mk2n...5D?

Hey guys one more quick question...First let me say thx for your patience of my repeated questions...

I was pretty much decided on the 5D, even though I love the mk2n for it's robust build, sealing and longevity and AF system. But everyone I ask keeps telling me that I won't get the buitiful crisp pics out of a mk2n like I will from 5D. Also that I won't be able to get anything that looks verywell larger than 8x10 from mk2n....I know this cam as everyone says is for sports....Is that true? Is that all it's good for?

I want to do weddings, Portraits, Landscapes, Nature Wildlife everything all of it...And I'm being told thats not possible with mk2n, or that it is possible buut that it won't hold a candle to 5D....Like I said I know I've been borderline a "pest" about the subject but I realy want to get as much info as possible....

I'm looking for all around camera that is built tough good AF and high enough res to blow up to at least 16x20...
--
[email protected]

http://photobucket.com/albums/v481/mojoxp/

I have both cameras.
They are different tools for different jobs.

This does not mean that you cant do landscapes with the 1dII and sports with the 5d. But you will get better results in landscapes with the 5d and more keepers if you shoot sports or wildlife with the 5d.

Regarding the print size and quality I can assure you that you can print 1dII images at least at 13x19 without any resizing or special PP.

--
Click Profile for Equipment

Personally i have a 1DmkII not the n version... i have tried the 5D my friend has been using for some month now and honnestly i would not give my 1D away for it as i'm in love with the feel of the 1-series. The image quality is very near if not as large. My feeling is the 1.3 ratio is such a good compromise. You also have to consider lenses too. The full frame will require very high quality glass to have equivalent quality whereas the 1.3 sensor does a little cropping and make the vigneting disapear.

The cost factor is median as the two cameras are in the same price range except that if you wish to add the grip and the extra batteries... It's all in the 1DmkIIn favor in my mind.

Have fun. Tools do not replace the fun of taking pictures ;-)

Cheers,

--
Phil (Nice, FR)
---
http://www.pbase.com/webman06
http://www.eosdslr.com

If you use RAw the 1D mark 2 is fine for large prints. I use it for my action shots, a great all around performer. The 5D and FF though increasingly has taken more and more of a role. It started out as a landscape camera but now is all of my non action/sports shooting. If I had to pick one camera, i would go 1D mark 2 N. Fortunately Canon gives me a choice and I bought both for specific jobs.

slyves said:

I have both cameras.
They are different tools for different jobs.
This does not mean that you cant do landscapes with the 1dII and
sports with the 5d. But you will get better results in landscapes
with the 5d and more keepers if you shoot sports or wildlife with
the 5d.
Regarding the print size and quality I can assure you that you can
print 1dII images at least at 13x19 without any resizing or special
PP.

--
Click Profile for Equipment

Click to expand...

sctr154 said:

Hey guys one more quick question...First let me say thx for your
patience of my repeated questions...
I was pretty much decided on the 5D, even though I love the mk2n
for it's robust build, sealing and longevity and AF system.

Click to expand...

sctr154 said:

But everyone I ask keeps telling me that I won't get the buitiful crisp
pics out of a mk2n like I will from 5D. Also that I won't be able
to get anything that looks verywell larger than 8x10 from mk2n....I
know this cam as everyone says is for sports....Is that true? Is
that all it's good for?

Click to expand...

Let me put it is this way (and I am absolutely serious about this): ANYONE who tells you something like the above paragraph is A TOTAL IGNORANT, a complete ICOMPETENT, that simply DOES NOT have the FOGGIEST idea of what he is talking about.

Simply bring the individual here, and watch... He better comes prepared to support the claims, though...

I will be waiting, patiently...

...You can make your choice right now. You have enough information about the systems.

My suggestion is to focus on print size: if you will be REGULARLY printing beyond 13"x19", I would strongly suggest you to consider the 5D, and you will have to get over the physical shortcomings of the camera.

If you print REGULARLY at or below 13"x19", you will be better off with the 1D MarkII-N, because it is simply a faster, more durable, more flexible and much better all-round camera.

Make your choice quickly, as you will be easile get confused more and more with nonsense.

Good luck, and this is my last suggestion on the topic!

PIXSurgeon said:

Let me put it is this way (and I am absolutely serious about this):
ANYONE who tells you something like the above paragraph is A TOTAL
IGNORANT, a complete ICOMPETENT, that simply DOES NOT have the
FOGGIEST idea of what he is talking about.

Simply bring the individual here, and watch... He better comes
prepared to support the claims, though...

I will be waiting, patiently...

Click to expand...

