Question about 5D MKII resolutions

unclened

unclened

Messages
4,009
Edit My Images
No
I am looking at the 5D MKII to replace one of my 5D's. I am particularly drawn to it for its high ISO handling capabilities, but I find that the resolution of my 5D is absolutely fine for my purposes.

I havent used a MKII myself, but I know that you can reduce file size/image resolution. Are there any obvious disadvantages to shooting lower than the max resolution? Ideally id like to get it close to the file size/resolution of my existing 5D.
 
Only disadvantage is smaller image, if you're happy with what you have then I'd say you have no worries. Me, though, I always shoot as big as I can; you can always shoot big and reduce but it's less easy to shoot small and upsize.

I picked up a Mk II myself the other week, traded my old 1DS for it. So far I'm very happy with it.
 
hmm good point. My thinking is that I am quite comfortable, with resolutions/file sizes/memory card sizes and workflow for what the 5D puts out. My main goal priority is FF camera with better ISO handling
 
Buy a couple of 1.5TB drives, a handful of 8GB CF cards and take full advantage of the resolution.
 
User Name said:
Buy a couple of 1.5TB drives, a handful of 8GB CF cards and take full advantage of the resolution.
Click to expand...

lol, that would be straightforward wouldnt it? Id still like to continue shooting with the 5D though, im just worried about a possible noticeable difference between the two purely due to the resolution (even though I am happy with the 5D)
 
I upgraded from a 5D to a 5D mk II, and I thought like you at first, as I was happy with the 5D classic's resolution..

However I'm surprised at how quickly I've got used to the 5D mk II's 21mp resolution - even if the size of the RAW files it creates is a nuisance! :) I love taking a portrait with it and being able to zoom into the pores on the subject's skin - the amount of detail there is amazing.

For most applications you'll probably find you don't need the extra resolution. I recently had some prints made for framing, and I ended up having to reduce the resolution in Photoshop in order to get the print company's preferred DPI! (on the 5D classic I needed to upsample).

However the extra res comes into its own if you want to crop part of a picture, and still have a usuable resolution for enlargements.

Apparently a Kodachrome slide contains around 20mp of picture data, so it could be argued that the 5D mk II, Sony A900 and Nikon D3x are the first SLRs to produce higher quality results than film was capable of - and of course that's before you consider the ability to shoot at high ISOs way beyond ISO 200, which was the fastest Kodachrome emulsion on the market.

I was toying with the idea of running a Nikon D700 alongside the 5D mk II (I still have a couple of Nikon lenses from my film days, including a nice 50mm f/1.2), but that would seem like a step backwards in terms of IQ now.

Id still like to continue shooting with the 5D though, im just worried about a possible noticeable difference between the two purely due to the resolution (even though I am happy with the 5D)
Click to expand...

I don't think you'll find a jarring difference in terms of IQ - but what you will notice is the 5D mk II's superior noise handling. I've found that noise only becomes noticeable from around ISO 4000 upwards, whereas on the original 5D I wouldn't want to go higher than around ISO 800 or 1000.

Are there any obvious disadvantages to shooting lower than the max resolution? Ideally id like to get it close to the file size/resolution of my existing 5D.
Click to expand...

I can see your logic, but I think it would be a shame to "cripple" the output of the 5D mk II to match your original 5D! Personally I'd be looking to upgrade all my 5D bodies to the mk II :D

A.
 
thank you for your post anorakus... it was very very insightful!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top