Reading mode: Light Dark

1D MK II sample pictures

Go to last post
Although i still would like to see a little sharper, from a PJs point of view, these still need work to get em sharp.

There looks to be more than 3 Mps worth of difference between the 1D mkII and 1Ds also.
David Mazeau said:
Chief said:
Apologize if someone has posted these pics before but this is the
first time I have seen them.
Click to expand...
I don't think any apology is needed, John. As far as I know, this
is all VERY NEW stuff. The "thank you" comments should start
rolling in, once everybody finishes up the downloading !

Thanks !
Click to expand...
--
If only thire wos money to mayke owt of typo's
 
LOL....yeah...quit bugging us with all these MKII images...we're so sick of them! ;)

Look pretty much fantastic to me, without having access to my home computer and photoshop. I'm sure you'll get plenty of feedback....but these sure look impressive to me. TONS of detail....they have the "softer" look of a CMOS, but I'm sure a little PS will get it where anyone would want it.

Question - can't a person crank up the in-camera sharpening if they want photos with minimal processing?

Thanks again. Mark
David Mazeau said:
Chief said:
Apologize if someone has posted these pics before but this is the
first time I have seen them.
Click to expand...
I don't think any apology is needed, John. As far as I know, this
is all VERY NEW stuff. The "thank you" comments should start
rolling in, once everybody finishes up the downloading !

Thanks !
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/greentank
10D, 17-40L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 50 1.4, 28-135 IS
 
If you look at the detail of the photos (just the face) the 1Ds blows away the MK II it's really not even close.

It may have been something wrong with the setup etc...., but in those examples it got beaten like a red headed step child.
 
PS CS and used nothing more than some USM, they look to hold VERY nearly as much detail as the 1Ds samples. In fact they looked like the same image! VERY impresive ;)

They hold up to a lot of sharpening if you really want it.
greentank said:
Look pretty much fantastic to me, without having access to my home
computer and photoshop. I'm sure you'll get plenty of
feedback....but these sure look impressive to me. TONS of
detail....they have the "softer" look of a CMOS, but I'm sure a
little PS will get it where anyone would want it.

Question - can't a person crank up the in-camera sharpening if they
want photos with minimal processing?

Thanks again. Mark
David Mazeau said:
Chief said:
Apologize if someone has posted these pics before but this is the
first time I have seen them.
Click to expand...
I don't think any apology is needed, John. As far as I know, this
is all VERY NEW stuff. The "thank you" comments should start
rolling in, once everybody finishes up the downloading !

Thanks !
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/greentank
10D, 17-40L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 50 1.4, 28-135 IS
Click to expand...
--
If only thire wos money to mayke owt of typo's
 
I think it is in camera settings, try some USM.
SAM68 said:
If you look at the detail of the photos (just the face) the 1Ds
blows away the MK II it's really not even close.

It may have been something wrong with the setup etc...., but in
those examples it got beaten like a red headed step child.
Click to expand...
--
If only thire wos money to mayke owt of typo's
 
After USM and digital velvia set to 4 it looked better than the 1Ds -- must have been an in camera setting.
 
I have one problem
pic 03_17_40_01

the purple banding looks really bad on the left side of the image.. But on the others their is NONE.. Seems the bright light really killed it..
SAM68 said:
After USM and digital velvia set to 4 it looked better than the 1Ds
-- must have been an in camera setting.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for posting - some of those shots look really nice. I'm very much liking the colors and noiseless images, qualities of the CMOS sensor.

Very promising.

Alfred
 
First pick I have seen from that lens, and it looks too much like an old bad 75-300 is, don't you think?
Chief said:
Apologize if someone has posted these pics before but this is the
first time I have seen them. Using CPP for conversion, high ISO
ones are truly spectacular. Maybe someone could translate as I
don't speak what appears to be Japanese to me.

http://homepage.mac.com/ipi/mark2/1D2.html

--
MOLON LABE!

Regards,
John
Click to expand...
 
They were the first images i opened, hense my first remarks on the camera, i then realised it was the lens :( i wanted that lens, i need further convincing now!
rami said:
Chief said:
Apologize if someone has posted these pics before but this is the
first time I have seen them. Using CPP for conversion, high ISO
ones are truly spectacular. Maybe someone could translate as I
don't speak what appears to be Japanese to me.

http://homepage.mac.com/ipi/mark2/1D2.html

--
MOLON LABE!

Regards,
John
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
If only thire wos money to mayke owt of typo's
 
I'm still too busy checking out these images to post a lot of comments right now, but I am very impressed with these images. I would also like to point out something that no one has commented on yet: these are JPEG Standard images! So, for those of you who are discovering, as I am, how nicely these images sharpen up in PS, bear in mind they're only fairly low quality files! Imagine how much sharpening they will be able to take when working with full-sized TIFFs derived from RAW files, instead of 1MP JPGs.

Oh, and BTW, I was also really unimpressed by the 70-300 DO lens image. Hopefully this was just user error... but even with user error it's pretty hard to get nothing in an image like this even remotely sharp.

Anyway, who freaking cares if the lens turns out to be a dud, there are plenty of other good ones! And even the 17-40 seems to look pretty good with the Di's 1.X sensor, though I haven't looked at everything in detail yet. I'm just too excited about the camera and these images to even worry about the DO lens right now, lol.

OK have to go check out the images some more. Just had to say something though. :)

Mike
Chief said:
Apologize if someone has posted these pics before but this is the
first time I have seen them. Using CPP for conversion, high ISO
ones are truly spectacular. Maybe someone could translate as I
don't speak what appears to be Japanese to me.

http://homepage.mac.com/ipi/mark2/1D2.html

--
MOLON LABE!

Regards,
John
Click to expand...
 
rami said:
First pick I have seen from that lens, and it looks too much like
an old bad 75-300 is, don't you think?
Click to expand...
I agree. It is like bad de javu. Been there, done that, but it was cheaper.

The 28-300 does not fill me full of confidence either. Is that CA I see before me?

--

Kenny

If you really want to know what I shoot with - look under my profile.
 
Just made it to the final 6 images, the ones comparing the 1DII and the 1Ds and Kodak, and discovered that those are higher res files. Just the previous 15 shots are moderate quality JPGs, obviously.

Mike
mike_botelho said:
Oh, and BTW, I was also really unimpressed by the 70-300 DO lens
image. Hopefully this was just user error... but even with user
error it's pretty hard to get nothing in an image like this even
remotely sharp.

Anyway, who freaking cares if the lens turns out to be a dud, there
are plenty of other good ones! And even the 17-40 seems to look
pretty good with the Di's 1.X sensor, though I haven't looked at
everything in detail yet. I'm just too excited about the camera
and these images to even worry about the DO lens right now, lol.

OK have to go check out the images some more. Just had to say
something though. :)

Mike
Chief said:
Apologize if someone has posted these pics before but this is the
first time I have seen them. Using CPP for conversion, high ISO
ones are truly spectacular. Maybe someone could translate as I
don't speak what appears to be Japanese to me.

http://homepage.mac.com/ipi/mark2/1D2.html

--
MOLON LABE!

Regards,
John
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
A lot of the images are well under 1Mb, which is really small for 8Mpx images. This indicates there´s very little noise, but also very little detail. I would have liked sharper pictures straight out of the camera (or at least out of the DPP RAW converter).

--
gr. Michel
http://www.yourimage.nl
 
Well, the first one measures 3504 x 2336 Pixels (8.1Mpx), didn´t check the rest

grM
mike_botelho said:
Mike
mike_botelho said:
Oh, and BTW, I was also really unimpressed by the 70-300 DO lens
image. Hopefully this was just user error... but even with user
error it's pretty hard to get nothing in an image like this even
remotely sharp.

Anyway, who freaking cares if the lens turns out to be a dud, there
are plenty of other good ones! And even the 17-40 seems to look
pretty good with the Di's 1.X sensor, though I haven't looked at
everything in detail yet. I'm just too excited about the camera
and these images to even worry about the DO lens right now, lol.

OK have to go check out the images some more. Just had to say
something though. :)

Mike
Chief said:
Apologize if someone has posted these pics before but this is the
first time I have seen them. Using CPP for conversion, high ISO
ones are truly spectacular. Maybe someone could translate as I
don't speak what appears to be Japanese to me.

http://homepage.mac.com/ipi/mark2/1D2.html

--
MOLON LABE!

Regards,
John
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
gr. Michel
http://www.yourimage.nl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top