Canon Camera in Good Review by Arkady Shocker!!!

[Arkady]

One of the drivers here at work just bought a 2nd hand EOS 5D, which I had a chance to play with for a bit. Quite nice ergonomics, I thought, which would be better if the battery pack/grip were attached (so he's buying one).
Still can't get on with using the thumbwheel in manual-mode as I guess I'm too used to the Nikon's sub-command dials, but it worked OK.
Quite liked also the AF set-up, which seemed to work a bit better than the D2x (though with the new firmware update it's supposed to be better - we'll see) and the fact that it's full-frame 12mpi (I think...?) instead of 10.2mpi DX sized.

After a bit of quich coaching, Daz is now shooting RAW and below is one of his efforts (of me on the NBC shoot last week at Pirbright); I may have over-sharpened it just a tad as I couldn't see what level of in-camera sharpening was used.

I still think the Nikon renders colours better straight out of the box, but with a bit of practice I think I could live with this camera if I wasn't doing it for a living in the places I go to.

 

[Diego Garcia]

Nice summary.

I had one but moved it on to fund another Mark II N. Really is a great camera and I concur on adding the battery pack.

Horses for courses in the handling I think, as I was using a D2X the other night and confused me no end but I do love the Nikon delete button. Very intuitive.

PQ quality is superb, absolutely superb

 

[dod]

PQ quality is superb, absolutely superb

Two questions Diego:
1. Better than the 1D MkII?
2. Have you compared the 5D against the 1Ds MkII for PQ?

 

[mho]

Two Questions
1. Better than the 1D MkII?

I can answer this, as I have had one briefly. They are totally diffrent as the sensors etc are vastly diffrent, but the 5D gives sharper (straight from camera) and slightly less noisy images, you especially notice the lack of noise in the shadows. After running through your work flow you will be hard pushed to see a diffrence as the 1dmk2 is no slouch when it comes to image quality, just slightly noisier but you wont notice it for 99% of work.

2. Have you compared the 5D against the 1Ds MkII for PQ?

The same can be said for image quality over the 1Dsmk2, which is noisier and this is noticable, but again diffrent chips and 4mp more. As for sharpness etc the 5D is sharper and a more usable image without any work, When the 1Dsmk2 files are run through the work flow they are again superb, but the 5D is slightly better on noise. Usable at higher Iso.

The All these cameras need good glass to bring the best out of them.

You have to remember all the 3 cameras mentioned

5D
1Dmk2n
1Dsmk2

are totally diffrent from diffrent years of manufacture and made and designed for diffrent use's. The chip technology as advanced quite a lot since the 1Dsmk2 was made.

If I had a choice from all three I would go 1 series as that is what fit's my needs etc.

But purley on image quality. I would go 5D.

As they say, horse's for course's. Its all subjective. My 2cents.

 

[Arkady]

My buying criteria are somewhat different - image quality, though important, takes a back-seat to build-quality and ease of use. I have seen Canons go t*ts-up in Afghanistan and for that reason alone I'll stick with Nikon as it's a proven (to me) system.
I find the Nikon more intuitive as I've used them for 26 years, but if I were starting from scratch, I would have a serious look at the 5D over the D200.
I think that the 1DsMkII with it's 16mpi gives a too-unwieldy file-size for all but home/studio use - I'd stick with the 10-12 mpi models. The Canon here gives a much cleaner image than my Nikon, but I still prefer the Nikon's colour rendition, as I mentioned at the top.
It's like the differences between Agfa, Kodak and Fuji film and the debates that raged over all of those, back in the day.

 

[Diego Garcia]

Two questions Diego:
1. Better than the 1D MkII?
2. Have you compared the 5D against the 1Ds MkII for PQ?

Mark has answered exactly as I would of.

Hand on heart, the PQ of the 5 is better, albeit in a different way. The N is more filmic to my eyes and I love it as much.

I was slightly worried about the 1600/3200 noise of the N after owning the 5 but it is fine imo and as ever a poorly exposed shot will extract more noise anyhow, irrespective of the body/make.

Ideally, now a camera with the PQ of the 5D but the machinery of the N will be next and I hear that Jan 07 will see the 17 mp new baby from Canon announced, with built in wireless tranmittor.

 

[Diego Garcia]

My buying criteria are somewhat different - image quality, though important, takes a back-seat to build-quality and ease of use. I have seen Canons go t*ts-up in Afghanistan and for that reason alone I'll stick with Nikon as it's a proven (to me) system.
I find the Nikon more intuitive as I've used them for 26 years, but if I were starting from scratch, I would have a serious look at the 5D over the D200.
I think that the 1DsMkII with it's 16mpi gives a too-unwieldy file-size for all but home/studio use - I'd stick with the 10-12 mpi models. The Canon here gives a much cleaner image than my Nikon, but I still prefer the Nikon's colour rendition, as I mentioned at the top.
It's like the differences between Agfa, Kodak and Fuji film and the debates that raged over all of those, back in the day.

Cool. I am happy to admit that I do slightly prefer to colour out Nikon cameras.

 

[mho]

If the 5D had been released in weather sealed body (ala. 1 series) it would have been up for serious consideration.

 

[dod]

Ta guys, interesting

The All these cameras need good glass to bring the best out of them.

I tried the 1Ds MkII with a 70-200 F2.8IS and loved the handling and build but hated the picture. As you say it was noisy, even at ISO200, comparing against the 20D.

 

[mho]

Ta guys, interesting


I tried the 1Ds MkII with a 70-200 F2.8IS and loved the handling and build but hated the picture. As you say it was noisy, even at ISO200, comparing against the 20D.

At 200 iso it shouldn't have been noisy, and should have been the same as the 20D, it usually kicks in around the 400 iso and up, but not to that extent, upto 800 is perfectly acceptable, above that it gets a bit noticable.

 

[antonroland]

Arkady
Would you elaborate (or anybody else who is willing) on how one can get better colour out of the Canon images.

Not meaning to hijack the thread but would like some input on that as I have also noticed the Nikon images to have punchier colour.

With regards to the 5D vs 1Ds Mk II SCENARIO I would like to venture that the 5D should have the noise edge on the 1Ds simply because imho it comes down to less(bigger) pixels over the same area:shrug:

Any takes on that??

 

[ASH]

Arkady
Would you elaborate (or anybody else who is willing) on how one can get better colour out of the Canon images.

Not meaning to hijack the thread but would like some input on that as I have also noticed the Nikon images to have punchier colour.

With regards to the 5D vs 1Ds Mk II SCENARIO I would like to venture that the 5D should have the noise edge on the 1Ds simply because imho it comes down to less(bigger) pixels over the same area:shrug:

Any takes on that??

If you mean in camera and you have a 5D, have a look at page 55 of the instruction manual. There it tells you how to adjust the sharpness, contrast, colour saturation, and colour tone.

 

[mho]

how one can get better colour out of the Canon images.

Have done or profile the camera with regards to either building a custom profile (icc file) you use in your particular RAW editor, or make camera defaults in your RAW editor specific for each camera you own.

There are various ways of doing this, a google search will shed more light on the situation

With regards to the 5D vs 1Ds Mk II SCENARIO I would like to venture that the 5D should have the noise edge on the 1Ds simply because imho it comes down to less(bigger) pixels over the same area:shrug:

Yes the size and the spacing of the pixels has a major effect on the picture, as does how strong the AA filter is over the sensor, which chip it is, how much the camera costs, what it is going to be used for, which model camera it is going into, what the circuitry / firmware / algorithems does to the picture etc. Also the 1Dsmk2 is old for a digital camera now, you have to realise when it was made nothing came even close to that sort of output and quality, only now is it being riveled for quality etc. In 6 months the 5D may not have the edge any more it may be the 1Dsmk3 / 1dsmk2n / 5dmk2 / 3D who knows.

Then their is the question of which RAW converter you use, as they all will give diffrent converted files even when the settings in each one are the same, as they all use diffrent processing algorithems and profiles for the cameras etc.

 

[CT]

After a bit of quich coaching, Daz is now shooting RAW and below is one of his efforts (of me on the NBC shoot last week at Pirbright); I may have over-sharpened it just a tad as I couldn't see what level of in-camera sharpening was used.

What's cooking got to do with it?

Sharpening looks spot on to me.

 

[kissfoto]

I'm still using my old Kodak DCS 620 based on Nikon F5 and also DCS 520 based on EOS 1 and I love um even though they are only 2MP. I like the colour and the film like quality of the images (I always used 400ASA film anyways). I will replace when they die but don't see any reason to change now as I am happy with them. I have a Canon 10D which is great for other things but not as robust and reliable as these 'obsolete' heavyweights.

This image was taken at 400ASA and looks good to me. :bonk:

 

[Arkady]

Arkady
Would you elaborate (or anybody else who is willing) on how one can get better colour out of the Canon images.

Not meaning to hijack the thread but would like some input on that as I have also noticed the Nikon images to have punchier colour.

As I'm not a Canon user I'm not really qualified to give you a definitive answer on that - there are probably ways of fine-tuning the settings to get what you're after, but the main issue is that for me, the colours appear better out of the box on Nikons than on this camera.

You could spend hours developing custom profiles and such, but why should you? If the Nikon does it right as default, why go to all the effort?

It's all subjective - as I say, the colours on a Nikon look right to my eye - other people expect different things.

I do think the D5 is a very good camera for the money though, but at that price-point it goes up against the D2x in real terms - I saw a retailer advertising them at £2200 for body-only this week. I know which I'd drop two and a half 'K' on...

 

[dod]

At 200 iso it shouldn't have been noisy, and should have been the same as the 20D, it usually kicks in around the 400 iso and up, but not to that extent, upto 800 is perfectly acceptable, above that it gets a bit noticable.

You're right, I checked last night and it was 400, my mistook :embarrassed:

 

[chuckles]

Arky ..... I think you ought to find a couple of Aspirins!

 

[Arkady]

Pourqoui?