canon 1ds mark II

Andy

it's a lot of camera! (and it ought to be ) well, i got my hands on it today. i have really just begun to familiarize myself with it.

some of my reservations before buying are still holding true - i really love the form factor of the 20d, and while i knew the 1ds mark II was a ton bigger and heavier, i still wanted to try it out. the look and feel are battle-quality. it's quite a joy to behold!

looking the the viewfinder nearly made me cry. it's so big, bright and beautiful!

there 45 focus points, that's pretty sweet - i enjoyed the extra flexibility of more focus points to choose from. and it does make a difference if you like to shoot wide open, focus and then recompose can cause dof errors.

i'm a little concerned how my 16-35L will perform on the ff body. the folks over on the 1d forum at dpr have nothing good to say about this lens on the canon ff, but i have had stellar results from the lens on my 1.6x bodies. this could be a potential deal killer for me, as i really like to shoot wide. on a positive note - it's so freakin' cool to look through the viewfinder and see the whole 16mm fov! i'd almost forgotten what it looks like :wxwax

the files are beasts! crimony - 18-21meg raws and roughly 10 meg jpgs :lol3

i'm looking forward to shooting on the streets of new york with it next week.

stay tuned.

DJ-S1

Way to go, Andy! I can't wait to see what you capture with that new monster. You're gonna get Popeye arms hauling that one up to your eye!

Michiel de Brieder

Aww man
[turning green with envy] nah, I'm glad for you! Must be great to hold and indeed view! One of the main reasons for me to have FF would be the much bigger viewfinder and true FOV (been bothered by that in a studio environment, I really wanted to use the 70-200 but it was just too much tele :cry)
Kudos on the purchase Andy!

Andy

the high iso
1600 and 3200

appear every bit as good as the 20d. iow, really low noise! canon really has the sensor noise thing beat imo. properly exposed 1600 on the 1ds mk2 would not need noise reduction for a print imo.

canon!

Michiel de Brieder

THAT is good news!

andy wrote:

1600 and 3200

appear every bit as good as the 20d. iow, really low noise! canon really has the sensor noise thing beat imo. properly exposed 1600 on the 1ds mk2 would not need noise reduction for a print imo.

canon!

I was afraid of the ISO performance.... Perhaps in some years when I accumulate some cash .... The 1Ds MK II would be the ultimate camera for concerts then, besides excellent high ISO performance also the ability to heavily reduce noise by resizing and beter crop-ability [drool]
Any sign of banding with the mk II? I know you haven't been troubled by it with the 20D (neither have I )
Cheers

MainFragger

Based off you usage...
1. Do you think the learning curve on this camera would be harder for someone who is use to shooting with pro cameras, or for someone who is just going to start shooting with pro cameras. In other words, will a pro feel like he has to relearn this camera, and run into more foibles than someone who just picked up their first pro camera and had no preconceptions?

2. I've had my eye on this camera since I've first heard of it, and lobster syndrome kicked in (My parents call me lobster boy because without knowing anything about expensive foods/items, and without seeing the price, I always manage to pick and like the most expensive item offered). I am usually pretty broke, but soon will have an opportunity to have enough money availble to pick this camera up. My question is... Do you feel that someone who eventually wants to be a pro should start with the best in hopes of just having that much less to overcome in shortcomings and image quality, and in cost in having to upgrade later? Or do you feel someone just starting as a pro would be better off getting a lesser camera and upgrading as they feel the need to? I tend to learn features pretty quickly (I do tech support for a living and often have to create many of the troubleshooting techniques for our facility off the top of my head while dealing with p.o.'ed customers), and my fear is that even though I may not "Need" such a powerful camera now...in 6 months I will find reasons to want it, and then not have the money available to me anymore.

MainFragger

Andy

MainFragger wrote:

1. Do you think the learning curve on this camera would be harder for someone who is use to shooting with pro cameras, or for someone who is just going to start shooting with pro cameras. In other words, will a pro feel like he has to relearn this camera, and run into more foibles than someone who just picked up their first pro camera and had no preconceptions?

