Yepp, you seem to have been looking at 5D MkII. The 5D Classic goes for between 90-100.000 yen atm, depending on the condition. Though, I haven't seen a single seller in Japan who advertised the amount of shutter actuations.
Tonal range on my 20D is acceptable, but you can clearly see the difference. I actually posted some shots in the CY 35-70 thread and you can see the shortcomings in the night shots..
Krosavcheg wrote:
The vinyl looks somewhat detroitish to me... I would say Deepchord..but I think that was a black vinyl release...
U.C. wrote:
There are like a zillion Techno/Trance/Dance records and it's impossible to recognize which record in this (very nice) picture. I have some turntables myself and a lot of records, so this picture makes me to take my camera+rokkor58/1.2 to make some nice pictures of it (the last were about 7 years ago with my Canon A70...).
The Rokkor is indeed a great SL1200 lens. I wish I could say I remember what was on the turntable... But it was late and I had a few beers in me. (The pint of beer shot of mine on page 8 was earlier in the night. )
U.C. wrote:
@sebboh: the second picture has some serious 3D. The bokeh has a lot of character, maybe a bit too much for me.
yup, it is definitely very funky, though not harsh i would say. it's smooth but not in a well controlled way. sometimes i like it, sometimes i curse it. describing bokeh always reminds me of describing wine.
denoir wrote:
Interesting shots sebboh - the 50/1.7 bokeh is definitely different from the 58/1.2
they look similar in rendering to me, though obviously the f/1.2 can blow backgrounds away much easier. the shots i've seen of yours and others taken at a longer focus distance show the same type bubbly/funky bokeh i'm seeing from the f/1.7. i will say the f/1.7 looks closer to the 50/1.2 than the 58/1.2. the first two shots in my last set are at the focus/background distance where maximum funk can occur.
Of course there are two other important factors here. With an 50mm f/1.7 lens you'll have to get closer to get the equivalent DOF of an 58mm f/1.2 lens which means larger circles. In addition the 1.6x crop factor means a 1.6x magnification and again larger circles. So it's possible if you would blow up my shot that you would get something equivalent.
sebboh, nice Tonka! I remember asking for Tonka Trucks every Christmas till I was about 12 or 13. Tonka ROCKS!!!
Nice shots denoir, though I kinda think the differences in bokeh demonstrated are more to do with proximity and scene elements (structure).
All this talk of FF sensors though... Ya know what would be awesome!?! For one of you guys with both bodies to set up a tripod and using the same lens take the same shot on both bodies - crop the FF image to the same as the crop sensor and post them side by side. I'm kinda in a corner here all by myself thinking that you won't see as much difference as you might think. Especially if you pick a subject that doesn't contain a massive dynamic range. Something like a book shelf or kitchen table - or even the top two Tonka shots above where there's no sky. It would need to be on a tripod for it to be meaningful though. And if the shots are outdoors the images would need taken within a few moments of each other.
Anyway to me, that would be extremely interesting and useful ta'boot.
denoir wrote:
Never quite strong as that and never with such strong highlighted edges on the spherical aberration in the bokeh.
I browsed though my 58/1.2 shots, and this is the closest I've gotten to that - but it's still quite different:
Of course there are two other important factors here. With an 50mm f/1.7 lens you'll have to get closer to get the equivalent DOF of an 58mm f/1.2 lens which means larger circles. In addition the 1.6x crop factor means a 1.6x magnification and again larger circles. So it's possible if you would blow up my shot that you would get something equivalent. ...Show more →
i think we must be looking at different things in the bokeh, the highlight edges seem much brighter to me in your example than any of the three i posted. though none of those are really comparable types of shots. i was thinking more about the whole oof rendering not just individual specular highlights. obviously f/1.7 vs f/1.2 will produce a very different look with the same framing especially on FF vs 1.5x crop. in order to get the same look you need move the background back further when shooting the f/1.y from looking at your shots i feel confident i could make the 58/1.2 produce a bokeh every bit as funky and similar in look to the three in my last post (i view this as a good thing). if i wanted smooth with no funk i think the sigmalux would be the way to go
Sebboh, I think the examples you have chosen show the difference pretty well. I would not consider the bokehs of the two to be very similar. The 50/1.7 reminds me very much of the Zeiss 50/1.4 Planar bokeh.
By the way, the first example is somewhat artificial - I applied fairly extreme sharpening to the image making the bokeh far more accentuated than it would have been with my regular sharpening.
denoir wrote:
Sebboh, I think the examples you have chosen show the difference pretty well. I would not consider the bokehs of the two to be very similar. The 50/1.7 reminds me very much of the Zeiss 50/1.4 Planar bokeh.
