Some further 5D Mark II thoughts.

Diego Garcia

Diego Garcia

Messages
3,238
Edit My Images
Yes
Update on the Mark II.

I am going to be 110% honest here and say at the moment, I am still out as a jury. If anything, I am underwhelmed. Let me explain.

ISO. Whilst not bad, one has to feel that I have perhaps been spoiled by the perfectly pitched sensor and spec Nikon had in place with the D3/D700. I am finding noise evident at 800+ ISO which worries me with regards to boxing, given that I had to go to 6400 ISO many times over the last year. If I were not shooting that much lowlight I would consider the point moot, but I will likely be doing more boxing throughout 09. What I am finding is that LR2 is not letting the images look that 'clean'. What I am not sure about is that I may be downloading RAW images with zero noise reduction as the Canon manual states that the noise reduction is/can be applied on DPP which I think is pretty awful now. Slow, clunky etc.

WB/Colour. There is definately a push to the red/warm channel on the Canon which is indicative of Canon. From experience they always have done. Of course, this can be eeked out during PP and on the camera with custom settings but I wanted to mention it. The slight and I mean slight is that everything looks cloudy WB, though LR2's auto WB feature did a sterling job on correcting it. What I will also mention is that the Nikon WB/colour always aired on the green side so I would push the green hue and lower the green saturation to get a better skin tone. I think I had the Nikon skin tone mastered, see here -

3106345146_881346b7d8.jpg


here is the same preset applied to 5D2 RAW.

3136050581_2807747ce7.jpg


So, if anyone can advise the best way to lower the red push I would be grateful.

File size. In a word, massive. So much so that my mac is slower, and I am loading 75% shots to flickr to expedite the upload. This stands to reason given the resolution of the chip set I suppose but it is worth noting. This thing needs serious power and space. I will be buying a massive 5D 2 hard drive only soon.

Handling. A dream. I now have the joy stick as my focal point change for quick rule of thirds changes, I have the set button as playback. I took some lovely pictures all day today and at no point did it feel heavy or a burden and I was even shooting 1/20th handheld as a test, with no problems.

Picture. Here is the funny thing. It is classic Canon with more. It must be something to do with the photosites and the pixels, but everything seems detailed yet smooth with the classic 5D rendering that we all came to love. At my parents today I loaded up a stack of D3 family portraits on a digi frame and they looked stunning. The 5D2 shots did too, but very very different and the only camera I have used that I can compare it to is the Sony Alpha 900 which again leads me to think about the res and spec.

Focus. No issues as such. My 50mm 1.2L was micro adjusted by -3 but not sure it needed it. Fast, locks and holds so no problems there.

To end, here are some pictures from the day, good bad indifferent, but more examples of the images the camera is getting, albeit resized for Flickr.

3136800680_5509a69951.jpg


3136819378_5ff3654783.jpg


3136004597_66f88affe7.jpg


This last picture shows how intolerant the mark 2 is if you get it wrong. Ifound that all my images were to the left of the histogram today, which surprised me. One thing Nikon did nail were the mid tones, where I started spotting all or nothing exposure from the Mark 2.

3136849628_51294959d3.jpg


So there we are. Am I happy, yes, but not 100%. If I said I was I would be a liar. I feel a bit gutted actually....
 
Did you not test the camera out before you bought it, tbh, as much as I'm a die hard canon user who'll probably replace my 5d with the mkII I really can't see what made you switch back to canon from nikon.

The current nikon range is stunning and it'll take an exceptional camera from canon to rival them tbh.
 
The colour issues I think are really down to LR and it's camera profiles. They really suffer with some lighting and colours, blues especially from Canon raw files can be very very wrong. Load the same shot in DPP and it's like it was taken with a different camera.

It's an issue that's been reported before in various places but Adobe don't seem to have gotten a handle on it yet, even with the new profiles they released as betas and included in LR2.2.

It's a shame really as LR is a great app but sometimes I have to dip into DPP to get a shot processed properly. I downloaded C1 v4 trial the other day as I used to use v3.6 and that was much closer to Canon's profile.

If you've still got the D3 I'd say the best way to get LR setup would be to take the same shot with both cameras, ideally of a colour chart and then play with the 5Dmk2 calibration settings in LR until they match up with the D3 shot, save a preset and have it applied during import.
 
