carstenw wrote:
I did consult with Canon about it, sending them raw photos, and they said it was fine. If there was something wrong with it, it was nothing Canon would confirm. It also compared well to other 5Ds I have tested. I guess we just have different expectations.
Keep in mind that I went to a camera with a CCD sensor and no AA filter. I much prefer moire from time to time than soft results all the time, and having to fiddle around with USM so much.
I guess you expected sharp pictures without any capture sharpening? Then a camera without AA filter probably is the only option. Capture sharpening is not something that requires "fiddling" IMO (unlike sharpening for resizing and for prints).
I don't believe it's fair to say that out of the three Canon camera's that Bifurcator is considering, the 5D gives softer results than the others. The 1DmkII may have a slightly less strong AA-filter perhaps but it's not going to be a world of difference.
HBOC wrote:
I think the VF in the 1 series is brighter and larger as well.
The VF size difference is negligable:
Canon 1Ds (.7x magnification, 100% coverage) 418 sq mm
Canon 5D (.71x magnification, 96% coverage) - 414 sq mm
100% view is useful though.
Ultimately the 1DmkII seems to be the best option for Bifurcator though, since he likes the high FPS and doesn't seem to care too much about having a FF sensor, and alt compatibility will be better than with the 5D.
carstenw wrote:
I did consult with Canon about it, sending them raw photos, and they said it was fine. If there was something wrong with it, it was nothing Canon would confirm. It also compared well to other 5Ds I have tested. I guess we just have different expectations.
Keep in mind that I went to a camera with a CCD sensor and no AA filter. I much prefer moire from time to time than soft results all the time, and having to fiddle around with USM so much.
Carsten, the per pixel sharpness of a properly operating 5D is higher than what you get from your D700 (due to a weaker AA filter) or its successor the 5DII for that matter.
AhamB is right, something had to be wrong with either your camera or your lens. A soft 5D is like a soft M8 - it just means something is wrong, nothing else makes sense.
denoir wrote:
Carsten, the per pixel sharpness of a properly operating 5D is higher than what you get from your D700 (due to a weaker AA filter) or its successor the 5DII for that matter.
AhamB is right, something had to be wrong with either your camera or your lens. A soft 5D is like a soft M8 - it just means something is wrong, nothing else makes sense.
I didn't say nothing was wrong, only that Canon reassured me that is was normal, and rejected the possibility of any problem. There were other reasons too why I didn't like it.
I have a D3 by the way, which is a little better in the sharpness department (but also not that different), and miles and miles better in almost every other way, such as focusing speed, high ISO, body quality, etc. etc. etc.
AhamB wrote:
I guess you expected sharp pictures without any capture sharpening? Then a camera without AA filter probably is the only option.
Could be, except that my D3 is a bit better. The other improvements over the 5D makes it an easy choice. Anyway, the D3 is also more expensive, and newer, so it isn't really a fair comparison, but the bottom line was that there were many reasons I was disappointed with the 5D. I know that lots of people like it.
About capture sharpening, the problem I have with AA filters in general, also in my D3, is that information is lost, and with capture sharpening, an "apparent" sharpness returns, but it may also contain wrong information. I find that the sharpness of the M8 looks more natural than the 5D with capture sharpening.
carstenw wrote:
About capture sharpening, the problem I have with AA filters in general, also in my D3, is that information is lost, and with capture sharpening, an "apparent" sharpness returns, but it may also contain wrong information. I find that the sharpness of the M8 looks more natural than the 5D with capture sharpening.
I agree. The finest detail looks better from what I've seen in Bobu's M8 shots, but I found the false colour of the M8 more objectionable than the loss of detail of the 5D(mk2), to be honest.
Sure sure... If only the D3, D3s, M8, or 5DMk2 were 10 year old cameras or in some other way on the auction sites for $500.
I understand the need for the conversation to turn in mention of these but it can only be academics to me. Unless of course one of you good fellows feels like partially funding my hobby or making a mercy-sale.
Well, I did start by recommending the 1DII over the 5D, since I didn't enjoy the 5D that much, for several reasons. Then the 5D-protection-brigade rolled out Hehe.
Bif, birding is only a thrill if you use equipment ill-suited for it - like manual focus glass. Unless you have some real interest in the actual birds (i.e. bird watching) the photography gets old very quick.
Bird photography is all about gear. After you get a camera with quick AF (1DIII , 1DIV or 7D) high FPS and a big telephoto lens with fast AF, your contribution ends. The rest is just about pointing the camera in the general direction of the bird and keep the shutter release pressed. That's it. At 8-10 images per second with perfect auto focus tracking you don't have to do anything except spend a lot of time going through massive amounts of photos. It's fun at first with a camera firing like a machine gun and you get all sorts of cool pictures with birds in all possible and impossible geometrical arrangements in mid air collision etc
After a while however you realize those pictures are just the results of high performance gear and that your contribution is basically nonexistent. It almost killed my interest in photography and what saved it was going in the other direction - high quality manual focus glass and a full frame camera.
carstenw wrote:
Well, I did start by recommending the 1DII over the 5D, since I didn't enjoy the 5D that much, for several reasons. Then the 5D-protection-brigade rolled out Hehe.
