Several 5dII questions :)
- is it usual for a body-only purchase to come in a "kit" box... without the lens?
- does the shutter sound quite different from the 7d? It's almost a sort of thud-zzzhh rather than the click-thud of the 7d
- is it typical for it to meter ever so slightly underexposed compared to the 7d?
- are files typically a bit cooler and/or less saturated than those from the 7d?
I admit I got caught out by the thumbwheel lock and nearly panicked, but remembered about it from my short period with the 50d after I looked at it for a moment. Duh.
So far, the focus has been fine - yes, I'm going to miss my extra AF points (and the "spot focus" feature) of the 7d but, as I suspected, it's not so different from the xsi/xxd's I've used. I've missed some of the shallow dof test shots but I've done that on the 7d too - I consider it user error at critical tolerances rather than camera failure. For the most part has locked on quickly and accurately using my 85 1.8 and 24-70; have yet to try the other lenses, but it really doesn't feel particularly sluggish.
In any case, a couple of quick test shots. It is a dull, overcast day here; settings were ISO2500 - 85mm - 2.2 - 1/500
While the 7d has served me well and is a stunning camera, it just can't produce this DOF "look" in the same planes; the non-crop-factor means it just behaves *differently* (no news to many of you, but experiencing it firsthand is pretty cool
. Sure I had to sharpen these up a tad and bump up the luminance NR in Lightroom, but it looks pristine, even at 100%. Plus, at last I can get that "meltaway" look I love so much; you *can* achieve it on a crop camera, but I've always struggled to match lens>subject distance>face angle>DOF and often not quite managed the effect I want and see in other photographers' work; this really is the missing link I had hoped.And of course I'm now lusting over the III even more than before - if I'd spotted today's ebay/Beach special offer in time I might well have caved and sent this one back instead!!
facebook | photo site |
0
Comments
1) I bought my 5DMKII as a kit and it does sound like yours was taken from a kit as well. My 7D was body-only and did not come in a kit package.
2) Just testing back-to-back, I'd characterize the sound of the 7D shutter as being a bit more crisp sounding, perhaps higher-pitched than the 5DMKII. I'm not getting a zzzhh out of that though, but maybe we hear things different ways. Make sure you're using the same shutter speeds.
3) Just checking the metering with crop-corrected equivalent focal lengths on the same scene, I see that the 5DMKII wants to meter a good half-stop faster (under-exposed) than the 7D. This seems to confirm what you see as well. Interesting, I never noticed that.
4) I never noticed a difference in color balance or saturation. But maybe it's there and I never noticed. Are you shooting JPG? Otherwise, I'm not sure how you'd notice these things. Either way, you'd want to be sure you have exactly the same parameters in JPG or ACR which ever you're using.
I love my 5DMKII. It works fine for my purposes and I'm in no rush to upgrade to the MKIII.
Cheers,
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
1) I believe that I have heard of some folks getting their 5D MKII body alone, but in a "kit" box, but mine was in box designed for the body only (although it has a picture of the body with a lens mounted).
2) Yes, the 7D and 5D MKII have completely different shutter mechanisms, therefore, different sounds.
3) Yes, the meter systems are completely different between these two bodies and no two bodies will have perfectly identical metering, even in identical models.
4) The Canon 7D and 5D MKII are different bodies, with different imagers, different sensitivities, different RAW rendering and different JPG setup options. For the best comparison I recommend shooting in RAW and then using the same version of DPP to process the RAWs from each camera. You should get closer results using DPP than using Adobe Raw Converter with default processing.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Congratulations on your purchase! Perhaps now your sanity will be restored! I dove in here and whoa! Look at the Mini-D. Looking like the Mum more and more~
Anyway, Shutter...Hear below~
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gyc6GrKgDmg" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>
Yes, Tom, that's what it sounds like so I think I'm good to go. That's Mini-D's "Oh, alright then" look. I hadn't thought how it resembles the expression in my profile shot here, but you're right - ha!!
I may contact Amazon and ask about the box issue - obviously, I purchased from a reputable retailer so I'm not "worried" as such, but it did strike me as a little odd (for a moment I thought they'd sent me the kit by mistake - since I very nearly *had* ordered the kit, which is a tremendous value right now, I really DID question my sanity!!
As for the underexposing - I'm finding I need to shoot at what is as much as 3 "ticks" (on the meter line in viewfinder) to the right to get the exposure I would expect from my 7d. Honestly, I think I'm going to miss the 7d's meter more than its AF, at least based on these first tests....
Also: when I tried to use "A" ISO - which is WONDERFUL on the 7d - I got consistently underexposed shots because the ISO never set itself above 400. Is there a custom function I need to find - a limiter or something? I groped around in the menus but didn't see it; possibly time to RTFM....
