ cameras (which my 5D cameras largely replaced) was much, much, much longer than the 5D.
george malamis wrote:
Mel, so your saying that because some people perceive the 50D to have more noise than the 40D, then the 5DII should have more noise than the 5D? So then in effect, more megapixels equals more noise accross the board and then we shouldn't go above 10MP on a crop and 12.8MP on a FF? I'm not sure then how every camera manufacture hasn't stumbled upon your epiphany including the medium format people. Seriously, I'm not sure how you can make an argument of two unrelated cameras to draw out any reliable conclusion about another camera. If I had a DsIII, I would make a print and compare it to my 5D, but I'm not sure how that would help you or anyone else on the board. With the 5DII not available yet, the DsIII is the next best predictor to see what the noise may look like given that they are both based on the same sensor and the DsIII is available now. Nobody knows until we get the real article, but it is certainly more reliable than comparing it to differences between a 40D/50D....Show more →
No, I'm not saying that at all.
They are implying that it may be the case.
I'm saying that from everything we've read, and from all the photos in posts (admittedly mostly from pre-production samples) both the 50D (which I didn't bring up, but just responded to) and the 5D mkII seem to have better noise characteristics than their predecessors.
I was just trying to explain the argument given by those others to someone. It wasn't my argument.
If the, I think it is, two people who say they have found the opposite for their 50D's are correct, and if the argument from at least one of them is correct in thinking that it may mean that the 5D mkII as well, will have no better noise, then that's sad, but not a disaster.
For what it is worth ... my 50D arrived today and I ran a series of tests from ISO100 to ISO3200 on both the 50D and 40D using ACR 5.1 and RAW files. Just preliminary results, but I did not see any real difference between the noise in the 40D and 50D images when viewed at 100%. I'm going to take another look tomorrow to double check my work ... but, for RAW files I don't see the claimed 1+ stop of improvement. Perhaps for JPG images, there is improved processing and I might look at that later. Others might rescale the 50D or 40D images to try and establish some direct comparison, but I need to just rebuild my workflow around the new 50D images because I'm going to be selling my 40D. My feelings are that Canon's general IQ claims need to be evaluated with a real camera because they may not be relevant or mean what people think. For example, they may be for JPG files and not RAW ... or they may take some image scaling into consideration.
It's becoming apparent Canon's hype about noise is only applicable to jpg. They have not reinvented the wheel and delivered revolutionary improvements. RAW looks to have had only minor improvements so far. Sheer weight of pixels will help them out in printing though.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
It's becoming apparent Canon's hype about noise is only applicable to jpg. They have not reinvented the wheel and delivered revolutionary improvements. RAW looks to have had only minor improvements so far.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
It's becoming apparent Canon's hype about noise is only applicable to jpg. They have not reinvented the wheel and delivered revolutionary improvements. RAW looks to have had only minor improvements so far. Sheer weight of pixels will help them out in printing though.
Mel Gross wrote:
I'm saying that from everything we've read, and from all the photos in posts (admittedly mostly from pre-production samples) both the 50D (which I didn't bring up, but just responded to) and the 5D mkII seem to have better noise characteristics than their predecessors.
I would agree. From the images I've seen to date, the 5D Mkll appears to have lower noise than the original 5D both in 100% views at the pixel level, and even lower apparent noise when down-sampled to the 5D's pixel count.
