Excellent comparison test Guy. The 1D Mark II compares very nicely against the 1Ds for most applications. The low ISO shots really show the advantages of the MkII. It will be perfect for my needs. My wife wants your kitchen cabinets for our kitchen.
My new MkII will be delivered later this afternoon. I'm getting my dog, cats, birds, and horse lined up for the first test shots. My clients can wait.
You "forced" me to buy the 200mm f/1.8L (I agree...great lens). If you promote any other lenses, Canon will have to pay you a sales commission...and my wife will likely kill you. What should I buy next??
Thanks for the effort. One thing though still surprises me: What I understand form your oberservations, you would see the 1ds and the 1dmark 2 not very far away from each other regarding picture quality / resolution. There is another test which shows in my opion the exact opposite:
Great thread Guy. I have read every post which is unusual for me.
Question: I just received my 1DMKII Wednesday and I find using "standard parameters", tripod, and 1/1000 TV images are still quite soft. Do you prefer in-camera sharpening for the 1DMKII or PS CS USM. If USM approximately how much sharpening are you finding is required, ie 100%, 200%. If in-camera, what parameter settings for sharpening would you suggest.
I am coming from a D60 and was hoping for less post processing for sharpness but it looks like that will not be the case.
On the positive side, ISO 400 looks just great. Also, for my bird photography, the 1DMKII will AF with a 5.6 lens and 1.4 TC. Marvelous.
While I admire many aspects of the 1D mk 2 that I have so far discovered, I must admit to a certain ambivalence regarding its files when compared to 1Ds files. Having only had the former camera a short time, it may be that I am unfamiliar with these files and their requirements in post-processing. Also, insofar as C1 does not yet support them, my usual approach to Raw conversion is unavailable to me. In a low-light, high Iso situation last night the mk2 came through very well at iso 1250, and this is one of the reasons I got it. (Another is low, available-light
portraits). Yet, when viewing the file on screen, I somehow get the feeling the it lacks the substantiality, depth, delicacy of color, and robust oomph of a 1Ds file. This may again reflect a lack of familiarity as well as my limitations as a shooter.
These look great! I am really impressed with the skin tones -- the slightly warmer first ones look a tad better on my monitor -- but that's me. As for the sharpness differences, the first set looked a tad softer to me, but these are small web jpegs and it would be interesting to hear how they compare when printed out.
Guy, I'm on the road,way in the back-country. Will be away a week. These look encouraging. Could you e-mail me about your post-processing? Thanks again for posting. I can only access internet in a couple of days.
Since you're on the point of good looking cameras, I think I have Canon-sexual dysfunction. For some reason, I have yet to get the feeling that my 1D Mark II is sexy or "beast-like", unlike some reviews that I have read. Personally, especially after reading Michael Reichmann's opening paragraph, I was hoping going from my Elan II to the 1D2 to be a viagra-overdose.
Am I alone here, or does anyone else just look at this 4lbs paperweight and also say, "Ehh.. it's just a tool"? Maybe I'm going to go get a lavender knit or fleece "lens warmer" to put around my white lenses.
Since you're on the point of good looking cameras, I think I have Canon-sexual dysfunction. For some reason, I have yet to get the feeling that my 1D Mark II is sexy or "beast-like", unlike some reviews that I have read. Personally, especially after reading Michael Reichmann's opening paragraph, I was hoping going from my Elan II to the 1D2 to be a viagra-overdose.
Am I alone here, or does anyone else just look at this 4lbs paperweight and also say, "Ehh.. it's just a tool"? Maybe I'm going to go get a lavender knit or fleece "lens warmer" to put around my white lenses. ...Show more →