Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 5DII, 1DsII and P25 comparison  (Read 42043 times)
jeffok
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 108


WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 29, 2008, 01:52:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Well done on the second comparo. I agree that for all practical purposes, there is no visible difference between the 1Ds3 and 5DII. I would only say that, a bit surprisingly, there seems to be a bit more noise in the shadows of the 5DII frames. Look at the lower left green area of the wine bottle. You can see it in some of the other images too. On the other hand, there might be just a bit more tonal range in the shadows of the 5DII images as well. Again, almost insignificant. Certainly, both camera/lens combinations outperform the P25 in my view. By the way, I would say that DPP does a slightly better job of converting Canon raw files that CR does, IMHO.
Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #21 on: November 29, 2008, 02:29:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: reissme
It looks there is no difference at all, in color, sharpness, or DR. It is the same sensor...
Just to keep things clear: the sensors of the 1DsMkII and 5DMkII are definitively not the same.

Different dimensions in pixels, different pixel organization, different noise characteristics. Though both are full frame, for sure.
Logged

Gabor
MarkKay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 587


WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 29, 2008, 05:11:47 PM »
ReplyReply



I agree the second combo shows that the two are giving quite similar IQ in general.  I wonder in real life shooting situations with AF and other parameters, which would do better. I suspect the high iso images are going to be much better with the 5DII.  I also agree in general DPP does a better job of converting Canon RAW images from the 5D/ 1DsmKIII than CS. However, usually due to ease of use, I go with CS. Mark

Quote from: jeffok
Well done on the second comparo. I agree that for all practical purposes, there is no visible difference between the 1Ds3 and 5DII. I would only say that, a bit surprisingly, there seems to be a bit more noise in the shadows of the 5DII frames. Look at the lower left green area of the wine bottle. You can see it in some of the other images too. On the other hand, there might be just a bit more tonal range in the shadows of the 5DII images as well. Again, almost insignificant. Certainly, both camera/lens combinations outperform the P25 in my view. By the way, I would say that DPP does a slightly better job of converting Canon raw files that CR does, IMHO.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #23 on: November 29, 2008, 06:49:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dwdallam
It seems like we are approaching a saturation rate with digital finally, at least in high end cameras. Soon it won't really matter what you shoot, but how you shoot it and how you process it. Getting a good picture these days is teh first step. Tehn comes all the other weapons and how to use them creatively. It's good to know. Waht do you al think, a couple more years and top end cameras will be close enough that comparing them will be a past activity?

I think that point has already arrived if you compare the performance of the sensor only, as you would compare the performance of a brand or type of film. However, in a couple of years' time there might be a breakthrough, a new paradigm for the way the light is recorded, which will allow for another leap forward.

It's so easy to examine differences of image quality on the monitor at 100% and 200% magnification, but it takes more time and some cost in ink and paper to print out the results to see what the practical significance of such differences are.

We should not forget the benefits of other features built into the upgraded models. LiveView was a big step forward as an aid to manual focussing accuracy, and whilst the extra pixels of the 50D compared with the 40D (for example) might not count for much on the final print, the 50D's higher resolution LiveView screen is a joy to use. I think many owners of the 5D MkII are also finding that's the case. Doesn't the 1Ds3 have the old 230,000 pixel LCD screen?
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 06:56:42 PM by Ray » Logged
Derryck
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 29, 2008, 09:38:13 PM »
ReplyReply

I am planning to shoot an iso comparison tomorrow morning. Also update the original comparison with the 5DII file processed in ACR and use the P25 this with the correct f-stop. Just have to finish reading the chapter about obtaining correct focus when using a Hasselblad :-)


It's probably not the best idea to organize and post a review after having shot for five days that week.
Logged

Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #25 on: November 29, 2008, 09:53:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Derryck
I am planning to shoot an iso comparison tomorrow morning
If you want to create raw files suitable for measuring the noise and the DR, as opposed to judging based on appearance, then the images should contain spots

1. smooth (but not reflecting),

2. unicolored,

3. uniformly lit (this is the most difficult part),

4. in the very dark shadows, in different darknesses.

For example a clean color checker card, underexposed 3-4 EV is excellent (the ideal is a Stouffer-wedge or like that).

Irrelevant

a. the lens,

b. the source and intensity of illumination,

c. equal scenery and equal illumination,

d. the highlights.

I think the P25 does not really have different ISOs, though I am not sure about ISO 50; perhaps that is different from ISO 100.
Logged

Gabor
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 30, 2008, 02:03:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
I think that point has already arrived if you compare the performance of the sensor only, as you would compare the performance of a brand or type of film. However, in a couple of years' time there might be a breakthrough, a new paradigm for the way the light is recorded, which will allow for another leap forward.

It's so easy to examine differences of image quality on the monitor at 100% and 200% magnification, but it takes more time and some cost in ink and paper to print out the results to see what the practical significance of such differences are.

We should not forget the benefits of other features built into the upgraded models. LiveView was a big step forward as an aid to manual focussing accuracy, and whilst the extra pixels of the 50D compared with the 40D (for example) might not count for much on the final print, the 50D's higher resolution LiveView screen is a joy to use. I think many owners of the 5D MkII are also finding that's the case. Doesn't the 1Ds3 have the old 230,000 pixel LCD screen?

Indeed it does. I'm hoping Canon will offer an upgrade to the new LCD for the 1DS3 owners, and not cost too much. I'd like to have that screen.
Logged

jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603



WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 30, 2008, 02:55:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dwdallam
Indeed it does. I'm hoping Canon will offer an upgrade to the new LCD for the 1DS3 owners, and not cost too much. I'd like to have that screen.
A screen is more than a screen, it's also the electronics to drive the resolution and colours.

I strongly suspect that the 1Ds MkIII isn't designed for easy replacement of such parts.
Logged

Jan
jeffok
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 108


WWW
« Reply #28 on: November 30, 2008, 10:54:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dwdallam
Indeed it does. I'm hoping Canon will offer an upgrade to the new LCD for the 1DS3 owners, and not cost too much. I'd like to have that screen.

For me, the screen on my 1Ds3 is basically a non-issue. As a landscape and nature photographer, I'm mostly interested in the histograms and the camera settings anyway- the image you seen on the screen, whether at 230,000 pixels or 930,00 pixels is still just a rendering of the raw image, not what that image is going to look like when you open it in Lightroom or PS. For studio work, you're likely going to be shooting tethered so again, the screen is irrelevant really. A higher pixel screen is just another marketing gimmick as far as I'm concerned - nice to have if that's what turns you on, but not essential to the fundamental capability of the camera.
Logged
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 30, 2008, 04:16:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jeffok
For me, the screen on my 1Ds3 is basically a non-issue. As a landscape and nature photographer, I'm mostly interested in the histograms and the camera settings anyway- the image you seen on the screen, whether at 230,000 pixels or 930,00 pixels is still just a rendering of the raw image, not what that image is going to look like when you open it in Lightroom or PS. For studio work, you're likely going to be shooting tethered so again, the screen is irrelevant really. A higher pixel screen is just another marketing gimmick as far as I'm concerned - nice to have if that's what turns you on, but not essential to the fundamental capability of the camera.

I use my 1DSMK3 for both kids portraits and nature and wildlife and agree with your sentiments. I really only ever look at the histogram anyway - the viewfinder is so bright its easy to compose the image through the viewfinder, then just check exposure on the histogram.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #30 on: November 30, 2008, 06:56:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Josh-H
I use my 1DSMK3 for both kids portraits and nature and wildlife and agree with your sentiments. I really only ever look at the histogram anyway - the viewfinder is so bright its easy to compose the image through the viewfinder, then just check exposure on the histogram.

This is the sort of argument that people use when their camera is lacking, for example, in good high ISO performance. "I never use high ISO, so it's not an issue".... "I never use LiveView, so it's not an issue." Could be, the reason such people don't use such features is because those features on their existing equipment are not all that impressive.

When you look at a LiveView screen at 10x magnification with a 40mm lens, you are actually seeing what you would see through the viewfinder with a 400mm lens (with the limitations of the LCD resolution, of course). If you were to use a 400mm lens at F2.8 where focussing is very critical, LiveView at 10x magnification would give you the close up view you would get with a 4,000mm lens, looking through the viewfinder. That's a closer view than you would get stacking three 2x extenders on that 400mm lens.

