5D Mark II Hands on Preview

[p...@adobeforums.com]

Here:

<http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos5dmarkII>

[L...@adobeforums.com]

Yay! Thank you for sharing.

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

Nothing about the image quality is it better then the 1Ds Mark III or just the same old thing bigger but not better.

Sometimes less is more.

But of course one really has to wait and see.d find out that more pixels does not mean a better image.

I will be very curious to see if they rush ahead again just to satisfy the numbers race requirements.

BTW Linda it is not an amazing camera until it is proven to be so so wait before you buy.

You'll probably buy it anyway.

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

BTW Linda I do not mean to say you should not buy the camera if it is going to be a revenue producing tool then you have to buy it but make certain you will need to do so if you do not have then it is fine.

So I am clear on this point this is what I would and will do if this camera proves to match the performance to of the D3 and the Shift Tilt lens is revised to match the performance of the Nikkor PC lens which is a classic. I would drop the $3000 for it and purchase an updated Canon Tilt Shift lens but only if the lens is updated and the image quality and low noise improvements were made. I would be walking around with two systems but so what.

You do what you have to do.

But if I found that the Canon out preformed the Nikon then I would quickly scrap the Nikon either selling it or donating it to a school. Or a friend.

In professional world it is about be careful and thorough and maintaining high standards and doing what has to be done to get the job done.

I hope you appreciate that what I write has nothing to do with concept that my way is better then your way it is just what makes the most sense. I for the most part have given up the 5x4 because I have a camera that works for me better. Other wise i would still be shooting 5x4 with film.

I;'ll say one more thing unless it is a real dog then purchasing the camera for you will be profitable even if I or other people find it does not suit them.

Of course there is the factor I want it.

I just think that Canon rushes the technology and does not do very good homework.

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

excellent camera : )

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

I would say from those results Linda should buy it I might one myself.

The first one shows little noise but it is very little.

It looks good.

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

Also looks like Larry Todie likes it.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Very good news and it will probably be Ann's second digital Camera now
she have two systems. >

Actually it won't be!

That is because I prefer to stick with the SAME platform and System in any particular format.

That way, I can just work faster; more instinctively and (MOST importantly) carry less equipment.

For example, if Olympus had produced a decent quality DSLR, which accepted my collection of OM Zuiko lenses, I probably would have bought one a long time ago. By not doing so, they lost their existing and extensive customer base for ever.

I reckon that I just am not into equipment-collecting per se?!

8/

[-sh...@adobeforums.com]

...if Olympus had produced a decent quality DSLR, which accepted my collection

of OM Zuiko lenses, I probably would have bought one a long time ago.

Same for me, except with my Contax 35mm cameras.
:(

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

And if Lieca was what it used to be well!

I would still probably buy the D700 as a back up if they do not come out with the D3x.

Anyway I am returning to Paris then a brief trip to Milan and Venice. So I have more important things to concern myself with and Canon did not introduce this at this time just to be first. I think Nikon is about to blow the roof the house.

[Peter...@adobeforums.com]

shep -

I've got a couple of those Zeiss lenses adapted to Canon with the CameraQuest adatpers. They work great. Especially that fantastic 21mm Distagon. Manual focus and aperture of course, but amazing images. There are some folks who are adapting some of the Zeiss mid-range zooms over the Canon and retaining both auto aperture and auto focus. Just a thought for you...

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

Does that work with Nikon?

[Peter...@adobeforums.com]

For Nikon you have to buy the current Zeiss lenses already offered in a Nikon mount. The Canons are so adaptable because they have a shorter register (lens flange to film plane) distance than most other mounts and a wider mouth lens opening. You can't adapt the Contax/Zeiss mounted lenses to Nikon and keep infinity focus. And so far, there is no newer equivalent to the 21mm Distagon.

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

I am looking into a wide field Cambo anyway and the 24mm Nikkor PC (tilt Shift lens is a classic anyway!

But if i am correct being able to a 24mm lens on the Cambo which can take a Leaf back with a full 6x4.5 sensor would really make my day since it can be all put in a ordinary carrying case with wheels I can probably get it in the same case I cary the D3 in.

But is-f they made a 21mm tilt shift lens that would be ideal as well.

[Peter...@adobeforums.com]

I'm almost certain you will virtually no movements on the medium format sensor. This has been the biggest problem in ultra wide architectural or anything needing shift. Even the 28 is marginal. Look at the image circles and the diameter of the frame. The math does not add up yet. And the closer to full frame P65 only makes that worse.

[-sh...@adobeforums.com]

I've got a couple of those Zeiss lenses adapted to Canon with the CameraQuest
adatpers.

Thanks for the info, Peter. Unfortunately---in this case---when I went digital, I decided to go Nikon. So, barring a switch-over to Canon, perhaps one day I'll put 'em on eBay or something someday...or I'll drop you an email if I decide to unload them. :)

The ones I have are anywhere from 20 to 30 years old, but they're pristine---always took extreme care of my lenses. I literally wore out two RTSIII bodies though. %( XD

I still have an RTSIII body in quite good shape, a relatively new RX body, 50mm 1.4 Planar, 28mm 2.8 Distagon and a 135mm 2.8 Sonnar. They all served me quite well. Always felt I had to be very careful with the Contax bodies though---they seemed to be very delicate to me---but I think they were more hearty than I gave them credit for. Not quite as hearty as the first decent camera I ever had, an old Canon fTb---I could've played baseball with that thing. :)

[L...@adobeforums.com]

Based on the samples LT linked to, I probably won't be upgrading this time around. The images may be bigger than the 5D but I'm not sure they are that much better. I want to see the same dynamic range and quality of details as the D3.

