Tried the 1D MarkII today!

[HappyCamper]

I had a chance this morning to try out the new 1D MarkII (production model) today at Downtown Camera in Toronto.

In a word........awesome!

Coming from the 10D, this camera is (obliviously) far superior in the performance department. Fast like don't ask focus, under typical store lighting. It was set in AI Servo mode and with the shutter button half depressed it would focus instantly as I panned it around the store.

The rapid fire ability, even in the store lighting is something to behold. Like it has been said before, it is like firing a machine gun.

I brought my own CF card and shot off about 25 or so frames and not one was out of focus. I know my 10D would have been taxed in the auto focus department under these similar lighting conditions.

The lenses on the camera was the 17-40. I have my reservations on this lenses, but I think my 16-35 is sharper. If I had time I would have liked to try a 24-70 on it, but I will have to wait until my Mark II arrives shortly.

I didn't have a chance to compare the weights of these two lenses as people were anxiously waiting behind me to get their hands on it.

It felt lighter overall then my 16-35 mounted on the 10D with battery grip and two BP-511's. Is the 17-40 that much lighter than the 16-35?

I know for sure that it felt very well balanced in my big hands and just as good holding and using the portrait shutter button.

I was using my old 256 Transcend 25x card and as mentioned before the pictures where on the screen before I could look down.
Write speed it amazingly fast compared to that of my old and sold 10D.

Below I have links to the full resolution JPEG's that I took today. I briefly looked at the EXIF data in Zoom Browser and the colour was set to Standard, Sharpening set to zero. I should have changed it but it was in AV mode set to f/5.6 and f/4.

I guess I will be able to play all I want sometime in the next couple of weeks. The sales rep at the store said that it will be here before the end of the month as Westfall had mentioned on RG site.

Be warned that these following linked photos are full size, 4mb+ files.

They are nothing special just shots from inside the store. I doubt they would let me stroll down to the park to shoot?

http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9151.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9149.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9153.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9163.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9151.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9172.JPG

I have a few more and may post them later if someone wants to see them?

 

[BTP]

Thanks for posting. I would be interested in seeing more if you get the chance.

I had a chance this morning to try out the new 1D MarkII
(production model) today at Downtown Camera in Toronto.

In a word........awesome!

Coming from the 10D, this camera is (obliviously) far superior in
the performance department. Fast like don't ask focus, under
typical store lighting. It was set in AI Servo mode and with the
shutter button half depressed it would focus instantly as I panned
it around the store.

The rapid fire ability, even in the store lighting is something to
behold. Like it has been said before, it is like firing a machine
gun.

I brought my own CF card and shot off about 25 or so frames and not
one was out of focus. I know my 10D would have been taxed in the
auto focus department under these similar lighting conditions.

The lenses on the camera was the 17-40. I have my reservations on
this lenses, but I think my 16-35 is sharper. If I had time I would
have liked to try a 24-70 on it, but I will have to wait until my
Mark II arrives shortly.
I didn't have a chance to compare the weights of these two lenses
as people were anxiously waiting behind me to get their hands on it.
It felt lighter overall then my 16-35 mounted on the 10D with
battery grip and two BP-511's. Is the 17-40 that much lighter than
the 16-35?

I know for sure that it felt very well balanced in my big hands and
just as good holding and using the portrait shutter button.

I was using my old 256 Transcend 25x card and as mentioned before
the pictures where on the screen before I could look down.
Write speed it amazingly fast compared to that of my old and sold 10D.

Below I have links to the full resolution JPEG's that I took today.
I briefly looked at the EXIF data in Zoom Browser and the colour
was set to Standard, Sharpening set to zero. I should have changed
it but it was in AV mode set to f/5.6 and f/4.

I guess I will be able to play all I want sometime in the next
couple of weeks. The sales rep at the store said that it will be
here before the end of the month as Westfall had mentioned on RG
site.

Be warned that these following linked photos are full size, 4mb+
files.

