Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: dwdallam on September 22, 2008, 12:15:28 am
-
This is a thread for the discussion of the Canon 5D MKII.
Please follow these guidelines:
*Keep the discussion focused on the performance and usability of the 5D MKII
*Personal related discussions or "digressive" technical or speculative discussions should be relegated to PMs or another thread, so as not to clog and derail the discussion of the 5D MKII.
This is a good link, which investigates the video mode of the 5D2.
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/09/20/...o-our-industry/ (http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/09/20/...o-our-industry/)
The images are screen grabs from the video mode, which look like still images. Very amazing, and shot at 3200 ISO.
-
The problem is, DWDALLAM, there are no RAW image comparisons of same scenes shot under the same conditions with any other camera.
All we've got at present are mostly jpeg shots. We can only speculate and make educated guesses about ultimate performance compared with rival cameras.
I've taken shots at the equivalent of ISO 12,800 with my 5D which look usable. The results depend very much on the eveness of lighting and the darkness of shadows. Where there are dark shadows or black surfaces, noise and banding will be very apparent at such a high ISO. If there are no deep shadows and dynamic range (or subject brightness range) is low, results can be impressive.
The only true test is same exposure shots at appropriate ISOs for correct (ETTR) exposure, compared at equal physical image sizes.
We simply don't have any such comparisons yet. It's all a bit premature.
-
The problem is, DWDALLAM, there are no RAW image comparisons of same scenes shot under the same conditions with any other camera.
All we've got at present are mostly jpeg shots. We can only speculate and make educated guesses about ultimate performance compared with rival cameras.
I've taken shots at the equivalent of ISO 12,800 with my 5D which look usable. The results depend very much on the eveness of lighting and the darkness of shadows. Where there are dark shadows or black surfaces, noise and banding will be very apparent at such a high ISO. If there are no deep shadows and dynamic range (or subject brightness range) is low, results can be impressive.
The only true test is same exposure shots at appropriate ISOs for correct (ETTR) exposure, compared at equal physical image sizes.
We simply don't have any such comparisons yet. It's all a bit premature.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=223177\")
All true, but talking pictures in such low light situations at 1/125th was previously impossible with a Canon camera, nevertheless. And--those images are video grabs. I think it's amazing.
But you are right. We'll need to see how it performs side by side. From what I've read--those who have actually tested the jpg function--I think 6400 ISO is going to be very, very usable, even in low light conditions that you present.
Another thing to remember, as you and other know, when you have noise in an image visible at 70-100% on screen, even w/o noise reduction you won't see it in an 8x12 print, or even a 12 x 18 (although I haven't confirmed that--and I'm talking noise at ISO 1600-3200 with the 1DS3 because at an 8x12 the resolution is so compacted as to render noise unseen.
But that's all elementary because all things being equal, the same can be said for the 5D2, since its resolution is the same. So at 6400 ISO it's noise will be more usable than the 1DS3's. All this is of course given that the jpg's are not better than the RAW files.
I'm with the blogger on th4e low light capabilities however. The lower the light I can shoot in the more creative headroom I have. One of my best shots was shot under a San Franciso street light at 2AM with no other light. You can see it here:
(Server where linked image resides is down for maintenance right now but should be up soon)
[a href=\"http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/686418/chat.php]http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/686418/chat.php[/url]
And that's why I'm so interested in ISO and noise. It will allow us to shoot in light conditions that were previously either very hard, required secondary lighting, or were simply impossible. I mean with WB control, we can shoot in any color of light, provided it's bright enough.
-
I'm unclear how the "extended" ISO ranges in 5Dii (and others) actually work. Is, say, 6400, actually shot at 3200 and pushed to 6400 in-camera? And 12800 is actually still 3200?
If so, is there any other magic going on other than what could be done in Lightroom or PS with cameras which don't have extended ISO ranges?
-
I'm unclear how the "extended" ISO ranges in 5Dii (and others) actually work. Is, say, 6400, actually shot at 3200 and pushed to 6400 in-camera? And 12800 is actually still 3200?
If so, is there any other magic going on other than what could be done in Lightroom or PS with cameras which don't have extended ISO ranges?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223184\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't know the technology behind it, but you can't duplicate the high ISO capabilities in LR or PS at all. You simply won't get an acceptable image. If you do a search on the Nikon D3 and look for some of it's examples shot at ISO 6400 and 12800, you'll get the idea.
-
6400 is a "normal" ISO setting on the 5D II. The two extended ranges (which are effectively pushed) are 12800 and 25600. In this sense, it is similar to the D3/D700.