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

I re-looked at that Linda and I think you are correct. It now appears to me to be the same as the upgrade to the 1Ds Mark III which is also not impressive. I think if their user base does not upgrade then they will be forced to work harder and produce the quality product that their professional users need. Good approach.

I wanted to be able to upgrade my mac at the end of 2009 but unless the 8 core run faster with photoshop then I will have to leave what I have and go to a windows box for speed at least for video.

Thanks Peter that was what I was afraid of I can however get what I want most of the time with the D3 and the 24MM Nikkor PC which is going to be a classic lens. I am Going to go take a look at if in person at Calumet. But if the image circle is not large enough for shifting it is of no use just a great deal of money for nothing.

I met a you photographer who was using a digital back on a 2 1/4 view camera made for the digital workflow, I forget which one. he had a 35mm view lens and I think a leaf back.

that would easily have cover the building without tilting as the image circle gave him plenty of room. The problem was the physical size of the rear elements housing was so large it prevented you from shifting at all. I don't even know how he was able to mount the lens in the first place.

When I got the 24mm Nikkor PC I was easily able to cover the building from about fifty feet closer to the building. He could have accomplished what he wanted to with either the D# or the Canon 1 Ds Mark III or the 5D. There was no need to waste all that money.

Thank you for the heads up on the Wide Field Cameras. They are quite and expensive set up.

[Peter...@adobeforums.com]

We tested a 24mm Digitar at Samy's on an Alpa body with a P45 back a few months ago and were not impressed. Not nearly as sharp as the 35 Digitar, which is a VERY nice lens. The 35 Digitar also has a larger image circle and reasonable movements. This again was all on a P45 which is a slightly smaller chip than the newer yet to be released P65. The paradox being you have effectively wider lens field of view with even less movement available.

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

It might still be promising for the next go around.

Digitar =Rodenstock?

[PSh...@adobeforums.com]

Linda -

Based on the samples LT linked to, I probably won't be upgrading this
time around. The images may be bigger than the 5D but I'm not sure they
are that much better.

Look at the higher ISO samples. ISO 6400 of the 5D II is better than the original 5D's 1600! The higher ISOs also appear to be a bit better than the 1Ds MK III and equal to the Nikon D3. The sensor of the 5D II is supposedly very similar of the 1Ds III, but it uses a new Digic IV processor, which is probably responsible for the difference.

I want to see the same dynamic range and quality of details as the D3.

How do you know they aren't comparable?

Anecdotal observations on web forum are meaningless without a direct comparison of the competition -- of the same exact scene, under the same exact conditions. I've yet to find any concrete evidence that the D3 has "greater dynamic range", than the mid-high end DSLR Canons. Better ISO performance - absolutely (prior to the 5D II it appears), but not better dynamic range. If anyone knows a source for such a comparison, please let me know.

In terms of "detail" even your 3 yr-old 5D holds its own against the D3.
<http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD3/page26.asp>

I'm not trying to talk you into upgrading, but the improvements in the 5D II are pretty substantial compared to your current 5D - much more than a mere pixel bump.

Far better ISO performance
21 megapixels - yes, there are real advantages to having greater resolution
Larger, higher resolution LCD
Auto ISO (sadly, doesn't work in manual mode)
Auto sensor cleaning
Better viewfinder coverage
LIve View
HD (1080p !) movie creation

There's more but you should do your own investigating.

This camera won't make you a better photographer, but what it WILL do is give you more options (options are always a good thing). I know It will be replacing my 1Ds MK II as soon as they are available. (which probably means a few months after they're released - plenty of time for user reports)

-phil

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

and the images in that link are only representing an afternoon walk
(to impress amateur wedding photographers who use the camera's default settings exclusively)

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

It still exhibits a problem I saw with the 1Ds Mark II and the 5D where there is color noise in the dark colors a green magenta modeling the color is polluted in general not like the D3 or the D700.

I believe that the comparison of the sharpness of the canon to the D3 was done not in exactly a scientific way I read a brief note somewhere that the observer noted that the Cannon may have had a bit too much sharpening applied in the camera.

In other words you can stand on your head and do flips but you can't make some that is not rue true you can only make it seem to be with magic tricks and we all know there is no magic.

Rushing to judgment is I agree not a good thing but proclaiming a camera as being an advancement without ever getting your hands on one is not wise.

One has to keep in mind that these are jpegs and you usually see images form the D3 from a raw file. However what convinced me was that I saw some images posted of the D3 that were shot as jpeg and they did not exhibit this problem. So i tried it I have several images I shot of a project that were captured as jpeg and I was surprised to not see this problem using the D3 in the field. That really convinced me to buy it.

As far as casually shooting images on an afternoon walk or not could mean a really nice fee gone down the drain. Perhaps Larry Todie can afford to spend $3,000 on a camera and not return a profit but to me there is no such thing as casually shooting.

But I will offer my blessing to you larry and your hobbies expensive as they may be.

You should keep in mind that Linda is using her equipment for professional purposes
if she already has what she m=needs and no real compelling reason to upgrade then she may want to put the money elsewhere. It is an improvement no doubt about it. But I would not pass judgment on it until I got my hands on it and I will test it then and make my judgment based on the performance under the condition I use the cameras.

BTW Phil reading specs are meaningless you have to test it in the field.

My feeling n the Camera is that it is a fine piece of professional equipment but the next go around is probably what Linda wants. Though I think she should rent one or borrow one first after they become available.

[Peter...@adobeforums.com]

"It still exhibits a problem I saw with the 1Ds Mark II and the 5D where there is color noise in the dark colors a green magenta modeling the color is polluted"

Having shot over thirty thousand frames with a 1DsMK2, that's something I've never seen. The images you refer too - how were they shot and more importantly, how were they processed - what ISO, what raw processor, what post processing?

