this is the reason i hardly touch my D3/D700 and subconsciouly sticked to 5D for most shoots before th 5D2 came out.
Colours and feel seems different and harder to get used to. I also had problems processing them to have the same look as with the 5D. Though consciously i know with newer technology, the D3/D700 should be superior to 5D1.
Mike1 wrote:
How about going out there and just shoot? This thing will never end since everyone has a different taste and different style. We can't really compare unless there's a 100 of us at a get together and shooting at the SAME place & the SAME spot(get my drift?)
Riiiiiiiiiight... forgot about different shooter, different location, different spot
Steve, if you didn't see a significant difference in detail between 1Ds2 and D2x then you're right: any camera will do. For you. Your posts suggest to me that you may have fallen into the 100% crop trap. You need to uprez a D2x file to 16.7 megapixels before comparing crops with a 1Ds2.
I would also say to anyone who isn't seeing a significant difference between a 5D and a 5D2, you must be doing something wrong. The 5D2 has a far better ability to lift image data out of the shadows, which effectively gives you more dynamic range, and it also captures a lot more detail, if you provide it with the means to do so.
I smell the whiff of comparisons done at 100% between 13 and 21 megapixel files. Be careful what you read here.
I wouldn't worry about uprezzing my files to compare 100% crops Vs 300% crops. I'd see if the camera resolves enough detail to make a sharp print at the print size you use.
RobertLynn wrote:
I wouldn't worry about uprezzing my files to compare 100% crops Vs 300% crops. I'd see if the camera resolves enough detail to make a sharp print at the print size you use.
XC Pictorial wrote:
No way bro. the sole reasons engineers, marketing ppl at canon/nikon etc are being paid? its to create more ways to make you part with your precious bucks...
Yeah, except I spent the majority of my adult life in the advertising business and can easily read between the lines of marketing hype. Hardly influences me anymore. What I get from my 1Ds II and 5D is more than enough to satisfy my personal requirements as well as those of the people that hire me. (My ad career was as a writer and designer, by the way, and at the highest levels of the craft. No regrets. I had a great time and did very good work.)
One of the great advantages of doing interior photography (other than it being very challenging and very rewarding creatively) is that I'm on a tripod 100% of the time and have no need to stop action, shoot in dim or dark conditions, worry about skin tone, etc., etc. Nope, no birds in flight or hockey players for me.
Therefore, I'm working at ISO 100 or 200 99.9% of the time. I don't have super-duper high ISO performance as one of my criteria ... not even when I'm doing my own thing. And 16.7MP is more than enough resolution for everyone concerned. Besides, it's been pretty well documented by William Castleman and others that the difference in detail rendering between the 1Ds II and 1Ds III, although it's there, is remarkably little.
Anyway, no need to belabor the point. I have two terrific cameras and an assortment of great lenses. My pics come out great and print beautifully. My xsi satisfies as a travel camera.
The marketing boys and engineers would have to give me a 50MP medium format digital the same price as a 5D and with the same quality as the 1Ds II before I'd budge. And even then, I might not. Lenses are another story. When there's a noticeable and dramatic improvement in a lens with a focal length I require, I'll be the first to explore it. I know for a fact that Canon is constantly working on bringing their lens line-up into the digital age. I know we're going to see a 24-70 Mark II after a time as well as a competitor for Nikon's highly regarded 14-24. That's the sort of stuff I'm interested in.
veroman wrote:
I remember similar comparisons and comments being made about the 1Ds II and the Nikon D2x, with the Canon being the better for noise control and the D2x better for resolving detail. Other than those distinctions, popular opinion was that these two cameras were very close in performance (but, as always, worlds apart in handling).
And yet, when curiosity got the best of me and I finally purchased a D2x and shot with it extensively ... using some of Nikon's best glass ... I found its files to be EMOTIONALLY as different from the Canon 1Ds II as a Porsch is from a Mazda Miata. I thought that these two cameras delivered entirely different notions of what a photograph is supposed to look like, with the D2x rendering a somewhat colder, more finely tuned image than the Canon. The Canon images were consistently warmer, but not as delineated as the D2x.