2. I've had my eye on this camera since I've first heard of it, and lobster syndrome kicked in (My parents call me lobster boy because without knowing anything about expensive foods/items, and without seeing the price, I always manage to pick and like the most expensive item offered). I am usually pretty broke, but soon will have an opportunity to have enough money availble to pick this camera up. My question is... Do you feel that someone who eventually wants to be a pro should start with the best in hopes of just having that much less to overcome in shortcomings and image quality, and in cost in having to upgrade later? Or do you feel someone just starting as a pro would be better off getting a lesser camera and upgrading as they feel the need to? I tend to learn features pretty quickly (I do tech support for a living and often have to create many of the troubleshooting techniques for our facility off the top of my head while dealing with p.o.'ed customers), and my fear is that even though I may not "Need" such a powerful camera now...in 6 months I will find reasons to want it, and then not have the money available to me anymore.

MainFragger

learning curve - yeah even a curve from 1.6x bodies like the 10d, 20d etc. it's bigger, heavier, and full-framier so the differences are in metering choices and exposures and in lens performance and usage, because everything's magnified on the ff.

i think you should start with the 20d, put some $$ into good glass, and get the ff when you hit a brick wall with the 20d.

Andy

Michiel de Brieder wrote:

I was afraid of the ISO performance.... Perhaps in some years when I accumulate some cash .... The 1Ds MK II would be the ultimate camera for concerts then, besides excellent high ISO performance also the ability to heavily reduce noise by resizing and beter crop-ability [drool]
Any sign of banding with the mk II? I know you haven't been troubled by it with the 20D (neither have I )
Cheers

no banding whatsoever that i can see or even force.... any iso.

Steve Cavigliano

Andy,

HoooBoyyyy, Santa came early for you I am really happy for you. I know how much you wanted this camera. I sure hope you can get acceptable results with the 16-35mm. As you say, this is a stellar performer on the 20D, it would be a shame if it didn't do as well on a FF camera. Plus, I know how much you enjoy wide. Not many other high quality wide zoom options out there

So is this a "test drive"? Or, are you thinking of keeping it? If you keep it, are you going to keep the 20D too? Have you tried it with the 580EX yet? I know, I ask lots of questions.....lol

Congratulations Like everyone else, I'm green with envy. You have to promise (no matter how much I beg), to not let me look through the VF. Doing that with your 10D and 20D damaged me for life The DW would kill me :whip if I tried to spend $8000 on another camera, so soon. She's still in intensive care about the $5000 20D kit....

I see many more Sting shows in your wife's future BTW, he's here in Feb.


Steve

wxwax

Since I'm 1 for 1 in predictions, here's my next one. Despite concerns about edge softness with his beloved 16-35, Andy will keep the DsII, and sell his 20D on the internet. Shortly thereafter he'll begin posting questions about computer upgrades.

MainFragger

wxwax wrote:

Since I'm 1 for 1 in predictions, here's my next one. Despite concerns about edge softness with his beloved 16-35, Andy will keep the DsII, and sell his 20D on the internet. Shortly thereafter he'll begin posting questions about computer upgrades.

Hmmm...maybe that is why he was hinting I'd want to go with the 20D!

wxwax

MainFragger wrote:

Hmmm...maybe that is why he was hinting I'd want to go with the 20D!

Always thinking ahead, that lad.

pathfinder

wxwax wrote:

Since I'm 1 for 1 in predictions, here's my next one. Despite concerns about edge softness with his beloved 16-35, Andy will keep the DsII, and sell his 20D on the internet. Shortly thereafter he'll begin posting questions about computer upgrades.

I'm running a fast G5 and 8 Mgbt files from a 20D can slow it down when running a filter like Neat Image inside PS - I can only imagine what files from the 1DsMKll are like to process.

Rutt and I have had discussions about the processing power the 1DsMkll files require. I think you may be right about Andy re: new computers waxy.

Andy

file sizes

pathfinder wrote:

I'm running a fast G5 and 8 Mgbt files from a 20D can slow it down when running a filter like Neat Image inside PS - I can only imagine what files from the 1DsMKll are like to process.

Rutt and I have had discussions about the processing power the 1DsMkll files require. I think you may be right about Andy re: new computers waxy.

here are some cr2 and jpgs and one processed tiff (processed in dpp). the cr2 and the jpgs are untouched


here are some full size jpgs that have been edited (sharpening, curves, etc)



the bald-one and onethumb better fix the 8mb smugmug upload limit, eh?

pathfinder

andy wrote:

here are some cr2 and jpgs and one processed tiff (processed in dpp). the cr2 and the jpgs are untouched


here are some full size jpgs that have been edited (sharpening, curves, etc)



the bald-one and onethumb better fix the 8mb smugmug upload limit, eh?

Wow - Now those a big suckers. I may just stick with my measely ole 8Megapixel cameras after all. Congrats Andy, on your new tool.

Andy

wxwax wrote:

Since I'm 1 for 1 in predictions, here's my next one. Despite concerns about edge softness with his beloved 16-35, Andy will keep the DsII, and sell his 20D on the internet. Shortly thereafter he'll begin posting questions about computer upgrades.

we'll see

i'm smart enough (barely) to know that this camera requires some practice and experience to get things right. with ff, everything's magnified eh? so, for example, i can hold my 70-200 i.s. at 1/6th second on my 20d, i'm prolly not gonna be able to do that on the ff. i'm going to shoot with it for the week, couple days in nyc, then off to the coast again and i'll shoot some california with steve on thursday night - mebbe san francisco.

oh i can't stand the review lag - 1 sec longer than on my 20d - it crimps my chimping

Andy

16-35L wide angle not horrible

wxwax wrote:

Since I'm 1 for 1 in predictions, here's my next one. Despite concerns about edge softness with his beloved 16-35, Andy will keep the DsII, and sell his 20D on the internet. Shortly thereafter he'll begin posting questions about computer upgrades.

downsized pic

here are some full-res files (broken in thirds b/c of the upload limit). the edges don't suck.

the left third of the photo the middle third the right third

fish

those are the shortest seagulls I've ever seen.

wxwax

andy wrote:

the edges don't suck.

Yeah, doesn't seem that bad to me, but I'm no expert.

Andy

a few test pics here
nothing special. i really haven't be able to do much this weekend 'cept fire off some test shots here and there. i'm looking forward to giving it a good go this week in nyc and then san fran.

iso 1600, canon 35mm f/1.4L at f/1.4





iso 100, 70-200 f/2.8L i.s. at f/2.8

wxwax

Even your throwaways are cool shots, Andy. You're right, I don't see any banding in the high ISO shots. Love the first birdie. I feel like I can reach in and touch the pebbles on the second bird shot.

Andy

judging lens performance

wxwax wrote:

Yeah, doesn't seem that bad to me, but I'm no expert.

sid, that wide angle pic gives me some encouragement. i wouldn't be surprised if there's some different sharpening techniques that one has to learn with images such as this. and again - this is an in-camera processed jpg (lowest settings for contrast, sharpness) and then processed in post. i think that using the raw file would yield an even better result...

y'know, i read with amusement certain threads on the other more gear-oriented forums, and there are literally guys who will shoot newspapers taped up on their walls, to determine sharpness or softness. and the flame wars that go on and on! oh my .... for me, it's a "feel" thing. i will shoot for a while, normal shooting for me - and i'll know, in post, if there's a problem - i don't need nancy, sluggo, and doonesbury to tell me

Andy

wxwax wrote:

Even your throwaways are cool shots, Andy. You're right, I don't see any banding in the high ISO shots. Love the first birdie. I feel like I can reach in and touch the pebbles on the second bird shot.

the second bird (the pigeon) is an agressive crop - like maybe one fifth of the whole image - and the crop is still 3 megs :yikes



thanks sid

wxwax

andy wrote:

i will shoot for a while, normal shooting for me - and i'll know, in post, if there's a problem - i don't need nancy, sluggo, and doonesbury to tell me

And you have a rather talented eye. Anyway, wrt sluggo, it's just how some folks are wired... they get obsessive about stuff, and pick away until they find a fault. Meanwhile, they've left the real world far, far behind.