However, such impressive magnification is only really useful if the Live View screen is sufficiently high resolution. I recall a problem recently, when I was comparing the resolution of the 40D and 50D by photographing a banknote (more interesting than a line chart, I thought). Using Live View at 10x, I was sometimes unsure if focussing was really spot on, with the 40D, but never unsure with the 50D. To be certain I was focussed accurately with the 40D (even using LiveView at 10x), I had to resort to the same technique I use when trying to manually focus on line charts when looking through the viewfinder. That is, look for the tell-tale signs of color aliasing which always appear when lines are at a sufficiently close spacing, but only when the focussing is spot on. (Such aliasing is much less obvious, of course, when the light signal has passed through the sensor's AA filter.)

Unfortunately, most scenes in the natural world do not contain closely and evenly spaced lines to aid manual focussing in this manner.

Of course, it goes without saying that such critical focussing is only likely to be necessary when shooting at wide apertures. Even at wide apertures, autofocus can often be accurate enough.


Logged
Dennishh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 151


« Reply #31 on: November 30, 2008, 07:07:53 PM »
ReplyReply

With the 1DsMk3 Live view isn't necessary most of the time because the AF is so good. I agree it might be more of a requirement on the 5D2 with its limited AF capabilities. I also am one that only uses the rear screen to look at the histogram and camera settings.
Logged
Derryck
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 30, 2008, 07:19:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Having used Live View on both cameras I can say that there is a huge improvement when trying to obtain critical focus using the 5DII.
Logged

jeffok
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 108


WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 30, 2008, 08:11:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
This is the sort of argument that people use when their camera is lacking, for example, in good high ISO performance. "I never use high ISO, so it's not an issue".... "I never use LiveView, so it's not an issue." Could be, the reason such people don't use such features is because those features on their existing equipment are not all that impressive.

If it's not an issue for some, then it's not an issue.. period. That's the point being made. It doesn't mean it's a case of camera envy, as you suggest.
Obviously, for a few people like you who feel it helps for critical focus using liveview, it is an issue. I'd have to see for myself whether the higher res screen really makes all that much difference in my ability to focus critically. But I suspect that for most people, this higher res screen is pretty incidental to the art of capturing good images.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #34 on: December 01, 2008, 12:27:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jeffok
If it's not an issue for some, then it's not an issue.. period. That's the point being made. It doesn't mean it's a case of camera envy, as you suggest.
Obviously, for a few people like you who feel it helps for critical focus using liveview, it is an issue. I'd have to see for myself whether the higher res screen really makes all that much difference in my ability to focus critically. But I suspect that for most people, this higher res screen is pretty incidental to the art of capturing good images.

Of course! You can reduce such arguments to "The camera doesn't matter". I'm actually sympathetic to such arguments. The artist uses whatever tools he/she can master to achieve the effect he/she wants. If a Holga film camera suits your purposes, then that's fine by me. If the result is interesting then the fact such an image was taken by a Holga should not detract from the fact that the image is interesting.
Logged
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #35 on: December 01, 2008, 01:43:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jeffok
For me, the screen on my 1Ds3 is basically a non-issue. As a landscape and nature photographer, I'm mostly interested in the histograms and the camera settings anyway- the image you seen on the screen, whether at 230,000 pixels or 930,00 pixels is still just a rendering of the raw image, not what that image is going to look like when you open it in Lightroom or PS. For studio work, you're likely going to be shooting tethered so again, the screen is irrelevant really. A higher pixel screen is just another marketing gimmick as far as I'm concerned - nice to have if that's what turns you on, but not essential to the fundamental capability of the camera.


You know I basically see it the same way. I never look at the full sized image. I'm always in histogram mode too. What I was hoping is that the screen would be easier to see in bright light. Sometimes I can;t even see teh histogram uless I cup my hands around the LCD, and then I can't see it anyway because I'm blind at that distance .
Logged

jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603



WWW
« Reply #36 on: December 01, 2008, 06:55:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
Of course, it goes without saying that such critical focussing is only likely to be necessary when shooting at wide apertures.
Uh?

For values of "wide" f/5.6 and f/8, perhaps.

Even at these apertures, it can be pretty easy to see small focusing errors, at least in portraiture and sports.
Logged

Jan
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #37 on: December 01, 2008, 07:43:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jani
Uh?

For values of "wide" f/5.6 and f/8, perhaps.

Even at these apertures, it can be pretty easy to see small focusing errors, at least in portraiture and sports.

I should have added; for wide apertures and/or close distances. But bear in mind that focussing inaccuracies that might be apparent at the maximum lens aperture, which is presumably always used when focussing, can disappear when the shot is taken at F5.6 or F8.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad