Reading mode: Light Dark

Very disappointed with the Mk2

Go to last post
Teski said:
I love it when someone has a brand new camera for a short time and
them rips the thing. All of the people with samples have used the
camera maybe for hours or rarely for a few days....YOU NEED TO
LEARN THE FREAKIN' THING FIRST!!!!

I'd love to see your sample shots.
Click to expand...
I agree - more often than not it is the photographer not the equipment. Know your gear work within its limitations. Fortunately for me I can see the 1d2 will have less limitations for my photographic purposes which is why I am getting one.

I once had to take a shot on 400 film with an F5 80-200 tc201 manual 2x at dusk - hand held. I could barely see whether the shot was in focus. The world was waiting for the pics and while it would have been nice to have faster film, longer faster lenses etc etc - I didn't. The resulting images went world wide and appeared in every thing from time magazine to the front page of the London Sun. This is not a mine is bigger than yours post simply pointing out that it is often easier to blame the equipment than to accept any fault for poor images. Can you imagine the pic editor for the london sun putting up with my but my lens wasn't fast enough etc etc LOL
Teski said:
Teski
Andrew Chiciak said:
I am a pro who would like to go totally digital this year and was
counting on this camera to be the one that would bring me there. I
currently shoot a D60 and film. I get many great images from the
D60, the limiting factor being more resolution needed for group
shots and highly detailed scenes, better dynamic range, better
autofocus and , of course, better flash exposure. The MK2 fullfills
some of these requirements, but the overall problem is that the
image just plain stinks. I have seen and played with images posted
on the web and also have shot some myself with a very good 24-70
lens. I have not seen one that I really liked. Other than an
overall softness, which is is just too far even considering the
nature of pro digitals, the image just does not have a solidity to
it like my D60 has. Despite all the D60's shortcomings...it just
seems to do the job better for me.
--
Andy C
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
~ there are those that do ~ and those that talk about it ~
 
Of what?
MarkMiller said:
Teski said:
I love it when someone has a brand new camera for a short time and
them rips the thing. All of the people with samples have used the
camera maybe for hours or rarely for a few days....YOU NEED TO
LEARN THE FREAKIN' THING FIRST!!!!

I'd love to see your sample shots.
Click to expand...
I agree - more often than not it is the photographer not the
equipment. Know your gear work within its limitations. Fortunately
for me I can see the 1d2 will have less limitations for my
photographic purposes which is why I am getting one.

I once had to take a shot on 400 film with an F5 80-200 tc201
manual 2x at dusk - hand held. I could barely see whether the shot
was in focus. The world was waiting for the pics and while it would
have been nice to have faster film, longer faster lenses etc etc -
I didn't. The resulting images went world wide and appeared in
every thing from time magazine to the front page of the London Sun.
This is not a mine is bigger than yours post simply pointing out
that it is often easier to blame the equipment than to accept any
fault for poor images. Can you imagine the pic editor for the
london sun putting up with my but my lens wasn't fast enough etc
etc LOL
MarkMiller said:
Teski
Andrew Chiciak said:
I am a pro who would like to go totally digital this year and was
counting on this camera to be the one that would bring me there. I
currently shoot a D60 and film. I get many great images from the
D60, the limiting factor being more resolution needed for group
shots and highly detailed scenes, better dynamic range, better
autofocus and , of course, better flash exposure. The MK2 fullfills
some of these requirements, but the overall problem is that the
image just plain stinks. I have seen and played with images posted
on the web and also have shot some myself with a very good 24-70
lens. I have not seen one that I really liked. Other than an
overall softness, which is is just too far even considering the
nature of pro digitals, the image just does not have a solidity to
it like my D60 has. Despite all the D60's shortcomings...it just
seems to do the job better for me.
--
Andy C
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
~ there are those that do ~ and those that talk about it ~
Click to expand...
 
I would love to see it! You meet very interesting people on the net. Think of all the stories we could tell one another. I love it!