Andy

iso 3200 - completely usable
i said earlier that the high iso performance of this camera is as good as the 20d (personal experience) and the 1d mk2 (from examples i've seen). here's a shot of iso 3200, tough scene, lots of color and lights. it looks okay. it would respond well to noise removal tools, if one needed to make a big print from this type of file. i've also no doubt that a more typical type of scene would look even better. i'll try to shoot some this week.



and a 100% crop from this full image (warning, 600KB)

pathfinder

andy wrote:

i said earlier that the high iso performance of this camera is as good as the 20d (personal experience) and the 1d mk2 (from examples i've seen). here's a shot of iso 3200, tough scene, lots of color and lights. it looks okay. it would respond well to noise removal tools, if one needed to make a big print from this type of file. i've also no doubt that a more typical type of scene would look even better. i'll try to shoot some this week.



and a 100% crop from this full image (warning, 600KB)

Even at 3200, the digtal file blows away a film image shot at 400 or 800 ASA. Remember when they said digital would never replace film? Or that 35mm film was a lot better than a DSLR?

Andy

how right you are, pf

pathfinder wrote:

Even at 3200, the digtal file blows away a film image shot at 400 or 800 ASA. Remember when they said digital would never replace film? Or that 35mm film was a lot better than a DSLR?

and what i can't stand is the pixel-peeping, measurebating digerati that can't and or don't remember what asa 400 or 800 film at 8x10 even looked like. how sharp is sharp? yeah, i can make sharp shots. but sharpness alone isn't the measure of a great photograph....

you're right, put 3200 up against that any day of the week

Andy

see you thursday, steve ...
and don't worry - the first thing i'm handing you is 3lbs of full-frame joy to behold

it's more than a test drive, i do own the camera. the question is, does it stay in my bag? can't say yet. it's really nice to have. i'm not ditching the 20d yet either no, i haven't tried the 580ex with it yet, no time for that even! holidays and all, y'know?

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

Andy,

HoooBoyyyy, Santa came early for you I am really happy for you. I know how much you wanted this camera. I sure hope you can get acceptable results with the 16-35mm. As you say, this is a stellar performer on the 20D, it would be a shame if it didn't do as well on a FF camera. Plus, I know how much you enjoy wide. Not many other high quality wide zoom options out there

So is this a "test drive"? Or, are you thinking of keeping it? If you keep it, are you going to keep the 20D too? Have you tried it with the 580EX yet? I know, I ask lots of questions.....lol

Congratulations Like everyone else, I'm green with envy. You have to promise (no matter how much I beg), to not let me look through the VF. Doing that with your 10D and 20D damaged me for life The DW would kill me :whip if I tried to spend $8000 on another camera, so soon. She's still in intensive care about the $5000 20D kit....

I see many more Sting shows in your wife's future BTW, he's here in Feb.


Steve

mercphoto

Agreed

andy wrote:

and what i can't stand is the pixel-peeping, measurebating digerati that can't and or don't remember what asa 400 or 800 film at 8x10 even looked like. how sharp is sharp? yeah, i can make sharp shots. but sharpness alone isn't the measure of a great photograph....

Agreed, I've seen it too. I don't quite understand viewing a photo on a computer screen at 100%, or more. It will dither differently on paper anyway. Or worrying about how a 20x30" print will look when viewed from 9" away. A 6.3MP digital image, captured in-camera JPG, will look better than same-ISO 35mm film will, in my experience.

I recently saw some photographs for sale at a local art gallery. Many were very grainy B&W film prints. Emotionally they were spectactular, which is what matters most.

ian408

On a side note. Before you get the new computer, you'll need some storage
for that card full of images. How will the larger images change your current
workflow? Do you think you'll keep fewer on disk and more on DVD/CD?

Also, it seems (to me at least) that every doubling of size requires bigger
CF to maintain a reasonable capture rate. I know I can get between a 150
and 190 RAW images on a 2G card (depends on what I shoot). Makes the
512MB cards feel 'small'

Look forward to seeing more images. The few items you've posted look good.

Ian

Andy

ian408 wrote:

On a side note. Before you get the new computer, you'll need some storage
for that card full of images. How will the larger images change your current
workflow? Do you think you'll keep fewer on disk and more on DVD/CD?

Also, it seems (to me at least) that every doubling of size requires bigger
CF to maintain a reasonable capture rate. I know I can get between a 150
and 190 RAW images on a 2G card (depends on what I shoot). Makes the
512MB cards feel 'small'

Look forward to seeing more images. The few items you've posted look good.

Ian

yeh needs research... sigh... 2gb card holds i think 70 raws + L jpg. so i'll be buying a couple more 2gb cards for sure.

i'll documnet my workflow changes as i figure them out