Someone @ CANON PR should get fired

[digitaldog]

NActually, I've seen worse Out-Of-Camera JPEGs from Canon on earlier occasions, so these are passable in comparison. Do they demonstrate the best possible, of course not, it would only disappoint less competent users ...

I agree. Hardly worth getting out the axes and pitchfork's for these images.

[BernardLanguillier]

It puzzles me that dedicated hobbyists seemingly can produce (simultaneously) technically and aestetically better picures from a given camera than billion dollar camera manufacturers can/will. Why don't they hire the top e.g. National Geographic photographers for a week with generous salary in order to create the most mind-blowing image files that money can buy?

1. Does Canon and friends see JPEG as the main thing their camera delivers, and the quality of OOC-Jpeg as the most important quality to show their customers?

On your point above, my view is that the main reason is relationships with some local photographers (no personal judgement on their qualities).

On the second point, do we know for a fact that these samples are out of camera jogs? My understanding was that they were jpgs that had been generated by the Canon raw converter?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Phil Indeblanc]

Very possible. I think I went on with something in the thread and stamped it jpeg sooc. strike that to be a possible. BUT, if they are, why would you not bring down the highlights? COME ON REF!!!??!  Maybe they were raw, then NO adjustment converted to jpeg? :-) this is going far! (I need a cross-eyed emoticon!)

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The eos5ds pictures look decent to me, 5DR less so.

Best regards
Erik

No they didn't:
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5ds/
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dsr/

Actually, I've seen worse Out-Of-Camera JPEGs from Canon on earlier occasions, so these are passable in comparison. Do they demonstrate the best possible, of course not, it would only disappoint less competent users ...

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

On the second point, do we know for a fact that these samples are out of camera jogs? My understanding was that they were jpgs that had been generated by the Canon raw converter?

Hi Bernhard,

On the files that I checked (with EXIFTool), there is no trace of auxiliary software being used to create the JPEGs. Canon's DPP software would write a mention of it having been used in the IFD0 tag of the EXIF data of the JPEG. If I'm not mistaken, Photoshop also leaves traces. Nothing to convince a court of law (we'd have to use at least an active file authentication/verification setup when shooting), but I do not see obvious evidence that leads to conclude that we are not dealing with OOC JPEGs.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The eos5ds pictures look decent to me, 5DR less so.

Hi,

It's hard to say from the images, but we also need to understand that data from 4.14 micron pitch sampled pixels looks different than from larger pitch pixels. For instance, the Hippo shot was maybe (don't know the size of the beast, so I'm guessing) shot at some 30-35 metres, which means that a single pixel represents 0.25 to 0.29 mm on the subject, which is in motion ... There was also no deconvolution Capture sharpening involved.

Smaller sensel pitches are also more affected by things like diffraction. At f/5.6 the diffraction pattern has a diameter of some 7.9 micron, which is already 91% larger than the sensels (if we assume 100% fill factor due to gap-less microlenses). So it already has a visible effect. Proper Capture sharpening is an absolute need before we even start contemplating to draw conclusions.

Cheers,
Bart

[Hans Kruse]

Hi,

The eos5ds pictures look decent to me, 5DR less so.

Best regards
Erik

If you download e.g. the Fantasy and import into Lightroom and use the default sharpening a=25, r=1.0, d=25, m=0 the details comes out nicely. If you on top of that edit for the shadows and highlights a bit then it starts looking a lot better. Actually something one would do in a real photo anyway. Surely having a RAW file and support in Lightroom it would look better. But I don't think the pictures deserve the harsh comments so many have given them here. The good thing is that I have always seen the actual quality from the Canon cameras as better than the introduction samples

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

.... But I don't think the pictures deserve the harsh comments so many have given them here. ...

Agreed. But then again, they come from the usual tire-kickers.

[David Anderson]

Really ? Where they that bad ??
I thought they did the job of demonstrating the resolving power of the new body pretty well and that was surely the point.
I've seen FAR worse images used to 'demonstrate' new gear. - especially from 3rd party reviewers.
(not on LuLu  )

As an example, if you want to show me a new wide angle lens, I want to see the quality of the corners more than want to see what it looks like hand held, at high ISO wide open. 

[zlatko-b]

Hi dear Collegues,

the current published images of the upcoming 5Ds from Canon are the worst I ever saw from a "professional camera company".
They are so bad that they have the power to draw potentially interested photographers away from the brand.
Whoever intiated this PR nightmare should get fired.
I´m speechless.

This is the forum equivalent of a hit and run crash.  Or more like criticize and run.  First we hear the photos are the "worst I ever saw" from a camera company and someone should get fired, and the OP is speechless because of how bad they are.  Then there's brief followup to say the photos are "sub par".  But no explanation as to why or how.  I took a look a the hippo photo and saw that it was excellent, immediately discrediting the OP's assertions.  I looked at the other photos, and they are certainly fine.   It's so darned easy to be a critic ... just say something is really bad and you're done!  Apparently being "speechless" can mean you can speak badly of someone else's work and not bother to give any reasoned thought or explanation to support the criticism.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

You are right, I was mostly relating to the "Hippopotamus" image, which is a bit oversharpened. The other two probably need a bit more sharpening.

The portrait shoot with the 5Ds is very nice.

Great pity they didn't post raw images.

Best regards
Erik

If you download e.g. the Fantasy and import into Lightroom and use the default sharpening a=25, r=1.0, d=25, m=0 the details comes out nicely. If you on top of that edit for the shadows and highlights a bit then it starts looking a lot better. Actually something one would do in a real photo anyway. Surely having a RAW file and support in Lightroom it would look better. But I don't think the pictures deserve the harsh comments so many have given them here. The good thing is that I have always seen the actual quality from the Canon cameras as better than the introduction samples

[Rhossydd]

It's so darned easy to be a critic ... just say something is really bad and your done! 

Welcome to the internet.

This is the forum equivalent of a hit and run crash.  Or more like criticize and run.

Actually THIS forum is actually rather good. If you read through here properly and follow what is written, it has a far better signal to noise ratio and quality of contribution than most internet forums.