brainiac wrote:
[...]
The 5D2 is a 21 megapixel small body camera with great high iso performance and video at a pretty reasonable price. It costs about the same as a Nikon D700. Take your pick, but don't underestimate 9 extra megapixels and video for the same price.
I don't disagree, but it rather comes down to that 9 extra mps and video, or top notch autofocus.
Every so often I get severely tempted by the D3(x)/D700 combination.....
brainiac wrote:
Seems no different from my creaky 5D mk I in that regard, and people seem to have come to terms with the limitations of that, if you'll excuse the pun, nearly canonised camera.
People are becoming used to paying lots of money for crappy built electronics
Daan B wrote:
People are becoming used to paying lots of money for crappy built electronics...
I took a 5D and squeeky doors over a D2x and loved it for 3 years. I'm glad Canon spends the money on the bits that matter. If you want unsqueaky doors pony up for a 1Ds3, or settle for a 12 megapixel D700.
brainiac wrote:
I took a 5D and squeeky doors over a D2x and loved it for 3 years. I'm glad Canon spends the money on the bits that matter. If you want unsqueaky doors pony up for a 1Ds3, or settle for a 12 megapixel D700.
Whatever makes you happy... I will stick with my 1Ds3 thank you
Cameras fail, bound to, they are very sophisticated computers, but they shouldn't be supplied with bits missing and not properly attached. No excuse for that.
dhphoto wrote:
Cameras fail, bound to, they are very sophisticated computers, but they shouldn't be supplied with bits missing and not properly attached. No excuse for that.
dhphoto wrote:
Cameras fail, bound to, they are very sophisticated computers, but they shouldn't be supplied with bits missing and not properly attached. No excuse for that.
David
We all agree on this, but then you have to count in what the camera costs. Also I just wonder why people who dont want to have the risk to buy a defective item walk into a store ask the seller to show him the item and make sure that the camera has no issues right from the beginning?
Compared to the 1Ds, if 1 or 2% of all 5dMKII fail within one year, but overall we can buy 2 cameras, a WIFI grip and 2 lenses for the same price as for the flagship you have to come up with better reasons not to buy it, that is if you really need/want one.
dhphoto wrote:
Why, it shouldn't happen on a 1000D either
Is it ok for cheap cars to have steering wheels and tyres that fall off?
I suspect quality control methodologies and failure tolerances are quite similar between Canon and Toyota for the consumer models and Canon and Lexus for the 1-Series models. If we spent some time on Toyota or Lexus gripe forums, we'd probably see the same number and degree of issues.
apdieb wrote:
I think if you actually go to a photography website, you'll find something different.
For sure. On the professional wedding and portrait websites (where a "good camera" is one that makes money, "better camera" is one that makes more money, and a "terrific camera" is one that makes more money and also costs less), they're calling the 5D2 a "terrific camera."
The low iso looks pretty good to me.. I never expose such that I have to pull 3 stops of information out of the shadows, but here's an example with ACR..
Flat conversion (ie no black, brightness, contrast, curves, fill or recovery adjustments). Default sharpening and NR (ie. 25 on color noise, nothing in luma noise).
That doesn't look all that bad to me.. there's detail to work with, and acceptable noise (the chroma NR really helps, without it there's some nasty color blotching, but this looks just fine to me). I have never owned or used a 1DsIII, so I can't compare, but honestly, I don't see any problems here. Put in a slight curves adjustment and the blacks become blacker and the noise really becomes a non-issue. If you underexposed by 3 stops you've got other issues IMO.
Well, here is another theory for the poor 5D2 IQ... I have an early serial no, which I received in late Novemeber. Is it possible that there was a sensor or component fault in the first batch, which is causing numerous IQ issues (banding low ISO, "crispy" images, poor transition between focus and OOF areas etc.)? It seems some people are getting decent IQ out of this machine but it appears to be the recent purchasers.
I still think the quality I have seen out of 1DS3 files is superb. Absolutely gorgeous, and this is coming from a staunch film advocate. I simply have not seen the 3D quality of the 1DS3 in any MkII files. I imagine this is due to the cost cutting measures with the low pass filter in the 5D2.
If this is true it is a very poor showing on Canon's part and a huge disappointment. I think many of us wanted this camera to be a smaller version of the 1DS3 with the same IQ. Instead Canon seems to give us a shoddy camera with high resolution but a very poor image that lacks subtlety in tonal transitions and has horrible banding visible at 100 ISO WITHOUT HTP enabled. I sincerely hope I have a bad sample.
I am going to either sell this 5D2 or take it in to Canon for them to evaluate the problems.