I could on and on about the differences I found. The point is, I'm hard pressed to accept that the 1Ds III, D3x, 5D II and a900 are all that close in their rendering styles when it comes to real-world shooting, ie shooting subjects of real value for a month or so and not just snapping off a quick series of test subjects for pixel peeping. These companies have very different philosophies about photography, particularly Canon and Nikon. I've never shot with a Sony DSLR, so I have no idea what the EMOTIONAL aspect is of their cameras. I do know that the cooler, more clinical rendering of the Nikon turned me off after a time, so I sold it. I've grown very comfortable with the warmer and somewhat more natural look of the Canons. This has nothing to do with pixel peeping or high ISO tests or 100% crops. This has to do with working with their cameras for a time and discovering that Canon's particular set of compromises is the one I like best. I imagine that, for someone else, it's Nikon's compromises or Sony's.
One thing is certain in my mind and in my experience: these cameras are as different emotionally as they are alike technically. ...Show more →
This was my experience as well when I switched from a D200 to a 5D... I don't know how the latest Canon and Nikon offerings differ though. From what I have seen I am inclined to think that RAW files (when converted throught the same software) from both Nikon avnd Canon are closer than they were before... Nothing scientific... just an impression
brainiac wrote:
Steve, if you didn't see a significant difference in detail between 1Ds2 and D2x then you're right: any camera will do. For you. Your posts suggest to me that you may have fallen into the 100% crop trap. You need to uprez a D2x file to 16.7 megapixels before comparing crops with a 1Ds2.
I would also say to anyone who isn't seeing a significant difference between a 5D and a 5D2, you must be doing something wrong. The 5D2 has a far better ability to lift image data out of the shadows, which effectively gives you more dynamic range, and it also captures a lot more detail, if you provide it with the means to do so. I smell the whiff of comparisons done at 100% between 13 and 21 megapixel files. Be careful what you read here.
I think Bjorn Rorslett already did the reference standard comparison of the 1Ds II vs. Nikon D2x in his highly controversial D2x review at http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html.
I also don't think it's necessary to upsize the D2x files on a computer screen in order to compare them with the Canon's, although it would certainly level the playing field in absolute terms. Since the native print size of the D2x at 300DPI is 9.5 X 14.3 and the Canon is 11 X 16.5, viewing these files at their native 100% gives one enough of an indication of what's going on. I wouldn't say the same for comparing, say, the 5D II and 5D Mark I or the D300 and a900.
Besides, my assessment of camera resolution, sharpness, color, detail, etc., comes from viewing prints, not from 100% pixel peeping. My average large print is 16 X 20 and I often go up to 20 X 30. The devil is in the print details, and there the D2x holds up extremely well against the 1Ds II, even when upsized (and except for the emotional communication of the D2x images, noted in a previous thread) ....
veroman wrote:
I think Bjorn Rorslett already did the reference standard comparison of the 1Ds II vs. Nikon D2x in his highly controversial D2x review at http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html.
brainiac wrote:
Couldn't find anything relevant at that link...
Sorry. It didn't take you to the page I had referred to. Use the same link I provided. Scroll down the page to the D2x review listed there. When you get to the first page of D2x review, use the pull-down menu at the top to get to the "Taking On The Competition" page. Sorry to make you go through all this. Rorslett apparently doesn't title/address each page differently!
I'm sorry to have to say it, but this excerpt illustrates that Rorslett simply doesn't understand what he is doing: http://cyberphotographer.com/1ds3/testmuppet.jpg
A tester compares 20% of one camera's frame to 10% of another's, describes it as equal magnification, and you call that definitive.
brainiac wrote:
I'm sorry to have to say it, but this excerpt illustrates that Rorslett simply doesn't understand what he is doing
What can I tell 'ya? He's one of the most respected of the Nikonnites ... apparently an excellent photographer, a very good writer, and his overviews/reviews are considered reference-standard stuff. I know from my own experiences of buying Nikon MF lenses that his impressions of the lenses I've bought (which I read about first on his site) are right on in terms of how the lenses actually perform. Anyway, I thought you might find the entire comparison of interest.
veroman wrote:
What can I tell 'ya? He's one of the most respected of the Nikonnites ... apparently an excellent photographer, a very good writer, and his overviews/reviews are considered reference-standard stuff. I know from my own experiences of buying Nikon MF lenses that his impressions of the lenses I've bought (which I read about first on his site) are right on in terms of how the lenses actually perform. Anyway, I thought you might find the entire comparison of interest.
