This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 20095d vs. 1ds2 Magic?
p.3 #15d vs. 1ds2 Magic?
Ariel Bravy wrote:
Could you guys post sample images showing how one camera pops more than another? We are photographers, afterall.
As previously stated by another poster, the "pop "which is often attributed to the 5D is all about DOF with FF vs 1.6X crop.
Here's an example that I've posted here before....
5D, 85mm, f/2............vs............40D, 50mm, f/2...
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/496631737_axAcH-XL.jpg
Could you guys post sample images showing how one camera pops more than another? We are photographers, afterall.
As previously stated by another poster, the "pop "which is often attributed to the 5D is all about DOF with FF vs 1.6X crop.
Here's an example that I've posted here before....
5D, 85mm, f/2............vs............40D, 50mm, f/2...
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/496631737_axAcH-XL.jpg
Jun 29, 2009 at 02:55 PM
p.3 #25d vs. 1ds2 Magic?
One more.....
40D, 98mm, f/4....
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/438063887_vbTrD-L.jpg
5D, 149mm, f/4...
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/438063886_munfw-L.jpg
40D, 98mm, f/4....
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/438063887_vbTrD-L.jpg
5D, 149mm, f/4...
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/438063886_munfw-L.jpg
Jun 29, 2009 at 02:55 PM
p.3 #35d vs. 1ds2 Magic?
michael49 wrote:
As previously stated by another poster, the "pop "which is often attributed to the 5D is all about DOF with FF vs 1.6X crop.
I disagree with the assertion that "pop" is all about DOF, let alone the notion that the DOF from a FF body is any "pop-ier" than the DOF from a cropped sensor body.
This diffuse, ill-defined, subjective thing people keep referring to as "pop" is more about the subject, use of color, the lighting, the use of background OOF areas, and sophisticated post-processing than about anything directly related to your equipment.
FF won't get you "pop" in your photos and crop won't take it away.
Dan
As previously stated by another poster, the "pop "which is often attributed to the 5D is all about DOF with FF vs 1.6X crop.
I disagree with the assertion that "pop" is all about DOF, let alone the notion that the DOF from a FF body is any "pop-ier" than the DOF from a cropped sensor body.
This diffuse, ill-defined, subjective thing people keep referring to as "pop" is more about the subject, use of color, the lighting, the use of background OOF areas, and sophisticated post-processing than about anything directly related to your equipment.
FF won't get you "pop" in your photos and crop won't take it away.
Dan
Jun 29, 2009 at 03:19 PM
p.3 #45d vs. 1ds2 Magic?
Ariel Bravy wrote:
Mayhaps, but it's the original 5D which is often attributed as having a little extra somethin' somethin' to its shots.
It has a bit more resolution than some other cameras. The FF sensor allows it to record greater resolution from a given lens than a cropped sensor. There are sometimes-subtle DOF effects from using FF.
I shot with one for several years. It is a fine camera, but any significnt "extra something" that I might have been able to capture in photographs came from things besides the 5D.
It is a wonderfully useful and competent piece of photographic equipment, but is not the source of any mystical, metaphysical state of photographic wonderfulness far beyond that of any other camera... :-)
Dan
Paul Yi wrote
I think a fairer comparison is between 5D MkII and 1DsMkII, not 5D.It has a bit more resolution than some other cameras. The FF sensor allows it to record greater resolution from a given lens than a cropped sensor. There are sometimes-subtle DOF effects from using FF.
I shot with one for several years. It is a fine camera, but any significnt "extra something" that I might have been able to capture in photographs came from things besides the 5D.
It is a wonderfully useful and competent piece of photographic equipment, but is not the source of any mystical, metaphysical state of photographic wonderfulness far beyond that of any other camera... :-)
Dan
Jun 29, 2009 at 03:22 PM
p.3 #55d vs. 1ds2 Magic?
Dan,
I agree about "pop", but I do think the 5D is magic.
I agree about "pop", but I do think the 5D is magic.
Jun 29, 2009 at 03:34 PM
p.3 #65d vs. 1ds2 Magic?
gdanmitchell wrote:
I disagree with the assertion that "pop" is all about DOF, let alone the notion that the DOF from a FF body is any "pop-ier" than the DOF from a cropped sensor body.