-
you can't duplicate the high ISO capabilities in LR or PS at all
Just the opposite is true: you are better off with underexposure and adjustment in LR/ACR than with the fake ISO (12800 and 25600 with the 5DII). The camera does the same adjustment (there is no ISO gain associated with the fake ISO), but you lose one respectively two full stops from the dynamic range. If you shoot with 6400 and increase the intensity in ACR, you can save 1-2 stops of highlights.
One could say that highlights are irrelevant in low-light situation, but that is not so. When using ISO 3200, the DR is (probably) two stop less than with ISO 200. The loss is betwen 3.5 and 4 stops with ISO 12800. Clipping of highlights is real.
-
It's interesting how people can get seduced by the ISO number. When the D3 came out, I don't believe I ever saw a single comparison on the internet between the D3 at ISO 6400 and any other camera which didn't have an ISO 6400 setting.
In fact, the 5D underexposed by just 2/3rds of a stop at its setting of ISO 3200, or underexposed 1&2/3rds stops at ISO 1600, represents ISO 6400, after push processing in the RAW converter. (ISO 3200 on the 5D being actually ISO 4000).
-
Ray,
once you passed me a 5D raw file #9199, with ISO 3200, still much underexposed (at the front of Ratana's Kitchen).
That shot is a good example for why not to use a fake ISO: some highlights, for example the shaded lamps have been clipped. The noise would be the same with ISO 1600, one stop underexposed (I mean one more stop underexposed), but the clipping *may* have been avoided.
Of course, this clipping is nothing earth-moving, but it demonstrates the principle: don't give away the DR for nothing in return.
-
The Laforet video just dropped (see first post). I've got to say, I'm impressed.
From what can bee seen in that video, and the sampled that Micheal has posted, this is certainly a capable camera.
EDIT: Direct Link. http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?ac...&articleID=2086 (http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2086)
-
Ray,
once you passed me a 5D raw file #9199, with ISO 3200, still much underexposed (at the front of Ratana's Kitchen).
That shot is a good example for why not to use a fake ISO: some highlights, for example the shaded lamps have been clipped. The noise would be the same with ISO 1600, one stop underexposed (I mean one more stop underexposed), but the clipping *may* have been avoided.
Of course, this clipping is nothing earth-moving, but it demonstrates the principle: don't give away the DR for nothing in return.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223484\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Quite right! I have been guilty myself of using ISO 3200 instead of the same exposure at ISO 1600. But it's sometimes useful to be able to see a review of the shot taken on the camera's LCD screen, which is not excessively dark. This is all part of the seduction of the artificially high ISO setting.
None of the sample 5D2 shots at ISO 6400 and above look particularly impressive to me. If I can get a good result at ISO 3200 with the 5D2 in circumstances where ISO 1600 with the 5D is not quite adequate, I'll be happy .
-
The Laforet video just dropped (see first post). I've got to say, I'm impressed.
From what can bee seen in that video, and the sampled that Micheal has posted, this is certainly a capable camera.
EDIT: Direct Link. http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?ac...&articleID=2086 (http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2086)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223491\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Checked out the video as well, hard to believe it came from a dslr camera. Unless Nikon comes out with a top of the line version with the same specs, this will be in a league by itself.
-
Just the opposite is true: you are better off with underexposure and adjustment in LR/ACR than with the fake ISO (12800 and 25600 with the 5DII). The camera does the same adjustment (there is no ISO gain associated with the fake ISO), but you lose one respectively two full stops from the dynamic range. If you shoot with 6400 and increase the intensity in ACR, you can save 1-2 stops of highlights.
One could say that highlights are irrelevant in low-light situation, but that is not so. When using ISO 3200, the DR is (probably) two stop less than with ISO 200. The loss is betwen 3.5 and 4 stops with ISO 12800. Clipping of highlights is real.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223467\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, I meant "normal" ISO settings, never extended, which is an important aspect for sure. For the 1DS3 that's 1600.
-
Yes, I meant "normal" ISO settings, never extended, which is an important aspect for sure. For the 1DS3 that's 1600.
The 1DMkIII and 1DsMkIII are rather the exception: ISO 3200 is real on the 1DsNkIII, and ISO 6400 is real on the 1DMkIII. The only fake ISO is 50.
The talk was about the 5D; that one does not have real 3200, and the 5DII will top at 6400, I guess.
-
I myself am interested in what it looks like at 100-400 iso as those are what I normally use. Are there any studio shots w/model available yet?
-
I myself am interested in what it looks like at 100-400 iso as those are what I normally use. Are there any studio shots w/model available yet?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223844\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I really wouldn't be worried about that.