- Steve
This comparison is obviously flawed as brainiac had pointed out. You can clearly see that the Nikon crop covers a much larger area of the frame. So much for the guy's integrity and reputation. It's no wonder that Nikonians love him so much .... his tests and reports are probably always skewed in favor of Nikon.
The science part of photography attracts so many techy, testy nerds it kills me. On that note, 94% of you with such strong opinions, reviewers and otherwise, IMO are not even qualified to make determinations about quality and, in the end, it doesn't matter.
The science part of photography attracts so many techy, testy nerds it kills me. On that note, 94% of you with such strong opinions, reviewers and otherwise, IMO are not even qualified to make determinations about quality and, in the end, it doesn't matter.
The basic reason that 1DMarkIII has better colour rendition than 1DMarkII and also 5DMarkII has better vivid and more improved colours than 5D. That is something that no one is talking about.
dvarnav wrote:
The basic reason that 1DMarkIII has better colour rendition than 1DMarkII and also 5DMarkII has better vivid and more improved colours than 5D. That is something that no one is talking about.
Because no one cares and color matters about this much -> <- in the digital age when whatever color you desire is up at your fingertips. Plus, it's all subjective.
AnthonyRhoades wrote:
no one cares and color matters about this much -> <- in the digital age when whatever color you desire is up at your fingertips. Plus, it's all subjective.
dvarnav wrote:
The basic reason that 1DMarkIII has better colour rendition than 1DMarkII and also 5DMarkII has better vivid and more improved colours than 5D. That is something that no one is talking about.
Ummm 12 vs 14 bits has more to do with tonality and gradation than color. Sure you're talking about the right thing here? Tech talk requires that you understand the concepts and the words that go along with them. I find it quite humorous that you pick a subjective number out of thin air - 94% - and proceed to put yourself on a pedestal judging the others on here. Now while it's true there are a certain number of "measurebaters" on the boards, it's equally if not more so true that many of these fine folks are extensively qualified to discuss the subject matter at hand. Most everyone knows that more bits usually equals better IQ but that's not the full extent of the story. So perhaps they are addressing the items taht aren't quite as obvious? Or perhaps they really are blathering.
Regards,
Jon
BubbaJon wrote:
Ummm 12 vs 14 bits has more to do with tonality and gradation than color. Sure you're talking about the right thing here? Tech talk requires that you understand the concepts and the words that go along with them. I find it quite humorous that you pick a subjective number out of thin air - 94% - and proceed to put yourself on a pedestal judging the others on here. Now while it's true there are a certain number of "measurebaters" on the boards, it's equally if not more so true that many of these fine folks are extensively qualified to discuss the subject matter at hand. Most everyone knows that more bits usually equals better IQ but that's not the full extent of the story. So perhaps they are addressing the items taht aren't quite as obvious? Or perhaps they really are blathering.
Regards,
Jon...Show more →
They really are blathering. 94% may be an arbitrary guess, but I'd bet money on it being close to correct.
The truth about boards in general is that they are primarily for the hobbiest/enthusiast dentists, engineers, those types. I would guess (again) that 94% of those that post on this board and others do not make their living from photography and finally, again, it's moot. While some might 'know what it means' it has no measure on their daily lives, the lives of others or, more importantly, their and others bank accounts, worldwide.
BTW, I wasn't talking about color when referring to bit depth, the man from Greece was. I'm replying in general to the topic of this thread. Bit depth encompasses much much more than gradation and color.
I'm sorry to have to say it, but this excerpt illustrates that Rorslett simply doesn't understand what he is doing: http://cyberphotographer.com/1ds3/testmuppet.jpg
A tester compares 20% of one camera's frame to 10% of another's, describes it as equal magnification, and you call that definitive.
ins't he just saying that the D2X has more reach?
what is so shocking about that?
if you have a given lens and there is a given bird sitting across a pond and you can't cross the pond then a 50D will toss a ton more pixels on the bird than a 5D and apparantely so will a D2x vs a 1dsmkii, not surprising since one is an APS-C and the other a moderate MP FF.
of course if he was trying ot use this as a GENRAL claim about resolution of D2x and 1dsmkii then that is pretty silly. anytime you are NOT distance limited the 1dsmkii will stomp the d2x for detail (but when you are distance limited the d2x does stompt he 1dsmkii.....)