Hi Pete, I'm glad to hear your thoughts on the 5D mark2. I have to say I'm quite shocked you are using the DPP software? I only use LR for my import, editing and export. I find this much easyer and it keeps everything in order like a well kept photographic library. Personally for dealing with noise I really like the LR colour noise tool. You have some nice shots their, Just get used to working with the camera mate. Make it an extension of your self. I'm looking forward to hearing and seeing more. (y)
 
Do you think that, given the way you got used to the D3, you could do the same with the 5D2, and that once you have mastered the settings, the pictures will be of a similar standard ?

I ask, as you clearly have a very clear idea of what you want/expect your images to look like, and I think it would be a tad unfair if you didn't compare the Canon after you had given a little time to grow into it, as you did with the Nikon. Just an observation.

Steve
 
pxl8 said:
The colour issues I think are really down to LR and it's camera profiles. They really suffer with some lighting and colours, blues especially from Canon raw files can be very very wrong. Load the same shot in DPP and it's like it was taken with a different camera.

It's an issue that's been reported before in various places but Adobe don't seem to have gotten a handle on it yet, even with the new profiles they released as betas and included in LR2.2.

It's a shame really as LR is a great app but sometimes I have to dip into DPP to get a shot processed properly. I downloaded C1 v4 trial the other day as I used to use v3.6 and that was much closer to Canon's profile.

If you've still got the D3 I'd say the best way to get LR setup would be to take the same shot with both cameras, ideally of a colour chart and then play with the 5Dmk2 calibration settings in LR until they match up with the D3 shot, save a preset and have it applied during import.
Click to expand...

Thanks, though as a photographer I am not that program savvy but will give this a go.
 
Ally said:
Hi Pete, I'm glad to hear your thoughts on the 5D mark2. I have to say I'm quite shocked you are using the DPP software? I only use LR for my import, editing and export. I find this much easyer and it keeps everything in order like a well kept photographic library. Personally for dealing with noise I really like the LR colour noise tool. You have some nice shots their, Just get used to working with the camera mate. Make it an extension of your self. I'm looking forward to hearing and seeing more. (y)
Click to expand...

Hey , Ally, I am not using it, it is awful, but it seems that at the moment, it is needed to process Mark II raw. I will give it some time, but not that pleased overall.
 
Jelster said:
Do you think that, given the way you got used to the D3, you could do the same with the 5D2, and that once you have mastered the settings, the pictures will be of a similar standard ?

I ask, as you clearly have a very clear idea of what you want/expect your images to look like, and I think it would be a tad unfair if you didn't compare the Canon after you had given a little time to grow into it, as you did with the Nikon. Just an observation.

Steve
Click to expand...

Noted. However, the brilliance of the D3 is it is amazing out of the box. I have shot Canon before. The colours, tone etc are fine, barring the red push, it is the noise levels that irk me. Not good, despite what people say. Again, I realise that this is unprocessed RAW files. I have been advised to shoot jpeg.
 
I haven't massively analysed results from mine yet, but if noise is an issue, maybe Canon will issue a firmware update to address both this and the black dot situation.

It's very early days, have noted what you say and no doubt your thoughts are valid, so hoping to download and process some RAWS this evening through LR2.
 
markta said:
I haven't massively analysed results from mine yet, but if noise is an issue, maybe Canon will issue a firmware update to address both this and the black dot situation.

It's very early days, have noted what you say and no doubt your thoughts are valid, so hoping to download and process some RAWS this evening through LR2.
Click to expand...

Thanks - I am far from a technical wizkid, but what my eyes see, my eyes tell me. Hope that makes sense. I will spend time with the camera, but I am wondering if I should have picked up a D700 as my smaller body, which would have made more sense. However, something, well, a lot of things about the 5D 2 appealed hence the decision. As I said, handling wise, it is a cracker.
 
And the movie function? I realise it might not be anything to do with your workflow, or your interest in general, but it's part and parcel of the selling point of the camera.

Have you had a play with it?
 
Out of interest Pete, is your display calibrated?
 
There's a "real world" review of the MKII in the BJP this week and the author praises the lack of noise at high isos. One thing though he used Aperture to process his images (after DPP), not LR.

Could it be an LR issue (such as the one with the Fuji S5 when it first came out) rather than a problem with the camera?
 
Diego Garcia said:
No. Any help ?
Click to expand...

Well it won't help as you're not starting with a level playing field and it's likely your preset is compensating for any colour cast on the display.

Another problem you could have is if your Mac has one of the LED backlight displays. They are capable of far more saturation, esp in the red/green and without calibration will give false results. A red value of 255 on the LED/Wide gamut displays translates to around 200 in the sRGB standard - those displays really are super saturated.

I know the Mac has some built in basic calibration so it might be worth trying that, setting up for sRGB and see how things look then.

I did some testing with the camera profiles included with LR2.2 and they do match pretty closely with DPP so you could also try them. In LR2.2 Find the calibration panel in LR's Develop module and where it says ACR 4.4 (or similar) click and select Camera Standard instead. That certainly knocks the red bacak some (y)
 
I should get my 5D MKII next week.

I am expecting more noise at the pixel level when viewed at 100% (which is totally expected) but less noise and more detail when the D700 and 5D MKII are printed at the same output size.

Have you tried printing?
 
Some post review comments seem to indicate the same re red colour cast:-

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=618507

Not sure whether the D3 and 5D Mk II comparisons are entirely believeable though :cautious:

As for noise showing in LR2, again the review/comments seem to indicate that DPP handles noise etc. better than LR, so maybe Adobe will issue firmware update for LR2 to address noise issues
 
The author of that review used DPP for 5D II files and applied selective NR at oncreasing ISO's, and ACR for the D3 with no NR applied. So draw your own conclusions....

There are some mutterings about the 5D II over at DWF and mixed reactions - those really looking at the 1080P are well chuffed and those looking at pure stills less so. In raw it's no better than the 1 Ds III AT ALL and you must use DPP to get decent results as of today.

Canon were quite clever here - they equipped some big names with the pre-prod bodies and they shot JPG or DPP raw and also made a big deal of the 1080P. Now it's getting into people's hands a lot are saying the same things - slow responsiveness, average AF, files much noisier than the early shots indicated. Regarding the BJP review, Terakopian I can ignore as a reviewer - they got him to review the D3 and he didn't understand the camera at all. I can only assume no-one he was shooting with has used a 1D III let alone a D3 or D700 from the response he says he got. A very well-known Canon shooter over there who promoted the 1Ds III for them PM'd me last week to talk over lens options as he's just moved to a pair of D3 bodies. He's had enough of shoddy QC and lens calibration issues. Mind you, Jeff Ascough has just dropped his 1Ds III's for 5D II's and he's pretty useful ;)

I'd echo the camera profile advice though - I use Portrait Standard and it's a nice balance for me.

Disclaimer - the 5D II is a superb camera. I just think that a 50-6400 ISO range from 21MP is asking an awful lot right now.
 
I agree - seems considering all the input from owners that unfortunately DPP seems to be the best software for the 5D Mk II right now, until LR2, ACR et al develop a fix (if they do) :(
 
Diego Garcia said:
Hey , Ally, I am not using it, it is awful, but it seems that at the moment, it is needed to process Mark II raw. I will give it some time, but not that pleased overall.
Click to expand...

Oh Sorry Pete my Bad! I forgot it can't open mark2 RAWs yet. I think you'll be alot happer when you can use it. Your still making that camera sing mate ;)
 
Ah of course.

I've upgraded my Lightroom to 2.2 now, so that seems to be working fine for my 5d mkII RAW files.
 
Further report.

I shot a couple of frames today, but used JPEG only, not RAW. What a difference. As a camera like night and day. Clean, smooth, detailed and nothing like the abject mess that I was playing with yesterday. Of course, a royal pain as I like shooting raw and pushing things around in LR2. The irony is that the expeed processor has the opposite effect in that RAW outguns JPEG by a long chalk.

PQ wise the machine got something like what I was expecting. Examples attached. The children shots are at 1000 ISO. More notably, the camera got some nice middle tones when looking at the histogram, but in RAW mode as I said yesterday, it is all or nothing. Odd.

The shots of Sheena the punk rocker (Jo) are are 640 ISO slow shutter, rear curtain flash, AI servo.

I am however very confused about my decision and not quite sure about it.

3139768710_9a8d890130.jpg


3139837882_5133fa7a17.jpg


3138959497_b822fc215e.jpg


3139785834_b67010de82.jpg


3139806864_77d4164991.jpg


3138975213_5e8f980d22.jpg


3139801620_80c913d98e.jpg
 
Dont know if anyone is following this or finding it helpful to TP but here is the latest.

In what has to be a startling turnabout, I am starting to fall in love with the camera now. Some reasons -

1. I noted that the camera airs on the side of under rather than over, so I have been shooting anywhere between 1/2/3 stops over. Critically, rather than letting the camera do all the work, I am now watching the histogram far more than I ever have done and making sure the midtones are there. I am also pushing it to the right as we look at it for better dynamic range. This has been a big shift for me in that as a sport shooter I always shot under rather than over so I could slide the exp/levels from left to right if needed, rather than trying to bring back blown highlights. As we all know, when they are gone they are gone. So in summary, shooting hot and chimping each shot where required.

2. Managing WB. As I said, the camera does err on the red side, which I suppose is ironic given my love for cloudy WB. However, I have been making sure I apply wb changes before the shot is taken, which again is about slowing down and using the camera. I will endeavor so slide away from the red shift over time.

3. For now, I am going to focus on JPEG and the once I have the camera flying all the way I will shift to RAW and then learn about the foibles of DPP. We all know the software looks and feels pretty bad, but it is free and if it eeks out the RAW detail then great. I suspect here that patience is a virtue. This of course leads back to point 2 and the Wb issues so hopefully no problems there.

4. Handling - as before, refining the way the camera is set up, to expedite on the fly changes. Once again, this goes back to the Nikon thing. The only thing I would change would be the introduction of a standalone ISO button near the shutter release. The 1000D, 450D and 1 series cameras have it and it makes changing the ISO that much quicker.

5. Aperture. Shooting at F/1.2 is nice, but the fact is that it can have a very detrimental effect on PQ as there is little for the camera to see and creates the chance for noise to creep in as it has to render something. As such, shooting stopped down, but still shooting fast. I said to Eddie Vedder that the whole idea of buying into 1.2 aperture was not for that, but for what it would afford a photographer at 1.6, 1.8,2,2.2 and so on. As an aside, note that the ideal aperture for boxing is F4 which wont happen where I go unless I use flash.

So, there we have it. Here are the latest samples ranging from ISO 3200 to 6400. Mundane around the house stuff, but what an improvement. There I was saying it would take me a while to get to grips with this machine and it is testament to the D3 that it flies out of the box - though it is a high end camera with high end metering. I have enjoyed today in a way, learning all about the foibles of the camera and trying things out. That said I was ready to box the whole thing up yesterday. There is a long way to go though but at least it has me thinking about what it may be capable of with good to great light.

Exif on flickr. All available light, no flash on 50mm lens. What I am liking I can only describe as the density of the picture. Everything seems so compact yet detailed and beautifully rendered. Better viewed on black as ever.

3140173516_700d89a535.jpg


3139342305_d1c47c734c.jpg


3140170818_1a943b0dd2.jpg


3139332865_74f4cf0e76.jpg


3140167062_4ecfe8bb3d.jpg


3139334921_6dfa0bfee0.jpg


3140168668_a86f39fc80.jpg
 
Here are a couple of the previous posted shots developed in RAW via DPP. WB changed, levels evened out, sharpened and a bit of noise reduction applied. I have now set the softwares default colour mode to apple mac which in nice. The cropped to 7 x 5 in other software. So based on these, the 5D II can do it - 3200 ISO.

3140500262_14b6f2a54d.jpg


3139647721_e56be1fea0.jpg


One thing I have noted which is not 5D Mark II related is that everyone is running different browsers. I use and base my PP on safari via mac. When my connection is slow I use Firefox which is a lot lighter than Safari. I am not sure what happens IE as I have not used a home PC in an age.

A little bit annoyed by comments made on a 'rival' forum about this, but not towards my images as such. I just think people need to think about it before they comment.
 
That's the other big can of worms about colour profiles, I had this nightmare too. I needed to make sure Photoshop was set to Mac RGB, and as long as your shots are in or converted to sRGB, just make sure the colour profile isn't saved with the jpeg and they should look the same in FF and Safari. Basically Safari uses colour profiles, and FF3 and IE don't. FF3 can but it's turned off by default o_O
 
One thing I have noted which is not 5D Mark II related is that everyone is running different browsers. I use and base my PP on safari via mac. When my connection is slow I use Firefox which is a lot lighter than Safari. I am not sure what happens IE as I have not used a home PC in an age.

Safari will use whatever colour profile is embedded in your image.

Firefox 3.0 can do this with a hack. Earlier versions can't.

I don't use IE, but earlier versions were not colour space aware.

As always, the solution to this is to use sRGB for output which most output devices use as their default.
 
WOPR said:
That's the other big can of worms about colour profiles, I had this nightmare too. I needed to make sure Photoshop was set to Mac RGB, and as long as your shots are in or converted to sRGB, just make sure the colour profile isn't saved with the jpeg and they should look the same in FF and Safari. Basically Safari uses colour profiles, and FF3 and IE don't. FF3 can but it's turned off by default o_O
Click to expand...
Firefox will use an embedded profile, as long as that profile is sRGB. It can be made to show other embedded profiles but that raises the question of why you'd even want to.
 
glitch said:
Firefox will use an embedded profile, as long as that profile is sRGB. It can be made to show other embedded profiles but that raises the question of why you'd even want to.
Click to expand...

Becuase lots of people post images online in other colour spaces such as AdobeRGB.
 
pxl8 said:
Becuase lots of people post images online in other colour spaces such as AdobeRGB.
Click to expand...

That really is an incredibly silly thing to do though, given that the de facto standard is and always has been sRGB.

Unless you have a caliberated AdobeRGB display or a printing requirement that asks for Adobe (some do), its always better to stick with sRGB.

Colourspaces always get folks into a pickle. And its so easy to avoid as well.
 
:agree: but it happens all the time. Normally because they've read and an article online or in a magazine that said AdobeRGB gives them more colours, is the professional standard, etc. written by someone who hasn't got clue one about colour management :bang:
 
Diego Garcia said:
3. For now, I am going to focus on JPEG and the once I have the camera flying all the way I will shift to RAW and then learn about the foibles of DPP. We all know the software looks and feels pretty bad, but it is free and if it eeks out the RAW detail then great. I suspect here that patience is a virtue. This of course leads back to point 2 and the Wb issues so hopefully no problems there.
Click to expand...

The nice thing about DPP, apart from the fact that it knows exactly how best to process Canon's raw files (unlike Adobe products for the first ACR release to support each camera), is that it is fully aware of all the camera settings for things like picture style, sharpening, contrast, saturation, WB, tone, HTP, ALO, NR. In other words, if you want the safety net of raw, but the fuss free results that JPEG gives, you can shoot in raw and then have DPP batch convert everything straight out to JPEG just as though the camera itself had spat out the JPEGs. Of course, with the raw masters you also retain the option to fix WB after the shoot and tweak sharpening/NR/levels/curves etc.. With only a couple of clicks you can apply a global change (e.g. WB) to one, many or all of your images and have it pop out the JPEGs with little/no hassle.

p.s. if you shoot raw you can output to sRGB or Adobe RGB as you see fit :)
 
Yep,

I agree with JoeT, it's great to have a running commentary on real world shooting and a balanced view f good and bad.

Cheers for taking the time to do it.

Personally I am underwhelmed by canon's iso performance in it's new cams viz the D700 / D3, maybe it's time for a switch.

Rob
 
woollyback said:
Yep,

Personally I am underwhelmed by canon's iso performance in it's new cams viz the D700 / D3, maybe it's time for a switch.

Rob
Click to expand...

Do you print?

I personally can see no point in blowing up a 21 megapixel image to 100% and going "hah! noise!", if you print an ISO3200 image from a D700 and an ISO3200 from a 5D MKII then - at the same output size - ie A3 - the 5D MKII should look better, with more detail. Noise rarely shows in prints as a typical monitor is 72dpi, and typical printing is 300dpi.

When I get my 5D MKII I'll put up some images from both and you can download then and print.
 
I agree with that puddleduck. At 100% on screen, my 1Ds Mk II is noisier than my 1D Mk II. On an A4 print, the role is reversed. I do wonder how many people actually make prints now though? I feel as if I am in the minority!
 
That's the problem with pixel peeping at 100%. I've printed wedding shots taken on a 30D at ISO1600 and they look great. Admittedly the same shot taken on my 1DmkIII would look better but the 30D still looks great (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top