5D image is step up from 1Ds MKII?

[SteveLgBch]

In Michael's field notes from Nambia he noted that "The 5D's image quality (other than absolute file size) is a noticeable step up from that of the 1Ds MKII. Images are cleaner and have lower noise at all ISOs."  I wonder if that means when he prints an 16x24 or 20x30 or similar, that the 5D surpasses the overall image quality of the 1Ds MKII, or juat that the high ISO noise qualities or lack there of are better?  Does the 5D print somehow look better?

[michael]

It's my observation that 5D images are "smoother", have less nosie at high ISO and generally a more pleasing palette and look. Nothing scientific, just an observation.

But, it appears to be one shared by a great many people that have both it and the 1Ds MKII. Of course the 1 series camra has a high pixel count sensor and therefore can make bigger prints.

There were five photographers on my recent Namibia workshops that were carrying both cameras, and all agreed with this observation and used the 5D as a matter of preference when ISO 400 or higher was needed.

Michael

[Gary Ferguson]

I use the 5D and 1Ds MkII, and I agree that the 5D delivers a smoother result. However, there's no such thing as a free lunch and sometimes the 5D also gives a more "digital", slightly "over processed" appearance. Here's an example taken with the 5D and the 24-105 4.0L IS at ISO 200. First the full shot,


 [attachment=551:attachment]


No problems up to about A4 or even slightly larger. But when you get to A3 and above there's a very distinct digital look. Take a look at the grass at 100%, looks more like astro turf to my eye!


[attachment=552:attachment]


Or take a look at the bascule of the bridge. Again, a distinct "digital" appearance.


[attachment=553:attachment]


This shot was RAW developed in Phase One, it's had no additional noise reduction and only mild sharpening. I've found with the 5D that if there's areas of smooth tones, especially if they feature greens or browns or greys, then any excessive sharpening in conjunction with noise reduction is punished in the final print with extreme versions of this type of artificial look.

The 1Ds MkII is better at handling this kind of natural detail and tonal transitions, but it's not completely immune from it. I wonder if Canon have somehow elected to give noise reduction a high priority with their cameras, and consequently have chosen to sacrifice other components of the final look of the image? Certainly I never see these effects with shots taken with a Phase One P25, but then again with the P25 noise becomes visible at ISO 200 and, IMO at least, objectionable by ISO 400.

[madmanchan]

I use the 5D and 1Ds MkII, and I agree that the 5D delivers a smoother result. However, there's no such thing as a free lunch and sometimes the 5D also gives a more "digital", slightly "over processed" appearance.

To me this actually looks like the fault of the RAW conversion. I've seen the same sort of overly-smoothed-out look on my 5D files when sent through Capture One, even with color and luma noise reduction set to their minimum settings.  I find that Adobe Camera Raw gives me a much more consistently detailed, more natural appearance. See Charles Cramer's recent notes on outbackphoto.com for a related issue he encountered when developing his P45 images.

Eric

[Ray]

There have been some huge debates on the RG forum about 5D resolution and general image quality versus that of the 1DsMkll. As far as I can see, the issue was never resolved in any of those debates. If it's true the 1Ds2 has a stronger AA filter, then that could account for the apparent lack of additional resolution that one might expect from a camera with a greater number of pixels.

If there are areas where the 1Ds2 delivers greater subtlety of tonality, then that would at least be offset by the more advanced noise reduction (or larger pixels) of the 5D, all of which which makes the 5D excellent value (comparatively speaking. It's still expensive for me.)

[SteveLgBch]

Well, I haven't used the 5D, but with my 1Ds Mk2 and DPP, I have produced some beautiful prints if I do say so myself.  So far I find DPP better than anything else I've used as far as color, tonality and detail.  So I too think much might have to do with the converter especially at lower ISO's.