Dave Reichlein
AppleCanon said:
MarkMiller said:
Teski said:
I love it when someone has a brand new camera for a short time and
them rips the thing. All of the people with samples have used the
camera maybe for hours or rarely for a few days....YOU NEED TO
LEARN THE FREAKIN' THING FIRST!!!!

I'd love to see your sample shots.
Click to expand...
I agree - more often than not it is the photographer not the
equipment. Know your gear work within its limitations. Fortunately
for me I can see the 1d2 will have less limitations for my
photographic purposes which is why I am getting one.

I once had to take a shot on 400 film with an F5 80-200 tc201
manual 2x at dusk - hand held. I could barely see whether the shot
was in focus. The world was waiting for the pics and while it would
have been nice to have faster film, longer faster lenses etc etc -
I didn't. The resulting images went world wide and appeared in
every thing from time magazine to the front page of the London Sun.
This is not a mine is bigger than yours post simply pointing out
that it is often easier to blame the equipment than to accept any
fault for poor images. Can you imagine the pic editor for the
london sun putting up with my but my lens wasn't fast enough etc
etc LOL
AppleCanon said:
Teski
Andrew Chiciak said:
I am a pro who would like to go totally digital this year and was
counting on this camera to be the one that would bring me there. I
currently shoot a D60 and film. I get many great images from the
D60, the limiting factor being more resolution needed for group
shots and highly detailed scenes, better dynamic range, better
autofocus and , of course, better flash exposure. The MK2 fullfills
some of these requirements, but the overall problem is that the
image just plain stinks. I have seen and played with images posted
on the web and also have shot some myself with a very good 24-70
lens. I have not seen one that I really liked. Other than an
overall softness, which is is just too far even considering the
nature of pro digitals, the image just does not have a solidity to
it like my D60 has. Despite all the D60's shortcomings...it just
seems to do the job better for me.
--
Andy C
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
~ there are those that do ~ and those that talk about it ~
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
produce just one good image, you think it just got bored?

If it produces one , it can produce every one, just needs a good photographer and lens combo on it!
Andrew Chiciak said:
Have to admit...that is not bad...its the only solid image I've
seen so far.
Manuel Guzman said:

Andrew Chiciak said:
I am a pro who would like to go totally digital this year and was
counting on this camera to be the one that would bring me there. I
currently shoot a D60 and film. I get many great images from the
D60, the limiting factor being more resolution needed for group
shots and highly detailed scenes, better dynamic range, better
autofocus and , of course, better flash exposure. The MK2 fullfills
some of these requirements, but the overall problem is that the
image just plain stinks. I have seen and played with images posted
on the web and also have shot some myself with a very good 24-70
lens. I have not seen one that I really liked. Other than an
overall softness, which is is just too far even considering the
nature of pro digitals, the image just does not have a solidity to
it like my D60 has. Despite all the D60's shortcomings...it just
seems to do the job better for me.
--
Andy C
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Andy C
Click to expand...
--
If only thire wos money to mayke owt of typo's
 
Exactly my point! :-) I too would love to see the shot you mentioned.

Teski
MarkMiller said:
Teski said:
I love it when someone has a brand new camera for a short time and
them rips the thing. All of the people with samples have used the
camera maybe for hours or rarely for a few days....YOU NEED TO
LEARN THE FREAKIN' THING FIRST!!!!

I'd love to see your sample shots.
Click to expand...
I agree - more often than not it is the photographer not the
equipment. Know your gear work within its limitations. Fortunately
for me I can see the 1d2 will have less limitations for my
photographic purposes which is why I am getting one.

