I'm planning on buying it and keeping my fingers crossed for some cash in the new year. I'm going to try desperately not to pixel peep but instead to shoot and just improve my photography in whatever way I can. The time spent pixel peeping can be better spent elsewhere.
droopy1592 wrote:
Um no, that's not even as good as my XSi @ 1600... so it's surely not better than the mark 1 @ 1600 or even 800.
Yes, I want a Mkii if it turns out to be any good
rnb2 wrote:
Honestly, if I was one of the fortunate few who got their hands on a 5DII this week, there's no way I would post examples, given the behavior of some people around here. The poor guys who've given in to the pressure to post examples are getting dragged through the mud for not taking hours to process each shot to ensure that all of the fence-sitters and worry-warts have all of their irrational fears allayed.
Some people are just going to have to deal with the fact that they won't be satisfied until they hold the camera in their own hands, shoot the shots themselves, process the shots themselves, post the shots themselves (or not). And they still won't really be happy - they'll be forever taping dollar bills to walls, testing and micro-adjusting every lens they own on a weekly basis, as the world keeps on turning, and other people are out there taking great pictures.
Will Patterson wrote:
hahahahahahaha.ahahahahaha.a......
Elaborate on that laugh please... That's my honest opinion, i'm sure the mkii is capable of better but the poster saying that IS6400 on the mkii is better than the mki @ 1600 is a laugh.
Remember, smaller pixel pitch means diffraction kicks in sooner.
The ISO 100 image rji2goleez posted looks like it has had NR then oversharpened. If you look at the foreground rocks, the seams in the panels on the building and the lights to the left you can see this.
Might just be an early firmware trick to get less savvy review sites to give more positive reviews </conspiracy-theory>
I'll accept that it's a real issue when someone posts a raw shot converted to jpeg in bibble, lightroom or ACR with no sharpening, NR, or manipulation. Would also help if they shot with a sharp prime at a reasonable aperture with MLU, remote release and tripod. All of this stuff can be read from the exif.
For the ISO100 shot:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colour noise reduction was applied at 25 on the iso100 shot (lightroom default), you should probably change your lightroom defaults.
Luminance smoothing at 53 - might account for the look of serious in camera NR
Highlight recovery at 36
Contrast 34
Clarity 45
brightness +61 (would introduce noise)
Split toning has been applied as well
The image was then resharpened with 74/1.0/0 and 25 on the detail slider - this would further the NR/oversharpened look.
vibrance set to +26.
All that info is in the EXIF for the ISO100 shot
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarity, contrast, brightness and exposure all boosted in lightroom on the colour ISO6400 shot as well.
here are a few quick samples under tungsten lighting (cut and past, didn't want to inline due to large size, these are all full images) they are all resized to 10MP or Medium size from cam though:
Large Fine JPG from camera with settings ISO 6400, 1/320th, f/2.8, Neutral PS with +3 sharp and +1 con and sat and NR on Low, 135mm. This file was then resampled using Lanczos resizing using irfanview to exact 40D image dimensions (or 1DMkIII):
skibum4.smugmug.com/photos/426541582_dTXtG-O.jpg
Large Fine JPG from camera with settings ISO 12800, 1/250th, f/2, Neutral PS with +4 sharp and +1 con and sat and NR on Low, 135mm. This file was then resampled using Lanczos resizing using irfanview to exact 40D image dimensions (or 1DMkIII):
skibum4.smugmug.com/photos/426543503_jd3eg-O.jpg
Large Fine JPG from camera with settings ISO 12800, 1/320th, f/2, Neutral PS with +4 sharp and +1 con and sat and NR on Low, 135mm. This file was then resampled using Lanczos resizing using irfanview to exact 40D image dimensions (or 1DMkIII):
skibum4.smugmug.com/photos/426544442_DyDqf-O.jpg
Medium Fine JPG from camera with settings ISO 6400, 1/320th, f/2.8, Neutral PS with +3 sharp and +1 con and sat and NR on Low, 135mm.:
skibum4.smugmug.com/photos/426543538_cKxrW-O.jpg
Medium Fine JPG from camera with settings ISO 6400, 1/320th, f/2, Neutral PS with +3 sharp and +1 con and sat and NR on Low, 135mm:
skibum4.smugmug.com/photos/426548751_hw5mx-O.jpg
Medium Fine JPG from camera with settings ISO 3200, 1/400th, f/2, Neutral PS with +3 sharp and +1 con and sat and NR on Low, 135mm:
skibum4.smugmug.com/photos/426560758_w85MT-O.jpg
they are what they are, quick and dirty jpgs from teh cam snapped in about 2 minutes late at night.
ISO3200, 100% crop from a MEDIUM size jpg straight from 5DMkII, 1/250th, f/2, 135mm, hand-held, Neutral PS with +3 sharp and +1 con and sat, NR on Low:
rnb2 wrote:
Honestly, if I was one of the fortunate few who got their hands on a 5DII this week, there's no way I would post examples, given the behavior of some people around here.
So the 5D Mk2 hit camera stores here in Japan today. My local camera chain, Kitamura, got 3 5D Mk2's for the whole prefecture and Canon Japan told them not to expect any more until the new year. There were hundreds of pre-orders and only 3 cameras...
There's color noise that's not present in the 1dsMk3 files esp in the dark areas, yet the 5d2 is picking up more details there.
Color fidelity to me looks slightly more natural on the 1dsMk3. It will be interesting when the high ISO comparisons are up.
Nothing to cancel an order over
Problem with Derryck's test is he used DPP for the 5DII and ACR for the 1Ds. Really need to see both using CS4 ACR 5.2 with the same "Adobe Standard" profile.
thrice wrote:
Remember, smaller pixel pitch means diffraction kicks in sooner.
As I am sure you are aware, that is a rather "shorthand" way of saying what happens...and not quite accurate.
Diffusion does not change due to pixel size. Pixel size is not a part of the equation.
However, smaller pixel size will increase your resolution and therefore the ability to recognize diffusion...which was already there with larger pizel sensors...at lower (larger) f-stop. The image at that point is still clearer, crisper, sharper (and/or takes sharpening better) than an image from a larger pixel image where diffusion was not recognized yet.
However, smaller pixel size will increase your resolution and therefore the ability to recognize diffusion...which was already there with larger pizel sensors...at lower (larger) f-stop. The image at that point is still clearer, crisper, sharper (and/or takes sharpening better) than an image from a larger pixel image where diffusion was not recognized yet.
I will agree and re-phrase: The smaller pixel size reduces "resolution" as one of the many factors that keeps the image from recreating all the detail that existed in the actual subject. With resolution reduced as an image softness factor, the other factors are more easily identified.
Diffraction, lens aberrations, camera motion, focusing accuracy--all these are image softness factors along with the resolution capability of the sensor. When you substantially reduce one image softness factor, the image is always sharper than before.
The fact that you can now more distinctly discern the role of one of the other softness factors does not make the image worse...it's still sharper than it was before.
Looks like my local store is getting only one 5d2 this week. That was the bad news until I found out today that the 1st. person balked. I should be getting a call soon. Yay!