Hey PixSurgeon, that REMINDS me about a SERIOUS matter, didn't you say 4 DAYS ago you were GOING to give us some NEW SAMPLES showing how GOOD the 1DII/n compares to the 5D?

Just WONDERING...

Riaan Jutte said:

Hey PixSurgeon, that REMINDS me about a SERIOUS matter, didn't you
say 4 DAYS ago you were GOING to give us some NEW SAMPLES
showing how GOOD the 1DII/n compares to the 5D?

Just WONDERING...

Click to expand...

Let me clarify that the issue on hand was the legend of AA-strength (which is non-existent, false).

Below you will find a series of simple, casual and equivalent samples (they are not the same subject, but same nature). In any case, the shooting conditions favors the 5D markedly, mostly because of the discpline of the owner that shared these with me, as well as the focal length selected.

Just a few notes:

1. Lenses are THE SAME (EF 24-105 f/4 L).

2. 5D sample is ISO 100, and focal length around 35mm, aperture f/11 (VERY SHARP).
3. 5D sample is sunny, clear sky day, with a wide tonality range.

4. 1DMKII-N samples are ISO100.

5. 1DMKII-N are ALL over the place: anywhere from 24mm to 50mm (mostly wide), wether landscape or potrait position (which dramatically affects results depending on lens MTF data), and mostly on f/8, with varying degress of lighting conditions (sunny, cloudy, shady, etc.)

6. Converter used is LATEST ACR version, with ZERO sharpness, and Chroma noise set to 8 on 5D, and 5-8 on 1DMKII-N (favors the 5D), outputting in ProPhotoRGB.

7. Sharpening was executed via FLEXSharp v2.7, with latest FOCUS_Proof 5s levels (IDENTICAL, EXACTLY the same for both outputs).
8. Crops are 100%, converted all from ProPhoto to sRGB.

Next are the sample, below. 5D is in the TOP LEFT CORNER, 1DMKII-N is all others.

SAMPLE 1: NOISE on RGB (32,32,32) range, at center of each crop (the 5D has a color sample tool on it. Notice the NOISE at ISO100, vs. the 1DMKII-N rendering of the same values, with similar or different tonal compression on the 1D2N, it does not matter):

http://www.pbase.com/feharmat/image/63144448/original

SAMPLE 2: BLUE SKY noise (almost identical RGB values): Small difference, but interestingly cleaner on the 1DMKII-N, with a noise spectra that carries less low-frequency component:

http://www.pbase.com/feharmat/image/63144449/original

SAMPLE 3-4: Overall Accutance and Sharpness. AA-Filter? No comments:

http://www.pbase.com/feharmat/image/63144451/original
http://www.pbase.com/feharmat/image/63144450/original

These are very simple, straightforward samples, which allow us to get a basic idea of how these two sensors (FF and APS-H) perform.

ALL the claims (ALL OF THEM) regarding that there is a weaker AA-filter on the 5D, that is sharper on a per-pixel basis, that they require less sharpening, sound like a FANTASY that is the product of amateurs / rookies that constantly (and erroneously) idealize the cam's performance based on the sensor's form factor (FF) and not what the sensor REALLY IS, which has little to do with its 36x24mm size.

Now, PLEASE, show us your evidence.

Happy shooting!

sctr154 said:

Hey guys one more quick question...First let me say thx for your
patience of my repeated questions...

I was pretty much decided on the 5D, even though I love the mk2n
for it's robust build, sealing and longevity and AF system. But
everyone I ask keeps telling me that I won't get the buitiful crisp
pics out of a mk2n like I will from 5D. Also that I won't be able
to get anything that looks verywell larger than 8x10 from mk2n....I
know this cam as everyone says is for sports....Is that true? Is
that all it's good for?

I want to do weddings, Portraits, Landscapes, Nature Wildlife
everything all of it...And I'm being told thats not possible with
mk2n, or that it is possible buut that it won't hold a candle to
5D....Like I said I know I've been borderline a "pest" about the
subject but I realy want to get as much info as possible....

I'm looking for all around camera that is built tough good AF and
high enough res to blow up to at least 16x20...
--
[email protected]

http://photobucket.com/albums/v481/mojoxp/

Click to expand...

I'll try my hand at a mature and useful response:

First off, either camera can deliver stunning images in the hands of a talented photorapher (Well, even a point and shoot can do this). But the idea that the MkII can't produce acceptable prints larger than 8x10 is completely ridiculous. My Canon SD300 can make nice 8x10 prints with a little post work, and I have a couple prints from my 30D that are 24"x36" and look great. Again, technique is just as much a determining factor in potential print size as is the choice between these two cameras.