I once had to take a shot on 400 film with an F5 80-200 tc201
manual 2x at dusk - hand held. I could barely see whether the shot
was in focus. The world was waiting for the pics and while it would
have been nice to have faster film, longer faster lenses etc etc -
I didn't. The resulting images went world wide and appeared in
every thing from time magazine to the front page of the London Sun.
This is not a mine is bigger than yours post simply pointing out
that it is often easier to blame the equipment than to accept any
fault for poor images. Can you imagine the pic editor for the
london sun putting up with my but my lens wasn't fast enough etc
etc LOL
MarkMiller said:
Teski
Andrew Chiciak said:
I am a pro who would like to go totally digital this year and was
counting on this camera to be the one that would bring me there. I
currently shoot a D60 and film. I get many great images from the
D60, the limiting factor being more resolution needed for group
shots and highly detailed scenes, better dynamic range, better
autofocus and , of course, better flash exposure. The MK2 fullfills
some of these requirements, but the overall problem is that the
image just plain stinks. I have seen and played with images posted
on the web and also have shot some myself with a very good 24-70
lens. I have not seen one that I really liked. Other than an
overall softness, which is is just too far even considering the
nature of pro digitals, the image just does not have a solidity to
it like my D60 has. Despite all the D60's shortcomings...it just
seems to do the job better for me.
--
Andy C
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
~ there are those that do ~ and those that talk about it ~
Click to expand...
 
Andrew Chiciak said:
I am a pro who would like to go totally digital this year and was
counting on this camera to be the one that would bring me there. I
currently shoot a D60 and film. I get many great images from the
D60, the limiting factor being more resolution needed for group
shots and highly detailed scenes, better dynamic range, better
autofocus and , of course, better flash exposure. The MK2 fullfills
some of these requirements, but the overall problem is that the
image just plain stinks. I have seen and played with images posted
on the web and also have shot some myself with a very good 24-70
lens. I have not seen one that I really liked. Other than an
overall softness, which is is just too far even considering the
nature of pro digitals, the image just does not have a solidity to
it like my D60 has. Despite all the D60's shortcomings...it just
seems to do the job better for me.
--
Andy C
Click to expand...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=8117881

So, Andy, did you personally take the photos, or did someone else take them? I'm confused. Please advise.

--
JB
http://www.digitaldingus.com
http://www.digitaldingus.com/forums
 
Unfortunately I cannot actually post the shot. It was in my days with News Limited, but this is what it was.

The shot was of an orange kombi in bushes about 150metres from an outback australian road which was being dusted for fingerprints.

The background to the shot was that the night before two english backpackers, Peter Falconio and his fiancee Joanne Lees had been driving when a car had flashed its lights pulled them over. Thje driver spoke to falconio about sparks coming from the back of car.

Falconio got out went to the back of the car with the other drive. Lees heard a bang then the stranger came back to her window put a gun in her face etc etc., She managed to escape - There has not been a trace of Falconio since.

I had to stand on the bullbar of a police landcruiser to get sufficient view over surrounding scrub. I could not get closer as the police would not let any of us out of a 10 metre area.

I shot 3 rolls of 400 speed colour film - the shots were of the van and other scene shopts of police with shotguns etc manning a lonely strecth of highway. I was the only photographer there at the time. The roads were all blocked.

The appeal of the shots for the London Sun was the loneliness of the site I am sure.

I had only thrown the 2x in the bag because experience has taught me you never know. (The police had said I would get access to the van so I had expected to shoot on 24mm with flash.)
Teski said:
Teski
MarkMiller said:
Teski said:
I love it when someone has a brand new camera for a short time and
them rips the thing. All of the people with samples have used the
camera maybe for hours or rarely for a few days....YOU NEED TO
LEARN THE FREAKIN' THING FIRST!!!!

I'd love to see your sample shots.
Click to expand...
I agree - more often than not it is the photographer not the
equipment. Know your gear work within its limitations. Fortunately
for me I can see the 1d2 will have less limitations for my
photographic purposes which is why I am getting one.

I once had to take a shot on 400 film with an F5 80-200 tc201
manual 2x at dusk - hand held. I could barely see whether the shot
was in focus. The world was waiting for the pics and while it would
have been nice to have faster film, longer faster lenses etc etc -
I didn't. The resulting images went world wide and appeared in
every thing from time magazine to the front page of the London Sun.
This is not a mine is bigger than yours post simply pointing out
that it is often easier to blame the equipment than to accept any
fault for poor images. Can you imagine the pic editor for the
london sun putting up with my but my lens wasn't fast enough etc
etc LOL
Teski said:
Teski
Andrew Chiciak said:
I am a pro who would like to go totally digital this year and was
counting on this camera to be the one that would bring me there. I
currently shoot a D60 and film. I get many great images from the
D60, the limiting factor being more resolution needed for group
shots and highly detailed scenes, better dynamic range, better
autofocus and , of course, better flash exposure. The MK2 fullfills
some of these requirements, but the overall problem is that the
image just plain stinks. I have seen and played with images posted
on the web and also have shot some myself with a very good 24-70
lens. I have not seen one that I really liked. Other than an
overall softness, which is is just too far even considering the
nature of pro digitals, the image just does not have a solidity to
it like my D60 has. Despite all the D60's shortcomings...it just
seems to do the job better for me.
--
Andy C
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
~ there are those that do ~ and those that talk about it ~
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
~ there are those that do ~ and those that talk about it ~
 
Kevin Dufff said:
They WOULD have been spotted by one of the quite large number of
people. That have been scouring these and all other forums from all
over the world for 1D MKII images!
Click to expand...
Actually I was about to make the same posting as you did here Kevin. However, I looked around and found the thread. Andrew had the opportunity to have a brief look at the M2 at a Canon demo. He did not actually post images shot by himself. It was rather a friend of him shooting. Andrew, though, had the rare opportunity to be the subject of the images. Not many of us have. In fact, I have not heard of anybody on this forum who has.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=8117004

He's not sure the camera was operated correctly but was overall very impressed by the results of E-TTL 2 at that time.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=8117881
--
Gerhard Pinehurst, Sweden
 
This was taken the next day after the roadblocks were opened - not in the same conditions but it may jog some memories

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?thesection=news&thesubsection=&storyID=201318
AppleCanon said:
MarkMiller said:
Teski said:
I love it when someone has a brand new camera for a short time and
them rips the thing. All of the people with samples have used the
camera maybe for hours or rarely for a few days....YOU NEED TO
LEARN THE FREAKIN' THING FIRST!!!!

I'd love to see your sample shots.
Click to expand...
I agree - more often than not it is the photographer not the
equipment. Know your gear work within its limitations. Fortunately
for me I can see the 1d2 will have less limitations for my
photographic purposes which is why I am getting one.

I once had to take a shot on 400 film with an F5 80-200 tc201
manual 2x at dusk - hand held. I could barely see whether the shot
was in focus. The world was waiting for the pics and while it would
have been nice to have faster film, longer faster lenses etc etc -
I didn't. The resulting images went world wide and appeared in
every thing from time magazine to the front page of the London Sun.
This is not a mine is bigger than yours post simply pointing out
that it is often easier to blame the equipment than to accept any
fault for poor images. Can you imagine the pic editor for the
london sun putting up with my but my lens wasn't fast enough etc
etc LOL
AppleCanon said:
Teski
Andrew Chiciak said:
I am a pro who would like to go totally digital this year and was
counting on this camera to be the one that would bring me there. I
currently shoot a D60 and film. I get many great images from the
D60, the limiting factor being more resolution needed for group
shots and highly detailed scenes, better dynamic range, better
autofocus and , of course, better flash exposure. The MK2 fullfills
some of these requirements, but the overall problem is that the
image just plain stinks. I have seen and played with images posted
on the web and also have shot some myself with a very good 24-70
lens. I have not seen one that I really liked. Other than an
overall softness, which is is just too far even considering the
nature of pro digitals, the image just does not have a solidity to
it like my D60 has. Despite all the D60's shortcomings...it just
seems to do the job better for me.
--
Andy C
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
~ there are those that do ~ and those that talk about it ~
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
~ there are those that do ~ and those that talk about it ~
 
Andrew Chiciak said:
...but the overall problem is that the
image just plain stinks.
Click to expand...
From the perspective of a working pro, this is probably true. Other reputable sources sound similar...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/canon-1d-mkii.shtml

Quotes:
  • "I was not that pleased with the Mark II's colour rendition"
  • "The camera is from the same image quality mold as the 10D and 1Ds,
and Rebel for that matter."

So if image quality from the current generation of Canon CMOS cameras isn't good enough for your purposes, then the 1DII will "stink". On the other hand, these cameras are probably the best digital image makers you can get today.

But the 1DII isn't about image quality: the thing about this camera is that it delivers decent image quality at extreme speeds; it's a performance optimized camera. It's also interesting to see that the gap in image quality between the entry model as well as the top cameras is slowly closing: the Rebel's image quality isn't that far from a 1Ds. The situation is more and more resembling the film world where all Canon SLR cameras used the same recordig media (35mm film), but had different features.

If you want to max out on image quality, then it's probably better for you to wait for the updated 1Ds that might be announced this autumn. A 1DsII will most likely deliver the image quality you are after, plus it will have a larger and brighter viewfinder and no "multiplier" - but it won't have the speed of a 1DII.
 
Andrew Chiciak said:
I am a pro who would like to go totally digital this year and was
counting on this camera to be the one that would bring me there. I
currently shoot a D60 and film. I get many great images from the
D60, the limiting factor being more resolution needed for group
shots and highly detailed scenes, better dynamic range, better
autofocus and , of course, better flash exposure. The MK2 fullfills
some of these requirements, but the overall problem is that the
image just plain stinks. I have seen and played with images posted
on the web and also have shot some myself with a very good 24-70
lens. I have not seen one that I really liked. Other than an
overall softness, which is is just too far even considering the
nature of pro digitals, the image just does not have a solidity to
it like my D60 has. Despite all the D60's shortcomings...it just
seems to do the job better for me.
--
Andy C
Click to expand...
You are worrying too much. Wait for some of the talented photographers around here to get a hold of it; the ones that know what the hell they are doing.

Irrespective of sharpness the noise is fantastic and the camera wickedly fast. You are selling it short before it ships.
 
What type of photography do you do?

If you photograph weddings the 1d2 will improve your auto flash exposure.

If you photograph sports ....

What do you photograph with your film camera (which one by the way?) and your D60?
 
I just have seen very few images that are even close to sharp out of the camera. The last one at digital resource were not even close.
JR.
John Mason said:
Of course, we are talking about a high speed photojournalist's
camera with studio capabilities also. The D60 is just a little
slow on things like buffer, autofocus, and other issues the Pro
cameras from Canon address. The D60 is a nice semi-pro model, but
it's not addressing the same market at all.

Images from digital cameras are like comparing colors of tv's at
best buy. How good is the signal going in and what is the tv's
settings. I'm sure any careful comparison of raws from the D60 and
1DmkII are going to be pretty close when optimally processed. But,
what's the point. If you want a responsive camera then it's a
different market. As far as the image quality being not as good as
the D60, fine. No context to that other than out of the camera
comparisons. But those are not that useful either for this market.

I would say keep the D60 and be happy. I would not say the D60 is
even in the same league for handling and the samples I see look
fine.

If the group shot issue is what your waiting on for the big camera
plunge, I'm not sure the 1DmkII is gonna do it for you as 2mp more
just isn't that much. You may want to look at the 1Ds or Kodak's
new Canon compatible full frame offering. Then you'll have the
resolution you need for the group shots.
Andrew Chiciak said:
I am a pro who would like to go totally digital this year and was
counting on this camera to be the one that would bring me there. I
currently shoot a D60 and film. I get many great images from the
D60, the limiting factor being more resolution needed for group
shots and highly detailed scenes, better dynamic range, better
autofocus and , of course, better flash exposure. The MK2 fullfills
some of these requirements, but the overall problem is that the
image just plain stinks. I have seen and played with images posted
on the web and also have shot some myself with a very good 24-70
lens. I have not seen one that I really liked. Other than an
overall softness, which is is just too far even considering the
nature of pro digitals, the image just does not have a solidity to
it like my D60 has. Despite all the D60's shortcomings...it just
seems to do the job better for me.
--
Andy C
Click to expand...
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN
Click to expand...
 