They are nothing special just shots from inside the store. I doubt
they would let me stroll down to the park to shoot?

http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9151.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9149.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9153.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9163.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9151.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9172.JPG

I have a few more and may post them later if someone wants to see
them?

--
Brian

 

[Dave W131213]

HappyCamper,

Thanks for the upload of photos. I would be interested in seeing additional captures, especially any taken at f5.6. I think the captures are very smooth. They don't seem to accept much sharpening before introducing artifacts. I am using Fred Miranda's Intellisharpen Pro. Need to play around with them some more.

What is your assessment of the files?

Dave

I had a chance this morning to try out the new 1D MarkII
(production model) today at Downtown Camera in Toronto.

http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9151.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9149.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9153.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9163.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9151.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9172.JPG

I have a few more and may post them later if someone wants to see
them?

 

[BTP]

They look very clean for ISO 400.

I had a chance this morning to try out the new 1D MarkII
(production model) today at Downtown Camera in Toronto.

In a word........awesome!

Coming from the 10D, this camera is (obliviously) far superior in
the performance department. Fast like don't ask focus, under
typical store lighting. It was set in AI Servo mode and with the
shutter button half depressed it would focus instantly as I panned
it around the store.

The rapid fire ability, even in the store lighting is something to
behold. Like it has been said before, it is like firing a machine
gun.

I brought my own CF card and shot off about 25 or so frames and not
one was out of focus. I know my 10D would have been taxed in the
auto focus department under these similar lighting conditions.

The lenses on the camera was the 17-40. I have my reservations on
this lenses, but I think my 16-35 is sharper. If I had time I would
have liked to try a 24-70 on it, but I will have to wait until my
Mark II arrives shortly.
I didn't have a chance to compare the weights of these two lenses
as people were anxiously waiting behind me to get their hands on it.
It felt lighter overall then my 16-35 mounted on the 10D with
battery grip and two BP-511's. Is the 17-40 that much lighter than
the 16-35?

I know for sure that it felt very well balanced in my big hands and
just as good holding and using the portrait shutter button.

I was using my old 256 Transcend 25x card and as mentioned before
the pictures where on the screen before I could look down.
Write speed it amazingly fast compared to that of my old and sold 10D.

Below I have links to the full resolution JPEG's that I took today.
I briefly looked at the EXIF data in Zoom Browser and the colour
was set to Standard, Sharpening set to zero. I should have changed
it but it was in AV mode set to f/5.6 and f/4.

I guess I will be able to play all I want sometime in the next
couple of weeks. The sales rep at the store said that it will be
here before the end of the month as Westfall had mentioned on RG
site.

Be warned that these following linked photos are full size, 4mb+
files.

They are nothing special just shots from inside the store. I doubt
they would let me stroll down to the park to shoot?

http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9151.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9149.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9153.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9163.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9151.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9172.JPG

I have a few more and may post them later if someone wants to see
them?

--
Brian

--
Brian

 

[Danny@canonians]

Thank you !

I played with the files you provided and like the way they accept sharpening ( Focal Blade ) .
And yes , please , if possible more pics to test .
Thanks in advance ,

Danny
--
Wheelie
webmaster http://www.canonians.com
Shooting the world from a wheelchair !

 

[bryce07]

Thanks for the upload of photos. I would be interested in seeing
additional captures, especially any taken at f5.6. I think the
captures are very smooth. They don't seem to accept much
sharpening before introducing artifacts. I am using Fred Miranda's
Intellisharpen Pro. Need to play around with them some more.

What is your assessment of the files?

Dave

I had a chance this morning to try out the new 1D MarkII
(production model) today at Downtown Camera in Toronto.

http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9151.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9149.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9153.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9163.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9151.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9172.JPG

I have a few more and may post them later if someone wants to see
them?