And it's good that they/we did. It's too bad you got a lemon but there is a general agreement that it was really a great camera for its time. There are still today people that prefer it over the 1DsIII and 5DII.
Anyway, the main argument for the 5D is that it's a full frame camera which is really an important thing. The AF of the 1DII is better, but it's still just an ASP-H camera. There is no substitute for full frame - to really fully use the lenses with all the cool things that happen around the edges. Using a crop camera is like eating a pizza with the crust removed. Once you get the full pizza experience there is no way you want to go back just eating the middle
denoir wrote:
Bif, birding is only a thrill if you use equipment ill-suited for it - like manual focus glass. Unless you have some real interest in the actual birds (i.e. bird watching) the photography gets old very quick.
Bird photography is all about gear. After you get a camera with quick AF (1DIII , 1DIV or 7D) high FPS and a big telephoto lens with fast AF, your contribution ends. The rest is just about pointing the camera in the general direction of the bird and keep the shutter release pressed. That's it. At 8-10 images per second with perfect auto focus tracking you don't have to do anything except spend a lot of time going through massive amounts of photos. It's fun at first with a camera firing like a machine gun and you get all sorts of cool pictures with birds in all possible and impossible geometrical arrangements in mid air collision etc
After a while however you realize those pictures are just the results of high performance gear and that your contribution is basically nonexistent. It almost killed my interest in photography and what saved it was going in the other direction - high quality manual focus glass and a full frame camera. ...Show more →
i agree with this for the most part (it's one reason why all my birding is manual focus these days), but if you go for small erratic birds at close range no autofocus can track them (and you won't be able to keep them in the frame anyway) and the need for skill returns. also, if you want something other than pictures of birds with everything around them blurred into a single gradient you'll have to spend sometime planning and composing and maybe even use some interesting lenses.
denoir wrote:
Once you get the full pizza experience there is no way you want to go back just eating the middle
i know lots of people who just discard the crust when they eat pizza.
denoir wrote:
And it's good that they/we did. It's too bad you got a lemon but there is a general agreement that it was really a great camera for its time. There are still today people that prefer it over the 1DsIII and 5DII.
The perception of softness was not the only issue, and as I have already stated twice, I don't believe that I got a lemon. I just didn't like the results.
I also didn't like the operation of the camera, was eventually disappointed with 3 of 4 Canon lenses I had bought (3 were Ls), I didn't like the highlight handling, the reds which tended to blow, the low build quality for a camera at that price point (the D700's build quality is much better, at the same price, although a couple of years later), the poor AF performance, and on and on and on and on and on.
And it wasn't a lemon. I have seen no evidence that there is anything at play here other than my preferences. I didn't like the camera as it was, Canon didn't back it up to my satisfaction, I ditched it. I feel the same way about the 5DII btw.
I don't see why it is necessary to call a camera a lemon just because I didn't like it. Can't we just have different expectations? I have tried enough cameras to know the difference.
carstenw wrote:
The perception of softness was not the only issue, and as I have already stated twice, I don't believe that I got a lemon. I just didn't like the results.
I also didn't like the operation of the camera, was eventually disappointed with 3 of 4 Canon lenses I had bought (3 were Ls), I didn't like the highlight handling, the reds which tended to blow, the low build quality for a camera at that price point (the D700's build quality is much better, at the same price, although a couple of years later), the poor AF performance, and on and on and on and on and on.
And it wasn't a lemon. I have seen no evidence that there is anything at play here other than my preferences. I didn't like the camera as it was, Canon didn't back it up to my satisfaction, I ditched it. I feel the same way about the 5DII btw.
I don't see why it is necessary to call a camera a lemon just because I didn't like it. Can't we just have different expectations? I have tried enough cameras to know the difference....Show more →
No, it's not because you didn't like it. That's fine. It's personal preference and no point in debating. And of course the D700 is a much better camera than the original 5D - it was released three years later. The point is that you said it was soft. It's like saying that the M8 is soft.
Imagine a thread where somebody was buying a rangefinder and some guy advised against buying the M8 because it was 'soft'. Would you find it reasonable?
Edit: I should add a disclaimer that I have never used a 5D MkI nor an M8, I'm just going by general reputation here... But both cameras have a reputation for having very high per pixel sharpness.
Maybe you should use one before taking up arms The 5D can deliver very sharp results if you spend some time with USM or whatever sharpening tool. Looking at the raw pixels at 100% though, you could be forgiven thinking that there is something wrong. I did exactly that, and wrote a concerned letter to Canon asking what was wrong. They said it was normal. Slightly reassured and slightly disappointed, I went online and visited some forums, posting some results, and got the same answer. This is with 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-300DO and the old 100 Macro. I somewhat adjusted to my new view of reality, for a little less than a year, and then for a variety of reasons, I sold it and bought the M8.
