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.
I wouldn't go so far as to let my "blood boil"... But it is of interesting note that all the talk here is of underexposed walls, windows and bookcases, while I post a properly exposed professional image of a professional performance captured with my 5D2, which looks perfectly fine, and you guys could care less. And what that tells me is it's not so much a matter relevant to "pro photographers" that is being discussed here, but a matter relevant to "pro gearheads". Split hairs over nominal shadow noise all you want, but don't think for a second that this is going to have any real impact on your photography. The 5D2 is a remarkable tool considering its price.
Let's put this in perspective. The 1Ds III and D3X are both $8,000 cameras, albeit the 1Ds III has dropped in price. Surely you cannot expect a sub $3,000 camera to perform just as well as an $8,000 camera? Okay, maybe both cameras are realistically worth $6,500 .... which is still more than twice the price of the 5D II. So what's a little bit of noise? There are some amazing NR software out there. I just bought the standard version of Noiseware for $40 after a 20% NAPP discount .... even though the discount coupon expired on January 2.
I can't believe anyone is passing on a 5D II because of a minor issue when it's compared to a camera that is 2.5 times the price.
Have you all even seen what's being done with the 5D II? Go hang out in the people photography & wedding photography forums and perhaps you'll change your mind.
There is way more to this photography thing than wasting time over test shots.
I cannot test either camera, but if the exposure was correct, and no significant alteration to the original exposure (e.g. fill, black level, hilight/shadow, etc.) was done to get these luminosity levels in the shadows, the concern would be more about the "banding" effect in the sample than the noise levels I think.
Actually, I'm feeling a bit better about my extravagant purchase and retention of my 1Ds MK III. I trust Brianiac's experience in shooting 1000's of shots-not just pixel peeping a few images. I also have found good correlation with his high ISO experience and mine.
So I'm not going to let anyone pry my 1Ds Mk III out of my cold dead fingers until some new camera (its not a D3x maybe a Mk IV??) really blows the 1Ds Mk III out of the water. Yep, I'll take an additional hit with even more depreciation but, meanwhile, I still can use the best until then.
I think Brainiacs point was that Canon have stated that the image quality was the SAME and he sold his 1Ds mkIII based on that fact. He's peeved at the deliberate misinformation. Whether a cheaper camera can be expected to be worse IQ wise is one thing (and spurious IMO given the history of DSLR's), if they tell you it isn't then it would be resonable to be annoyed when you find out they've lied would it not?
Printed 3 images for clients yesterday, all were uprezzed by at least 100% from the original 5D files, pixel peeping being a bad thing is a matter of perspective, when you need every pixel to be as good as possible suddenly it starts being relevant. One image had bad CA (85 1.8 wide open, the lens' ONLY fault) which needed clearing up. It wasn't visible at 50% but by the time the image was rezzed up 150% I promise you it was a very real problem!
brainiac wrote:
On Saturday I shot over 4000 pictures with it and was paid handsomely for my efforts. If you don't like talking to others about their experience of camera performance, what are you doing here?
I'm participating in photo discussion, that's what.
Honestly though, it's ludicrous how much people pixel peep. Don't even try to deny it.
People see a problem that is inevitable with any photo sensor, and say it's unacceptable. Unless some of you guys can change the laws of physics and thermodynamics, there will always be noise in your photos when you pixel peep.
Also, my second statement in my first post is called hyperbole, it's a form of rhetoric. I'm stating that some people pixel peep to the point where they get paranoid over the photo quality and seem to care more about exact sharpness, rather than taking a good photo.
CanAm, just leave the thread like I do. It's no use debating with the key participants. It's got nothing to do with the purpose of this board anymore. I am off, there is no EOSfun in here. Lies, methodological debatable wrong starting points, ego tripping for the wrong reasons, cognitive dissonance and all kind of negative energy coming from members who don't get the original raison d'etre of this board anymore. I wish I could see that some critical attitude could help in the realisation of consumer rights of Canon products in threads like these. But it's got nothing to do with that. It has become a kind of coffee table thread with no useful information and just grumbling and griping for the members who need their daily rant.
Depends whether you define a good photo by things other than just an acceptable composition and lighting. Seems to be that only since the advent of digital, and every wannabee owning a DSLR, the concept of wanting quality as well has long gone out of the window and infact become a dirty word. Photography has become a matter of 'what you can get away with'. Fine Art is defined by 'as long as you stand far back enough'. All the noise is coming from the newbies and wannabees, the people making money and a livelihood out of photography know better what is required to produce a quality product and indeed why quality is a requirement. Many can produce a good composition but that doesn't make a good photographer however hard Uncle Bob may deny it. Good technique and a quality result is what seperates the wheat from the chaff. What truly is ridiculous is that assumption by said wannabees is that a requirement for quality by definition must be to the detriment of photography. A ridiculous concept if I ever heard one. Especially when applied to pros who knew how to take a good photo and make money from it long before these people ever lifted their first DSLR.
eosfun wrote:
CanAm, just leave the thread like I do. It's no use debating with the key participants. It's got nothing to do with the purpose of this board anymore. I am off, there is no EOSfun in here. Lies, methodological debatable wrong starting points, ego tripping for the wrong reasons, cognitive dissonance and all kind of negative energy coming from members who don't get the original raison d'etre of this board anymore. I wish I could see that some critical attitude could help in the realisation of consumer rights of Canon products in threads like these. But it's got nothing to do with that. It has become a kind of coffee table thread with no useful information and just grumbling and griping for the members who need their daily rant.
