bridow wrote:
He does note that the images have "stands nr". I'm not sure if thats incamera or a plugin. Anyone?
He says, "All samples are provided as JPEG straight from the camera." The only ref to NR that I see is "standard NR" with each photo's EXIF info. That would suggest he just left the camera defaults as they were.
Auto ISO in all modes except manual
The Mark II now features an automatic ISO option where the camera selects the sensitivity (in the range ISO 100 - 3200). In Auto, Program and Aperture Priority the camera attempts to maintain a minimum shutter speed of 1/focal length (hence with a 24 mm lens it will try to maintain 1/25 sec or faster). In manual mode Auto ISO is fixed at ISO 400.
That is pretty dumb, why not give the user the ability to select their own settings. Oh wait...that must be a pro feature to be implemented on the Mark IV ...Show more →
That IS dumb. What about folks who use alternative lenses? The camera won't know what FL you are shooting.
Someone should teach phil askey how to take a photo... those are horrendous. Canon should really send the camera to someone capable of putting up a gallery that exhibits the camera's true capabilities, not how great the snapshot mode works.
Daan B wrote:
But 21MP will also challenge some lenses, the 5D2 AF system and the shooters photographing skills. 21MP ask for very precise focusing. MF is going to be more challenging. The density of the pixels in combination with the 21MP ask for higher shutterspeeds. From the 5D2 files I have seen so far, a great deal seem to suffer from focus issues. Is this due to the shooter or the AF system itself (or both). Only time will tell. Once people are actually going to use the 5D2 we will certainly hear more about that
I don't understand the above statement.
The 5D2 pixel density is the same as the 20D.
The same lenses that work well on the 20D should perform equally well on the 5D2 except for the thinner DOF. But in terms of absolute resolution, they should be equally outstanding.
thw2 wrote:
I don't understand the above statement.
The 5D2 pixel density is the same as the 20D.
The same lenses that work well on the 20D should perform equally well on the 5D2 except for the thinner DOF. But in terms of absolute resolution, they should be equally outstanding.
thw2 wrote:
I don't understand the above statement.
The 5D2 pixel density is the same as the 20D.
The same lenses that work well on the 20D should perform equally well on the 5D2 except for the thinner DOF. But in terms of absolute resolution, they should be equally outstanding.
I assume you are talking about the "challenge some lens" statement?
21MP's are like a magnifying glass for lens imperfections... especially when you zoom in on your monitor and/or if you are going to print large. Of course, when you downsize a 21MP file to (let's say) 12MP the magnifying effect will be diminished. I think the keyword here is "relative"
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but the new 5D2 can be used with the cheap RC-1 remote. I used to have one for my Rebel... it's very convenient and attaches to the camera strap.
"the RAW footage that comes out of this camera is STUNNING - so much so that the entire video was cut with the RAW footage - untouched - in any way - no color, noise or exposure adjustment whatsoever"
"The 5D MKII camera produces the best stills in low light that I’ve ever seen - what you can see with you eye in the worst light (such as sodium-vapor street lights at 3 a.m. in Brooklyn) - this camera can capture."
"It produces the best video in low light that I’ve ever seen - at 1080p. A top commercial film editor who who regularly edits RED camera footage - and has seen the raw footage from the 5D MKII - says the 5D MKII is - far superior to the RED camera - in terms of low light performance"
"The panning looks great - no problems. Didn’t notice any problems at all in the footage."
thw2 wrote:
I don't understand the above statement.
The 5D2 pixel density is the same as the 20D.
The same lenses that work well on the 20D should perform equally well on the 5D2 except for the thinner DOF. But in terms of absolute resolution, they should be equally outstanding.
Yes, one would expect a lens to have the same per pixel resolution for the 8 megapixels in the middle of the 5D2 sensor as for the 20D's sensor. One would expect the sharpness of the average lens to be lower in the corners than in the center though, so the resolution of a given lens will often be lower for a pixel in the corner of the f5D2's larger sensor than it is for a pixel in the corner of the 20D's smaller sensor.
So here is My resume after looking a the sample photos.
High ISO is amazing, the only question is how much of that is achieved by NR.
I am much more worried about sharpness of photos. Per pixel sharpness of this camera should be similar to that of 20D. So it should be very good (in the center) at 100% with good lenses.
I see quite a few relatively sharp photos in Phil's gallery that are fairly sharp. However, 100% crops look a little "waxy" which is a sign of NR applied to JPG files.
So there is a hope that with NR off, or RAW files this will not be a problem.
They are supposedly taken by a serious pro, however, 90% of them (!) are clearly out of focus. Was he in a hurry? Or is this a sign of a serious AF trouble?
meeus wrote:
They are supposedly taken by a serious pro, however, 90% of them (!) are clearly out of focus. Was he in a hurry? Or is this a sign of a serious AF trouble? Please comment.
You're kidding, right? You alone have spotted focus issues on a camera that only a select few professionals have been able to shoot with, and none of them reported focus issues, but you think the camera might have "serious AF trouble" based on a few web-sized jpgs you saw?
21MP's are like a magnifying glass for lens imperfections... especially when you zoom in on your monitor and/or if you are going to print large. Of course, when you downsize a 21MP file to (let's say) 12MP the magnifying effect will be diminished. I think the keyword here is "relative"
C'mon. This is not the first time photographers have been able to compare "sensors" of significantly different resolutions behind the same lenses. We tested and compared Kodak Technical Pan (which is still yet higher resolving than the 5D2) in the same cameras as far lower resolving films, and guess what: Images taken with higher resolving films were always sharper and clearer and had better enlargeability than with lower resolving films.
Nobody ever used a low-resolving film in fear of CA or diffraction or any other lens issue. People used lower-resolving films because they were faster or had better tonality, but not to avoid seeing lens faults.
?