Andrew Chiciak said:
I am a pro who would like to go totally digital this year and was
counting on this camera to be the one that would bring me there.
Click to expand...
.... either. I will take delivery of one as soon as Canon actually delivers it.

I am a 1D user already so I already enjoy a considerable machine and the MKII initially did not inspire me at all to consider it.

Since then I’ve been convinced by a few forum members who have since also gone very quite on the camera, IMO this is the biggest telltale sign of less than stellar performance from the device. The rather lack lustre recent reports don’t set the blood racing either, do they?

However, the machine has certain attributes, its performance is known, it has great high ISO, noise and dynamic range performance, coupled with better battery performance and subsequently better field endurance (than the 1D, means nothing if you are not already familiar and is stellar if coming from a D30 or such).

RAW conversion and software (free??) seems pretty good or excellent even.

Now put all the ‘evidence’ together and I come to the conclusion that the software is ‘free’ because we need to use it with the MKII to maximise its image qualities.

I am primarily a JPEG shooter, and as with the soft D100 in an otherwise excellent camera, I see the JPEG out of camera performance of possibly similar characteristics. Given that a D100 image is just about passable and that the MKII is cleaner with more pixels then I still see it adding up to a serviceable machine.

However, that nagging doubt still lingers and my dealer, just yesterday, wanted me to cancel my MKII order and take immediate delivery of a 1DS for just another €2,000 if I think about it I still wonder if I did the right decision in refusing.
 
and I may have to weigh whether the benefits of the lower noise at higher ISO (possibly at the expense of out of camera sharpness based on others statement) is where I need to go. I like the pro bodies as I often shoot and hike to waterfalls and around a lot of moisture. I also need fairly quick focusing capability but also shoot macro and like tack sharp images.
I hope this camera will foot the bill since I didn't upgrade my D-60 to the 10D.

I am not asking for Kodak 14N sharpness but if its as good as my D-60 out the box then I will be happy.
John R>
http://www.pbase.com/jrandyh
 
Your right, Gerard. But I did not post the images I shot because they were horribly soft. I shot an overall room shot with flash at various exposures with the 24-70 at full wide at f5.6. The images were very lackluster. Now since I do handle a digital camera every weekend for profit and have pretty discerning judgement about the output I am getting on every shot...I would expect that a professional camera would give me at least a close approximation of a saleable shot without large amounts of voodoo. Especially since this is touted as a high speed, accurate piece of equipment.

This weekend, I shot a total of 980 exposures with my D60 and only had to dump about 14 of them due to exposure or color issues.
Gerhard Pinehurst said:
Kevin Dufff said:
They WOULD have been spotted by one of the quite large number of
people. That have been scouring these and all other forums from all
over the world for 1D MKII images!
Click to expand...
Actually I was about to make the same posting as you did here
Kevin. However, I looked around and found the thread. Andrew had
the opportunity to have a brief look at the M2 at a Canon demo. He
did not actually post images shot by himself. It was rather a
friend of him shooting. Andrew, though, had the rare opportunity to
be the subject of the images. Not many of us have. In fact, I have
not heard of anybody on this forum who has.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=8117004

He's not sure the camera was operated correctly but was overall
very impressed by the results of E-TTL 2 at that time.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=8117881
--
Gerhard Pinehurst, Sweden
Click to expand...
--
Andy C
 
Yes, correct!

I know Dirk.

I can tell you for sure that all pictures are NOT modified. No Sharpening or somthing else was done. Only the copyright was done in photoshop. Because of Filesizelimitations the files are a little bit reduced in size.

Original: To achieve better compression and for inserting the copyright, the pictures were treated with PS (but not sharpened or modified in any other way!)

Joerg
TrapperJ said:
Andrew Chiciak said:
I think these were already processed by the reviewer...they certain
won't take much more usm before they start to look "digital"
Click to expand...
We'll have to take his word for it, but the guy who took them says
over on the German forum that he did no out-of-camera processing on
these images other than to add the copyright in Photoshop.
--
James

Click to expand...
--

--
Joerg Eckert
http://www.pbase.com/jeckert
http://home.fotocommunity.de/jeckert
 
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