Equipment 5D II

Vers, all due respect, but have you seen the D3 at 6400 iso? Because to me it looks better than the 1Ds, but I am biased. I will give you the IQ though. Either way they are all fantasic cameras. Wow....its amazing how far the technology has come. I cant image what it will be in 3 more years....

 

Maybe on paper, but I've NEVER seen the D3 lose to anything in terms of noise levels for an equal exposure.

I certainly HOPE that the improvements in the 5DII allow it to match or beat the D3 or other high-end Nikons, but until I see evidence that it's happened, Nikon has the edge in that department as far as I'm concerned. I don't care what kind of voodoo they're working behind the scenes. It could be lucky guesswork for all I care. If I look at the two side-by-side, one will win.

Honestly they're all getting close enough in the high-end bodies that it's starting to barely matter, especially with how much more you can clean it up in post. My biggest concerns are the features that allow me to actually get the shot - FPS, AF performance, and actually being able to HIT the exposure. I'll take getting the shot with the noise of ISO25600 over not getting the shot at all, no question.

 

There are like 5 posts in this thread, all from you vers telling us all how much better the 5DMKII is better then Nikons flagship D3, and D700, when you havent even seen a direct comparison. Give the '5DMKII defense' a rest.

I'll aggree with Firehed on this one.

 

More to the point, I use my cameras in the real world, not DPreview's labs. While we can argue the 1/4 stop here and there at ISO 64000000000 I can tell you no one will see a noticeable difference at normal viewable, or printable sizes. Put a D700 image next to a 5DmkII image in the New York Times and you'll never know. Put a MkIII next to a D3 in a 1/4, 1/2 page or even double truck in Sports Illustrated and you'll never know.

I haven't zoomed 100% into an image in over a year. Shhhh, no one tell the people that pay me that. And they don't even know that it's just 12mp and out dated.

 

Guess it's down to what your existing system/investment is, reliability and servicing.

Unfortunately my investment is in Canon, I say unfortunately as their service has been shockingly bad . . . but their are strong alternative candidates now, with the Nikon and Sony offerings. And nikon were in tune with the focussing adjustment and test issues much earlier than Canon . . . I'm not even sure Canon have got to grips with it yet, and were still blaming the customer last time I spoke with them, rather than accepting responsibility for their service centres approach of ignoring official canon service guidelines and intead making up their own non-standard tests and methods (with predictable results - they mucked up eos cameras/systems). Their inappropriate testing methods also puts into doubt claims Canon made about the extent of focussing issues with their products.

 

Greg, you've missed my point. Perhaps you should go back and read my previous post as well as look at the link. The reason why Nikon's high ISO looks so great is due to in camera NR and color blending. If you look at side by side crops you will see the loss of detail the D3 has in comparison. When NR is turned completely off and the sample sizes are uprezzed to the exact same size the D3 appears better at first, until you adjust the 1DsIII file to match the color of the D3 file--that is where you see the difference.

 

To be fair, Nikon does advise against using the AF fine tune (D3 Manual, page 358) stating to only use it when necessary. In my usage, it actually can make things worse unless you have the patience to spend 4 hours shooting and comparing settings. I spoke to a Nikon tech here in Jozie and when people bring in body/lens combos that have AF fine tune and focusing issues, the first thing he does is clear the settings. 9 times out of 10 the solves the problem.

 

:care face: So you have to change the Canon image to see the difference between the Canon and Nikon image? Heh? I hope you don't mind me pointing out that by default Canon images have more sharpening than Nikon images straight out of the camera.

I'm going with this ;

 

You are soooo fired! I'm telllllinnnnggg!!

Honestly, from all sides of the fanboy camp (I hear it all day long from a couple Nikon ******s I call good friends because I shoot with Canon) - nowadays it has hit the point that a camera is a camera is a camera. You buy what fits your hands, fits your menu and control style, and get shooting. All the "perfect whooziewhuzzy micro gapping merfnurbles" is, let's be honest, nada but tech jargon. It's great that they built a better camera - but people who actually DO photography rather than talk about it don't upgrade bodies for the hell of it. We get used to the one we have and learn to use it, inside and out.

Because of that, nearly EVERYONE in this thread only upgrades for two reasons: 1) The old one breaks, or 2) we actually really need a feature (be it sensor size, super-high ISO or whatever) of the next model up.

Nobody runs out and buys a 5D as their first camera. Or a D3. Or a 1D Mk ANYTHING. So the Canon vs. Nikon argument is pretty much moot - by the time a camera of this level is in your sights, you're already subscribed to a lens system.

With that in mind, can't we just all put our willies away and go "YAY improved technology!" as photographers rather than gearheads?

 

NEVAAA

 

Really? Do you even understand what I said? Nikon uses IN CAMERA editing (NR+Color Blending) in order to get such good high ISO results...if you alter the color of the 1DsIII file in PP, you are essentially getting the same result as what the D3 does IN camera only the 1DsIII file looks just as good ISO wise with better resolution. Get it now? As for sharpening--the tests showed sharpening at 0 in both Canon and Nikon bodies.

At the end of the day I wouldn't mind having either body--both are outstanding performers, but I felt I may as well make my point clear to those who worship the D3's high ISO quality--sometimes there is a bit of smoke and mirrors many don't pick up on.

 

Why can't we be both?

 

You are exactly right about all of this. Ands its exactly why more Photojournalists use Nikon and Portraiture tends to use Canon. With deadlines, etc, you need to be able to have images ready immediately off of the camera. If you are shooting pictures of the newborn baby, you will take the time to clean it up properly.

And yeah as I said....wow technology.

 

[tangent]Well, its tough to determine what type of photographer uses what make of camera...I'd say there are more Canon shooters overall based on consumer reports. The only fields I can think of where the greater number clearly leans one way or another is sports and wildlife photography and judging from the price and quality of Canon's long glass its no surprise. Nikon, however, with the release of some great equipment is sure to close that gap a bit.[/tangent]

 

JJ, the weather seals on the 5DII are rated to handle practically the same amount of rain as a 1 series. TBH I'm not sure why its not designated as 'weatherproof'.

 

5DII Samples. Very impressive for a pre-production model. From those who have used the pre-production model they have all said the AF seems much quicker--even though it is the same AF system as the original. Hopefully this is the case, but it is too bad the AF points were not arranged in a wider spread

Something like this: 13pt, all x-type

x----------x----------x
-----x------------x----
x----------x----------x
-----x------------x----
x----------x----------x

 

How much rain is that? I took my 400D outside in rain a couple of times and I never had problems. Granted I wasn't dropping it in puddles and it wasn't a torrential downpour, but my biggest concern was getting crap on the front of the lens because this was the hood-less kit lens.

 

.4" (10mm) of rain per 3 minutes.

 

Shot taken at ISO25,600 but also at 1/8000S. As some of the comments on that flickr page have said, I'd like to see some low-light shots where this would really be useful (1/60s or lower at ISO25,600). Its a clean shot for what it is, but the lighting is extremely favorable.

This was also mentioned on the flickr page, but there's banding issues in the lower middle-to-right portion of the image. If you download the original you can see (no I'm not pixel peeping either, probably viewing it at 30% on my 24").

Addendum: Banding is visible to 12.5% of the original size. At 8% (what is shown on the flickr page) it is hardly discernable.

 

Going swimming, then. Yeah, I don't think the 400d would have survived that