None of us can know yet exactly what the 5DMK2 will be like in our hands as it's not here yet. What we can do is extrapolate based on our previous experience with current Canon cameras. Based on that, I'd be willing to guess that this will be quite an impressive camera.

What I see all too much of is people who have purchased one brand slamming another based on rumor or incorrect or incomplete information. The first samples posted on line have never been historically representative of the product. Most of the pre-production testers do not appear to know how to conduct a realistic comparison between past and present models or even between different makers, and should just be looked at as the first samples. I would not let them enter into my equation for purchase.

When the 5DMK2 hits the stores in a month or two, go to your local vendor and shoot your own tests and decide for yourself.

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

What Peter said.

These online "testers" seem fixated on shooting jpeg. Somehow they figure this gives a true representation of the camera as it uses camera defaults to post-process the image.

Personally I don't know anyone who is half-serious about their photography who shoots jpeg. They all shoot raw, which immediately nullifies these reviews/tests as far as their real-world experience with the camera in question will be. It's not news that jpeg, both in the camera and particularly at reduced size for the web totally screws images from what reality provides in raw form (and with some proper post-processing) from the camera.

I'd expect that the 5D2 will be a darn sight better in real life than any of the garbage "test" results that have been posted on the web, as is (and I'm speaking from experience here) the D3. In fact, if the 5D2 is as much better as the D3 proved to be in real use, it will be an awesome camera indeed, and will leave many panting in anticipation of a 1Ds4. It will also cause further consternation for the manufacturers of over-priced and under-performing MF cameras such as Hasselblad, whose restrictive systems are rapidly becoming irrelevant in the world of working photographers.

[Peter...@adobeforums.com]

Fred,

You got a spare forty grand usd for a P65? Yeah. Me too.

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

Peter, I wonder at what point that reality is going to dawn on Phase One, Hasselblad et al?

As an average working photographer, in film days I always ran Hasselblad and sometimes Mamiya MF systems which was essential in those days. However the D3 is so far ahead of the best I ever extracted from the Hasselblad that I see no reason to go down the heavy, cumbersome, zoom-free zone that is digital MF these days just so I can avoid occasional moderate upsampling.

[Allen...@adobeforums.com]

The bad news is that test shots from prototype cameras are meaningless. Only hands-on usage of production cameras has any relevance.

The good news is that pix from production cameras are usually better than those from prototypes.

Digicam image capture continues to improve. Nice.

[John_V...@adobeforums.com]

These online "testers" seem fixated on shooting jpeg.

The testers had no choice!

There's not one 5DII raw converter available for them to use. Even Canon didn't supply a raw converter for the testers.

[L...@adobeforums.com]

But looks like there's a focus issue... Hope it's not the camera and just
the photog's fault.

This is what I am seeing. It strikes me as some sort of built in blurring filter to reduce noise. When viewed at 100% pixels there is very little detail in the skin and eyes.

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1h4GBJ8h7xb5l2Zy710w01uRGJdBt1>

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

Which demonstrates exactly my point - if the examples of a review are compromised by having the camera automatically and uncontrollably dial in a large amount of NR there is no way of truly judging whether the noise improvement is actually at sensor and firmware level or is just a result of a more sophisticated NR program.

Through this softened result you can also make out colour banding in the few dark areas, which makes it even more important that a raw file is examined before any great proclamations as to the degree of improvement in the camera's hardware are made.

Being entirely cynical of all manufacturers, I find the astonishing lack of provision of a raw converter by Canon for even its own people to use to be highly suspicious in this instance, to say the least.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

LRK,

there is very little detail in the skin and eyes.

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1h4GBJ8h7xb5l2Zy710w01uRGJdBt1>

Not to mention some horrendous blotchiness on the skin under the eyes, a hideous orange cast and zero details in the eyebrows.

I still wouldn't count this camera out. It wouldn't be the first time that a camera manufacturer or a lens tester puts out bad examples of images produced with a given piece of equipment.

[John_V...@adobeforums.com]

It strikes me as some sort of built in blurring filter to reduce noise.

When viewed at 100% pixels there is very little detail in the skin and
eyes.

Could be the noise reduction kicking in...but looks like image is out of focus for the most part.

I think we are going to have to wait until there are in focus tripod mounted tests using real production models. With the above image I'm not sure what part of the model the photog focused on. Almost looks like the top of her head, in back, is in focus - so focus is behind her face.

[John_V...@adobeforums.com]

This image here at 6400 is impressive...eyelashes seem sharp:

<http://www.lovegroveconsulting.com/5D2_high_res_jpegs/Canon5DMk2-15.jpg>

The splochiness that Ramón pointed out could just be the models skin, as it looks like she's not wearing makeup.

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

Shooting with the 24mm tilt shift with the 5D I was shooting with a zoom lens of 24mm to I think 120mm but I am not certain. Sorry Peter if you are happy with your investment that is fine but I got a lot of edge fringing that sometimes Lightroom or acr could not completely correct and I had to go in and correct it manually.

My subjects are buildings in general and they usually have lots of hard edges. This is not the problem with the D3 with their new 24mm PC lens or the old 28 mm pC lens.

I had lots of noise on long exposures =especially in low light conditions. These are complaints no different then a lot of users have expressed so it is not news to you.

I also saw a lot of color noise a greenish to magenta modeling on dark and sometimes on light colors, not something I see on the dark colors.

Linda can attest to the quality of the capture I received from the D3
when shooting a Mall interior and the dynamic range she observed even if they where not full resolution images I sent.

Sorry about this but there is a big difference with D3 and the 1Ds Mark II and the 5D.

I like the cameras but they would be better if they address image quality and balanced the camera better as well.

Rent a D3 and see what you think,don't want to rent a D3 rent a D700.

I would be curious to see what you think being a Cannon user.