ETA: I was comparing the 5dII's raw files to my 7d's raw files - no scientific test, just a general observation. Often the 7d's files have quite strongly saturated reds and greens; the 5ds raw files were much "blander" if that makes sense. Easily adjusted when processing, but I was instantly struck by the difference.
Yeah, the Auto ISO was not very thought out on this body, IMHO.
I know lots of folks who upon buying a 24-105 lens, it came in a white "kit" box, taken out of a 5DII kit. Mine did too. I don't see how your body coming in a kit box has any negative meaning
IMHO, it was a very pleasant surprise at the DOF on a FF. It did take some adjustment time to get used to. I wouldn't consider going back from FF.
Shoot a lot,
Have Fun!!!
- It is common for the body to come in a kit box. Someone just took the lens out to sell separately. That's probably why you got a break on the price.
- metering: I thought the 5D2 had a tendency to overexpose slightly. Certainly in comparison to the 5D3 it does. A lot depends on the scene, and metering mode - I guess you are using evaluative? I don't think this matters, you just learn to adjust to it. Use AEB for awhile to see what works.
- coolness of files: Check if you had a "Picture Style" set up for the 7D. Did you use to shoot in "landscape" or "portrait" mode, etc.? This doesn't matter to me, since I shoot RAW and apply my own adjustments as presets in Lightroom. Some people obsess over trying to match the image on the back of the camera, but I think that is pointless. The end result is what matters to me.
Have fun with your new toy! I know you will. There is really very little reason to upgrade to the 5D3 other than the AF improvements. The images are pretty much the same. Maybe a half stop improvement in high ISO noise for RAW files, that's it. If you shoot JPEG, there are a lot more improvements in the 5D3, and better high-ISO noise, because it has onboard hardware assist for that. Plus in-camera HDR, etc. But I'm pretty sure I won't be using the JPEG features.
No picture styles - I shoot raw 95% of the time and process to taste in LR, so doesn't affect me. I expect it's just a minor variance; not a big deal, just noticed it. THat said, I often think the 7d's colours are a little OVERsaturated and sometimes have to dial down the magentas.
The AF would be the main reason for me to want the III because I'm spoiled by the 7d! Well, that and the newer exposure system. But yes, I think I'm going to like this very much based on tonight's brief test run. I'll have some more time to play with it on Thursday and look forward to it!!
That's been my general feeling on 7d as well.
The shortcomings of the AF will rear its head...one thing that helped me a great deal was to go to "back button focus" and separate the focus and shutter release. Nothing would frustrate me more than nailing down focus and then picking the finger up from shutter and having the dang thing start to hunt around. I ended up switching my technique and never looked back. Anyways, thought I'd toss that in just for your thoughts if you're not otherwise aware. Have fun with the new camera.
1 - I dunno, that's how I bought mine, but I bought it locally and they didn't have a body-only package. They happily deleted the 24-105, and charged me the body-only price. The body and the warranty and the rest of the stuff in the box is the same so there is no issue.
2 - yes.
3 - yes
4 - I found my 7D to be warmer than my 5D2. I don't think I noticed less saturation, but ymmv.
Nice first examples, but are you really shaky? I would think you could have shot at ISO 800. Now let's see that 135L. Don't use auto-ISO, use it like a real camera. If it makes you feel any better, now that I have a 5D3, the only thing I miss about my 5D2 is the meter. 5D3 seems to have a mind of its own sometimes.
Don't let anyone make you feel bad about the AF. The center point is very very good. Better than any XXD, and maybe as good as the 7D.
skier was out of view until in mid-air.
(crappy light, and green hair dye)
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Which leads me to another question: I learned with the 7d's high pixel density and crop factor that 1/2xfocal length was actually a much safer margin (and I've read of others who found similar). Is that also true with the 5's high density, or is it less of an issue with FF?
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Back button focus is good for a lot of reasons. I especially like it on the 5D3, where I have AF-ON set to registered point, and * set to selected point. The customization capability of the 5D3 is really quite awesome. Oops, I forgot this is a 5D2 thread. :-)
I will sometimes use AI-servo and back-button focus while shooting hand-held even with static subjects to cover my movement. But if you are really picky about focus, and your subject isn't moving much, using the contrast mode focus in Live View is more consistently accurate than the normal phase detect AF. And Live View manual focus with 10X mag using a tripod and remote release, and silent shooting is the best for landscapes.
1/f is just a "guideline", it is not absolute. A lot depends on how close you look and how picky you are. I tend to look very close and be very picky (which only means that I am quite often disappointed, not that I am a better shooter). It is like hyper-focal distance. A lot depends on what you consider "acceptable sharpness". These rules came about when people were printing small pictures.
You need to make your own rules. My own rule is to keep the shutter speed as fast as possible without introducing too much noise from high ISO. How's that for being vague? One thing I learned from shooting concerts. I normally use AEB, and I noticed that at night all my best picture were the underexposed ones, because they had higher shutter speed. Yes, there is the tradeoff with noise, of course. You can correct noise, but there's no free lunch; you will lose detail.