This diffuse, ill-defined, subjective thing people keep referring to as "pop" is more about the subject, use of color, the lighting, the use of background OOF areas, and sophisticated post-processing than about anything directly related to your equipment.
FF won't get you "pop" in your photos and crop won't take it away.
Dan
Of course its not all about DOF.
You can achieve much more "pop" with good lighting than any other single variable, but people who use both 1.6 crop and FF often describe something different about the FF images and mostly I think they are noticing less DOF at equivalent aperatures/camera to subject distance, which results in more subject isolation and hence more "pop".
I disagree with the assertion that "pop" is all about DOF, let alone the notion that the DOF from a FF body is any "pop-ier" than the DOF from a cropped sensor body.
This diffuse, ill-defined, subjective thing people keep referring to as "pop" is more about the subject, use of color, the lighting, the use of background OOF areas, and sophisticated post-processing than about anything directly related to your equipment.
FF won't get you "pop" in your photos and crop won't take it away.
Dan
Of course its not all about DOF.
You can achieve much more "pop" with good lighting than any other single variable, but people who use both 1.6 crop and FF often describe something different about the FF images and mostly I think they are noticing less DOF at equivalent aperatures/camera to subject distance, which results in more subject isolation and hence more "pop".
Jun 29, 2009 at 03:42 PM
p.3 #75d vs. 1ds2 Magic?
EB-1 wrote:
Yeah and I have two of them just sitting around and decomposing. I should have sold them in 2007-2008.
EBH
So although you prefer the 1Ds2 AF to that of the 1Ds3, the latter presumably has some redeeming features which would lead you to leave two of the former on the shelf?
Yeah and I have two of them just sitting around and decomposing. I should have sold them in 2007-2008.
EBH
So although you prefer the 1Ds2 AF to that of the 1Ds3, the latter presumably has some redeeming features which would lead you to leave two of the former on the shelf?
Jun 30, 2009 at 04:45 AM
p.3 #85d vs. 1ds2 Magic?
Alundeb, I don't know which is which for sure, but the second shot has a bit more depth to it, IMO.
I do notice a huge difference between my 1Ds II and my 30D. A lot of it has to do with the FF DOF in many shots, and a lot has to do with the extra dynamic range of the 1Ds II sensor. I haven't used a 5D enough to comment on whether the 5D and 1Ds II have similar characteristics, but I'd be very surprised if the 5D had any advantage in that department.
I do notice a huge difference between my 1Ds II and my 30D. A lot of it has to do with the FF DOF in many shots, and a lot has to do with the extra dynamic range of the 1Ds II sensor. I haven't used a 5D enough to comment on whether the 5D and 1Ds II have similar characteristics, but I'd be very surprised if the 5D had any advantage in that department.
Jun 30, 2009 at 04:52 AM
p.3 #95d vs. 1ds2 Magic?
I, for one, never buy the "magic" XYZ (choose one: lens, camera, etc) argument. It's too amorphous and subjective.
What I will say about the 5D is that it's got the FF characteristics, which includes light fall off (which I mostly like) and huge photosites.
I don't think you'd see much difference in the 1ds2, except for marginally higher resolution, much better AF, increased weight, better durability.
What I will say about the 5D is that it's got the FF characteristics, which includes light fall off (which I mostly like) and huge photosites.
I don't think you'd see much difference in the 1ds2, except for marginally higher resolution, much better AF, increased weight, better durability.
Jun 30, 2009 at 06:26 AM
p.3 #105d vs. 1ds2 Magic?
corndog wrote:
Photographs can be "magic," but that is not the result of using "magic" cameras.
DanDan, did you think I meant it literally? Take a 30d with a 24-105 and take a photo. Now take the same photo with the exact same settings, this time using a 5d. You will see the 5d has a little extra punch to it. I realize they are just tools, but not all tools perform the same right? The 5d has fairy dust in it, and I want no further argument from you on the subject.
I've shot (essentially) both of those situations. I used to use a cropped sensor body with the 24-105 (and a variety of other lenses) and I've used that lens (and the others) with the 5D and the 5D II.
Yes, there are differences. In some situations they can make a difference in your photography, particularly if you shoot with careful technique and know how to optimize your photographs in post and if you print large.
But there is no "magic" about this - in either the cameras or in the results. If we handed a 50D and a 24-105 (or perhaps the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS) to one photographer and the 5DII with the 24-105 to another and then looked at the results we would be hard pressed to notice a different degree of "magic" in the results. We sure as heck wouldn't see it unless we looked at large and carefully made prints, and any "magical" qualities in the resulting photos would more likely be the result of other things... like the vision of the photographers.
Cameras and lenses are sophisticated tools that can enable the creative vision of photographers, but the gear is not what creates the vision nor does it have magic properties. Imagine two very talented carpenters building houses. One had slightly better tools than the other. Do we believe for a moment that the home built with "better hammers" would acquire some "magical" qualities that the occupant would notice? The things that the occupant would notice would be dependent upon the skill and judgment of the carpenter, not subtle differences between the tools they used.
Dan
danmitchell wrote
Sorry, but a camera as not "magic." It is a tool. Some cameras are more or less appropriate to the photography a given photographer might do in a particular set of circumstances.Photographs can be "magic," but that is not the result of using "magic" cameras.
Dan
I've shot (essentially) both of those situations. I used to use a cropped sensor body with the 24-105 (and a variety of other lenses) and I've used that lens (and the others) with the 5D and the 5D II.
Yes, there are differences. In some situations they can make a difference in your photography, particularly if you shoot with careful technique and know how to optimize your photographs in post and if you print large.
But there is no "magic" about this - in either the cameras or in the results. If we handed a 50D and a 24-105 (or perhaps the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS) to one photographer and the 5DII with the 24-105 to another and then looked at the results we would be hard pressed to notice a different degree of "magic" in the results. We sure as heck wouldn't see it unless we looked at large and carefully made prints, and any "magical" qualities in the resulting photos would more likely be the result of other things... like the vision of the photographers.
Cameras and lenses are sophisticated tools that can enable the creative vision of photographers, but the gear is not what creates the vision nor does it have magic properties. Imagine two very talented carpenters building houses. One had slightly better tools than the other. Do we believe for a moment that the home built with "better hammers" would acquire some "magical" qualities that the occupant would notice? The things that the occupant would notice would be dependent upon the skill and judgment of the carpenter, not subtle differences between the tools they used.
Dan
Jun 30, 2009 at 08:34 AM
p.3 #115d vs. 1ds2 Magic?
Jman13 wrote:
Alundeb, I don't know which is which for sure, but the second shot has a bit more depth to it, IMO.
I do notice a huge difference between my 1Ds II and my 30D. A lot of it has to do with the FF DOF in many shots, and a lot has to do with the extra dynamic range of the 1Ds II sensor. I haven't used a 5D enough to comment on whether the 5D and 1Ds II have similar characteristics, but I'd be very surprised if the 5D had any advantage in that department.
Thanks for your deeper look. I tend to agree, but very much appreciate more opinions.
The second shot, with perhaps a bit more depth to our eyes, is in fact from the T1i.
These are the (subtle) differences I manage to describe when comparing the prints:
The colors in the 5D image are warmer and richer. This probably has to do with the Color Filter Arrays. It is a fact that they are different.
The T1i image got a bit more detail in the center. This is a sensor property. The slightly higher pixel count is visible where and when the glass performs good enough.
The 5D image is sharper near the edges. This is a lens property, the 135L at f/9 is sharper at the edges on FF than the 85 is at f/5.6 on crop. An example of how the "sweet spot effect" doesn't exist when you adjust the focal length and f-number to get ~equivalent~ images.
In addition, when dissecting the raw files:
The T1i image at ISO100 is cleaner in the shadows than the 5D image at ISO250.
If someone, like me, started with a crop camera, we acquired some habits about what lenses, f-numbers and ISO settings we use. If we continue with those habits on FF, the results have to be different, that's just the laws of physics. Now if we like the different results, that may be fun, but then the equipment controls the photographer.
My message is, that whatever format you use, you should learn how that affects your photography, and IMHO learning how to get ~equivalent~ images is a WAY better point of reference than using identical settings.
Sorry for being a bit OT. This thread was meant to be 5D ws 1dsII.
Alundeb, I don't know which is which for sure, but the second shot has a bit more depth to it, IMO.
I do notice a huge difference between my 1Ds II and my 30D. A lot of it has to do with the FF DOF in many shots, and a lot has to do with the extra dynamic range of the 1Ds II sensor. I haven't used a 5D enough to comment on whether the 5D and 1Ds II have similar characteristics, but I'd be very surprised if the 5D had any advantage in that department.
Thanks for your deeper look. I tend to agree, but very much appreciate more opinions.
The second shot, with perhaps a bit more depth to our eyes, is in fact from the T1i.
These are the (subtle) differences I manage to describe when comparing the prints:
The colors in the 5D image are warmer and richer. This probably has to do with the Color Filter Arrays. It is a fact that they are different.
The T1i image got a bit more detail in the center. This is a sensor property. The slightly higher pixel count is visible where and when the glass performs good enough.
The 5D image is sharper near the edges. This is a lens property, the 135L at f/9 is sharper at the edges on FF than the 85 is at f/5.6 on crop. An example of how the "sweet spot effect" doesn't exist when you adjust the focal length and f-number to get ~equivalent~ images.
In addition, when dissecting the raw files:
The T1i image at ISO100 is cleaner in the shadows than the 5D image at ISO250.
If someone, like me, started with a crop camera, we acquired some habits about what lenses, f-numbers and ISO settings we use. If we continue with those habits on FF, the results have to be different, that's just the laws of physics. Now if we like the different results, that may be fun, but then the equipment controls the photographer.
My message is, that whatever format you use, you should learn how that affects your photography, and IMHO learning how to get ~equivalent~ images is a WAY better point of reference than using identical settings.
Sorry for being a bit OT. This thread was meant to be 5D ws 1dsII.
Jun 30, 2009 at 08:58 AM
p.3 #125d vs. 1ds2 Magic?
John Power wrote:
The 1DSMK2 is more camera than 99% of us will ever need..
John, I am the elected representative of the remaining 1% and I am with you on this.
Jun 30, 2009 at 09:09 AM
p.3 #135d vs. 1ds2 Magic?
alundeb wrote:
One of these images was taken with the 5D, the other with the T1i.
I won't tell the order.
5D: 135/2 at f/9.0, ISO 250, 1/8 sec.
T1i: 85/1.8 at f/5.6, ISO 100, 1/8 sec.
Exactly same processing in DPP.
The colors came out a bit different.
I even printed them at 24x16", just to keep my printer running, and it is almost impossible to see any difference.
So, how much exactly does the 5D pop over the crop?
Nice comparison, but I would expect these two to look about the same because of the aperature differences. There is no magic to FF, but it is true if you shoot at the same aperature and camera to subject distance the FF image will result in more subject isolation due to less DOF. Thus, I would expect that if you shot the above with both lenses at say f/4 then the FF image would yield more suject isolation - is that called "pop"? I don't know, but I think that's what people notice when they shoot FF vs 1.6X crop.
One of these images was taken with the 5D, the other with the T1i.
I won't tell the order.
5D: 135/2 at f/9.0, ISO 250, 1/8 sec.
T1i: 85/1.8 at f/5.6, ISO 100, 1/8 sec.
Exactly same processing in DPP.
The colors came out a bit different.
I even printed them at 24x16", just to keep my printer running, and it is almost impossible to see any difference.
So, how much exactly does the 5D pop over the crop?
Nice comparison, but I would expect these two to look about the same because of the aperature differences. There is no magic to FF, but it is true if you shoot at the same aperature and camera to subject distance the FF image will result in more subject isolation due to less DOF. Thus, I would expect that if you shot the above with both lenses at say f/4 then the FF image would yield more suject isolation - is that called "pop"? I don't know, but I think that's what people notice when they shoot FF vs 1.6X crop.
Jun 30, 2009 at 09:13 AM
p.3 #145d vs. 1ds2 Magic?
justruss wrote:
I, for one, never buy the "magic" XYZ (choose one: lens, camera, etc) argument. It's too amorphous and subjective.
Truer words have never been spoken!
I, for one, never buy the "magic" XYZ (choose one: lens, camera, etc) argument. It's too amorphous and subjective.
Truer words have never been spoken!
Jun 30, 2009 at 09:15 AM