I shoot people/fashion and I have found the IQ to be worse than the 5D original. By this I am not referring to numerical tests or stupid still life shots that fail to uncover the whole picture. I am looking at actual images I and others have shot and evaluating with my eyes.
I learned a long time ago to take published "tests"/reviews with a grain of salt. I remember a photo magazine review of the Leica Summicron 50mm ranking it below the Nikon 50 1.8 for example. What a joke - when I actually ended up buying a Leica M + 50 Summi and shooting with it I realized how ridiculous their evaluation methods were, and failure to consider which lens simply produced more aesthetically pleasing results.
FashionBoy wrote:
Well, here is another theory for the poor 5D2 IQ... I have an early serial no, which I received in late Novemeber. Is it possible that there was a sensor or component fault in the first batch, which is causing numerous IQ issues (banding low ISO, "crispy" images, poor transition between focus and OOF areas etc.)? It seems some people are getting decent IQ out of this machine but it appears to be the recent purchasers.
I still think the quality I have seen out of 1DS3 files is superb. Absolutely gorgeous, and this is coming from a staunch film advocate. I simply have not seen the 3D quality of the 1DS3 in any MkII files. I imagine this is due to the cost cutting measures with the low pass filter in the 5D2.
If this is true it is a very poor showing on Canon's part and a huge disappointment. I think many of us wanted this camera to be a smaller version of the 1DS3 with the same IQ. Instead Canon seems to give us a shoddy camera with high resolution but a very poor image that lacks subtlety in tonal transitions and has horrible banding visible at 100 ISO WITHOUT HTP enabled. I sincerely hope I have a bad sample.
I am going to either sell this 5D2 or take it in to Canon for them to evaluate the problems.
I shoot people/fashion and I have found the IQ to be worse than the 5D original. By this I am not referring to numerical tests or stupid still life shots that fail to uncover the whole picture. I am looking at actual images I and others have shot and evaluating with my eyes.
I learned a long time ago to take published "tests"/reviews with a grain of salt. I remember a photo magazine review of the Leica Summicron 50mm ranking it below the Nikon 50 1.8 for example. What a joke - when I actually ended up buying a Leica M + 50 Summi and shooting with it I realized how ridiculous their evaluation methods were, and failure to consider which lens simply produced more aesthetically pleasing results.
www.babar-khan.com
...Show more →
I don't find this hard to believe at all. Many people said the image quality ( not resolution, not noise performance) i.e the sophistication and realism of the tonal reproduction of the scene was superior on the original 1ds than on the improved 1dsII. All the conventional tests would say other wise though. I find the sophistication of the tonal rendering of most DSLR's to be quite crude compared to MF digital. They simply cannot render subtle tonal and color variations in a scene with the realism a good MF digital back can - maybe this has many factors - CCD vs CMOS, 12/14 vs16bit, lack of an AA filter, A/D conversion? but it does show that these things cannot be easily measured with test charts. The trend with DSLR's is to make denser sensors fo increased MP while at the same time acheiving better and better high ISO capabilities ( 2 seemingly conradictory things). There must be some trade off to other image qualities if you have to put the resulting sensor data though the camera's internal processing 'mangle' to achive this compromise and this is before it gets to RAW. Years ago there was a big thread with many claiming that the 5D was just as good at the 1DsII in regards to resolution ( and therefore image quality) and many side by side crops were produced to prove this claim. Again after many year s working with the image files from these 2 cameras it is clear that in other areas of image quality the 1DsII is superior such as less noise in the shadows at low ISO means the 1dsII image can be 'pushed' much more , less 'jaggies' on angled lines and edges ( less sopisticated i.e cheaper AA filter on th 5D?) means the 1DsII image can be upressed more. I'm sure the 5DII is a very good camera for the money but I'm also sure Canon don't just charge conciderably extra for the 1DsIII for a bigger body and tighter manufacturing tollerances.
R. Eisenberg wrote:
Is now a good time to take the plunge for a 1Ds3
It is always a good time to take the plunge for a 1Ds3... (if you have the money)
Seriously, when comparing the 5D2 files to the 1Ds3 files, the 1Ds3 files are richer and have more depth and shadow detail than the 5D2 files. Depending on the user/camera the 1Ds3 files also appear to be cleaner at lower ISO's. OTOH, I think the 5D2 may have a slight edge beyond ISO1600. Besides IQ there are many other features that make the 1Ds3 a better and more enjoyable camera IMO (you can do the comparison yourself ). Unless you need something light and small of course
The fact that both cams share a 21MP sensor, doesn't mean both cams share the same IQ. The 1Ds3 is just a few steps beyond the 5D2 IMHO. Of course the 1Ds3 costs two times more than the 5D2...
resist the temptation 
). Unless you need something light and small of course