So how's that for a non-answer?
Shutter speed: The 135 really rewards a steady hand. I presume you know all of the hand held shooters tricks to steady a camera (elbows on tables, door jambs, walls, etc). But at the end of the day, the thing you focused on ought to be sharp enough to count hairs. That is a product of getting focus right and having a steady camera. The 5d2 and 135 will betray technique flaws in this regard, but the flip side is that it "magnifies your greatness" when you nail one. Fortunately, the high ISO performance often lets you buy a much needed shutter speed.
You might do some alternating tripod - handheld - tripod - handheld shots of the same subject (such as a sleeping pet) at different speeds. Go to 100% and count hairs. The goal is to know "at this shutter speed, I'm as good as a tripod" as well as "at this shutter speed and slower, I'm going to lose sharpness."
You're calibrating more than your new camera, you're fine tuning the photographer as well.
True of that lens on ANY camera I think.... although I'm going to guess even more so on FF. Can't wait until I have time to play with it some more tomorrow
That, right there, is one of my reasons for wanting to have a FF's ISO performance. In an indoor or cloudy natural light portrait session with the 7d I'd love to keep it at 800, will use 1250 when needed, push it to 1600 if I have to, and don't feel 2000 is appropriate for a formal portrait (although I don't mind the results of 2000 on the 7d in other contexts - it's the context that change things for me with this). With the 5dII I have no doubt I can START with 1600 (that will probably be my default setting, frankly) and easily use 2000 or even higher and still wind up with a clean, clean final image to deliver. I have wanted that capability for a lonnnng time....
I know on my 7d+135L I can guarantee it'll be ok at 1/250 and up, 1/200 is pretty reliable, 1/160 requires me to consciously think "hold still", and 100-125 I can sometimes nab one frame in a series, but always shoot multiples to get one I'm sure of. I'm definitely NOT a particularly steady hand unless I'm concentrating on it; I get too busy looking through the viewfinder, moving around for angles or directing the subject and forget to invoke best-practice!
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
I am absolutely LOVING the way it lets me frame my subjects - as I said above, THIS is the thing I've been missing on a crop camera when taking frame fillers and other shots where I really want to use DOF to isolate a close subject. On the crop camera, I've found it hard to get the entire "mask" of the face in focus while letting everything behind/below it start to melt into the bokeh. I've tried different lenses and different subject distances and it's never quite worked the way I wanted except occasionally by accident. With FF, it seems to happen without my having to overthink it. I can also stop down a click or two to avoid using my lenses wide open, which instantly means greater sharpness and clarity in the areas I DO want in focus, which is a very nice little bonus too
The FF files don't seem to need as much manipulation in post, either (even though they will take the same torturing I sometimes give my 7d files without crumbling).
Actually, that brings another Q to mind (as I try to parse what the pixel density means on a FF sensor): can I crop these as deep as I often do my 7d files? I have often chopped my 7d files by as much as 50-60% and they've been fine. Playing around with my test shots at the moment and the 5's look ok, but just wondering how far any of you may have pushed it....
I found that pixel-peeping my 5D2 images was often a treat, while I felt I had to restrain myself from doing so with my 7D, lest I be let down. If the pic looks good at 100% view, then crop all you want. Just keep your intended print size in mind. I generally try not to go below about 200ppi.
This recent shot was a 2000x3000 crop from my 5D3, but the 5D2 was similar. I would not hesitate to print that at 10x15".
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
For cropping and straightening operations, I often use ACR to interpolate first to a higher gross pixel count, 25-36 MPixels or so.
Per an older thread at the Adobe support forums:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/311713?tstart=0
I determined that you can use ACR ver 5.6, part of my PS CS4 installation and upgrade, and upres to astonishingly large image sizes in a single operation (so that you don't demosaic and generate an RGB image in ACR and then later use Photoshop to upres as a separate operation.)
The procedure:
Load a RAW image into ACR. (It makes no sense to load a JPG or TIFF even though ACR can be enabled to do so.)
In ACR choose the Crop tool
Select the entire image with the Crop tool (or as much as you can).
Right-mouse-click on the crop selection (Windows system).
Choose "Inches" as the Crop measure and then type in the inches, 8" and 12" for instance.
The inches you choose have to be an equivalent aspect ratio to the image aspect ratio in order to choose the entire image.
In the "Workflow Options", located under the image (clickable link), type in a large enough resolution number to generate the required image size.
(This can be up to 999 pixels/in, but start with 400 pixels/in or so.)
When you open the image in PhotoShop it will be the size that you designated.
The advantages of this method are that it provides finer selections and smoother straightening. You also gain a bit more control over sharpening operations.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums