Andre Goli wrote:
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 !!!!!!
Most definitely .... f5.6 is always sharper than f10/11 because of diffraction. Everybody knows that .... I hope.
bobbytan wrote: Most definitely .... f5.6 is always sharper than f10/11 because of diffraction. Everybody knows that .... I hope.
This has not been my experience. I shoot almost exclusively at f8-f11 in studio and have yet to witness any diffraction. I do agree with you on one point - Canon L primes will smoke the 28-70 if properly used.
You won't notice the effects of diffraction in the studio until you get to around f/22-f/32 on a 35mm sensor.
And either way, showing us these images at such tiny dimensions with different exposures proves nothing. My $5k HVX-200 is more than 1 stop darker than my old DVX-100, but the resolution is in a whole different class.
Deezie wrote:
This has not been my experience. I shoot almost exclusively at f8-f11 in studio and have yet to witness any diffraction. I do agree with you on one point - Canon L primes will smoke the 28-70 if properly used.
+1. f8-f11 is the sweet spot for many of my lenses. Now at f32 or f22 diffraction is an issue
Sure, my point wasn't a scientific one.... Nevertheless:
Bobbytan, actually it is the 5D with the 85L which is F10 and better than the F5.6 aperture of the 28-70L lens and 5DII, and not the opposite.. So in this case, F10 produced a better quality than the F5.6 aperture....
Gochugogi, to answer your question, in lightroom, I have cropped some part of both pix at full resolution, and I haven't seen much difference either... It might be some, but very minime for my eyes.... So I presume the 5D has still a good future at least in studio or sunishine outside shots, but for any other shots or functionnalties, the 5DII should be clearly the winner........
jerrykur wrote:
+1. f8-f11 is the sweet spot for many of my lenses. Now at f32 or f22 diffraction is an issue
That really depends. Shooting a 50D, you'll face noticeable diffraction as early as f/8. With a 5D, you're good until around f/13-ish. That's for a landscape, though. In a studio you won't notice the effects nearly as quickly.
This shows there is little real world difference in image quality from a 5D to 5D Mark II.
No big surprise.
Thus making the 5D the hot camera bargain. At least until the 5D II prices drop.
The 5D is a bargain at current prices, no question about it.
But the 5D II is in a different class/league of camera altogether .... or haven't you noticed that most high-megapixel cameras are selling for $6,500 and up .... with the exception of the A900 which is still more money than the 5D II?
For people who don't want or need a high-resolution DSLR, the 5D is absolutely the best buy.
For those who want or need the high resolution, the 5D Mk II is without a doubt the best deal in town.
abqnmusa wrote:
This shows there is little real world difference in image quality from a 5D to 5D Mark II.
No big surprise.
Thus making the 5D the hot camera bargain. At least until the 5D II prices drop.
Daan B wrote:
That depends on what you are going to use the cameras for... It isn't all about MP's...
But of course! How many of us here are prepared to pay $15,000 or $30,000 for a MF digital back? A 21MP DSLR brings us step closer to MF resolution and quality. I am just saying that if you want or need a high-resolution DSLR, the 5D Mk II is so damn cheap .... compared to the 1Ds III and D3X, etc.
Yes, the 5D mark II has some nice features that make it desirable
- more mega-pixels, sensor cleaning, micro-focus adjust, better LCD
except
- same 5D focusing system.
I am just surprised how much the 5D Mark II & 5D images look the same.
The 5D II does both landscapes and portraits well. It's not that great for sports and wildlife. And it is much happier with primes than with zooms i.e. it has very expensive tastes ... or you might say it loves 91-octane glass!
bobbytan wrote:
The 5D II does both landscapes and portraits well. It's not that great for sports and wildlife. And it is much happier with primes than with zooms i.e. it has very expensive tastes ... or you might say it loves 91-octane glass!
Yup - you are absolutely right. Smaller pixel sensor needs best glass to integrate; Otherwise, IQ to be degraded while upgrade just the body to 50D,5D2,1Ds2,1Ds3. Most canon zoom can't support 50d/5d2/1ds2/1ds3 sensors. We need to emphasize this since lots of canon user does not know this constraint. Most short range portrait application, we won't be able to tell the differences between 5D/5D2/1Ds2/1Ds3 even with 85L/135L
bobbytan wrote:
But of course! How many of us here are prepared to pay $15,000 or $30,000 for a MF digital back? A 21MP DSLR brings us step closer to MF resolution and quality. I am just saying that if you want or need a high-resolution DSLR, the 5D Mk II is so damn cheap .... compared to the 1Ds III and D3X, etc.
This is the point I brought this camera, though AF is not the best one (still more than enough for my child shoot ) but comparatively it is only half the price of 1DsIII or D3X, why not buying the 5D2, unless you really need a pro cam for normal use.
The old 5D is another scenario, I will make comparsion in between buying a brand new 50D or a used 5D, same price but crop vs FF, brand new vs used, etc.
Yup - you are absolutely right. Smaller pixel sensor needs best glass to integrate; Otherwise, IQ to be degraded while upgrade just the body to 50D,5D2,1Ds2,1Ds3. Most canon zoom can't support 50d/5d2/1ds2/1ds3 sensors. We need to emphasize this since lots of canon user does not know this constraint.
Wrong. Twenty-one megapixels is not even as sharp as the Adox and Kodak Technical Pan (Tech Pan was the equivalent of 35 megapixels) we used 30 years ago--this is not a suddenly new thing. A sharper recording medium does not degrade image quality.
RDKirk wrote:
Wrong. Twenty-one megapixels is not even as sharp as the Adox and Kodak Technical Pan (Tech Pan was the equivalent of 35 megapixels) we used 30 years ago--this is not a suddenly new thing. A sharper recording medium does not degrade image quality.