But while each camera can produce similar results, each has it's specific talents, making each more suitable for particular shooting tasks over the other. The MkII is much faster, and has a more effective autofocus system. Therefore, this camera is more suited to action than the 5D. Also, the camera is weather sealed and a bit more durable, making it even more "action oriented". Does that mean that it doesn't excel in the studio? Of course not. You'll find 1 series bodies in most pro digital studios, and for good reason.

The 5D on the other hand, has higher resolution and lower noise charateristics, making it ideal for landscape photography. Also, the elimination of the crop factor is also a big plus to landscape and street shooters. You should see the FOV of the 17-40 on the 5D. Ultrawide is simply beautiful, and very useful for landscapes and street photography (and weddings as well). Does that mean it's not capable of capturing action? Of course not. In fact, it is a better action camera than either the 20D or 30D due to it's additional AF points. And many action shooters swear by the 20D's capabilities. I shoot weddings professionally with the 5D as my primary camera, and it tracks and snaps twirling brides with ease. It is a bit more effective in this department than my 30D.

So, to answer your question, either camera will serve you well. Niether will limit your print size if you're only interested in 16x20. Another big difference between these two cameras is their feel and "experience", so I would consider the factors I mentioned above, and then got to your local dealer and handle both of them. You'll most likely be drawn to one over the other. You may appreciate the relative lighness and simplicity of the 5D over the MkII, or you may appreciate the MkII's heft... The good news is that you can't make the wrong decision here. Either camera is a magnificent tool in the right hands.

Why did I get the 5D over the MkII? I would actually prefer the MkII for wedding work, but I also print large-format fine art prints of my landscape work, where the 5D is highly superior. And it makes a fine wedding and portrait camera as well. It simply does it all.

--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com

It's baloney to say the 1D mkII is limited to 8 x 10s.
--
Juli
http://www.pbase.com/julivalley/galleries
Canon FiveDee, 2oD, Canon Gee3, and Canon S7o.

ChrisDM said:

The 5D on the other hand, has higher resolution and lower noise
charateristics, making it ideal for landscape photography.

Click to expand...

...Absolutely correct on higher resolution and fitness for landscape applications. However, the noise part I can't support (not even at ISO100).

Evidence of this (very hard to question) is above. The 5D responds with a signal-to-noise ratio that is tuned differently than the 1DMKII-N. And this difference is even "different" if you are handling images from its pipeline, or images from RAW converters, other than ZoomBrowser EX.

I see the 1DMKII-N signal-to-noise ration tightly tuned between ISO100-1000, whereas the 5D seems to be "balanced" in general to perform well, especially past ISO800 to ISO3200 (this is from cams' pipelines). The fact that the 1D2N is showing higher signal-to-noise ratios in blue skies and in the mid-section of shadows (32,32,32), right at ISO100, is a clear suggestion that the tuning is different in both cams, assuming consistent conversion algorithms from the RAW-to-RGB tool (in this case, ACR).

Happy shooting!

PIXSurgeon said:

PIXSurgeon said:

The 5D on the other hand, has higher resolution and lower noise
charateristics, making it ideal for landscape photography.

Click to expand...

...Absolutely correct on higher resolution and fitness for
landscape applications. However, the noise part I can't support
(not even at ISO100).

Evidence of this (very hard to question) is above. The 5D responds
with a signal-to-noise ratio that is tuned differently than the
1DMKII-N. And this difference is even "different" if you are
handling images from its pipeline, or images from RAW converters,
other than ZoomBrowser EX.

I see the 1DMKII-N signal-to-noise ration tightly tuned between
ISO100-1000, whereas the 5D seems to be "balanced" in general to
perform well, especially past ISO800 to ISO3200 (this is from cams'
pipelines). The fact that the 1D2N is showing higher
signal-to-noise ratios in blue skies and in the mid-section of
shadows (32,32,32), right at ISO100, is a clear suggestion that the
tuning is different in both cams, assuming consistent conversion
algorithms from the RAW-to-RGB tool (in this case, ACR).

Happy shooting!

Click to expand...

My partner has a MkII, and we have compared our images from many shoots. There is no noticeable noise difference between the two cameras until ISO 1600, where the 5D produces slightly less noisy images. The difference was enough, however, for him to buy a new 5D last weekend. We shoot a lot of weddings, where ISO 1600 often comes in handy.
--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com

The 1 series cameras are due for a refurb within the next 9 months. The 5D has the better sensor. If you're serious about getting the best for what you want to do, the answer, at the moment, is the 5D, unless you are going to be photographing sports, or you're going to be in very harsh environments.

The 1DIIn has a better AF system, but that really only comes into play in very fast moving situations - ie Sports. For portraits, weddings, landscapes, you won't see an advantage. You will, however, see an advantage from the 5D in those situations.

