Realising 5D/5d2 gains in real world.

[NigelC]

I am in the process of comparing files I shot, handheld, of  a brick wall, outside a camera store, using my 5D and 17-40, 24-105, 50/2.5 (didn't bother with 70-200/4IS as I assumed that had enough resolution for 5D2 sensor) and their 5D2 with same lenses. Unfortunately store insisted on using their own lenses on the 5D2, except for 17-40 which they didn't have.  

Alongside my practical test, I wondered what conditions forum users considered allowed 5D2 sensor gains to be realised, taking as given my most used lenses are 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f4IS (i.e. not up for changing these) I appreciate first two may realise some but not all sensor benefit, but would you expect to get significant benefit handheld at mid-apertures at the shutter speeds you would normally use to avoid shake, taking IS into account, or is it only realisable on a tripod, with MLU?

Based on my very imperfect tests, with Jpegs (can't read 5D2 raw files), 17-40 looked about the same (19mm, f8@320th), and my 24-105/5D looked better than
their 24-105/5D2 (24mm, f8 1/60th) All 200 ISO, viewed at 100% on screen

As I said very imperfect tests, with lots of variables, but to me indicative that in hand-held street photography I won't see the pixel advantage, only in tripod mounted shots with MLU.  Anyway, don't feel I'm persuaded of value in upgrade at net cost of about £1200-1300 sterling, although would love the improved LCD screen and AF micro-adjustment, live view etc.

[Dick Roadnight]

I am in the process of comparing files I shot, handheld, of  a brick wall, outside a camera store, using my 5D and 17-40, 24-105, 50/2.5 (didn't bother with 70-200/4IS as I assumed that had enough resolution for 5D2 sensor) and their 5D2 with same lenses. Unfortunately store insisted on using their own lenses on the 5D2, except for 17-40 which they didn't have.  

Alongside my practical test, I wondered what conditions forum users considered allowed 5D2 sensor gains to be realised, taking as given my most used lenses are 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f4IS (i.e. not up for changing these) I appreciate first two may realise some but not all sensor benefit, but would you expect to get significant benefit handheld at mid-apertures at the shutter speeds you would normally use to avoid shake, taking IS into account, or is it only realisable on a tripod, with MLU?

Based on my very imperfect tests, with Jpegs (can't read 5D2 raw files), 17-40 looked about the same (19mm, f8@320th), and my 24-105/5D looked better than
their 24-105/5D2 (24mm, f8 1/60th) All 200 ISO, viewed at 100% on screen

As I said very imperfect tests, with lots of variables, but to me indicative that in hand-held street photography I won't see the pixel advantage, only in tripod mounted shots with MLU.  Anyway, don't feel I'm persuaded of value in upgrade at net cost of about £1200-1300 sterling, although would love the improved LCD screen and AF micro-adjustment, live view etc.

Brick walls are a good test - but there are no standards for brick walls re the contrast between the bricks and the mortar...

With the camera horizontal and at 45 degrees, you get saggital and tangential at most points... you could turn it into a quantitative test by seeing at what distance you can resolve bricks.

[rethmeier]

You proved your point anyway!
If you don't print big,keep the 5D!
I sold my 1DSmkII and got a 5D,because the files were better.

O.K I switched camps and now have a Nikon D3x,only that I need big files.

N.B and YES that Nikon is better!

[Alex MacPherson]

I had been on the fence about upgrading from the original 5D to the MKII. After much
consideration, I decided that the upgrade wasn't worth the expense because I don't
print large images.
The files that I get out of my 5D are still amazing. I will probably upgrade eventually
to the 1Ds Mk ? ... just because I like the way the camera handles better.

[Fritzer]

Depends on your 'real world'.

12.8 MP vs. 21.1 MP, that's snapshot vs. viable backup camera for a DB in advertising.

[Frodo]

Depends on your 'real world'.

12.8 MP vs. 21.1 MP, that's snapshot vs. viable backup camera for a DB in advertising.

I think that you've missed his point.  Sure the 5DMkII will give bigger files, but with good quality zooms (not primes), do you actually gain much, if anything, in real world (i.e. not studio) photography?

[Geoff Wittig]

Imperfect test?
More like worthless test.

When you're talking about the resolution of cameras in the 20+ megapixel range, technique becomes extremely important to squeezing out all the resolution the camera is potentially capable of. A wobbly hand-held image of a brick wall in mediocre lighting will tell you almost nothing about the potential difference in final on-print resolution between the 5D and 5D II.

I have owned sequentially all the Eos-1Ds variants. Each jump in resolution was significant, but only evident in images shot with the camera firmly mounted on a tripod, using mirror lock up, printed to a large enough size to see the extra detail. With casually shot hand-held photos, the resolution lost to camera shake and frame-to-frame variation in focus accuracy will overwhelm the objective difference in megapixel count.

[Ray]

One way of looking at this dilemma is to consider that the 5D2 is 3 cameras in one.

(1) Produces larger files (than the 5D) which are more suitable for large prints.

(2) Behaves like a 20D or 30D when image is cropped to the same format as the 20D, thus effectively extending the reach of your longest lens. (The 5D2 pixel is the same size as that of the 20D with similar performance at the pixel level).

(3) Is also a video camera.

[NigelC]

Imperfect test?
More like worthless test.

When you're talking about the resolution of cameras in the 20+ megapixel range, technique becomes extremely important to squeezing out all the resolution the camera is potentially capable of. A wobbly hand-held image of a brick wall in mediocre lighting will tell you almost nothing about the potential difference in final on-print resolution between the 5D and 5D II.

I have owned sequentially all the Eos-1Ds variants. Each jump in resolution was significant, but only evident in images shot with the camera firmly mounted on a tripod, using mirror lock up, printed to a large enough size to see the extra detail. With casually shot hand-held photos, the resolution lost to camera shake and frame-to-frame variation in focus accuracy will overwhelm the objective difference in megapixel count.

Worthless as an objective test of whether it can deliver visible IQ gains in optimised conditions - yes, (but I l already knew that it does)  but not worthless in demonstrating that with my lenses, handheld (although after 35 years of practice with SLRs I think less wobbly than most) (and unfortunately limited to jpeg) it is no means sure that the additional potential of the 5D2 sensor is realised to any significant degree.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi!

In my view the 5D may be good enough. If 5D is good enough for your needs the 5DII will show little improvement, i have some writing on this issue:

http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...xels-do-we-need

this is work in progress and in no way complete, but may offer some help.

Best regards
Erik

I am in the process of comparing files I shot, handheld, of  a brick wall, outside a camera store, using my 5D and 17-40, 24-105, 50/2.5 (didn't bother with 70-200/4IS as I assumed that had enough resolution for 5D2 sensor) and their 5D2 with same lenses. Unfortunately store insisted on using their own lenses on the 5D2, except for 17-40 which they didn't have.  

Alongside my practical test, I wondered what conditions forum users considered allowed 5D2 sensor gains to be realised, taking as given my most used lenses are 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f4IS (i.e. not up for changing these) I appreciate first two may realise some but not all sensor benefit, but would you expect to get significant benefit handheld at mid-apertures at the shutter speeds you would normally use to avoid shake, taking IS into account, or is it only realisable on a tripod, with MLU?

Based on my very imperfect tests, with Jpegs (can't read 5D2 raw files), 17-40 looked about the same (19mm, f8@320th), and my 24-105/5D looked better than
their 24-105/5D2 (24mm, f8 1/60th) All 200 ISO, viewed at 100% on screen

As I said very imperfect tests, with lots of variables, but to me indicative that in hand-held street photography I won't see the pixel advantage, only in tripod mounted shots with MLU.  Anyway, don't feel I'm persuaded of value in upgrade at net cost of about £1200-1300 sterling, although would love the improved LCD screen and AF micro-adjustment, live view etc.

[JeanMichel]

Until about two years ago I only used film (M3, M4 and M6 Leicas and a 500Cm Hasselblad) and pretty much kept my prints at 8 by 12 or 8 by 8 inches and was happy with those sizes. I then purchased a 5D and now I print my images somewhat larger (mostly 12 by 18). The 5D was a very capable imager; I traded it to a 5DII mostly because of the sensor cleaning feature; the added pixels, live view, video (which I have yet to try) are nice bonuses. For me, the time and frustration saved by the sensor cleaning feature is more than worth the trade-in cost (in Canada, I was given $1,000 for the 5D by the retailer).

I too have tested both the 5D and 5DII on my brick wall -- yet, I do not have any, negatives of brick wall test images in my 40 years of photographing using film! I did jury rig a lens alignment set up using a machinist steel ruler and a crisp Canadian $20 bill and found that a +5 micro adjustment was 'needed' for my 24-105 lens. I have no idea if my 1960's and 1970's Leica and Zeiss lenses are set just so... but I do know that used them to photograph day in day out for all those years. I find it a bit weird that I obsessed so much about getting pin point accuracy with the new camera and lens, when I used to scale focus al the time.

I am happy to have traded up and with the performance of the equipment. As I mentioned above, the sensor cleaning feature alone is well worth the price.

[spotmeter]

I am in the process of comparing files I shot, handheld, of  a brick wall, outside a camera store, using my 5D and 17-40, 24-105, 50/2.5 (didn't bother with 70-200/4IS as I assumed that had enough resolution for 5D2 sensor) and their 5D2 with same lenses. Unfortunately store insisted on using their own lenses on the 5D2, except for 17-40 which they didn't have.  

Alongside my practical test, I wondered what conditions forum users considered allowed 5D2 sensor gains to be realised, taking as given my most used lenses are 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f4IS (i.e. not up for changing these) I appreciate first two may realise some but not all sensor benefit, but would you expect to get significant benefit handheld at mid-apertures at the shutter speeds you would normally use to avoid shake, taking IS into account, or is it only realisable on a tripod, with MLU?

Based on my very imperfect tests, with Jpegs (can't read 5D2 raw files), 17-40 looked about the same (19mm, f8@320th), and my 24-105/5D looked better than
their 24-105/5D2 (24mm, f8 1/60th) All 200 ISO, viewed at 100% on screen

As I said very imperfect tests, with lots of variables, but to me indicative that in hand-held street photography I won't see the pixel advantage, only in tripod mounted shots with MLU.  Anyway, don't feel I'm persuaded of value in upgrade at net cost of about £1200-1300 sterling, although would love the improved LCD screen and AF micro-adjustment, live view etc.

If you do hand held resolution tests with a 24-105 zoom, 200 ISO and JPEG's, then you would be wasting your money upgrading to the Canon 5D2.

But if you do resolution tests with a rigid tripod, mirror lock-up, cable release, ISO 100, RAW files, focused via LiveView at 100%, and use only Zeiss prime wide angles or Canon telephoto L primes, and examine the files on a 22" monitor at 100%---then the Canon 5D2 is the best camera value in the world today. The 40" X 60" prints I have made from this camera have sold for more than double what I paid for the camera itself.

[Ray]

If you do hand held resolution tests with a 24-105 zoom, 200 ISO and JPEG's, then you would be wasting your money upgrading to the Canon 5D2.

But if you do resolution tests with a rigid tripod, mirror lock-up, cable release, ISO 100, RAW files, focused via LiveView at 100%, and use only Zeiss prime wide angles or Canon telephoto L primes, and examine the files on a 22" monitor at 100%---then the Canon 5D2 is the best camera value in the world today. The 40" X 60" prints I have made from this camera have sold for more than double what I paid for the camera itself.

Amen! My printer does only 24"x36" (and stitched panoramas of any length but only 24"high), which is one reason why I've held off getting a 5D2.

Lens quality is of utmost importance. It would be interesting to see how a 5D2 with reasonably good zoom lens, such as the Canon 24-105 F4 IS, compares with a 5D with a good prime.

For example, the 5D with Canon 50/1.4 at F5.6 compared with the 5D2 with 24-105 at 50mm and F5.6, downsampling the 5D2 image to 12.7mp. Try it at various ISO settings.

[reburns]

Nigel,

Noise is nicely reduced in the 5D2, and that is a real nice plus.  As you mentioned, micro-AF adjust is a nice plus also.  Another factor is having the luxury to crop away a few more pixels.  There's a few other details that are nice, although I feel that the build and focusing on my 5D1 was a tad better than the new one whether imagined or whether there's variation between copies.  After three years of use and trips around the world, my 5D1 netted 50% of original price in resale, and in my way of thinking that's not too bad for rent.  Next time you are behind the times with RAW file processors, you can consider using Adobe's free DNG converter.

[sojournerphoto]

Amen! My printer does only 24"x36" (and stitched panoramas of any length but only 24"high), which is one reason why I've held off getting a 5D2.

Lens quality is of utmost importance. It would be interesting to see how a 5D2 with reasonably good zoom lens, such as the Canon 24-105 F4 IS, compares with a 5D with a good prime.

For example, the 5D with Canon 50/1.4 at F5.6 compared with the 5D2 with 24-105 at 50mm and F5.6, downsampling the 5D2 image to 12.7mp. Try it at various ISO settings.

You should really uprez the 5D to the 5D2 size rather than throwing data away.

BAsed on my 24-105, 50 1.4, 5D and 1Ds3 the higher resolution combo will be better in the centre, probably not as good at the edges, i.e. the soft corners of the 24-105 are soft also on a 5D! The 50 1.4 on the higher resolution body should be clearly better if you keep it still and the hiher resolution (in my view) can be seen in relatively small prints - say 15 by 10. Even 10 by 7s off the 1Ds3 are striking.

Mike