Reading mode: Light Dark

1D MK II sample pictures

Go to last post
Ulysses said:
I'm surprised at how quickly everyone forgets Stephen Eastwoods
comments about Mark II sharpness. It's almost as if -- gasp -- they
don't believe him. :-)

Too bad. I guess I just tend to trust him due to the industry he's
in and the inherent need for sharpness.
Click to expand...
And quite frankly, for those that saw those 2 shots of his, that
were only up for a few hours, about 2 weeks ago, it seemed to
me like he was pretty much right.

But maybe not exactly as sharp as a 1Ds, of course.
 
GWPHOTOGRAPHY said:
Chromatic abberations are very noticable in the top left pic of the
hallway. Just look along the edges of the first column. This is
also noticable in the pic of the gondolas and harbor with foggy sky
(look at edges of closest lamp).
Click to expand...
Not sure which picture you're talking about on the first one.

But in the second one, wouldn't you expect some CA with a 28-300mm superzoom lens when it's fully wide at 28mm? Particularly near the edge of the field? That's the lens, not the sensor.

--

Ulysses
http://www.ulyssesphotography.com
 
You are probably right about it being the lens. I meant to refer to the pic in the top RIGHT, not left. I was looking at the negative of my computer screen. :)
Ulysses said:
GWPHOTOGRAPHY said:
Chromatic abberations are very noticable in the top left pic of the
hallway. Just look along the edges of the first column. This is
also noticable in the pic of the gondolas and harbor with foggy sky
(look at edges of closest lamp).
Click to expand...
Not sure which picture you're talking about on the first one.

But in the second one, wouldn't you expect some CA with a 28-300mm
superzoom lens when it's fully wide at 28mm? Particularly near the
edge of the field? That's the lens, not the sensor.

--

Ulysses
http://www.ulyssesphotography.com
Click to expand...
 
Maybe but the CA in that shot is pretty bad. Zoom in and look at the light colored columns on the building at the back.
Tim O'Connor said:
Dean Brown said:
That's one reason I went ahead and got the 1Ds. Besides, I'm loving
the extra resolution. Terrific camera.
Click to expand...
Well Im very impressed with the level of detail in:
http://homepage.mac.com/ipi/mark2/images/DPP_STD_SH3_0001.JPG

It certainly looks better than if it were just a bigger 10D sensor
IMHO.
--
http://www.pbase.com/timothyo

Click to expand...
 
Well, It seems that some of us has forgotten the fact that the MkII is

the replacement for the 1D not the 1Ds. To me these samples show that the replacement for the 1D has accomplished what it was set out to do. The MKII replaces the 1D, not the 1Ds.

Like several here I took the MkII samples and the 1Ds samples and
played with them in Photo shop. And I printed them at 8.5x11...

The 1Ds samples were a little sharper but the focus points were also
a little different. I'd have to say that the 1Ds samples edged the MkII
smaples by a small margin...

but having said that, If you took the two different samples and printed
them out and placed them on a counter in a photo store and asked
people which camera took what sample, I venture to say that they
are close enough.

And the fact remains that the 1Ds has the larger sensor and it is tuned

for studio work, so it should be better or it wouldn't cost two times as much. If I'd paid $7000 for a 1Ds and it got beat up by a $3500 MKII
I'd be a little ticked off, and I'm not so sure that the double price tag
gets me double the difference in Camera's either. But if I had a 1Ds
I'm not kicking it out of the bag, it is one of the finest camera's in the
world at this time. :-)

Now, compare the MKII to the 1D.... Now the MKII shines just where
it is supposed to shine....

Overall, the MKII has so much capability that you wont even be able
to use it all.

Dixter
 
Dixter said:
Well, It seems that some of us has forgotten the fact that the MkII is
the replacement for the 1D not the 1Ds. To me these samples
show that the replacement for the 1D has accomplished what it was
set out to do. The MKII replaces the 1D, not the 1Ds.

Like several here I took the MkII samples and the 1Ds samples and
played with them in Photo shop. And I printed them at 8.5x11...