By the way, the first example is somewhat artificial - I applied fairly extreme sharpening to the image making the bokeh far more accentuated than it would have been with my regular sharpening.
interesting, i think we both must be looking at different aspects of bokeh. i've never seen a shot from any of the 50mm planars that i thought looked very similar to any of the rokkors i've owned, but i've seen shared characteristics in bokeh across all the rokkors i've owned (any many shots with rokkors i haven't owned). as they say bokeh is subjective (and highly dependent on subject and composition).
sebboh wrote:
interesting, i think we both must be looking at different aspects of bokeh. i've never seen a shot from any of the 50mm planars that i thought looked very similar to any of the rokkors i've owned, but i've seen shared characteristics in bokeh across all the rokkors i've owned (any many shots with rokkors i haven't owned). as they say bokeh is subjective (and highly dependent on subject and composition).
Bifurcator wrote:
sebboh, nice Tonka! I remember asking for Tonka Trucks every Christmas till I was about 12 or 13. Tonka ROCKS!!!
Nice shots denoir, though I kinda think the differences in bokeh demonstrated are more to do with proximity and scene elements (structure).
All this talk of FF sensors though... Ya know what would be awesome!?! For one of you guys with both bodies to set up a tripod and using the same lens take the same shot on both bodies - crop the FF image to the same as the crop sensor and post them side by side. I'm kinda in a corner here all by myself thinking that you won't see as much difference as you might think. Especially if you pick a subject that doesn't contain a massive dynamic range. Something like a book shelf or kitchen table - or even the top two Tonka shots above where there's no sky. It would need to be on a tripod for it to be meaningful though. And if the shots are outdoors the images would need taken within a few moments of each other.
Anyway to me, that would be extremely interesting and useful ta'boot.
Open in separate tabs and flip between them. The focus point is on the Leica logo.
I should have probably selected a more colorful subject but you can see the difference here as well.
The difference? Well, if you look at the logo you can see that the color red as seen by the 7D is quite different from the red of the 5DII. Although I used the "Camera standard" profile in both cases, I think we can write that off as a simple RAW development discrepancy.
More interesting however is the higher local contrast and color separation - both much better on the 5DII (again look at the Leica logo). The "Leica" text is much better separated from the background and has higher (local/micro) contrast.
cuonghuutran wrote:
Very interesting. 7D photo looks dull next to 5D Mk2 photo.
yeah, the 5D's colors are so much more saturated it makes me question how much is going on in the raw conversion and whether any conclusions can be drawn from this. i'd be tempted to try a more barebones raw converter to see if the same differences are present. was the light the same in both shots? the angle is definitely different. can you set the white balance to the same point in each photo?
The white balance was set manually to the same values and the RAW conversion was with default parameters. It's as bare boned as I could get it with ACR.
Yes the light was unchanged. The difference in angle is slight and was due to the fact that I had to rotate the ball head on the tripod when I placed the 7D on it. The base wasn't 100% level so there was a slight shift in angle. Nothing that should be of importance in this case.
This is fairly consistent with my overall experience with the two cameras - the 5DII has a much better color separation, higher local contrast, more vibrant colors and a better dynamic range.
Luka, this type of testing is a pain in a neck. A slight rotation caused 7D photo to be about 1/3 f-stop more underexposed than 5D Mk2 on the side with Leica photo. Thus this slight difference in exposure could make a difference. That said, after I compensated 7D exposure to match 5D Mk2 (on the Leica side), 5D Mk2 photo still pops better. It is just more sparkling, which reminds me of Canon 35mm 1.4 vs. Leica or Zeiss (No, Canon is not more sparkling :-))
denoir wrote:
The white balance was set manually to the same values and the RAW conversion was with default parameters. It's as bare boned as I could get it with ACR.
Yes the light was unchanged. The difference in angle is slight and was due to the fact that I had to rotate the ball head on the tripod when I placed the 7D on it. The base wasn't 100% level so there was a slight shift in angle. Nothing that should be of importance in this case.
This is fairly consistent with my overall experience with the two cameras - the 5DII has a much better color separation, higher local contrast, more vibrant colors and a better dynamic range. ...Show more →
sorry, i meant more bare boned than acr and white balance set off a given point in the photo (grey card style) not a fixed value. there is a red cast to the top plate in the 5D version that isn't present at all in the 7D version. the two shots just look like they were processed totally differently and i suspect that has more to do with the acr profiles and these individual cameras than it does with obvious differences between FF and crop. not saying i don't believe the 5D is much better, just that these pictures look oddly different.
I would say Deepchord..but I think that was a black vinyl release...