Beni wrote:
Depends whether you define a good photo by things other than just an acceptable composition and lighting. Seems to be that only since the advent of digital, and every wannabee owning a DSLR, the concept of wanting quality as well has long gone out of the window and infact become a dirty word. Photography has become a matter of 'what you can get away with'. Fine Art is defined by 'as long as you stand far back enough'. All the noise is coming from the newbies and wannabees, the people making money and a livelihood out of photography know better what is required to produce a quality product and indeed why quality is a requirement. Many can produce a good composition but that doesn't make a good photographer however hard Uncle Bob may deny it. Good technique and a quality result is what seperates the wheat from the chaff. What truly is ridiculous is that assumption by said wannabees is that a requirement for quality by definition must be to the detriment of photography. A ridiculous concept if I ever heard one. Especially when applied to pros who knew how to take a good photo and make money from it long before these people ever lifted their first DSLR. ...Show more →
I see what you are getting at and somewhat agree. At the same time, the current crop of dslrs, ALL OF THEM, allow one to obtain amazing quality, especially compared to fast color film. I personally like film and shoot it, so I'm not going to go too heavy into this, but if you can't make an amazing shot with loads of high quality that prints nice large, then it's not your DSLR.
One thing I do think all these advancements have done is make people think you can take a DSLR with a pro zoom and use it in all situations. They are incredibly versatile and do most things great. But sometimes there will be some noise, sometimes you need a tripod, and sometimes, for the size of enlargement that you want, you should really be looking at medium or large format. The noise issue is overblown to a certain extant in my mind. I look at the pictures in this thread. Half of them have no problem whatsoever, and in the other half, while there is a difference, it's minor. Guess what guys, the 5DII is 1/3rd of the cost of the 1DSIII. And it only has 99% of the image quality. Wahhh! Buy one, test it, and if it doesn't meet your needs, sell it and not the 1DSIII.
kidtexas wrote:
Guess what guys, the 5DII is 1/3rd of the cost of the 1DSIII. And it only has 99% of the image quality. Wahhh! Buy one, test it, and if it doesn't meet your needs, sell it and not the 1DSIII.
I'm doing just that. I bought one, have tested it, and now I'm showing the results. But you suggest we are making too much of the difference in noise. It's the only difference I can see. I sold my 1Ds3. As far as I can see there is a difference in the noise pattern at low isos, as I have shown, but it's not enough to make me keep the more expensive camera. Why is everyone having hot flushes about this? If you don't like other people looking closely at the performance of tools that they use in their jobs, become a politician and pass a law against it. Otherwise, don't poison what could have been a perfectly reasonable discussion about small but sometimes visible differences between cameras. That goes for all of you who resort to insulting terms like 'pixel peeper' and so on. If information on this thread doesn't interest you, go elsewhere.
Thanks Beni, for making sense and sticking to reasonable discussion about this. Eosfun, I've defended you many times - I'm surprised that you have resorted to insulting people here - it's not usually your style. No hard feelings anyway, but let's keep this thread on topic.
That's not a bad idea Andi. I suspect we could all make a fair fist of drafting it though. "The 1DsmkIII is a ground breaking professional camera with blah blah. The 5D mk II offers new levels of image quality at it's price point, and the highest ISOs of any Canon camera blah blah..." It's not like they're going to get an engineer actually to explain how they decided to improve high isos at the cost of lower ones and introduced a new algorithm in processing to mitigate horizontal streaks by adding vertical ones.
Brainiac, i've been reading this thread since the start, and now i want to share some of my thoughts.
You tested the 5DII and showed us your results. As you have (or had) a 1D body to compare, you also shared yours findings and conclusions. Although I dont think the photo you used was the best one to show your point (nor the worse eiter, ok?), I agree that if you see difference between 5D2 low iso files and 1D low iso files, be it marginal or not, it is there. For that i thank you for the testing and sharing the information.
But I also understand the feelings of people who think this whole thread turned into a "whitch hunt", with some pixels playing the witch role. I know you dont mean the 5D2 is a bad camera at all, but some (bad or unexperienced) readers may see the fact (as you proved), as a terrible flaw, wich it is not.
The 5D2 is a great camera, as the 5D classic still is (and for some, will ever be ).
Alexis Marinho wrote:
But I also understand the feelings of people who think this whole thread turned into a "whitch hunt", with some pixels playing the witch role. I know you dont mean the 5D2 is a bad camera at all, but some (bad or unexperienced) readers may see the fact (as you proved), as a terrible flaw, wich it is not.
People who don't know how to interpret the crops that I have posted on this thread should definitely be buying a 450D instead of spending nearly $3K on a 5D2. Would it be better if I chose not to share my findings?
).