The 1Ds samples were a little sharper but the focus points were also
a little different. I'd have to say that the 1Ds samples edged
the MkII
smaples by a small margin...

but having said that, If you took the two different samples and
printed
them out and placed them on a counter in a photo store and asked
people which camera took what sample, I venture to say that they
are close enough.

And the fact remains that the 1Ds has the larger sensor and it is
tuned
for studio work, so it should be better or it wouldn't cost two
times as much. If I'd paid $7000 for a 1Ds and it got beat up by a
$3500 MKII
I'd be a little ticked off, and I'm not so sure that the double
price tag
gets me double the difference in Camera's either. But if I had a 1Ds
I'm not kicking it out of the bag, it is one of the finest
camera's in the
world at this time. :-)

Now, compare the MKII to the 1D.... Now the MKII shines just where
it is supposed to shine....

Overall, the MKII has so much capability that you wont even be able
to use it all.

Dixter
Click to expand...
--

 
Woops.... I should have written MKII at $4500 not $3500... sorry
Dixter said:
Well, It seems that some of us has forgotten the fact that the MkII is
the replacement for the 1D not the 1Ds. To me these samples
show that the replacement for the 1D has accomplished what it was
set out to do. The MKII replaces the 1D, not the 1Ds.

Like several here I took the MkII samples and the 1Ds samples and
played with them in Photo shop. And I printed them at 8.5x11...

The 1Ds samples were a little sharper but the focus points were also
a little different. I'd have to say that the 1Ds samples edged
the MkII
smaples by a small margin...

but having said that, If you took the two different samples and
printed
them out and placed them on a counter in a photo store and asked
people which camera took what sample, I venture to say that they
are close enough.

And the fact remains that the 1Ds has the larger sensor and it is
tuned
for studio work, so it should be better or it wouldn't cost two
times as much. If I'd paid $7000 for a 1Ds and it got beat up by a
$3500 MKII
I'd be a little ticked off, and I'm not so sure that the double
price tag
gets me double the difference in Camera's either. But if I had a 1Ds
I'm not kicking it out of the bag, it is one of the finest
camera's in the
world at this time. :-)

Now, compare the MKII to the 1D.... Now the MKII shines just where
it is supposed to shine....

Overall, the MKII has so much capability that you wont even be able
to use it all.

Dixter
Click to expand...
 
Make the prints people they look really good. The noise looks really good. They sharpen up beautifully, and the detail is really stunning. Good dynamic range. 8.5 fps. ETTL-II. Look a the beautiful colors rendered by the camera. Why so many negative comments. What's that you dont want to use USM on your $4500 camera. Well I guess you just turn up the in camera sharpening and use the direct print option to make 2X3 on your hp sticker printer!! Oh wait that wouldn't make any sense! Personally the pictures look loaded with detail. Chromatic aberation with a 28-300, hmm don't use a crappy lens on a pro body. Can't wait till mine arrives.
Julian
 
I compared the two images of the mask labeled evu. I don't know what that means but I assume it to be that these were done using the same converter.

Identical levels adjustments were made to both files to compare the shadows. A slight USM was done on the markII file.

1Ds



and 1D markII



I chose to bump up the levels because I am interested in shadow detail. As you can see from the 100% crops the markII penetrates more deeply into the dark areas and shows longer latitude than the 1Ds. Maybe a stop worth. The shots were likely exposed for the highlights so its not surprising that the highlights look equivalent to me.

The 1 Ds image is sharper. The mark II image could be sharpened more to match the 1Ds but the noise in the shadows would become too blocky. That said the mark II noise looks more like film grain whereas the 1Ds shows regular banding. Take your pick and see which bothers you less or impresses you more.

I can't afford the 1Ds. I've got my pre-order in on the mark II. Maybe by the time the new 1Ds comes out and its price has stabilized, business will have taken off for me and I'll be able to afford it. For now the mark II will do just fine.

jackson huang
 
Daffy_Duck said:
Maybe but the CA in that shot is pretty bad. Zoom in and look at
the light colored columns on the building at the back.
Click to expand...
Thats the lens though - The centre area that shows very little CA, has an amazing amount of detail - Look at the TV arials for example.
Daffy_Duck said:
Tim O'Connor said:
Dean Brown said:
That's one reason I went ahead and got the 1Ds. Besides, I'm loving
the extra resolution. Terrific camera.
Click to expand...
Well Im very impressed with the level of detail in:
http://homepage.mac.com/ipi/mark2/images/DPP_STD_SH3_0001.JPG

It certainly looks better than if it were just a bigger 10D sensor
IMHO.
--
http://www.pbase.com/timothyo

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/timothyo

 
David Mazeau said:
David Mazeau 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 !
Click to expand...
I haven't seen these before, and I'm as impressed as I'm able to be without knowing a great deal about them. New to me.

But more importantly, this is INCREDIBLY useful information for most of us, and posted in good faith. Thank you!! No need to apologize even if this had turned up before.
 
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.
Click to expand...
The 1Ds has an 11 mpx sensor, compared to 8 mpx, with very similar AF systems and low-pass filters as well as a physically larger sensor; it should be no surprise that the 1Ds would capture more detail. You would be doing yourself a major disservice to buy a 1D Mk 2 expecting more ( or the same ) detail as a 1Ds records. The Mk 2's advantages are it's breathtaking ISO performance ( 1250 vs 3200 limit; 800 that looks like 200 in my D60 ), and shooting speed.
SAM68 said:
those examples it got beaten like a red headed step child.
Click to expand...
What's so special about red-heads? What about a blonde step child?
 
Dean Brown said:
That's one reason I went ahead and got the 1Ds. Besides, I'm loving
the extra resolution. Terrific camera.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you made the right decision for your own personal needs. Very cool. But the reverse to what you're saying is equally true; I've never seen a decent ISO 3200 file from the 1Ds. ( In fact, most of what I've seen at ISO 100 bothers me just a little. )

All things considered I think the ( very few ) 1D M2 samples I've seen have looked pretty sharp, but resolution isn't this camera's strength, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that the 1Ds manages to capture more detail. That should be about as surprising as the fact that my car takes me from Point A to Point B, and requires gasoline to do so.

The 1Ds and 1D Mark 2 both look like excellent cameras that tackle different ( but somewhat overlapping ) requirements.
 
Okay, now I'm just a landscape, cityscape, and wildlife photographer trying to branch out into natural light portraits, and better wildlife photography. So take my opinion with a grain of salt - what do I know?

First, this is VERY MUCH like Nikon's lineup. There's the D1x for "high resolution" and the D2h for high speed and ISO performance. Well, we've got the 1Ds for resolution and full-frame, and we've got the 1D Mk II for high speed high ISO. Of course we should hold the M2 to a high standard, but it's silly to expect the 'Ds and the 'Dm2 to be one and the same beast.

That said, let's compare some of the photos from this page, knowing very little about them. Here's how the 1Ds and D2h compare at ISO 1600:

http://homepage.mac.com/ipi/mark2/images/16_ISO1600 dot jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/ipi/mark2/images/D2H_NRoff dot JPG

I thought NR being off would make a more meaningful comparison. I don't know how this is set in the Mark 2, but I do know many people will prefer Neat Image or Noise Ninja to the in-built NR. So I wanted as "original" a starting point as possible.

Given that the 1D2 photo is underexposed / low-key, this is the same noise level ( pixel-for-pixel ) I would expect from my D60 at ISO 400; that's two stops, ignoring any benefit downsampling might give. The D2h shot looks more like what my D60 gives me at 800-1000; notice the D2h photo has more exposure. But noise permeates the entire image ( except the breakers, which are almost pure white ). In much of this image it's not as offensive, since it could be mistaken for texture in the rock ... but if you look toward the horizon, a lot of detail is being lost in the mud here. To my eyes, an underexposed 1600 image from the 1D2 looks better than a more-or-less properly exposed 1600 image from the D2h.

Okay; now we can get back to complaining about how 8 mpx doesn't outresolve 11 mpx.
 
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