5D MK II out of focus?

[Rootbeer]

I should, yes. But does this image for example look sharp? To me it
doesn't...

Tack sharp right on the pupal. What, you find absolutely no use for such a photo?

Looks to me like it was shot with a long lens, wide open, which is what you get when you shoot like that with a FF body. With a 1.6 format which you are used to seeing out of, you see more apparent depth of field, and things appear to be sharper, when you crop the same i.e. making an 8x10 print from it. The further away you are from your subject while using the same lens as a FF camera body, you have to back up 1.6 times further away in order to get the same composition. & when you do that, the depth of field increases. The closer you are to the subject, i.er. using the full image circle / format from the lens, you will get shallower depth of field, and you will have more subject isolation then before.

Yep sharper... so sharp I bought two of them..

JP

--
Check out my slide show & enjoy the tunes:
http://www.Myspace.com/JPphotographer

 

[canon person]

--
Hi. Thinking about upgrading from a 20D to the 5D MK II but... When I
look at the sample photos, particularly the portraits, to me they
seem to be just slightly soft. Those of you who use the model, are
the JPEGs soft? What about RAW? (with a good lens etc.) Thanks for
the info.

--

My 5D2 with any of my lenses, such as the 24-70 or 70-200 f/4 is RAZOR sharp! Post processing as well as good technique is important, especially for this camera.

I am extremely impressed with the 5D2.

Canon Person

 

[Make M]

canon person wrote:
Post processing as well as good technique is important,

especially for this camera.

I am extremely impressed with the 5D2.

Canon Person

--
Why especially with this model:O

 

[Rootbeer]

Both images you posted looked pretty sharp to me in their focal
plane. They are each as sharp as they were intended

It seems you went out of your way to find and post photos with thin DoF.

Many people like me would think you are either a troll or a very very
inexperienced photographer. I have seen trolls post before even with
the 5D and their cats using 85mm at f1.2 talking about how soft and
out of focus the image was.

So the question is which are you?

"In their focal plane" / critical point of focus.

That is exactly right. They are sharp. The image of the portrait of the woman, that was also taken at f2.0 on a 50mm lens. Not f8 or f11, which most portrait photogs shoot at in my experience.

Oh, and I just wrapped up a three week stint filling in for a staff photographer while he was on vacation.. I used both of my 5D2 bodies..shot with my prime lenses for most of the stuff I did.. which was a 135mm f2.0, not some 75-300 sloooooow zooooooom lens.. Nope.. I shot that lens wide open for most of the shots I took with it. Everything was sharp. Other lenses I used were a 50mm f1.4. The most I stopped that down was f2.8. my 200mm f1.8, which I used in an interview to get close shots with very limited depth of field, again, sharp as a tack as long as I captured the correct spot provided he didn't move too much. My 300mm f2.8 was spot on, even with a 1.4x on it.

Although I lack in the fps category, the image quality....how should I say it.... DESTROYED anything else they have ever used prior to that. My client was very impressed with the super high image quality from the tools I shoot with today., in addition to demonstrating that I could shoot wide open, and close with pin-point accuracy, and great composition that makes for dramatic effects, even when published on high-bleed newsprint.

What else can I say to convince you that the 5D2 is like....10 effing times better than that old piece of junk, you are still shooting with today in comparison?

JP
--
Check out my slide show & enjoy the tunes:
http://www.Myspace.com/JPphotographer

 

[baobob]

I get perfect results both in JPEG and RAW in terms of sharpness, aesthetic, colours, details, exposure, etc...
Works perfectly, use faithful image mode

At 100% shots might appear not as sharp as a 12-15 megapix picture, but this is just aresult of the size of the picture on the screen and also of the resolution of the sensor

Ex : with the 100-400 Canon EF-l at 400mm shots are sharp but not that much
With the excellent Sigma 24-70mm, all shots are extremely sharp at 100%

OTOH, thx to the big file PP will help, if needed, both in large JPEGs and of course RAW, to sharpen a bit more according to what is desired.

All in all, superb IQ, this has been described everywhere hundreds of time, I'm surprised that people can continue to argue regarding 5D2 IQ................

Robert

 

[Make M]

All in all, superb IQ, this has been described everywhere hundreds of
time, I'm surprised that people can continue to argue regarding 5D2
IQ................

Robert

--

It's just that I've got proof of the opposite... http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3x/sharpness-comparison-5d-mark-ii.htm Not that any of that guys thoughts make any sense...

 

[Kabe Luna]

...but take sharpening very well and in practice, even without sharpening, there's plenty of detail.

--
Hi. Thinking about upgrading from a 20D to the 5D MK II but... When I
look at the sample photos, particularly the portraits, to me they
seem to be just slightly soft. Those of you who use the model, are
the JPEGs soft? What about RAW? (with a good lens etc.) Thanks for
the info.

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com

 

[davejp]

I think the problem is that you are not used to looking at such high resolution images. The higher resolution means a more natural look with more pixels per eyelash and hair for example. It smoother in my opinion. Certainly the higher resolution reveals a slightly missed shot more than low resolution.

So though the 5D is unforgiving to photographers who miss, like in the samples you posted, I find the camera delivers great detail and natural sharpness when I use it correctly. And you are silly to look at any jpg sample. Shooting is jpeg is for DSLR's of yesteryear.

For example, a random candid of my kid at the park yesterday...

partial crop



100% crop, RAW via Lightroom Adobe Camera RAW - sharp 43, radius 1.4, detail 46.



--
A photo a day: http://dave.jp/category/everyday
Buy my book: http://www.blurb.com/user/davidinjp
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davejp/

 

[baobob]

I am sorry to have to say that KR is probably one of the worst source of technical info you can get....

I read the pages you are referring to he is just comparing tomatoes with potatoes I mean he is working with JPEGs without any standardisation criteria, thus validity = 0

One of the best refernce site for IQ is Imaging resource
The review at DPR is also quite impressive

I really don't understand how KR can get such bad shots with a 5D2....He must be an awesome tester.....

canon 5d2, Nikon D700 and D3x are the best DSLR cameras ever build, each one having some advantages in given situations
The 5D2 is a compromise between very high resolution and very high sensitivity

I've been using Canon SLRs and DSLRs for years, my most recent being 350D, 40D, 450D and I can tell you how good is the 5d2 in comparison with 40D and 450D (which is BTW an superb small and light DSLr for travel or trekking)

It's clear that to get the maximum benefit from the sensor, you have to fit a very good lens on the 5D2 My Sigma 24-70mm gives stellar results

 

[Michael Meinhard]

If you look at web size jpgs and think thea look soft: don't worry, this is surely not the real thing!

If you look at 100% and some pics look soft: don't worry, you are just too close.

If you look at out of camera jpgs and they look too soft: don't worry, there is a RAW option and if you pay a considerable amount of money for a camera like the 5DMKII, there is little reason to use the jpg-mode (or you should consider another camera).

As I'm coming from the 20D, like you do, I can only encourage you: the 5DMKII is a big step forward while giving you a familiar feeling from the first minute.

Biggest advantages:
+ resolution (space to crop)
+ no real reason to avoid ISO 800 or 1600
+ the screen!
+ all the bells and whistles
+ autofocus seems much more accurate (IMHO)
+ battery life (700+ imgs per charge is no fairytale)

Disadvantages

• huh, these files are big!
• 'only' 3.9 fps
• heavy, my arm was aching after 4 hour shooting

Reagrds,
Michael

--
http://mmfoto.posterous.com
http://www.mm-foto.de

 

[Make M]

--

LOL, Thanks for the advice. The minuses are prett much what I have on my list too btw.

 

[dogwood]

You know-- to get that soft glamour look

Seriously-- it's like any camera. 99.9 percent of the time you have a "soft" focus it's because of the user, not the camera.

--
Pete Springer
http://www.petespringer.com

 

[Make M]

I am sorry to have to say that KR is probably one of the worst source
of technical info you can get....
I really don't understand how KR can get such bad shots with a
5D2....He must be an awesome tester.....

canon 5d2, Nikon D700 and D3x are the best DSLR cameras ever build,
each one having some advantages in given situations

I kind of figured that, somehow