 

[Dave W131213]

bryce07,

I appreciate that you cannot be too heavy handed in sharpening a jpeg file. I should have provided a little more commentary with my comments. I was comparing the amount of sharpening these file would take with the amount some of the previous samples would take before introducing artifacts. Some of the previous files posted would accept quite a bit of sharpening before "breaking up". I would guess that the differences might be associated with both the content of the captures and the in camera jpeg compression set at the time of capture?

Dave

Thanks for the upload of photos. I would be interested in seeing
additional captures, especially any taken at f5.6. I think the
captures are very smooth. They don't seem to accept much
sharpening before introducing artifacts. I am using Fred Miranda's
Intellisharpen Pro. Need to play around with them some more.

What is your assessment of the files?

Dave

I had a chance this morning to try out the new 1D MarkII
(production model) today at Downtown Camera in Toronto.

http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9151.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9149.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9153.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9163.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9151.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9172.JPG

I have a few more and may post them later if someone wants to see
them?

 

[greentoe]

At least it is proof that dealers did get demos by the 17th.

-gt

I had a chance this morning to try out the new 1D MarkII
(production model) today at Downtown Camera in Toronto.

[snip]

 

[Daffy_Duck]

I think heavy compression is the problem. I'd sure love some RAW files to play with.

I appreciate that you cannot be too heavy handed in sharpening a
jpeg file. I should have provided a little more commentary with my
comments. I was comparing the amount of sharpening these file
would take with the amount some of the previous samples would take
before introducing artifacts. Some of the previous files posted
would accept quite a bit of sharpening before "breaking up". I
would guess that the differences might be associated with both the
content of the captures and the in camera jpeg compression set at
the time of capture?

Dave

Thanks for the upload of photos. I would be interested in seeing
additional captures, especially any taken at f5.6. I think the
captures are very smooth. They don't seem to accept much
sharpening before introducing artifacts. I am using Fred Miranda's
Intellisharpen Pro. Need to play around with them some more.

What is your assessment of the files?

Dave

I had a chance this morning to try out the new 1D MarkII
(production model) today at Downtown Camera in Toronto.

http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9151.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9149.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9153.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9163.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9151.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9172.JPG

I have a few more and may post them later if someone wants to see
them?

 

[Dave W131213]

Daffy_Duck,

I did a little more digging through some of the previous captures from the Mark II. HappyCamper's files seem to be among the largest I've seen, other than the cheerleader shot. This would indicate low compression, I think? As many have said, we will all know the complete strory soon when the cameras start to ship.

Dave

I appreciate that you cannot be too heavy handed in sharpening a
jpeg file. I should have provided a little more commentary with my
comments. I was comparing the amount of sharpening these file
would take with the amount some of the previous samples would take
before introducing artifacts. Some of the previous files posted
would accept quite a bit of sharpening before "breaking up". I
would guess that the differences might be associated with both the
content of the captures and the in camera jpeg compression set at
the time of capture?

Dave

Thanks for the upload of photos. I would be interested in seeing
additional captures, especially any taken at f5.6. I think the
captures are very smooth. They don't seem to accept much
sharpening before introducing artifacts. I am using Fred Miranda's
Intellisharpen Pro. Need to play around with them some more.

What is your assessment of the files?

Dave

I had a chance this morning to try out the new 1D MarkII
(production model) today at Downtown Camera in Toronto.

http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9151.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9149.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9153.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9163.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9151.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9172.JPG

I have a few more and may post them later if someone wants to see
them?

 

[adrienne]

Thanks for posting these!

adrienne

--
http://www.naturalsights.com

 

[HappyCamper]

Hello Dave,

From what I saw on the EXIF data the noise reduction was set to off. I am sure this may make some kind difference.

Maybe someone with the camera can elaborate on the difference with it on or off?

When taking a series of shots the white balance seems to very a little, this is something I have seen with my 10D. I am sure this would not be a problem if I used a custom white balance to start with. Overall I think the white AUTO WB was pretty good given the store lighting. I shoot RAW 99.9% of the time so this is a minor concern.

I normally set the sharpening values up on my 10D and will probably do the same with my MarkII when I get it. I wish that I had enough time at the store to try a few things but that was not possible.

I do really like the detail of the close up of the salesman’s face. With a little USM 50/0.9/0 it brought the detail levels up greatly.

Once again, I am glad that I own the 16-35 and not the 17-40. I did however send the 16-35 to Canon when I first got in and they "balanced" the lenses and my shots were much better after that.

Colour representation seems very good.

Like you mentioned I will need to play with these tonight in Photoshop and see what settings work best.

I will upload a few more this evening.

Regards,
Erick Davis

Thanks for the upload of photos. I would be interested in seeing
additional captures, especially any taken at f5.6. I think the
captures are very smooth. They don't seem to accept much
sharpening before introducing artifacts. I am using Fred Miranda's
Intellisharpen Pro. Need to play around with them some more.

What is your assessment of the files?

Dave

I had a chance this morning to try out the new 1D MarkII
(production model) today at Downtown Camera in Toronto.

http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9151.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9149.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9153.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9163.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9151.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9172.JPG

I have a few more and may post them later if someone wants to see
them?

 

[HappyCamper]

Tucked it in my pocket last night, so I wouldn't forget.

-gt

I had a chance this morning to try out the new 1D MarkII
(production model) today at Downtown Camera in Toronto.

[snip]

 

[Daffy_Duck]

How do the skin tones of these pictures compare with reality?

Maybe someone with the camera can elaborate on the difference with
it on or off?

When taking a series of shots the white balance seems to very a
little, this is something I have seen with my 10D. I am sure this
would not be a problem if I used a custom white balance to start
with. Overall I think the white AUTO WB was pretty good given the
store lighting. I shoot RAW 99.9% of the time so this is a minor
concern.

I normally set the sharpening values up on my 10D and will probably
do the same with my MarkII when I get it. I wish that I had enough
time at the store to try a few things but that was not possible.

I do really like the detail of the close up of the salesman’s face.
With a little USM 50/0.9/0 it brought the detail levels up greatly.

Once again, I am glad that I own the 16-35 and not the 17-40. I did
however send the 16-35 to Canon when I first got in and they
"balanced" the lenses and my shots were much better after that.

Colour representation seems very good.

Like you mentioned I will need to play with these tonight in
Photoshop and see what settings work best.

I will upload a few more this evening.

Regards,
Erick Davis

Thanks for the upload of photos. I would be interested in seeing
additional captures, especially any taken at f5.6. I think the
captures are very smooth. They don't seem to accept much
sharpening before introducing artifacts. I am using Fred Miranda's
Intellisharpen Pro. Need to play around with them some more.

What is your assessment of the files?

Dave

I had a chance this morning to try out the new 1D MarkII
(production model) today at Downtown Camera in Toronto.

http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9151.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9149.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9153.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9163.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9151.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9172.JPG

I have a few more and may post them later if someone wants to see
them?

 

[Ulysses]

I had a chance this morning to try out the new 1D MarkII
(production model) today at Downtown Camera in Toronto.

In a word........awesome!

Three words:
1. Good
2. To
3. Know

Heheheh...

Coming from the 10D, this camera is (obliviously) far superior in
the performance department. Fast like don't ask focus, under
typical store lighting. It was set in AI Servo mode and with the
shutter button half depressed it would focus instantly as I panned
it around the store.

Fascinating. I'd wondered about that. I'm glad to hear you trialed for this.

The rapid fire ability, even in the store lighting is something to
behold. Like it has been said before, it is like firing a machine gun.

Now were you panning around as you were doing the rapid fire? And was each of those frames in sharp focus?

The lenses on the camera was the 17-40. I have my reservations on
this lenses, but I think my 16-35 is sharper.