Saying that the M8 is soft is very different though. There would have to be something wrong, because the pixels are just sharp on that camera, period. The 5D is something like the 5DII, i.e. wit careful capture sharpening and all that, the results are very sharp. The 5D is possibly slightly sharper to start with, but we are not talking about a revolution here. Luka, what does your 5DII looks like at the pixel level compared to your M9, before any sharpening? I imagine the comparison is very fair, since IMO the M9 delivers slightly (very slightly) softer results than the M8, and the 5DII is slightly softer than the 5D. I don't know who all these people are who say that the 5D is sharp at the pixel level. Maybe upgraders from the 20D and the like? I doubt they have ever used a CCD-based camera with no AA filter.
It just bumps against all my inner values. Losing something and then fakely creating it again bothers the hell out of me. It may look good, but it does not always look real. I wish I could buy a D3 with no AA filter. I would do it. I might resort to stripping the AA filter off my D3 once the warranty runs out, but I suppose by then I will want the D4 and will sell the D3 to raise some money for that.
*ANYWAY* I think I have said the same thing four times now, and this is way off topic, so can I just not like that camera in peace, please?
carstenw wrote:
I don't know who all these people are who say that the 5D is sharp at the pixel level. Maybe upgraders from the 20D and the like? I doubt they have ever used a CCD-based camera with no AA filter.
To answer your question, I've owned the D70, D80, D90, D200, D300, D700, 5D, 5D2, A900 and SLR/c. Today I believe the 5D is one of the sharper of the bunch. In. My. Opinion.
I find the D700 and A900 sharper, and there is no question that the SLR/c is sharper, if it is anything like my SLR/n. The others I haven't tried.
Keep in mind that my judgement dates back to 2006, when the camera was still quite new, and the raw developers had not yet figured out how to get the most of it. With the default settings in most raw developers now the picture could look different.
Anyway, the sharpness was only one aspect I was disappointed with. The sum total was what made me sell it.
So, can we stop now? I feel like I have just slaughtered a sacred cow.
The M9 is obviously sharper at the pixel level. However, the 21 megapixel 5DII shows the same detail as the 18 megapixel M9.
I would guess that the relation of the 12 megapixel 5D to the 10 megapixel M8 is roughly the same. You get somewhat better color reproduction with more pixels but for most practical purposes it should not make much difference which camera you use. It's not like you usually look at the image at 100%. Typically you either print it or resize it for screen viewing.
I guess I'll comment since I've owned all three bodies:
1D Mk2 is a professional camera and its strength is for sports/wildlife - but ONLY if you are shooting with fast autofocus lens. If you do not need to crop a picture then 8mp is adequate - and they are pretty fat pixels. It shoots fairly clean up to ISO800 and cleans nicely at 1600 using a noise remover.
The 50D, with 15 mega pixels, 1.6 crop factor, 6.2 frames per second and its clean high ISO had convinced me to retire my EOS 1D Mark 2 as my primary wildlife camera. NOTE: crop factor is a good thing for us wildlife shooters - especially for birds. It has live-view which is GREAT for shooting with alternative lens and I found the 50D autofocus almost as good as the 50D.
However, a tripod accident shattered my 50D and had it been my 1D Mk2, most likely I would have just picked up the camera and kept on shooting. For a multitude of reasons I sold my 1D Mk2 and bought the 1D Mk4.
My primary FF camera use to be the 5D. The same fat pixels (same size/density as 1DMk2 except on FF chip) with fantastic IQ - one of the best out there for natural light shooting. Shoots clean to ISO1600 and cleans nicely at ISO 3200 with noise remover. Weakness is autofocus - its not bad but some times you need to use center point. Weakness for alternative lens is its big mirror and mirror slap - see http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Contax_db.html.
My primary FF is now the 1Ds Mk2 and I'm eying the 1DsMk3 as its replacement - but only because of wanting live-view for shooting alternative lens. I did NOT sell the 5D. It just shoots too good and is a great travel camera when I want to travel light.
carstenw wrote:
Maybe you should use one before taking up arms The 5D can deliver very sharp results if you spend some time with USM or whatever sharpening tool. Looking at the raw pixels at 100% though, you could be forgiven thinking that there is something wrong. I did exactly that, and wrote a concerned letter to Canon asking what was wrong.
You keep quoting your 5d experience over and over again, at least it should be said that you're quite alone with that. The 5d MkI was or is a very sharp camera. As any camera with AA filter, it needs USM because the image has passed the aliasing filter, however this does not require to "spend some time with USM", it usually is one click with a photoshop or Lightroom preset/ action. Both approaches - AA filter and without one - have their advantages and disadvanages: pick your poison then.
I have checked some of my old 5d pics, I'd say acuity is quite enhanced in the d700/ d3, but resolution is a bit better in the 5d. Every review has confirmed that the 5d was a bit sharper than the Nikons.
BTW what disturbed me with the old 5d really was the quite flat colour, it was not very subtle and not close to my Fujis or the Kodak SLRn in terms of colour depth.
5D --- a really fine camera. The only possible fault with it is lack of weatherproofing if that would be a problem for you.
I have personally never had any difficulties with that. I just shove it in a bag and go. Never had a problem yet.