-
The 1DMkIII and 1DsMkIII are rather the exception: ISO 3200 is real on the 1DsNkIII, and ISO 6400 is real on the 1DMkIII. The only fake ISO is 50.
The talk was about the 5D; that one does not have real 3200, and the 5DII will top at 6400, I guess.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I didn't know the 1DS3 had a normal ISO of 3200. I just never go over 1600 because I read afew places with examples that the noise was, well, not good let's say. However, on Micheal's review of teh D3 and 1DS3 he says: "Why ISO 1600? Because that's the Canon's [1DS3--edited] highest setting without going into a boost mode. The Nikon doesn't go into a boost mode until above ISO 6400."
But now that I think about it, that's right. Unless you "expand" the ISO setting in custom functions, it's 1600 for the 1DS3.
-
There have been some full sized samples posted here for a while now.
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos5dmarkII/page14.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos5dmarkII/page14.asp)
I downloaded a couple and distinctly underwhelmed. Though hard to tell if it was user error, crappy lens or the camera that was the cause of the poor quality.
-
There have been some full sized samples posted here for a while now.
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos5dmarkII/page14.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos5dmarkII/page14.asp)
I downloaded a couple and distinctly underwhelmed. Though hard to tell if it was user error, crappy lens or the camera that was the cause of the poor quality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224254\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Those are Beta model JPGs and they really show nothing about performance.
-
Call me stupid, but I don't get it.
Art school guy; pro video producing/directing/editing for 25 years; amateur enthusiast landscape photography for 3 years. My video kit and my photography kit don't share anything -- not lighting, not DOF, not post suite, not tripods, not shooting technique, not storytelling, not even my brain.
I'm sitting here with my 5DI, looking at the spec sheet for the 5DII, and asking... why?
There's a pile of stuff in the 5DII that I'd love to have. Video isn't one of them.
What is it that I'm not getting?
-
What is it that I'm not getting?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The hype?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
geez... what a bunch of debbie downers.....
don't you guys feel the need to take your craft to the next level?
We live in such a fantastic time.... technology is advancing at such a fast pace that we can create visually or audibly just about anything our talent and minds can come up with.
If your a musician, photographer, film maker.... there is no excuse to not create and distribute some amazing creations!
The 5d2 is the 1st of it's kind.... a BRIDGE to allow some photographers to let things MOVE! The concept is so unlimiting... just imagine every photograph in your portfolio with some movement.... a moment in time limited to not just a fraction of a second, but 12 minutes!.... shot with all the skills and vision that you now already have.
the smirk and gaze of a beautiful model
the steam coming off a plate of food
the birds flying through a landscape
a caterpillar munching on a leaf
a wave crashing against the rocks
a rotational view of a classic European automobile
chriswitzke.com
-
Call me stupid, but I don't get it.
Art school guy; pro video producing/directing/editing for 25 years; amateur enthusiast landscape photography for 3 years. My video kit and my photography kit don't share anything -- not lighting, not DOF, not post suite, not tripods, not shooting technique, not storytelling, not even my brain.
I'm sitting here with my 5DI, looking at the spec sheet for the 5DII, and asking... why?
There's a pile of stuff in the 5DII that I'd love to have. Video isn't one of them.
What is it that I'm not getting?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What you are probably not getting is that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are never going to buy professional level video equipment but who occasionally want to record something in video which will at least be high resolution and low noise and perhaps close to broadcast quality and not technically too disappointing on playback.
Speaking from my own experience, I find that I don't use much the couple of VGA consumer grade videocams I've owned. I've thought of getting the Canon HV20 tape videocam which can record 24p or 25p, but was discouraged by reports that noise in poor light was pretty bad, as one would expect from a tiny sensor with tiny pixels.
I think there will be a large number of people who will be attracted to the idea of being able to take short clips which are clean and sharp with low noise and which don't require any additional equipment. The 5D2 is actually less expensive than the original 5D was when it was first released. I consider the video capability as a wonderful bonus. Why look a gifthorse in the mouth?
-
Call me stupid, but I don't get it.
I think you beat everyone to it
Art school guy; pro video producing/directing/editing for 25 years; amateur enthusiast landscape photography for 3 years. My video kit and my photography kit don't share anything -- not lighting, not DOF, not post suite, not tripods, not shooting technique, not storytelling, not even my brain.
Out of curiosity, what movies have you produced/directed/edited?
I'm sitting here with my 5DI, looking at the spec sheet for the 5DII, and asking... why?
Apparently those who were making the decisions asked a better question: Why not?