I dunno, man. At least at f/4, I like the 17-40L. I'm not a big fan of the 16-35. But I'm not trying to argue over it. Some folks like it, and others are kind of so-so on it.

I didn't have a chance to compare the weights of these two lenses
as people were anxiously waiting behind me to get their hands on it.
It felt lighter overall then my 16-35 mounted on the 10D with
battery grip and two BP-511's. Is the 17-40 that much lighter than
the 16-35?

As you mention later, I think what you probably felt was that the camera was more balanced. This can give the impression of feeling lighter since your wrists aren't being forced to twist forward by the weight of the gear.

I know for sure that it felt very well balanced in my big hands and
just as good holding and using the portrait shutter button.

I had a chance to check out and shoot with a Mark II at a tradeshow recently. I too was surprised by its balance and fantastic feeling. I have to admit: The 10D felt pretty decent in the hand a year or so ago. But when trying out the Mark II and then the 10D body, and going back and forth because I couldn't believe the difference in the feeling in-hand, I'd have to say that even in this department, the Mark II is just so many cuts above where ergonomics are concerned --- weight notwithstanding.

I have a few more and may post them later if someone wants to see
them?

Don't hold back!

--

Ulysses
http://www.ulyssesphotography.com

 

[John Harrison82293]

I had a chance this morning to try out the new 1D MarkII
(production model) today at Downtown Camera in Toronto.

In a word........awesome!

Three words:
1. Good
2. To
3. Know

Heheheh...

Coming from the 10D, this camera is (obliviously) far superior in
the performance department. Fast like don't ask focus, under
typical store lighting. It was set in AI Servo mode and with the
shutter button half depressed it would focus instantly as I panned
it around the store.

Fascinating. I'd wondered about that. I'm glad to hear you trialed
for this.

The rapid fire ability, even in the store lighting is something to
behold. Like it has been said before, it is like firing a machine gun.

Now were you panning around as you were doing the rapid fire? And
was each of those frames in sharp focus?

The lenses on the camera was the 17-40. I have my reservations on
this lenses, but I think my 16-35 is sharper.

I dunno, man. At least at f/4, I like the 17-40L. I'm not a big fan
of the 16-35. But I'm not trying to argue over it. Some folks like
it, and others are kind of so-so on it.

I didn't have a chance to compare the weights of these two lenses
as people were anxiously waiting behind me to get their hands on it.
It felt lighter overall then my 16-35 mounted on the 10D with
battery grip and two BP-511's. Is the 17-40 that much lighter than
the 16-35?

As you mention later, I think what you probably felt was that the
camera was more balanced. This can give the impression of feeling
lighter since your wrists aren't being forced to twist forward by
the weight of the gear.

I know for sure that it felt very well balanced in my big hands and
just as good holding and using the portrait shutter button.

I had a chance to check out and shoot with a Mark II at a tradeshow
recently. I too was surprised by its balance and fantastic feeling.
I have to admit: The 10D felt pretty decent in the hand a year or
so ago. But when trying out the Mark II and then the 10D body, and
going back and forth because I couldn't believe the difference in
the feeling in-hand, I'd have to say that even in this department,
the Mark II is just so many cuts above where ergonomics are
concerned --- weight notwithstanding.

I have a few more and may post them later if someone wants to see
them?

Don't hold back!

--

Ulysses
http://www.ulyssesphotography.com

 

[Ulysses]

But have you really looked at the EXIF info?

1. 9149 taken at 1/40s, at 40mm. Pretty stable and reasonably sharp.
2. 9451 taken at 1/25s, at 40mm. Camera shake evident, no surprise.
3. 9153 taken at 1/50s, 40mm. Focused slightly left of center. Decent.
4. 9163 taken at 1/60s, 17mm. Not the best F.L. for this lens but nice again.
5. 9172 taken at 1/80s, 17mm. Not the best F.L. But considering all, not bad.

I don't know that there are any excuses to be made for the camera, but the lens on it is certainly performing about as you'd expect for the 17-40L under these conditions and lighting. Considering that, a 10D or D60 might not have focused at all on some of these.