BTW many of the reviews by user that I read praising the D3 where by former users of the Cannon 1Ds Mark II & III and the 5D. That was something that I could not actually believe
but I saw no reason for them to misinform. So I tried the camera myself and I was really pleased.

It may not be for you Peter but it might give you something to urge Cannon to also achieve. It would do the Cannon owners a great service if you pressured them to equal the efforts.

Keep in mind I was very critical of Nikon Digital Cameras at first and said they were not doing enough and it seems they have responded so I think this is possible for Cannon as well.

[Peter...@adobeforums.com]

Canon has one "n".

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

focus doesn't have any : )

[John Joslin]

Digicam image capture continues to improve

You all know about "Red" of course?

<http://www.red.com/>

[L...@adobeforums.com]

Look at this comparison:

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1NWfvuXEWtm00cNfp7UQGBeROvZAq0>

Nikon Screen Shot Samples from the Nikon D3 <http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/nikond3_samples/>

[PSh...@adobeforums.com]

Completely and utterly meaningless.

In the first place you're comparing the Nikon's ISO 200 image to the Canon's ISO 6400 image. There is a loss of sharpness that occurs with increased ISO - regardless of camera.

Secondly, these are two completely different lighting conditions. A dark hallway will always be more challenging than outdoors in open shade. (hence, the higher ISO of the Canon shot)

And lastly, the Canon image is OUT OF FOCUS. Why it's out of focus, I have no idea but I'm not ready to extrapolate that to mean an UNreleased camera has focus problems. Could be as simple as a tiny bit of camera shake. The guy does mention he was shooting hand held at Canon's offices in a rushed fashion - basically it was a quick test for high ISO performance, not a focus or sharpness test.

As I said, unless you compare two cameras under the exact same situation at the same time, the comparisons are pointless.

-phil

[L...@adobeforums.com]

Phil,

I understand what you are saying, but this seems typical of all Canon shots I've seen so far. Until I see "any" Canon close up with eyes and skin that look as good as what the Nikon produces I will not be motivated to upgrade.

Linda

[John_V...@adobeforums.com]

All the 5DII tests I've seen so far have been with ISOs at 640 and over. The above Nikon shot was at ISO 200 so there's no way to evenly compare Canon's image at 6400 ISO. Hopefully more tests will become available.

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

they're out there
but I hope that you don't get to see them
your gear is fine for the next five years at least : )

[PSh...@adobeforums.com]

Linda -

No disrespect but if you understood what I was saying, you wouldn't have compared those two images. Apples and oranges.

Here is the D3 image (from the same group of DP images) you SHOULD have compared to the Canon image - both are in dark environments and both were shot at ISO 6400.

<http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/nikond3_samples/originals/dsc_0378.jpg>

Same great D3 camera - and yet doesn't quite live up to your reference shot, does it? If that's all you saw, would you still think highly of the D3? I would - the low apparent noise at ISO 6400 is really impressive - and so are the 6400 images from the preproduction 5D II.

You have to understand what you're looking at before you can make an informed decision.

JV-

Hopefully more tests will become available.

Yep, that's the only negative about the 5DII I see at this point - it's not actually out yet, no way to process RAW, and not enough images to evaluate. I'm impressed with what I've seen so far, however.

-phil

[L...@adobeforums.com]

I chose those two pictures because skin and eyes are what matter most to me. I knew they were not the same ISO or exposure, but from what I've seen they show what I consider a "typical" difference I see across the board. If I could have found two images with the same settings that revealed eyes and skin and were lit similarly I would have preferred to post them instead.

If any of you find a similar combo to compare, that would be great. But I have a feeling it is going to reveal the same differences. I find the Canon samples to look great until viewed at 100% pixels.

[L...@adobeforums.com]

Cross posted with you Phil.

To me the last link you posted does not compare because the lighting is far from ideal. I'm not interested in these kind of comparisons. I want to at least start with comparisons that are closer to well lit circumstances.

[Allen...@adobeforums.com]

I repeat

test shots from prototype cameras are meaningless. Only hands-on usage
of production cameras has any relevance.

In terms of comparing pix from different cameras (ignoring prototype pix of course), <http://www.imaging-resource.com/> IMO does a good job of setting reasonably setting up comparison photos.

Also IMO ergonomics are at least as important as test pix. Images are only created through individual photogs, so handling production level camera versions is essential. The difference in feel among cameras is huge. E.g. if I can comfortably create an image in 0.5 seconds using camera A while with camera B I feel less comfortable about it and/or take 1.0 second to create an image I will achieve far fewer good images with camera B no matter how good the specs.

[Peter...@adobeforums.com]

Allen,

This is something I spoke about in the Mac forum a couple of days ago. You couldn't be more right. It's an individually subjective thing but one wouldn't think so according to many of the posts here.

[L...@adobeforums.com]

I know I cannot and have no desire to evaluate on the same level as most of you. If this becomes about me, I have nothing to prove and nothing to lose. I only want to see something that makes me feel compelled to buy. I realize these are only preliminary shots so I am not giving up at this point.

I am only interested in what I see. So far I don't see a single Canon 5D Mark II image that shown at 100% pixels meets the expectations I have been hoping for. Every image I've viewed at 100% pixels so far has lacked the clarity and quality I am looking for.

If it's because the Canon testers are not taking their test runs more seriously, and they continue to post inferior images due to careless shooting, maybe they should be replaced with new testers. If it's about the equipment, then something should be done to rectify the problem before the 5D Mark II is released.

[Allen...@adobeforums.com]

No Linda, it is just about waiting for production versions on the street before even wasting one second looking at prototypical pix. Reviewer wags will always hop around presenting irrelevant pix, it is what they do. It is individuals' responsibility to have the awareness to ignore them.

[Peter...@adobeforums.com]

Linda,

It's so apparent that the shown examples have technical flaws that would prevent them from being in the least bit meaningful that for you to infer anything from them would be foolish. Canon has a history of putting out really crappy images from their forthcoming models, and as has been mentioned earlier, the production units are alway much much better. It's too bad that they don't contact Phil or myself to do some testing, as I'm sure either of us would have produced more valid results.

I'm going to reiterate what Phil said about apple to apples. If you want to compare Fujis to Granny Smiths, you really need to do with the same subject under the same lighting, same ISO, aperture, shutter speed, etc. It's unfortunate that in trying to whet appetites to see new camera imagery that technical supervision gets lost in along the way.

Have a little patience. I think that you'll probably be quite impressed when it's finally in the stores.

[L...@adobeforums.com]

Okay

It's too bad that they don't contact Phil or myself to do some testing,
as I'm sure either of us would have produced more valid results.

I was actually thinking the same thing.

Have a little patience. I think that you'll probably be quite impressed
when it's finally in the stores.

I hope you are right. The money has been set aside for a while, and is burning a hole in my pocket. :-)

[John_V...@adobeforums.com]

From what I've read many of the testers were given very little notice that they were going to handle the new camera. So they didn't really have much time to set up tests comparing the 5DII to other cameras.

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

You see now you understand these people much better Linda and you won't just take any of their nonsense as being sent from heavens.

Misery loves company and they have made some serious mistakes and won't admit it.

Todie knows nothing about cameras an shooting professional and nor would your standards be anything he would care about he shoots entirely for what he considers artistic interpretation, in other words there are no standards, Phil is on a crusade be be the best and that n]\means everything he does is the best no matter how big a failure it is, for instance
Ann and I once question a shot he took of a metal object, we both thought it looked a bit dull and flat to our eyes, and just said she thought the camera was not up to snuff and I question why he shot it so flat like wanting to know if he preferred doing it that way.

I don't recall what camera he was using but I wonder if to day that camera in his opinion was up to snuff then or now! But at the time he proclaimed it beat anything you could do with film even on a 5x4.

You can't go by what he says it is always the best they way he proclaims and it is always going to be that way.

Peter is much better at this so let's ask Peter what do u=you think of the]at shot taken by the Nikon D3 under those lighting conditions,pretty amazing and what noise there is is beautiful it could compete with Tri X.

But moist important here is that Linda has really learnt a lot more then I thought she has, so I apologize for some of things i have written, not all of them, but i am pleased that she can make a wise decision.

Larry buy one of these cameras and then report back.

BTW most of the image from the original link where shot at ISO 200 or 100 or 240.

All had a soft focus good call Linda.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

You know, it did occur to me that perhaps the Canon has some built-in "Camera Effects" that you can use on JPEGs (such as a Soft Filter effect) — is it possible that the Test Photographers were playing with those?

The D3 has a bunch of that rather gimmicky stuff too but I have never even given it a glance as yet … and probably never will because I shoot RAW anyway.

[PSh...@adobeforums.com]

Take your meds, Wade. Your memory is about as good as your ability to string together a coherent sentence.

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

(Repeating.....) Shooting camera default jpeg invalidates any "test". Period. Its like judging the difference between film cameras by comparing 6x4 prints from Walmart shot on Kodak Gold 400.

If there's no raw converter, then how stupid was Canon to let people take photos with the camera for release anyway?

Canon seems to caught Nikon's panic disease - pre-releasing a camera that's not ready for the market in response to the competition's new model (in this case Nikon's D700).

You'd think they would have learned from watching Nikon's D200 debacle with the banding issue and the inability of Nikon to supply both the D200 and D2x for 6 months or more after their release, purely because Nikon was panicking over Canon's 5D/1Ds2/1D2 combo, which was bleeding Nikon white at the time. I know of at least two pros who switched to Canon during that time.

The damage Canon is doing to the 5D2 will come back to bite them for this folly, and will probably help sales of Nikon's D700 in the process. It also confirms just how much of a fright the D3/D700 gave them, and ultimately gives us consumers great expectations for a bright future in equipment progress and pricing through competition.

[L...@adobeforums.com]

Well said Fred. As eager as I have been to see the next upgrade, I have no trouble waiting, even another 6-12 months, for quality control to catch up.

I just read the whole article that was originally posted by PS1.

I'm curious what some of you think about adding the new Movie Recording feature. It seems that still photographers would want to stick with stills and leave the video for those who specialize in video. I also wonder if this adds to the weight of the camera… and ends up being one more thing that can go wrong. I have to say I'm confused as to what Canon is doing. I can't help but think that most photographers who make money with their gear would prefer quality over bells and whistles.

I don't want to be so negative, but I have to be honest with my feelings about this.

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

When the bells and whistles become excessive and become a selling point for a new product it probably means that the manufacturer has maxed out with their current technology in the guts of the product itself.

With regard to pro photographers, I personally have never heard any one of my acquaintance actually asking for a video capability from their DSLR. Faced with doing videos they'd rather buy a top shelf Sony or Canon HD videocam.

Attempting to gain good video from a still camera (or good stills from a video camera) is to me a very half-a$$ed approach - the shooting styles and methods employed by the two are completely different, as is evidenced by the ergonomics of the cameras themselves.

[Peter...@adobeforums.com]

There is a market segment - news photographers - who are routinely being asked to shoot short video clips for their paper's online counterparts. It seems to me that this is where this is aimed at, although, I think the prospect of shooting HD video with a full sized 24 X 36mm chip and lenses leads to a world of possibility that does not exist on my 1/3 inch Canon XH A1. Just mounting a still camera on a Sachtler fluid head seems a little weird.

[Allen...@adobeforums.com]

My guess is that they add in that capability because they can, at little added cost. Addresses the kinds of folks wanting imagery for i-reporting and/or social networking sites. Not really the 5DMII market segment, but a small part of that segment.

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

That explains it - news photographers. I don't have much to do with them (though I did introduce my D3 to a pj before she left here to move overseas and she preferred the way it sat in her hands and handled for her so much compared with the 5D she'd been using that she bought a D3 duty free on her way out - which just goes to show that brand is not necessarily the main reason to buy, but as Allen pointed out earlier, the way the camera feels and works for you are possibly the best criteria to judge your purchasing decisions on).

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

like this:

<http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092301_leica_s2.asp>

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

If they keep the price reasonable (which they won't), got over the fixation for prime-only lenses and introduced a range of fast zooms (which they won't), that could end up being a phenomenally successful camera for pro photographers.

Because of the first two points, it will probably fail, which is a pity.

[Nick_...@adobeforums.com]

Take your meds, Wade. Your memory is about as good as your ability to
string together a coherent sentence.

Someone earlier commented that I should have known about Wade's head injuries. I know nothing about them.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Nick:

That "someone" is a perpetual trouble-maker and the same person who has been your nemesis for years … so you probably don't want to conjure-up a visitation from that quarter?

8/

[Ozp...@adobeforums.com]

Some posts deleted in the interests of extending the life of the discussion.

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

That camera if what i understood from the young man I met in Paris, who is from the original Lietz family, will be brilliant is true then I will probably go for it especially if the image quality is like the Nikon and the 30 MM lens is actually 30mm tilt/ shift and not the equivalent of it. Meaning I would be actually using a lens with an equivalent to a 20mm lens on a normal 35 mm DSLR full frame camera.

Yes it will probably sell for $12,000-$15,000 and with the lens that would come to $20,000.

If the quality ids there then this would be a must have and it is way ahead of everyone else. I would still keep the D3 for the 24mm PC lens and for the 45 and 85 PC I am sure if the tilt shift lens is popular then there will be a 100mm tilt shift in the future.

Of course Lieca has introduce innovative bombs in the recent past so caution is the word.

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

One glaring ergonomic omission (or maybe it'll another accessory to be added at extra cost by the victims) is a vertical-hold grip & shutter release button that both the Canon 1D series and Nikon D3 come standard with and are essential for quick hand-held work. It should be a mandatory feature at this level.

The lack of mechanical dials and controls on the body points to much time-consuming fiddling through on-screen menus to change settings as well. And if Wade is right regarding the price, it's sunk before it can even swim.

Pity.

[L...@adobeforums.com]

Thanks for the feedback on #57-59, etc. regarding video. Who knows but that I will not end up finding it handy as well. Up to now I've purposely avoided video to keep my sanity. Constantly challenged with time management issues. The idea of adding video to the mix makes my head swim.

[PSh...@adobeforums.com]

Some posts deleted in the interests of extending the life of the discussion.

Right. Because this type garbage is so beneficial to the discussion ...

"Phil is on a crusade be be the best and that n]\means everything he does is the best no matter how big a failure it is ... You can't go by what he says it is always the best they way he proclaims and it is always going to be that way. "

If you're going to edit one post to keep civility, you need to edit them all.

[PSh...@adobeforums.com]

HD video is likely the future for still photography. Just think of it as a camera that shoots at 30+ frames per second. Shoot your footage and pick the best frames for still image needs.

At 1920x1080, resolution isn't high enough for all needs yet but I suspect it will be at some point. Note, this isn't just Canon as Nikon was technically first with a video incorporated DSLR with the recent intro of the D90. (albeit with a lower resolution)

This is interesting ...

<http://tiny.cc/6ycmu>

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

slander is somekindof freedom
(butnotif it targets a slanderer)

[Ozp...@adobeforums.com]

Phil, I've emailed you as this is best discussed in private.

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

I probably will [like I often did before, especially on this forum] but
why would I?
(I see your angle; do you see mine?)
err… don't bother!

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

"Motion and still photography are different disciplines and always will be."

no

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

HD video is likely the future for still photography. Just think of it
as a camera that shoots at 30+ frames per second. Shoot your footage and
pick the best frames for still image needs.

Or you could just shoot the shot once properly and save all that sifting through hundreds or thousands of frames for a few keepers.

Motion and still photography are different disciplines and always will be. For one thing it's why movie studios hire a stills photographer to take stills during production and prefer not to waste time finding frames to lift out of movie footage for publicity publication.

It might be your future but don't hang that millstone around the rest of us who take still photographs.

i"From today, painting is dead"
- Paul Delaroche, 1839.

[L...@adobeforums.com]

HD video is likely the future for still photography. Just think of it
as a camera that shoots at 30+ frames per second. Shoot your footage and
pick the best frames for still image needs.

You're right. This concept does sound appealing, though limited by resolution. Your comments brought to mind a perfect example. I had the privilege of being invited to shoot for a world class equestrian this year at the Nationals in Wellington, Florida. I put the 5D on one shoulder and the 20D on the other. I shot in rapid succession with one until it stopped to process, at which time I switched to the other and did the same thing. It took shooting in rapid succession to capture those frames where the horse was in the best stance. Then again, I would still need to shoot stills if I wanted to produce a print and/or canvas that would be large enough to make money on.

At 1920x1080, resolution isn't high enough for all needs yet but I suspect
it will be at some point. Note, this isn't just Canon as Nikon was technically
first with a video incorporated DSLR with the recent intro of the D90.
(albeit with a lower resolution)

This is interesting ...

<http://tiny.cc/6ycmu>

Yes it is. Thank you for this link. The first part I read is exciting. But farther in a little reality comes back with comments such as Eric Cotter made farther down the blog…

"But at the end of the day it seems like Canon missed the mark. Not with
the video they added, but the features that video cannibalized that actual
core shooters of this cam are desperately wanting. I am hoping to be proved
wrong as i have preordered 2 already"

and by pcunite…

"Very cool. Thank you so much for sharing. Now just tell Canon to make
sure off center AF works good and I am all set!"

[L...@adobeforums.com]

HD Video Samples at Canon's Website <http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/02.html>

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

I'm perfectly familiar with Muybridge, LT.

In fact he demonstrates exactly the difference in the disciplines (though unintentionally at the time, of course). He was not trying to make movies, but to scientifically bisect and analyse motion frozen into separate stills. His cameras were specifically set and timed to best illustrate those entire sequences (not to shoot a whole bunch of shots and select a couple of keepers).

It was Muybridge's photographs which changed forever the quaint way that galloping horses were then painted by artists. Had he presented his photographs as movies that would not have happened (as things would have looked the same to the eye as they'd always been).

Edison may have seen the potential of individually sequencing consecutive stills as movies, but that was not Muybridge's intent; he presented the whole sequence as an assembly in the one print for analysis.

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

IOt is very good for the web and you are probably not going to get into video production like for Theater projection.

On the other hand there is RED and that is amazingly promising going way beyond HD and giving a file size suitable for still reproduction. In December or january they introduce the 5K
will should be awesome. it is still not a still camera but it is something to look at even on the web.

It is more then ample to use those frames as still for 8x10 prints easy and for the web with out a problem but of course it is expensive at $18,000 for the body without a mounting device or lens which run about $7,000 dollars. but if you look at some of the money you guys have spent this not so far fetched.

Phil when you a=call some one who is as accomplished as me a person without professional abilities and then you whine about a mere observation I think it is time to get a thicker skin.

I never whined about any of your comments it is a free country and I would not be much of a professional if I let someone else opinion bother me as much as it bothers you.

I don't think Mr. OZ should have deleted any of your post your entitled to express yourself.

That is my opinion on the subject of censorship.

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

"he presented the whole sequence as an assembly in the one print for analysis"

Fred, I find some of those prints to be important works of art
so advanced that even the author may not have known their artistic value or was too modest to brag about : )

This is my opinion of course,
as someone who considers himself an artist regardless of medium but not excluding photography

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

Sorry Fred, I got a bit sidetracked with oz and wade : )

There are movie directors who demand footage composed of "keepers" and the cameramen deliver

Brazil was such a movie that I remember, some say (and I don't disagree)—Citizen Kane.

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

I met Orson Wells

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

did you keep him? : )

[PSh...@adobeforums.com]

Naturally if the still photography aspect of the 5D II is lacking (which I highly, highly doubt), it's a deal killer but "REVERIE" is pretty impressive IMO ...

Vincent Laforet's "independently-produced" video. <http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2086>

Note, Laforet is affiliated with Canon as one of their "Explorers of Light". However, he's also a Pulitzer Prize winning photographer. He mentions this is his first attempt at video - ever. (other than standard parental "camcorder" stuff of his son)

Oz -
Never received the email. Just use the link for my home page to get to my studio email link.

Fred-

It might be your future but don't hang that millstone around the rest
of us who take still photographs.

Don't shoot the messenger - I've never shot video in my life but I've wanted to for a while now. I agree they are different disciplines ... but not entirely. It's still primarily about light and composition - with the additional aspects of movement and sound. It's not a trivial difference of course, but I guarantee at some point the lines between still photography and video will become blurred. You can't stop technology.

Wade -
Listen closely. Your negative opinion of me or my photographic skills doesn't bother me in the least. As I've been telling you for years, I have ZERO respect about your photographic opinion because I firmly believe you're at best, a hack photographer who has no real photographic skills who hides their insecurities by bullying others, launching personal attacks and trying to sound important. At the rate your outlandish boasts and attacks are coming these days, I'd say this is a particularly insecure time for you. I can only suggest you let it go ... mediocrity is nothing to be ashamed of.

No need to worry about me having thick skin. Trust me, I consider the source. I've noticed you've made negative comments about me in several other threads lately and I simply let them go without comment. HOWEVER, I take great issue when you begin to LIE about me and put words into my mouth. It's not appreciated, nor will I tolerate it. Got it?

-phil

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

Whoa!

:)

That video is pretty tasteless and the quality is not impressive though acceptable.

But then there is always RED.

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

Phil,

Taking a good still photograph has to be planned that way, just as taking a video sequence has to be planned in the entirety of that sequence.

While a still can be extracted from a video clip, what you're talking about remains a still photograph shot at 30+ fps as a security blanket (plus the creation of heaps of extra work to find the best frame out of the morass of over-shoot), and is not video per se.

A video shoot will not render consistently good stills, nor will a still photograph shot at 30fps make video footage. I'm not shooting any messengers, just pointing out that there is a distinct difference in approach at time of shooting to get the best out of each medium. At the same time, the best equipment to achieve the best result is equipment that is designed for the specific job - the ergonomics required by the two disciplines are different.

Video with stills extracted might suit some photo-journalistic work where the subject is of a grab-as-you-can, but in most other forms of still photography it will pull up short compared with a deliberate still photograph.

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

sorry, but art/beauty doesn't have resolution standards : )

I shot my own first chronophotograph with a Z2 Minolta, in video

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

And this differs from what I said - how?

When did I mention resolution? Resolution has nothing to do with the concepts I'm dealing with here.

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

"pulling up short" is an enunciation not a demonstration
(my first thought was about resolution)
sorry!

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

We're arguing at crossed-purposes, here, LT. I agree - when it comes to art, anything goes, no constraints on equipment or methodology. I was making my distinctions in light of the more restrictive commercial uses for which this equipment is primarily designed.

Deliberately shooting something for a desired outcome involves certain protocols to get the best result - so pulling a still frame from a deliberately shot video (shot for video use) will be less satisfactory than a still shot that has been set up and shot specifically as a still shot in many aspects, least of all resolution - that's what I mean by "pulling up short". Your use is deliberate to achieve a pre-defined visual result, but that is a different thing altogether.

Just as photography didn't replace painting, as colour didn't replace B&W, as TV didn't replace wall art, video will not replace deliberate still photography. Machine-gunning and hoping for a hit won't replace those of us who prefer to craft our shot in the viewfinder.

Note the cameras that the video function has been added to initially are the consumer and prosumer models, not the pro lines. That says pretty much all of it as to what the use of this "feature" is primarily aimed at - part-timers or amateurs who want their cameras to multi-task instead of spending extra for equipment to do the job properly.

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

I see your angle and agree somewhat
but "hoping for a hit" may be for amateurs only, just like still photography is anyway : )
ask wade! : )

[Nick_...@adobeforums.com]

OZ, you have ignored my request to email me, as well as deleting my posts, yet you continue to allow Paz to bait me and degrade me. What is up with that? Adobe got you by the short ones?

Yeah, I know, this will get deleted as well.

I would really like to be a constructive contributor to these forums, but I'm tired of the attacks.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Ignore her — she is of no more consequence than is a persistently buzzing mosquito!

:(

[PSh...@adobeforums.com]

Taking a good still photograph has to be planned that way, just as taking
a video sequence has to be planned in the entirety of that sequence.

Not everything can be planned. You can't tell me when you're shooting the bride and groom coming down the aisle, you "plan" every nuance of the bride's smile or tilt of the groom's head. I'm quite certain every frame you capture at a wedding doesn't have every element planned out to perfection or that you never toss a "dang - just missed it", shot.

Not long ago, I shot a magazine cover of a horse and rider running full gallop towards camera leading a trail of dust. The shoot was planned out carefully - the location, the time of day, the horse, the rider ... all carefully chosen. What I COULDN'T plan was the lone single frame (out of about 400) where everything came together to perfection - the horse had both front hoofs off the ground, perfectly flowing mane, the rider had the perfect gaze/body position, and the cloud of dust was just as I wanted. Yes, I was "machine-gunning" (as fast as my weak-a$$ buffer would allow anyway), but "hoping for a hit" is how this type of stuff (essentially, sports), is shot every day. If I had a camera that shot 30 FPS, you can bet I would have used it! What you call a security blanket, I call using the best tool for the job.

Naturally it'd be pretty silly to shoot 30 fps for still life.

Note the cameras that the video function has been added to initially are
the consumer and prosumer models, not the pro lines.

For now ...

You seem to ignore the part where I said it's likely the future. It won't happen tomorrow and not likely for all genres of photography at the same time, but it will happen eventually. I wouldn't be surprised a bit to see the majority of sports photographers using video-only cameras in the next 5-10 years. Think they want the ability to shoot that fast? You bet they do!

I agree whole-heartedly with (what I think is), your underlying message that these types of advancements dilutes "the craft" ... and that's sad. All this stuff makes years of skill-honing damn near worthless. I'm sure the 1970s sports shooter who was a master of split-second manual focus didn't appreciate the introduction of auto-focus. To this day, I view digital photography (and Photoshop) as a double-edge sword. I love it and hate it at the same time. But as I said earlier, you can't stop technology so you might as well embrace the benefits.

Just as photography didn't replace painting, as colour didn't replace

B&W, as TV didn't replace wall art, ...

Yes, but color TV did replace B&W TV! :-)

-phil

[Nick_...@adobeforums.com]

Ignore her — she is of no more consequence than is a persistently buzzing
mosquito!

I try, Ann, and thank you for that. But, she continues to be allowed to attack and bring up BS from years ago. I have never been able to tell what I know, nor do I want to, yet she is still able to post about it.

This is a forum about photography, and I DON'T understand why she is allowed to pollute it.

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

It is none of my business but I would not worry about it.

But it sounds more like she is interested in you and this is a way to have relationship with some one ho doesn't want that…it is a kind of flattery even if it is annoying.

On the other hand if you look at her actions you realize that perhaps she is lonely if not outwardly inwardly. Perhaps a little frighten by that loneliness.

Compulsion of this nature is sometimes a hard thing for the victim to control. If you ignore it it might go away it might not but if it does not go away and you can get to the point that it does not bother you then you can go about your business all you want.

[Peter...@adobeforums.com]

<http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/09/20/something-very-interesting-is-comingboth-to-this-blog-and-to-our-industry/>

Vincent's blog has more useful information than just watching his video or reading elsewhere. I didn't see a link posted in this thread to this, but if I missed it, I apologize. It's looking more and more interesting the more I read about it. I'll probably have to pick one of these up as well.

[PSh...@adobeforums.com]

Yep, I provided the link in post #68. That blog became very long in a very short time. I started out reading every post but when I realized I hadn't made a dent in the page scroll after 30 min., I started skipping ahead to only read Vincent's comments. Any photographer who can't envision new opportunities and possibilities opening up with this has tunnel vision.

Wade -
Let me guess ... you met Sigmund Freud when you were 2yrs-old and he was impressed with your amazing psychoanalysis ability. Was he the guy standing next to Ansel? pfft....

You were right with the first six words - it's none of your business. You of all people have no right to comment on emotional issues of others.

Oz -
Add another post that has no place in this forum. Why this kind of crap is allowed to fly here boggles my mind. (and yet, my single-sentence, 100% true comment to defend myself gets deleted ...)

Still haven't received an email from you ...

Nick -
I see your disruptive Paz and raise you with a Wade ... :)