This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 20095D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
p.8 #15D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
The only people who have any justification in being a little miffed are those of us who have decided to downgrade and subsequently discovered that Canon's claim that the 5D2 provided their best image quality ever isn't entirely true.
I agree. I truly am looking forward to more comparisons wondering whether or not this has something to do with product variation or if the 'issue' is widespread and or generally accepted.
P.S. It wouldn't be the first time Canon lied
Whether they "lied" depends on what they were talking about. I suspect that if they shot with both cameras in various situations and just made a bunch of 16x20 comparison prints, they were telling the truth.
In Canon's "Lens Work III," they describe an 11x14 print as an "extreme enlargement," which indicates their perspective on "pixel peeping." In the Canon USA FAQ on focus sharpness, they specifically recommend that sharpness judgments not be made from a monitor, but only from prints.
I agree. I truly am looking forward to more comparisons wondering whether or not this has something to do with product variation or if the 'issue' is widespread and or generally accepted.
P.S. It wouldn't be the first time Canon lied
Whether they "lied" depends on what they were talking about. I suspect that if they shot with both cameras in various situations and just made a bunch of 16x20 comparison prints, they were telling the truth.
In Canon's "Lens Work III," they describe an 11x14 print as an "extreme enlargement," which indicates their perspective on "pixel peeping." In the Canon USA FAQ on focus sharpness, they specifically recommend that sharpness judgments not be made from a monitor, but only from prints.
Feb 04, 2009 at 03:04 PM
p.8 #25D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
brainiac wrote:
The only people who have any justification in being a little miffed are those of us who have decided to downgrade and subsequently discovered that Canon's claim that the 5D2 provided their best image quality ever isn't entirely true.
Canon 5D2 JPEG's are very clean (high ISO NR set at low) and contain good detail... Even ISO6400 is pretty much usable. I guess it depends on how you look at it. But Canon doesn't say those kind of things to be objective... they need to sell their stuff. Only believe your own eyes
The only people who have any justification in being a little miffed are those of us who have decided to downgrade and subsequently discovered that Canon's claim that the 5D2 provided their best image quality ever isn't entirely true.
Canon 5D2 JPEG's are very clean (high ISO NR set at low) and contain good detail... Even ISO6400 is pretty much usable. I guess it depends on how you look at it. But Canon doesn't say those kind of things to be objective... they need to sell their stuff. Only believe your own eyes
Feb 04, 2009 at 03:18 PM
p.8 #35D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
Beni wrote:
I wonder how many of the people (usually with posts in the hundreds if that) who are going on about taking pictures and technique are or ever have been pro photographers, shoot anywhere near the shot count per week of pro photographers or in any case rely on their output to put bread on the table? When I read people throwing the phrase 'pixel peeping' at pro photographers it really makes my blood boil.
Wow, boiling blood Beni... pixel peeping isn't always bad thing.
Heck, I'm a professional "pixel peeper" who has retouched hundreds (maybe thousands, but I don't keep count) of images for well known "pro photographers". I also shot "professionally" for a couple years and I have posts in the hundreds! I wish I had the time to post thousands of messages in this forum - wait ...no I don't.
I wonder how many of the people (usually with posts in the hundreds if that) who are going on about taking pictures and technique are or ever have been pro photographers, shoot anywhere near the shot count per week of pro photographers or in any case rely on their output to put bread on the table? When I read people throwing the phrase 'pixel peeping' at pro photographers it really makes my blood boil.
Wow, boiling blood Beni... pixel peeping isn't always bad thing.
Heck, I'm a professional "pixel peeper" who has retouched hundreds (maybe thousands, but I don't keep count) of images for well known "pro photographers". I also shot "professionally" for a couple years and I have posts in the hundreds! I wish I had the time to post thousands of messages in this forum - wait ...no I don't.
Feb 04, 2009 at 03:34 PM
p.8 #45D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
Allen's camera just called that my 2 5D2's I had on pre-order were in stock. I'm holding off for a while 
Feb 04, 2009 at 03:58 PM
p.8 #55D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
cineski wrote:
Allen's camera just called that my 2 5D2's I had on pre-order were in stock. I'm holding off for a while
What's the alternative?
Allen's camera just called that my 2 5D2's I had on pre-order were in stock. I'm holding off for a while
What's the alternative?
Feb 04, 2009 at 04:07 PM
p.8 #65D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
M Vers wrote:
I don't understand your point...pro photographers have been making a living without pixel peeping since the dawn of digital photography. Unless printing very large if you need to pixel peep to sell prints or run a business I'd say your being a bit over meticulous and borderline obsessive. Looking at 100% crops on computer screens doesn't always portray the results of a print therefor nit picking at each individual noise granule holds little to no bearing over the final result, again, with the exception of printing extremely large. I could understand if the differences in noise levels were substantial...Show more →
Sure we did, ever heard of medium or large format? Landscapers used these formats for years because they did not want the film equivalent of noise; which is grain, in their images/prints. 35mm was a very limited format in the film days. I have personally spent hours going over slides on the light table. Some very slow films evolved in the 35mm film world for this very reason, remember kodachrome 25, I sure do
I don't understand your point...pro photographers have been making a living without pixel peeping since the dawn of digital photography. Unless printing very large if you need to pixel peep to sell prints or run a business I'd say your being a bit over meticulous and borderline obsessive. Looking at 100% crops on computer screens doesn't always portray the results of a print therefor nit picking at each individual noise granule holds little to no bearing over the final result, again, with the exception of printing extremely large. I could understand if the differences in noise levels were substantial...Show more →
Sure we did, ever heard of medium or large format? Landscapers used these formats for years because they did not want the film equivalent of noise; which is grain, in their images/prints. 35mm was a very limited format in the film days. I have personally spent hours going over slides on the light table. Some very slow films evolved in the 35mm film world for this very reason, remember kodachrome 25, I sure do
Feb 04, 2009 at 04:13 PM
p.8 #75D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
Andrew Gough wrote:
Sure we did, ever heard of medium or large format? Landscapers used these formats for years because they did not want the film equivalent of noise; which is grain, in their images/prints. 35mm was a very limited format in the film days. I have personally spent hours going over slides on the light table. Some very slow films evolved in the 35mm film world for this very reason, remember kodachrome 25, I sure do
Sure we did what? I'm not sure what you trying to prove there...I'm well aware of MF and LF, but I'm not sure what they have to do with pixel peeping 35mm digital files. Apples to oranges.
Sure we did, ever heard of medium or large format? Landscapers used these formats for years because they did not want the film equivalent of noise; which is grain, in their images/prints. 35mm was a very limited format in the film days. I have personally spent hours going over slides on the light table. Some very slow films evolved in the 35mm film world for this very reason, remember kodachrome 25, I sure do
Sure we did what? I'm not sure what you trying to prove there...I'm well aware of MF and LF, but I'm not sure what they have to do with pixel peeping 35mm digital files. Apples to oranges.
Feb 04, 2009 at 04:31 PM
p.8 #85D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
M Vers wrote:
In your mind it may not, but other less informed individuals will read this thread and walk away with a very sour taste in their mouth.
See what I mean?
cineski wrote:
Allen's camera just called that my 2 5D2's I had on pre-order were in stock. I'm holding off for a while
thedigitalbean wrote
And Richard hasn't said that the 5D2 can't. I view this thread as an exercise to learn and inform ourselves about the differences between the 5D2 and 1Ds3 sensor. In my mind it doesn't diminish the value of the 5D2 in the least bit.See what I mean?
cineski wrote:
Allen's camera just called that my 2 5D2's I had on pre-order were in stock. I'm holding off for a while
Feb 04, 2009 at 04:35 PM
p.8 #95D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
Sure we did, ever heard of medium or large format? Landscapers used these formats for years because they did not want the film equivalent of noise; which is grain, in their images/prints. 35mm was a very limited format in the film days. I have personally spent hours going over slides on the light table. Some very slow films evolved in the 35mm film world for this very reason, remember kodachrome 25, I sure do
I think you missed the point. Someone who is very critical of the quality of his prints is not a "pixel peeper." A "pixel peeper" is only interested in the quality of a pixel at 100% of the native pixel resolution.
I think you missed the point. Someone who is very critical of the quality of his prints is not a "pixel peeper." A "pixel peeper" is only interested in the quality of a pixel at 100% of the native pixel resolution.
Feb 04, 2009 at 04:37 PM
p.8 #105D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
M Vers wrote:
>> In your mind it may not, but other less informed individuals will read this thread and walk away with a very sour taste in their mouth.
cineski wrote:
>Allen's camera just called that my 2 5D2's I had on pre-order were in stock. I'm holding off for a while
See what I mean?
Yes - I applaud their caution, and I am glad to be able to add a little bit more information to inform their choices about how they spend their hard-earned cash. I don't work for Canon, and I think Canon's aim should be to maintain or grow market share through developing excellent products. Why are you so worried that better knowledge might cause a handful of people to delay buying?
>> In your mind it may not, but other less informed individuals will read this thread and walk away with a very sour taste in their mouth.
cineski wrote:
>Allen's camera just called that my 2 5D2's I had on pre-order were in stock. I'm holding off for a while
See what I mean?
Yes - I applaud their caution, and I am glad to be able to add a little bit more information to inform their choices about how they spend their hard-earned cash. I don't work for Canon, and I think Canon's aim should be to maintain or grow market share through developing excellent products. Why are you so worried that better knowledge might cause a handful of people to delay buying?
Feb 04, 2009 at 04:42 PM
p.8 #115D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
I just sold my 5D2 because of this thread....
just kidding....
just kidding....
Feb 04, 2009 at 04:50 PM
p.8 #125D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
brainiac wrote:
Why are you so worried that better knowledge might cause a handful of people to delay buying?
It's not that I'm worried but from what I have seen so far, and I could be wrong, I don't believe that the issue is much of an issue at all, at least not one large enough to stop people from buying the camera. That is why I'd like to see more in depth comparisons.
Why are you so worried that better knowledge might cause a handful of people to delay buying?
It's not that I'm worried but from what I have seen so far, and I could be wrong, I don't believe that the issue is much of an issue at all, at least not one large enough to stop people from buying the camera. That is why I'd like to see more in depth comparisons.
Feb 04, 2009 at 04:55 PM
p.8 #135D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
Sticking to my 5d's for now. They're a proven camera to me. I may end up buying it in the future, but for now I'm not going to revamp my entire camera setup if I'm not happy with personal experience results that prove what I'm reading on several threads about this.
Daan B wrote:
What's the alternative?
Edited on Feb 04, 2009 at 05:12 PM · View previous versions
Daan B wrote:
cineski wrote
Allen's camera just called that my 2 5D2's I had on pre-order were in stock. I'm holding off for a whileEdited on Feb 04, 2009 at 05:12 PM · View previous versions
Feb 04, 2009 at 05:09 PM
p.8 #145D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
I'm sorry, but am I to read this that I'm less informed? 
M Vers wrote:
In your mind it may not, but other less informed individuals will read this thread and walk away with a very sour taste in their mouth.See what I mean?
M Vers wrote:
M Vers wrote
thedigitalbean wrote
And Richard hasn't said that the 5D2 can't. I view this thread as an exercise to learn and inform ourselves about the differences between the 5D2 and 1Ds3 sensor. In my mind it doesn't diminish the value of the 5D2 in the least bit.cineski wrote
Allen's camera just called that my 2 5D2's I had on pre-order were in stock. I'm holding off for a whileFeb 04, 2009 at 05:11 PM
p.8 #155D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
cineski wrote:
I'm sorry, but am I to read this that I'm less informed?
You held up your order based on one (?) instance instead of testing them for yourself...so you tell me
I'm sorry, but am I to read this that I'm less informed?
You held up your order based on one (?) instance instead of testing them for yourself...so you tell me
Feb 04, 2009 at 05:18 PM
p.8 #165D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
Excuse me, M Vers, but your cheap shot tone is a bit uncalled for. It's not that difficult to test a camera one time for myself (yes, I've tested the 5D2 and 1Ds3 myself. Just because I didn't write it in that particular thread....
) and decide it's not worth over $6k at this time to buy 2 5D2's or 1 1Ds3. On top of that seeing others as scrutinizing as I am call out the same faults which I know personally don't suit my style of photography? I don't make rash decisions on 1 instance. So you wanted me to tell you. Does that mean I told you? Or can we get back to being constructive?
) and decide it's not worth over $6k at this time to buy 2 5D2's or 1 1Ds3. On top of that seeing others as scrutinizing as I am call out the same faults which I know personally don't suit my style of photography? I don't make rash decisions on 1 instance. So you wanted me to tell you. Does that mean I told you? Or can we get back to being constructive?Feb 04, 2009 at 05:38 PM
p.8 #175D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
cineski's decision is his own and I respect it. His decision was made after testing a 1Ds3 and 5D2 and if he feels it isn't worth it to him thats cool. That said you'd be hard pressed to convince me to give up my 5D2 for a 5D The more I shoot with this camera the more I love the files from it and don't even get me started on the menu, LCD and Live View improvements. It suits my shooting style really well and if it doesn't yours, why would it bother me. I have yet to make a giant print from it and am definitely looking forward to that.
Michael Reichmann defines a pixel peeper as someone who is so obsessed with the image quality of a camera usually by viewing images at 100% quality that it over-rides any other feature or aspect (like usability) about the camera (paraphrasing here). I wouldn't say thats the case of anyone who has participated in this thread so far.
The more I shoot with this camera the more I love the files from it and don't even get me started on the menu, LCD and Live View improvements. It suits my shooting style really well and if it doesn't yours, why would it bother me. I have yet to make a giant print from it and am definitely looking forward to that. Michael Reichmann defines a pixel peeper as someone who is so obsessed with the image quality of a camera usually by viewing images at 100% quality that it over-rides any other feature or aspect (like usability) about the camera (paraphrasing here). I wouldn't say thats the case of anyone who has participated in this thread so far.
Feb 04, 2009 at 06:09 PM
p.8 #185D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
It seems kind of funny. Even though Canon says the quality of the 5DII is the same as the 1DSIII, it's not. Ok. Big deal. It's still pretty darn close and what, 1/3rd of the price? Seems like a good deal to me...
Feb 04, 2009 at 06:14 PM
p.8 #195D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
DigitalBean, I'm hoping this gets proven with me, as well. Like I've said in other threads, I really want to like this camera and I'm cheering for it. I never said I'd never buy it, just that I'm holding off. This could very well be a firmware fix.
Feb 04, 2009 at 06:34 PM
p.8 #205D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3
cineski wrote:
DigitalBean, I'm hoping this gets proven with me, as well. Like I've said in other threads, I really want to like this camera and I'm cheering for it. I never said I'd never buy it, just that I'm holding off. This could very well be a firmware fix.
"Time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted."
DigitalBean, I'm hoping this gets proven with me, as well. Like I've said in other threads, I really want to like this camera and I'm cheering for it. I never said I'd never buy it, just that I'm holding off. This could very well be a firmware fix.
"Time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted."
Feb 04, 2009 at 07:42 PM