Just for the fun, I have shooted at the same time with same light the same subject using my beloved 5D and my new 5DII. Only the lenses were different, since I couldn't use the same lens...
Could you tell which one has been taken by the 5D or the 5DII. No trick there, really using two cameras... I will tell you then...
I can't tell which is which. It would seem that the second photo had a slightly better exposure. I have both 5D cameras and I can a tell a difference on my monitor while observing RAW files. The MarkII seems to have a wonderful smoothness, with slightly better contrast and coloring. Both cameras are absolutely terrific.
The choice of lens makes a huge difference and is just as important a selection as the camera body.
I have a small screen, 17" diag., and it appears to me that the second one has better detail, and resolved a little better. I would therefore guess that it was taken with the 5Dii. The places that I noticed the differences mostly were the hat, stitching on the pants, her left wrist, eye makeup and her right arm seems a little brighter. Some of this may due to the slight difference in camera angle. I am sure that the pros will pipe in soon with their big screens and perfect vision and tell you things I can't see on my Dell laptop.
I don't think you can tell jack at such low rez. But, yeah, the contrast is a little better on the 2nd photo. And that could be due to the lens or processing, but not because of 13MP vs 21MP CMOS...
Hey invite me over for dinner . In my comparisons, the biggest difference between the 5DI and II is the high iso performance of the later. With a good lens (e.g. 100mm leica macro), I could see improved resolution at the lower isos with the difference being about the same as one sees with the 5D and 1DsmkIII.
no problem for dinner.... but not sure you would have loved this meal.. it was tartare of deer (raw meat, not raw file lol), with lemon and hazelnut lol
Correct.... you add a good lens, and you can definitively shoot in really low lite.. What I found amazing with the 5DII is that the color are still not that bad at 25600... especially with a noise reducer software like neat image...
So my conclusion is that if you have a 5D and shoot studio, and you don't need bigger print, you will not really improve the quality of your photos with the 5DII...
For anything else, the 5DII is really a great camera !
Raw venison chunks with lemon and walnut oil? Yikes maybe next time I would make carpaccio and serve it with some bitter greens and a zesty acidic sauce. Only serve one or two bites of the raw meat. wow, I'm really impressed with that ISO. Neat Image? I'll look into that one. Thanks
Actually my 28-70mm is usually good... Oh yes... I remember... The main differerence between both camera is that 5D is much overexposed than the 5DII. So both are 100iso, 1/200, but the 5D was F10 meanwhile I had to be at F5,6 with the 5dII.. Big time.... That's explain why the detail appear blury one the 5DII with the 28-70L, cause the DOF was smaller !!!!!!
In the studio I think the 5D II is much superior due to the availability of LIve View. For getting precise focus -- especially with T/S lenses -- Live View is a god send. Don't get me wrong the 5D still takes great shots in the studio, but with the addition of Live View, a much truer/high resolution screen, and more resolution the 5D II is much superior in my opinion.
Dawei Ye wrote:
I still remember the days not too long ao when all these luddites kept proclaiming that "we don't need stinking liveview"
I don't know what I'll do without it!
Truth is we don't *need* live view, one can manage quite well with an angle finder, but it's quite nice to have, it would be much more useful if the rear lcd was articulated and had proper view-camera gridlines on it though
That just proves me that what makes the difference is finally the lens lol But it is not really a scoop.... And big prints.....ok....
We've been saying for years: Don't expect to see differences in small prints, don't expect to see differences in low-rez web images. Yet, people keep showing low-rez images on the web and proclaiming "Zere ees no deeffairanz!" as though it's news to the world.
I still remember the days not too long ao when all these luddites kept proclaiming that "we don't need stinking liveview"
As it was initially implemented, it was of limited use. It could certainly still be improved, but it's definitely now useful.
Gochugogi wrote:
Yeah, that 28-70 2.8L USM is total crap!
My point is that if you reversed the combo and shot the 5D II with the 85L and the 5D with the 28-70L I think it would have been THAT much easier to pick out the better/sharper image. I don't have any experience with the 28-70L but my 85L will kick the butt of my 24-70L any day .... but I still love my 24-70L.
. In my comparisons, the biggest difference between the 5DI and II is the high iso performance of the later. With a good lens (e.g. 100mm leica macro), I could see improved resolution at the lower isos with the difference being about the same as one sees with the 5D and 1DsmkIII.