There's a pile of stuff in the 5DII that I'd love to have. Video isn't one of them.
What is it that I'm not getting?
In my judgment, there are two things you're not getting: (1) That your tastes/needs/desires are not representative of everyone on earth, only you; and (2) for precisely the reason you have to spend tens of thousands on video equipment/etc. ... and then tens of thousands on still equipment/etc. ... if a convergence of the two media into one tool ultimately becomes possible, not only will such technology enable you to spend less and do more, but it would also ultimately save an incredible amount of time as well.
If all the equipment needed can be contained in one tool, that fits in your hands, surely anyone but the most obtuse could see the liberating advantages of such incredible convenience? I mean, didn't you read what Vincent Laforet had to say?
It seems to me that not only did you not "get it," but you need help "getting" what you do not get. So I don't know if I have helped or made things worse for you
Jack
,
-
...
If all the equipment needed can be contained in one tool, that fits in your hands, surely anyone but the most obtuse could see the liberating advantages of such incredible convenience? I mean, didn't you read what Vincent Laforet had to say? ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224628\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, if Vince said it, who are we to disagree?
I am sure there are people, professionals, amateurs, who will put the new video feature to excellent use. I am equally sure that a lot of people who think they need or want it will find that they don't, be it because they don't have the computing power to contend with the amount of data that video shooting produces, be it because they discover they have less talent than, say, Vincent Laforet, to shoot video, or be it because they discover that more options actually stifle their creative impulses.
I, for one, do not believe that more options are always better. I believe that very often less is more, which is why I often shoot primes. Having less options often is a liberating experience for me. Also, I have a limited amount of time available for my hobby, photography. So, if I start dabbling in shooting video, I will have less time available for photography. Which means that I may become a so-so videographer at the expense of reducing my chances (slim as they may be ) of becoming a better photographer.
So, I agree that I am not everybody, and that there are different tastes and preferences. But I think it's way too early to see whether convergence is the new thing or whether it just serves as a temporary differentiator that is useful in marketing.
Karsten
-
Daws,
exactly what would you like to see in the 5D that's not there?
I think it's one hell of a camera, , but if I could make a wish-list;
crop-modes (1:1, 4:3, 4:5,....) in the viewfinder
higher dynamic range
more focus-points
higher fps
and better wide-angle leses (but that's beside the point)
Apart from the first, it's all take it or leave it. Having HD video is absolutely great. I concider myself a graphic designer first, a photographer second, and being able to make moving images with the same camera for 2500€ is absolutely mind-blowingly amazing.
I'm wondering though:
Is the video RAW? What format is it in, and how do you make changes to the images (color, exposure, etc..)?
-
Well, if Vince said it, who are we to disagree?
I am sure there are people, professionals, amateurs, who will put the new video feature to excellent use. I am equally sure that a lot of people who think they need or want it will find that they don't, be it because they don't have the computing power to contend with the amount of data that video shooting produces, be it because they discover they have less talent than, say, Vincent Laforet, to shoot video, or be it because they discover that more options actually stifle their creative impulses.
I, for one, do not believe that more options are always better. I believe that very often less is more, which is why I often shoot primes. Having less options often is a liberating experience for me. Also, I have a limited amount of time available for my hobby, photography. So, if I start dabbling in shooting video, I will have less time available for photography. Which means that I may become a so-so videographer at the expense of reducing my chances (slim as they may be ) of becoming a better photographer.
So, I agree that I am not everybody, and that there are different tastes and preferences. But I think it's way too early to see whether convergence is the new thing or whether it just serves as a temporary differentiator that is useful in marketing.
Karsten
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224647\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I really don't have a use for it either, but the flipside is what if I did have a use for it and it wasn't there? I would think a photojournalist would have the most use for this feature. They never know when they'll see something happen right in front of them, where a full video clip would be much better to capture than any still photo (and much more saleable).
I am sure George Lucas isn't going to be filming his next epic on a 5DMkII, but this does not make the feature less valuable to someone who might have a real use for it.
-
We just pre-ordered 4 for our production company and for my stills business. I ordered one for myself. I sent the LaForet video link to my partner (the film/video component of our production company) and he ordered 3 without asking me! It appears that the quality will be enough to slot into our Red and EX-1 footage.
Now with ZE lenses. Wow. $2700. Wow.
-
We just pre-ordered 4 for our production company and for my stills business. I ordered one for myself. I sent the LaForet video link to my partner (the film/video component of our production company) and he ordered 3 without asking me! It appears that the quality will be enough to slot into our Red and EX-1 footage.
Now with ZE lenses. Wow. $2700. Wow.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225012\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You can use it as a second cam for the Red One? You wrote "it appears"... referring to the Vincent LaForet video scenes?
-
I would say for purely commercial use, it will prove to be useful to those doing mostly commercial work, such as weddings. I doubt the still life, nude shooter will find it too appealing, since he or she has dedicated her life to a type of still photography. The two mediums are miles apart and take lifetimes to command. We'll probably see lots of mediocre photographers creating mediocre wedding movies as mediocre producers.
-
What is it that I'm not getting?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
IMO, cameras have always been made for marketing, and not necessarily for photographers.
Sometimes we like what they do and adopt it with enthusiasm.
Sometimes we wonder what is going on with those bozos.
Unfortunately, no matter what the end user always gets it in the end, as do taxpayers.
Be thankful for what you have, and really enjoy it while it lasts, because it's all over too soon anyway.
Be joyful, and don't obsess!
My 2 cents.
So long for now, TOM
-
I guess that I am now finally seeing clearly the main problem with this.
Today, there simply isn't a good outlet for high quality videos out there. The very problem Vincent was facing with bandwidth when he tried to find a way to post his 5DII video is going to hit all of us for another few years.
Youtube is a joke qualitywise, and a D90 will be plenty if that is the target outlet.
So OK, you are a serious photographer, perhaps a semi-pro selling prints from time to time, and you want to try out video for art applications (waves crashing,...). Fine, but short of playing them at home for your friends on your HD TV, what are you going to be doing with these contents?
My view is that the 5DII concept will never really take off until there are sites like Zenfolio that accept to invest enough in servers (we are talking at least an order of magnitude higher investements than with stills hosting) so that high quality cheap video hosting becomes a reality. I am not saying that we need full HD streaming, even 540x960 or so would do.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
RE: Video on the 5DII
I can't wait. I used to love shooting video for *personal* use. I have DVDs full of it, and my family watches them on a regular basis. Problem is, I'm now loaded down hauling my camera gear on my back and I can't think of any situation where I would choose to carry the DV camcorder over my camera.
So, the 5DII is going to be fantastic. For example, the next time I am watching, say, a bunch of whales, having the video capability is going to be a giant bonus.
-
That's what I think too. For the hobbyist or person who wants video to shoot the kids, it's a great deal.
One thing people are forgetting is that still life is a different medium with different methods and the result is altogether a different medium. Movies are not still and stills are not movies and each one is very different from the other.
-
Generally, if a camera is geared towards the professional, that professional wants his money invested in exactly what he is buying: still photography.
On the other hand: if you can produce professional quality video with it...
... if...
... it depends a lot on how you can handle a still camera for a video shoot, like focus pulling, etc...
You'd probably need to attach an external LCD - if there's an output to such a device on the camera.
-
Movies are not still and stills are not movies and each one is very different from the other.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225406\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've always been under the impression that movies consist of lots and lots of rather low resolution stills, shown quickly, one after the other.
-
Call me stupid, but I don't get it.
Art school guy; pro video producing/directing/editing for 25 years; amateur enthusiast landscape photography for 3 years. My video kit and my photography kit don't share anything -- not lighting, not DOF, not post suite, not tripods, not shooting technique, not storytelling, not even my brain.
I'm sitting here with my 5DI, looking at the spec sheet for the 5DII, and asking... why?
There's a pile of stuff in the 5DII that I'd love to have. Video isn't one of them.
What is it that I'm not getting?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't understand why people seem to be disappointed in the quality of the JPEGS. If you download 0716 and bring it into LR the quality and sharpness will knock your socks off. It's shot t 1/60 sec at f 2 ISO 1600. It's awesome.
-
I've always been under the impression that movies consist of lots and lots of rather low resolution stills, shown quickly, one after the other.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225433\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Which have a different effect than stills.
-
Movies are not still and stills are not movies and each one is very different from the other.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225406\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It used to be that video sensors were poor in capturing stills, and still camera sensors poor in capturing video.
Looks like that's no longer the case.
When you look at Vincent LaForet's "movie" (credits are twice as long as the, ahem, story), the quality looks very promising. Especially when you consider that it was shot at high ISO at night.
-
I currently use a 5D underwater. Has anyone actually seen the MkII alongside the original as I'd be very interested to hear whether the bodies are identical dimensionally and have the majority of their controls similarly placed? I am interested to know whether it is likely that the MkII will fit into a housing built for the original - as an example of previous model compatibility, the 1DS MkI and MkII were extremely similar but dimensions were in fact very slightly different; both could be used in the same housing with minor modification (a cardboard packer and slight adjustments to the control rods were required).