Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: mcfoto on December 04, 2008, 04:08:19 pm
-
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_can..._5d_mark_ii.php (http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_canon_eos_5d_mark_ii.php)
-
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_can..._5d_mark_ii.php (http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_canon_eos_5d_mark_ii.php)
Here's what made me very happy (and dying to get my unit):
There's virtually no visible noise at all from ISO 50 all the way up to ISO 3200, with even the three faster settings of 6400-25600 producing perfectly usable images. Canon seem to have matched the low-light performance of the Nikon D3 and D700 whilst substantially increasing the resolution.
I was really hoping it would shine at high ISO.
-
Here's what made me very happy (and dying to get my unit):
I was really hoping it would shine at high ISO.
You might like this (5DII in sRAW vs D700):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30236550 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=30236550)
Not sure how scientific this is, but interesting nonetheless.
John
-
You might like this (5DII in sRAW vs D700):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30236550 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=30236550)
Not sure how scientific this is, but interesting nonetheless.
John
Which is which? I don't see a label. I wonder too if both where processed the same way from Raw. As you say, might not be scientific, and knowing DP review, I have my doubts.
-
Morning from the Great Barrier Reef!
Been shooting with mine for the past week up here-- Hmmm-- yes improved Reso'-nice BIG clear screen--found the colour into DPP overly garish ,needs taming in process, I would also lower the technicolor LCD output from Default as well. Unfortunately my usual RAW programs( C1PRO and DC RAW) are not supported yet. Don't get me started on C1 V4.5-Phase dropped the ball on that one big time.
First impressions-no Vid time as yet-- great value at Canon Australia's so called pegged price of AUD$3785 approx (2500 USD)this I gotta see!
I've ordered the Zeiss 21 f2.8 Distagon EF mount for Jan delivery-- that should be a winner in the WA stakes going on it's predecessor's reputation.
The new 14mm II Canon still has soggy corners.
Good shooting,
Des W
Website (http://www.deswilliams.com)
-
Which is which? I don't see a label. I wonder too if both where processed the same way from Raw. As you say, might not be scientific, and knowing DP review, I have my doubts.
Try this one:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30227170 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=30227170)
-
Try this one:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30227170 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=30227170)
They both look very good! Can't wait now for that pup to arrive. Thanks.
-
They both look very good! Can't wait now for that pup to arrive. Thanks.
Me, neither! Not to gloat (too much ), but mine will be in tomorrow. For me, it's a really good all-around cam. I'm really looking forward to being able to take no more that 6 (and preferably 4) shots for my stitched mosaics, and still exceed what I can get with my canon 40D (60-80 mpx images!- who needs MFDB?!). I think I can cut the process down to 1 minute or less, key for rapidly changing light. I also really want to see what it'll do with my 45 and 90 T/S lenses. As for people/event shots, I can use sRAW and get superb low light performance, or shoot regular RAW if I want to embarrass someone by bringing out every skin flaw they might have . I'm sure I'll have a few niggles, but so what. In the end, it's all about the shot, right?
John
-
There seems to be a lot of conflicting reports on the low noise capabilities of the 5D2. Some comparisons place it on a par with the 1Ds3. Others just a tad better.
Considering that 1Ds3 high ISO images are very close to those of the D700 & D3, when downsampled to 12MP, I would expect also that 5D2 high ISO images would be at least the equal of D700 images, when downsampled, considering that 5D2 noise will likely prove to be very marginally lower than 1Ds3 noise.
-
The bad news on video with the 5D MKII: there is NO MANUAL SETTING.
None. Zero. Zilch.
The camera goes into auto everything in video mode. If you're outdoors
in daylight you're not going to get any wider than f5.6. If you're
indoors you're not going to get any better than ISO 400 and the camera
trends towards ISO 1000 - 2000.
The only way to get some semblance of control over the aperture is to
trick the camera. You have to point it at something dark to get it to
choose a large aperture and then point it back at something brighter
and lock the exposure. The best I could do in shade outdoors was f5.6.
In bright light the camera jacks itself up to f16. You can also use
the +/- EV setting to choose a higher or lower ISO once the exposure
is locked.
This is a big disappointment but my guess is that Canon will roll out
more control and a richer feature set in whatever the new flagship
model is in a year or so.
-
I've ordered the Zeiss 21 f2.8 Distagon EF mount for Jan delivery
I was searching for that lense and went to the Zeiss site and found something interesting: the 21mm is shown on the "product" page as available for ZE mount (Canon), but not on the "Ordering" page.
I emailed Zeiss and received following response:
Please note, that our ZE lenses are not available yet, that is why you cannot order it.
We are planning to launch them in the next 2 years but we cannot say exactly which month.
Two of their lenses (the 50mm and the 85mm) should already be available for Canon. What is going on?
-
I was searching for that lense and went to the Zeiss site and found something interesting: the 21mm is shown on the "product" page as available for ZE mount (Canon), but not on the "Ordering" page.
I emailed Zeiss and received following response:
Please note, that our ZE lenses are not available yet, that is why you cannot order it.
We are planning to launch them in the next 2 years but we cannot say exactly which month.
Two of their lenses (the 50mm and the 85mm) should already be available for Canon. What is going on?
Hi there,
I have dealt with this gentleman for years and he has always delivered as he states
Des W
From HongKong Dec 5 2008
Hi Des,
Thanks for your reply,I had called Zeiss agent and was told
That the Zeiss Ikon 21mm/F:2.8 lens for Canon will be launched
Sometime in Jan.I will mail you when I have the price.
Cheers
James
Vandermerwe Ltd
James Ng,
Email:james.vandermerwe@gmail.com
or vandermerwe@hutchcity.com
Skype ID: vandermerwehk
-
I was really hoping it would shine at high ISO.
I just shot some stills at a stadium concert. At 1600 the results are excellent, at 3200 they are still quite amazing. At 6400 there is plenty of noise but still usable. I'm impressed so far, only had it 2 days. I'll be posting some images in due course.
-
I just shot an event at work, near darkness, ISO 5000 and 1.4 worked beautifully.
Wonderful camera, but it's not a 1.
[attachment=10144:IMG_0285_2.JPG]
[Edit, forgot to swtich it over to sRGB, colors looked like garbage ]
-
The bad news on video with the 5D MKII: there is NO MANUAL SETTING.
None. Zero. Zilch.
The camera goes into auto everything in video mode. If you're outdoors
in daylight you're not going to get any wider than f5.6. If you're
indoors you're not going to get any better than ISO 400 and the camera
trends towards ISO 1000 - 2000.
The only way to get some semblance of control over the aperture is to
trick the camera. You have to point it at something dark to get it to
choose a large aperture and then point it back at something brighter
and lock the exposure. The best I could do in shade outdoors was f5.6.
In bright light the camera jacks itself up to f16. You can also use
the +/- EV setting to choose a higher or lower ISO once the exposure
is locked.
This is a big disappointment but my guess is that Canon will roll out
more control and a richer feature set in whatever the new flagship
model is in a year or so.
If you use any manual focus lens that has an aperture ring with an adapter (Zeiss, Nikon, Leica, ZF, Olympus, Pentax, etc) you can point the camera around until you get the ISO and Shutterspeed that you want, then you can lock the exposure, and use the manual focus/manual aperture lens to adjust the aperture on-the-go to get the correct exposure.
For shallow DOF outdoors, you can lock the exposure at ISO 100/whatever shutterspeed, and use a neutral density filter on the manual lens. That allows you to use the lens wide open, or whatever you want.
It takes work in different situations, but the 5D2 was designed for run and gun video for amateurs, with auto-everything. For the price, can we really complain?
-
Considering that 1Ds3 high ISO images are very close to those of the D700 & D3, when downsampled to 12MP, I would expect also that 5D2 high ISO images would be at least the equal of D700 images, when downsampled, considering that 5D2 noise will likely prove to be very marginally lower than 1Ds3 noise.
Why would you reduce the quality to that of lower camera to compare? Up sampling the lower res cameras to match the higher res would make more sense. Or even better, shoot both at their best quality and compare as they are - which how they will probably be used in reality.
-
It takes work in different situations, but the 5D2 was designed for run and gun video for amateurs, with auto-everything. For the price, can we really complain?
Yes, the 5D is used by a lot of pros, so a happy snapper's video ability is somewhat pointless.
Though I suspected the video control would be pathetic/non existent and so wasn't that excited about getting one.
Looks like the much hyped video feature is on a par with a very cheap video camera but with terrible [video] ergonomics. Albeit with a fantastic sensor that you won't be able to really benefit from, as there's no manual control. Unless you don't use the lenses that you probably have to go with camera. Which kind of defeats the purpose.
This is exactly why RED was formed, through the frustration of video cameras that were deliberately crippled to protect artificially overpriced 'pro' gear'. I did think it unlikely that Canon would release a stills camera that would outshine their more expensive video cameras.
Maybe the guys who provide firmware hacks for the Canon Ixus/Elph cameras to shhot RAW etc... can do a similar thing for the 5DII.
Though shooting wide open in normal daylight is not possible without using ND filters regardless of manual/auto control. 1/50th at 100ISO on a sunny winter's day [no snow], currently gives me a f-stop of 16. It'll be f22 in summer. Cinematography is not the same as photography, despite the obvious similarities - there are some big differences. You cannot simply use a higher shutter speed as that affects the look of the image and only tends to be done for dramatic effect as the image tends to 'strobe' with faster shutter speeds.
-
Why would you reduce the quality to that of lower camera to compare? Up sampling the lower res cameras to match the higher res would make more sense. Or even better, shoot both at their best quality and compare as they are - which how they will probably be used in reality.
I don't see it as reducing quality. If any image has noticeable noise at a particular size and ISO, it tends to have less apparent noise at a smaller size. Reducing noise by downrezzing represents an increase in quality with respect to noise, but a decrease in quality with respect to resolution. One positive effect tends to cancel out the other negative effect, so the net effect is, no reduction in quality. Even a D3 image at ISO 6400 might need reducing in size to make the level of noise acceptable.
I always display or print images at a specific size. I haven't yet worked out how to display or print a sizeless image. If one uprezzes a high-ISO D3 image to a 1Ds3 or 5D2 size, then I believe it will also appear approximately no less noisy than a 1Ds3 image shot at the same real or actual ISO.
-
I don't see it as reducing quality. If any image has noticeable noise at a particular size and ISO, it tends to have less apparent noise at a smaller size.
Exactly. That's because when resampling down, depending on the algorithm, you're essentially taking four pixels and assigning one new pixel value. Noise is random, this resample reduces the noise.
-
Exactly. That's because when resampling down, depending on the algorithm, you're essentially taking four pixels and assigning one new pixel value. Noise is random, this resample reduces the noise.
I understand that aspect, but it also reduces the overall quality and so seems like a false comparison.
If I'm printing 60X40" from say my 21+MP camera, I'll hardly make my image smaller with less detail, just to reduce noise, to then compare it against a 60x40" print from a 12MP camera. Mainly as the less enlarging needed from the higher res file will make the noise proportionaly smaller compared to the lower res camera.
I still think it is an iffy/odd comparison, as Ray seems to be implying a 12mp Nikon is as good as and will enlarge as well as the 1DsIII. Which will also mean that the new D3x will either be waaaay better than the Canon [and poss actually worth the money] or will actually be no better than the 12mp camera as the extra MP make no difference.
Or is this the "make things the same, to compare the differences which are now no longer there, way of testing" you see around the place?
-
I understand that aspect, but it also reduces the overall quality and so seems like a false comparison.
Yes and no. Yes if you need all the pixels. No if you're trying an apples to apples comparison (upsizing the other capture would be more unfair).
We don't always use all the pixels the capture device produces. When we sample down, at least in terms of noise, there's some reduction.
All things being equal, well in this case we can't make such a comparison.
-
No if you're trying an apples to apples comparison (upsizing the other capture would be more unfair
This is plain nonsense. This is not trying to compare apples with apples but trying to make sauer cherry from an orange and compare that to a water melone.
If you plan to purchase a 21 Mpix camera in order to dowres it to 12 Mpix, you are better off by buying a 12 Mpix camera; or buy a 6 Mpix and upres it, you sure will be happy with it.
-
This is plain nonsense. This is not trying to compare apples with apples but trying to make sauer cherry from an orange and compare that to a water melone.
If you plan to purchase a 21 Mpix camera in order to dowres it to 12 Mpix, you are better off by buying a 12 Mpix camera; or buy a 6 Mpix and upres it, you sure will be happy with it.
People capture 21 MP all the time and use less for all kinds of needs, there's nothing nonsensical about it. People don't buy cameras solely based on their native capture resolution either, although it is a very important consideration.
If the idea is to compare the quality of the capture of two camera systems and their respective noise, one is 12MP the other 21MP, its never going to be a totally complete apples to apples comparison as I said. But sampling the 21MP down to 12MP at least tells you want the potential output of both, with respect to noise would be ASSUMING the output at that 12MP is the max. Are you proposing that instead, the 12MP should be sampled UP to 21MP? That would be far more nonsensical IMHO.
-
This is plain nonsense. This is not trying to compare apples with apples but trying to make sauer cherry from an orange and compare that to a water melone.
If you plan to purchase a 21 Mpix camera in order to dowres it to 12 Mpix, you are better off by buying a 12 Mpix camera; or buy a 6 Mpix and upres it, you sure will be happy with it.
Gabor,
No-one plans to downres an an image before it's taken or even conceived. Some shots lend themselves to large prints, which may involve some degree of interpolation, and some shots might be so noisy that 8x12" prints are the largest you might consider making.
The question you should be asking is, are there any image quality advantages of the D3 compared with the 1Ds3 (or 5D2) in respect of the total scene, total image and total composition? We know there are pixel quality advantages, but no-one makes a print of a single pixel, and even if you were to (that might be an idea for a minimalist photograph ) noise would not be apparent in a single pixel as you know very well.
-
This is plain nonsense. This is not trying to compare apples with apples but trying to make sauer cherry from an orange and compare that to a water melone.
If you plan to purchase a 21 Mpix camera in order to dowres it to 12 Mpix, you are better off by buying a 12 Mpix camera; or buy a 6 Mpix and upres it, you sure will be happy with it.
What he said.
It's a pointless, meaningless comparison. You compare best possible outputs against each other, to determine which is best at outputting.
Would you test a Mini versus a Ferrari, but with the Ferrari's engine limited, so it couldn't go any faster than the Mini?
-
The unit of digital photography is the pixel. Everything else is derived from that. There is no other generally accepted, measurable basis of comparison.
Pixels can be converted in print or in monitor display or whatever, but not the other way around. Therefor the results of pixel level comparisons can be translated in anything else; but it is ridiculous to transform something in an imaginary print size using an imaginary printer with an imaginary paper, viewed from an imaginary distance by an imaginary viewer equipped with a pair of imaginary glasses. The result has a value for sure, an imaginary one.
-
What he said.
It's a pointless, meaningless comparison. You compare best possible outputs against each other, to determine which is best at outputting.
Would you test a Mini versus a Ferrari, but with the Ferrari's engine limited, so it couldn't go any faster than the Mini?
Yes. If you were comparing fuel consumption. If someone were to make the claim that the Mini is more fuel efficient than the Ferrari, then it would be reasonable to compare both cars at the same speed and similar accelerations. The Mini might still win, but not by such a great amount as would be the case if you were to drive both cars flat out.
Driving both cameras flat out, gives the resolution edge to the 1Ds3 but the noise edge to the D3. Slowing down a bit brings noise levels to a parity, approximately.
-
The unit of digital photography is the pixel. Everything else is derived from that. There is no other generally accepted, measurable basis of comparison.
.. but it is ridiculous to transform something in an imaginary print size using an imaginary printer with an imaginary paper, viewed from an imaginary distance by an imaginary viewer equipped with a pair of imaginary glasses. The result has a value for sure, an imaginary one.
Okay! So I'm ridiculous. I can't help it. That's how I work. I imagine a print size, I imagine the printer, I imagine the paper, I imagine the viewing distance, I imagine the viewer equipped with an imaginary pair of glasses that enables him/her to appreciate the print from that imaginary viewing distance, then I try to create a reality from such imaginings. Sometimes I succeed. Sometimes I don't.
-
The base capture unit is the pixel, yes, but the limiting or driving factor is often the output.
If you are regularly printing 24" x 30" prints like Charlie Cramer, then yes, every pixel counts. He's basically upsampling all the time.
On the other hand, Michael Kenna prints all his images at about 8" x 8". He's basically downsampling all the time (or would be, if he was shooting digital). You do not lose image quality with downsampling (compared to an original capture at the output resolution), as long as you are careful about doing the downsampling and apply appropriate sharpening.
The vast majority of images captured (even with DSLRs) are resampled down to approximately 800 pixels on the longer dimension and viewed on a ~90-dpi LCD screen with a sRGB-ish gamut, and maybe posted to web.
Most printed images go to glossy or luster surfaces with up to 8 stops of dynamic range, at sizes of 4" x 6" to 8" x 10" (think wedding, studio prints). Somewhat bigger images are printed into magazines and newsprint, but not that much bigger.
It is true that one does not always know at the time of capture exactly how (or even if) that image will be printed. But most photographers can draw conclusions based on their own printing habits over time, e.g., how often you make 12" prints versus 18" prints versus 30" prints.
-
The vast majority of images captured (even with DSLRs) are resampled down to approximately 800 pixels on the longer dimension and viewed on a ~90-dpi LCD screen with a sRGB-ish gamut, and maybe posted to web
While many of them get cropped, or displayed 600x400 or larger.
Most printed images go to glossy or luster surfaces with up to 8 stops of dynamic range, at sizes of 4" x 6" to 8" x 10"
Right. However, 4" x 6" to 8" x 10" is not a specific size, and the density can hugely vary.
Sticking to pixels, one can convert the result to any size in any presentation form.
This is pretty much the same issue as the measuring the noise in an image.
As the noise will be a composite of the noises of the raw channels, the result depends on several factors:
- the scenery
- the source of illumination
- the intensity of illumination
- the spectral characteristics of the sensor
- your expectation/tolerance of the noise level
Now, try to give a figure for a camera based on some scenery with some illumination. Then a photog goes out and makes a shot in bright sunlight with a polar filter and complains that the sky is noisy, though all tests show that this camera "is not noisy". The other photog shoots indoor with a low temp incandescent, the blue is down in the cellar, and the image is noise. (These are examples from the cases I have analyzed for complaining photographers.)
So, I measure the noise purely in the raw channels. This does not depend on *anything but the sensor*, and the result is comparable accross all cameras for all situations. If someone find an image noisy, one needs only to take a look at the raw image: "this channel is in the ninth stop @ ISO 1600, it would be a miracle if the result were not noisy".
-
Yes. If you were comparing fuel consumption. If someone were to make the claim that the Mini is more fuel efficient than the Ferrari, then it would be reasonable to compare both cars at the same speed and similar accelerations. The Mini might still win, but not by such a great amount as would be the case if you were to drive both cars flat out.
Driving both cameras flat out, gives the resolution edge to the 1Ds3 but the noise edge to the D3. Slowing down a bit brings noise levels to a parity, approximately.
If you are concerned with fuel consumption you would not buy the Ferrari in the first place and wouldn't care if the mini gave a few more mpg. So again a pointless, irrelevant comparison.
-
If you are concerned with fuel consumption you would not buy the Ferrari in the first place and wouldn't care if the mini gave a few more mpg. So again a pointless, irrelevant comparison.
You would if someone designed a Ferrari which had the fuel consuption of a Mini when driven like a Mini, but the performance of a racing car when you put your foot down. This is basically the situation when comparing the D3 with the 1Ds3, except the differences are not so extreme. If you want the image size you think reasonable from a 12mp camera, you get the same image quality from the 1Ds3 as the D3 provides, regarding noise. If you want the resolution that only a 21mp camera can provide, then the D3 doesn't make the grade. That's not difficult to comprehend, is it?
-
Right. However, 4" x 6" to 8" x 10" is not a specific size, and the density can hugely vary.
Sticking to pixels, one can convert the result to any size in any presentation form.
Gabor, I agree with you fully about the value of understanding and analyzing noise at the raw level. It explains why, for instance, if you shoot an image of a ColorChecker, the purple patch usually looks the noisiest (unless one uses a magenta filter ...)
On the other hand, for a given output process (e.g., a specific lab or printer), the output density generally does not very much, if at all. For example, if one is printing to an online lab like WHCC, the output density is always fixed (at 300 ppi), so for an 8" x 10" print it becomes highly predictable the total number of pixels. For a Lightjet it's also around 300 ppi. Same goes with a modern inkjet printer, which usually falls within the 300 ppi to 360 ppi range, although there are some driver options allowing 600 ppi to 720 ppi.
-
People capture 21 MP all the time and use less for all kinds of needs, there's nothing nonsensical about it.
Nonsense refers to foolish 'rational' of comparing 2 products using one at a reduced quality. Obviously cameras will often have their results viewed at varying and much lower resolutions than capture, such as on the web, but that is not relevant if trying to compare and contrast the best performance of the two items.
People don't buy cameras solely based on their native capture resolution either, although it is a very important consideration.
Actually that apparently is exactly what they do and why MP are used to sell cameras.
Show two lots of people 2 sets of prints. One set a better quality than the other and most unsurprisingly will choose the better images. But if you tell the people that the poorer quality shots were taken on a camera with more MP [before deciding] and suddenly they will tend to prefer the inferior images.
I was going to start a topic on this rather interesting finding, but it seems germane to mention here.
If the idea is to compare the quality of the capture of two camera systems and their respective noise, one is 12MP the other 21MP, its never going to be a totally complete apples to apples comparison as I said. But sampling the 21MP down to 12MP at least tells you want the potential output of both, with respect to noise would be ASSUMING the output at that 12MP is the max. Are you proposing that instead, the 12MP should be sampled UP to 21MP? That would be far more nonsensical IMHO.
If comparing two products on their best performance, you test in a way that is challenging, not one that is limiting. Unless you are actively trying to favour one product, which by limiting the higher MP camera to that of the lower MP camera is what you are doing. If only ever outputting to a max of 12 MP, why even buy/use the 21mp camera.
So producing large prints to the max ability of the 21mp camera, which is rationally why you would tend to buy a higher res camera over a lower res one [assuming it's not for bragging rights], then most people will upsample the lower res one to be able to match output resolution. So it's not so nonsensical, more representative of how large prints will actually be done. If you don't upres, then the noise/grain of the lower res file will be larger compared to the higher res file, plus detail willl be lower.
Surprisingly - upsampling does not always reduce quality. I tested the Genuine Fractals versus upresing in ACR some years back with the 20D [ACR was much better and free]. But what was surprising was that the ACR file that was upressed, looked better than the native sized file.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3269/2967517193_832d76287c_o.jpg)
-
You would if someone designed a Ferrari which had the fuel consuption of a Mini when driven like a Mini, but the performance of a racing car when you put your foot down. This is basically the situation when comparing the D3 with the 1Ds3, except the differences are not so extreme. If you want the image size you think reasonable from a 12mp camera, you get the same image quality from the 1Ds3 as the D3 provides, regarding noise. If you want the resolution that only a 21mp camera can provide, then the D3 doesn't make the grade. That's not difficult to comprehend, is it?
And which was my point entirely. Duh!
-
You would if someone designed a Ferrari which had the fuel consuption of a Mini when driven like a Mini, but the performance of a racing car when you put your foot down. This is basically the situation when comparing the D3 with the 1Ds3, except the differences are not so extreme. If you want the image size you think reasonable from a 12mp camera, you get the same image quality from the 1Ds3 as the D3 provides, regarding noise. If you want the resolution that only a 21mp camera can provide, then the D3 doesn't make the grade. That's not difficult to comprehend, is it?
Considering the quote above, as well as the other valuable info on this thread, it seems there is an angle here I'd not understood or considered before. Since I'm now trying to decide between getting a 12mp D700 or a 21mp 5D2, the issue of superior low light performance, which I value highly, has shifted away from the D700 that I was leaning toward. I mean, heck, what is the IQ advantage to a D700 if the 5D2 offers equal high iso performance, when downsampled and printed at the same size as the D700 ?? I could then also have the increased resolution the 5D2 offers, when needed for larger prints, not downsampled...ie, "2 cameras in one"! I only have a minimal amount of aps-c stuff, and I'm brand agnostic. If I can believe what I've read on this thread, there is no reason at all for me to buy a 12mp full frame camera,
especially when I can have a 21mp camera for nearly the same price (when finally available, of course).
I think I WILL wait until Michael gives a full review of the 5D2, and maybe even the D700/D3 v.s. 5D2 v.s. Sony A900 shootout that he mentioned, before I make a decision. Of course, his shootout may not address the downsampling technique that has been discussed on this thread, but I really hope it does. It seems like an important issue.
-
I have dealt with this gentleman for years and he has always delivered as he states
Des W
From HongKong Dec 5 2008
Hi Des,
Thanks for your reply,I had called Zeiss agent and was told
That the Zeiss Ikon 21mm/F:2.8 lens for Canon will be launched
Sometime in Jan.I will mail you when I have the price.
Cheers
James
I contacted Zeiss again to clarify this issue. The answer is:
There must be a misunderstanding around this question. My collague will contact the respective distributor in ordnung to clarify the issue.
The planned availability of the 2.8/21mm is:
- Distagon 2.8/21 ZF for Nikon: 1. quarter of 2009
- Distagon 2.8/21 ZK for Pentax: 1. half of 2009
- Distagon 2.8/21 ZE for Canon: end of 2009
I'm sorry for the bad news, but I thought the sooner you know it the better.
-
Correction to my post above- Michael may have mentioned a shootout between the D3x (not D700/D3), 5D2 and A900.
-
I mean, heck, what is the IQ advantage to a D700 if the 5D2 offers equal high iso performance, when downsampled and printed at the same size as the D700 ?? I could then also have the increased resolution the 5D2 offers, when needed for larger prints, not downsampled...ie, "2 cameras in one"! I only have a minimal amount of aps-c stuff, and I'm brand agnostic. If I can believe what I've read on this thread, there is no reason at all for me to buy a 12mp full frame camera,
especially when I can have a 21mp camera for nearly the same price (when finally available, of course).
This is precisely the point that I and others have been trying to make in a thousand different ways. I just can't understand why some folks just don't seem to get the point. Could it be they just happen to own Nikon shares.
I believe there are some advantages to the D700, compared with the 5D2. Fundamental image quality is not the be all and end all. I believe the D700 has a faster frame rate than the 5D2 and possibly more flexible options with regard to auto-bracketing of ISO. There's also at least one Nikkor lens of a quality that has no Canon equivalent, the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 which is remarkably sharp even into the corners of full frame 35mm. It would be interesting to compare the corners of the Canon 14/2.8 prime on a 5D2 with the corners of the Nikkor 14-24 on a D700, either upsampling the D700 image to the 5D3 size, or downsampling the 5D2 image to 12mp.
Is anyone able and willing to do such a comparison?