5DII looks cold and clinical compared to 5DI

ledauphin

Active member
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Is it just me but the 5DI looks so much nicer out of the box than the 5dII, at least with people. Anyone find themselves doing PP work to make the 5DII look more natural? If so, what are you doing?
 
Stop shooting cold-blooded people and go back to shooting warm-blooded Latinos like you used to do! Problem solved! Otherwise, drink more, and then shoot -- everything will look rosy and warm!

:-)
 
In the film days, Zeiss glass used to be called the same words doing to people. Funny! Hahahaha
Ed
Def RAW, even the same lens. The 5DII has much more detail, making people look cold. I guess the same way HD does this from SD.
Are you shooting JPEG or RAW?
 
get a half dozen softening presets for LR3 -- search lightroom presets
Is it just me but the 5DI looks so much nicer out of the box than the 5dII, at least with people. Anyone find themselves doing PP work to make the 5DII look more natural? If so, what are you doing?
 
I own both and have made several tens of thousands of exposures on both... And your notion about "cold and clinical" images from the 5D2 mystifies me.

Dan
Is it just me but the 5DI looks so much nicer out of the box than the 5dII, at least with people. Anyone find themselves doing PP work to make the 5DII look more natural? If so, what are you doing?
--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
IM: gdanmitchell

Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.
 
--
May the light be with you
Stop global whining
Stupid should hurt

Gear: My Lab Lara, cameras, lens, tripod, monopod, cars, MH, motorcycle, helmet, yacht, etc. too much stuff.
 
The 5DMKII makes people look pale and lifeless compared to the 5DMKI. That's just my opinion after taking tens of thousands of pictures with both cameras.

Canon is promoting their cameras for their video capabilities more than still photography. Still photography clearly took a back seat to video when they came out with the MKII.
 
What a load of rubbish
The 5DMKII makes people look pale and lifeless compared to the 5DMKI. That's just my opinion after taking tens of thousands of pictures with both cameras.

Canon is promoting their cameras for their video capabilities more than still photography. Still photography clearly took a back seat to video when they came out with the MKII.
 
Imagine that, a camera doing its job of recording reality accurately!
I've never seen any camera record reality accurately. A signal passing through bent glass & electronic circuits will be forever altered. :)
 
Imagine that, a camera doing its job of recording reality accurately!
I've never seen any camera record reality accurately. A signal passing through bent glass & electronic circuits will be forever altered. :)
Reality for the camera is the light hitting the sensor, not the subject. The 5D2 has finer sampling, and a stronger AA filter than the original 5D, for more realistic capture.

I did not say "perfectly".

--
John

 
Def RAW, even the same lens. The 5DII has much more detail, making people look cold. I guess the same way HD does this from SD.
I am having a difficult time with your statements "The 5DII has much more detail..." and "to make the 5DII look more natural?" It's only in Portrait Photogrpahy where the desired outcome strives for less detail (removing or hiding pimples, scars & blemishes) and by strict definition less natural. So, when I read between the lines for your definition of "natural", I see the idea of the "norm for portrait photography" instead. :)
 
What a load of rubbish
I tried to be gentle in my first response. But yours is more direct and accurate.

This is one of those bizarre ideas that somehow "gets legs" among a small (very small) group of users even though it is nonsense - and before long we have to answer posts from potential buyers concerned that their subjects will look "cold" if the get camera A instead of camera B.

It is also representative of another odd idea - though I'm certain that psychologists have a term for it - the the newest version of anything must be deficient in some way by comparison to the earlier "classic" version. Initially the supposed difference is never explained in objective terms, but instead by way of intangible characteristics that cannot be quantified, allowing the claimant to avoid real scrutiny and to claim/suggest that those who disagree are obviously insensitive or lack the ability this supposedly major difference. Arguments ensue based on theoretical and/or nonsensical "facts" that generally have little or no connection to real world observed performance.

Ah, camera forums!

Dan

--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
IM: gdanmitchell

Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.
 
So a stronger AA diffuser makes for a more realistic capture? That's news -- and backwards. I have a Phase One back with NO AA confuser and the images beat the heck out of the 5DMKII.

BC
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top