If you're going backpacking in the Rockies or on Safari or photographing a Jeep Jamboree, then the sealing of the 1 series wll be a serious advantage. If you're not doing that, however, you won't realize the advantage, and in fact, the 5D will shine in most other situations.

The 5D is less expensive - money you can put toward excellent glass OR save toward the 1dIII series when it arrives in the next year with a sensor to rival the 5D.

The 1dIIn is a better built camera, but the sensor is older and due for upgrade. The 5D will make better images under most conditions, and is newer in the product release line. Remember, it's being used in studio situations as an alternate for the 1dIIs by some pros. That speaks quite well for the files that are coming out of the 5D. It is also significantly less less cost than the 1dIIn.

So to me, unless you require the specific benefits of the 1dIIn, the answer right now is a no-brainer.

5D.

--

From the begining, I found photography simple: Point the camera, then push the button. Then, after several weeks of practice, I discovered I get even better results when I turn the camera on and remove the lens cap.

PIXSurgeon said:

7. Sharpening was executed via FLEXSharp v2.7, with latest
FOCUS_Proof 5s levels (IDENTICAL, EXACTLY the same for both
outputs).

Click to expand...

I applaud your efforts, however, did you forget that I asked for UNSHARPENED photos? That's the whole point of a weaker AA filter, it requires less (or no) sharpening.

You seem to have missed that important bit again. ;-)

Riaan Jutte said:

Riaan Jutte said:

7. Sharpening was executed via FLEXSharp v2.7, with latest
FOCUS_Proof 5s levels (IDENTICAL, EXACTLY the same for both
outputs).

Click to expand...

I applaud your efforts, however, did you forget that I asked for
UNSHARPENED photos? That's the whole point of a weaker AA filter,
it requires less (or no) sharpening.

You seem to have missed that important bit again. ;-)

Click to expand...

...I ask you, because I am giving you one more chance to carefully think about what you wrote:

do you really know what you are talking about? Do you really want me to post the unsharpened versions? I am not sure who is forgetting what, though.

Awaiting for your last wishes...

If you want to see what the 5D can do in the hands of a pro have a look at these portraits by Ron Purdy:

(Warning, Large files!)

http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/52200569/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/50986991/original.jpg

It pretty much proved by those shots, the 5D will resolve a nose hair better than just about anything short of the 1DsMII. Check out the nose hairs on that second shot!
--
Visit me at

http://www.radiodenver.org/

...The rude awakenings, the truth of matter and physicality, and all that stuff beyond the dillusional "aura" or art, or aesthetics (to which I also become pray, as well).

I understand you need to resort to other sources to illustrate something that simply does not make sense (nor relates to the subject on hand), well, I don't need to.

Here is a SNAPSHOT portrait, with NO fancy lighting equipment, NO tripod, NO aids of any kind, etc. Just a window, the camera and the EF 24-105 f/4L, plus a mouse-click in Photoshop, and HALF the noise of what you posted.

WARNING: to be viewed ONLY in Photoshop or DPP, with Color MANAGEMENT (ProPhoto RGB), FULL Size .JPG!!!:

http://www.pbase.com/feharmat/image/63159613/original

What's next? A cat's picture from a "Pro"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanboy

Many fanboys can display an intense obsession with the object of their affections. This is often shown by their devotion to a company/product/character, often to the detriment of their sense of veracity. This condition often coincides with bouts of heavy denial and a marked resistance to any type of meaningful or significant change in the status quo of the obsession.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealot

In modern English it [Zealotry] is used to refer to any form of zeal in excess, especially to cases where activism and ambition in relation to an ideology have become excessive to the point of being harmful to others, oneself, and one's own cause. A zealous person is called a zealot.

...Since you seem to have gone sideways, here is what you have been asking for. Hopefully, this will allow us to recover the original "purpose" of excercise on hand, and motivate you to finally post some evidence of the "Weak AA", which you simply have not done so (not a single pixel coming out of your keyoboard, yet):

http://www.pbase.com/feharmat/image/63160903/original
http://www.pbase.com/feharmat/image/63161064/original

Again, the images are equivalent, and are meant to be used as a BASELINE of what things most likely will look. The selected areas are relatively away from the corners (5D), and all over (center, corner) on the 1DMKIIN. However, the point here is to seek for evidence of strong/weak AA filters, instead of optics (which are the same lenses) or net resolution, as no-one disputes the 12.8Mp (+25% spatial advantage) of the 5D.

Are you going to post evidence or not of your "AA" theory? Because I have TONS of samples to go...