Mel Gross
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Canon 5D Mark II master thread | |
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Mel Gross wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
jerrykur wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
AnthonyRhoades wrote:
Besides, if you want (need really, and need because you make a living shooting in low low light conditions) the AF of a 1DS III, you buy a 1DS III... What do you want for $2800, a camera that does your dishes, washes and dries and then prepares your taxes?
Get mine (finally) on Wednesday!
What I wanted was something with the feature set and price of the Sony a900 but with a Canon EF mount.
Hopefully without the ugly body of the A900 and a Canon sensor instead of the Sony sensor.
I like the a900 body but I\'m sure its either something you love or hate. Reminds me of my old Canon EF black beauty film body or even a little like a Contax RTS III. Agreed on the Canon sensor as long as it was the actual 1DsIII sensor and not the \"improved\" one they put in the 5DII. The a900 sensor is extremely good at low ISO\'s but not so much at higher ISO\'s.
For some reason, the Sony body doesn\'t look balanced. It\'s got an odd look, different from all other film SlR\'s, and D-SLRs.
What do you think is wrong with the new sensor, by all accounts, it\'s much better than the old one.
Apart from the black dot issue, it looks like to me the 5DII suffers from moire worse than the 1dsIII. I have seen really bad moire on many posted images and even if you look at the comparative test images at Imaging Resource, the 5DII shows moire where the 1dsIII does not in the exact same shooting situation. There is also a quality to the color which just seems flat and more washed out. It\'s subtle and may not be measurable but I see it. My sense is that the 5DII sensor is not an improvement on the 1DsIII sensor and that any changes were probably made for the sake of cost cutting or additional features and not image quality. That\'s just my sense of course.
According to the Pop Photo review, the color accuracy is very highest, one of the highest recorded so far, and much better than that of the Sony a900.
I don\'t like to go by most of the images I see on the web, because I find them to be unrelated to what comes out in a print.
I haven\'t heard of any moire problems. If that were a problem, it would have been mentioned.
The Leica M8 has some moire \"problems\" , but in looking at a number of prints where those problems were supposed to be, there were none.
Sometimes, what one thinks of as moire is not. It\'s detail from various objects that, at that angle coincide in such a way as to seem to be moire.
This happens often with cloth, to give one example.
As the 5D mkII is slightly sharper than the older 1Ds mkIII, I can see how one may think this, as the sharper the camera, the more likely this may appear, unless too much noise reduction is going on that obscures the finest detail.
Of course, if there is a bit more moire after all, it\'s more likely that it\'s coming from a weaker antialiasing filter rather than from the sensor.
I haven\'t seen those pics. Is the apparent moire a color moire, or a luminance moire? The two are very different.
|
