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.
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
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.
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 but relatively speaking they aren't. If anything this is just making a monsoon out of a sun shower. As for the number of posts any one person has, how does that reflect a persons skill level or status I have 1500+ posts, does that make me any less a professional than someone with 3K posts?...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
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
I have 1500+ posts, does that make me any less a professional than someone with 3K posts?