John Harrison wrote:
--

Ulysses
http://www.ulyssesphotography.com

 

[tletu]

I think the photos look at for those setting. Anyone denying that is probably a nikonite.

-tung

But have you really looked at the EXIF info?

1. 9149 taken at 1/40s, at 40mm. Pretty stable and reasonably sharp.
2. 9451 taken at 1/25s, at 40mm. Camera shake evident, no surprise.
3. 9153 taken at 1/50s, 40mm. Focused slightly left of center. Decent.
4. 9163 taken at 1/60s, 17mm. Not the best F.L. for this lens but

nice again.

1. 9172 taken at 1/80s, 17mm. Not the best F.L. But considering all,

not bad.

I don't know that there are any excuses to be made for the camera,
but the lens on it is certainly performing about as you'd expect
for the 17-40L under these conditions and lighting. Considering
that, a 10D or D60 might not have focused at all on some of these.

John Harrison wrote:

--

Ulysses
http://www.ulyssesphotography.com

--
Tung Le Tu

 

[HappyCamper]

They are very close from what I remember, (I was mesmerized by the camera and really only seen them though the viewfinder) most people up here are still pretty pale from lack of sun this time of year. Thank god Spring is finally here!

It will be nice to use that big bright viewfinder, I am not used to that.

Regards,
Erick

Maybe someone with the camera can elaborate on the difference with
it on or off?

When taking a series of shots the white balance seems to very a
little, this is something I have seen with my 10D. I am sure this
would not be a problem if I used a custom white balance to start
with. Overall I think the white AUTO WB was pretty good given the
store lighting. I shoot RAW 99.9% of the time so this is a minor
concern.

I normally set the sharpening values up on my 10D and will probably
do the same with my MarkII when I get it. I wish that I had enough
time at the store to try a few things but that was not possible.

I do really like the detail of the close up of the salesman’s face.
With a little USM 50/0.9/0 it brought the detail levels up greatly.

Once again, I am glad that I own the 16-35 and not the 17-40. I did
however send the 16-35 to Canon when I first got in and they
"balanced" the lenses and my shots were much better after that.

Colour representation seems very good.

Like you mentioned I will need to play with these tonight in
Photoshop and see what settings work best.

I will upload a few more this evening.

Regards,
Erick Davis

Thanks for the upload of photos. I would be interested in seeing
additional captures, especially any taken at f5.6. I think the
captures are very smooth. They don't seem to accept much
sharpening before introducing artifacts. I am using Fred Miranda's
Intellisharpen Pro. Need to play around with them some more.

What is your assessment of the files?

Dave

I had a chance this morning to try out the new 1D MarkII
(production model) today at Downtown Camera in Toronto.

http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9151.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9149.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9153.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9163.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9151.JPG
http://www.erickdavis.com/1D_MarkII_Pics/100_9172.JPG

I have a few more and may post them later if someone wants to see
them?

 

[Drago1919]

-tung

But have you really looked at the EXIF info?

1. 9149 taken at 1/40s, at 40mm. Pretty stable and reasonably sharp.
2. 9451 taken at 1/25s, at 40mm. Camera shake evident, no surprise.
3. 9153 taken at 1/50s, 40mm. Focused slightly left of center. Decent.
4. 9163 taken at 1/60s, 17mm. Not the best F.L. for this lens but

nice again.

1. 9172 taken at 1/80s, 17mm. Not the best F.L. But considering all,

not bad.

I don't know that there are any excuses to be made for the camera,
but the lens on it is certainly performing about as you'd expect
for the 17-40L under these conditions and lighting. Considering
that, a 10D or D60 might not have focused at all on some of these.

John Harrison wrote:

--

Ulysses
http://www.ulyssesphotography.com

--
Tung Le Tu

--
^^ ' nothings ever final until you run out of time ' ^^