MK II vs. MK IIn

PaulBoothroyd · #8 12-01-2005, 05:26 PM

Not really, I speak and write as I find from my own experience; I knew exactly what I was going to get when I bought a 1DMk2 and knew what post-processing I would need.
If you have a problem with images not to your liking straight out of the camera the 1DMk2 is so configureable that there MUST be a set of parameters in there somewhere which you can use to fine-tune things.

I'm sure that many of the problems which are perceived to be the fault of digital were there when we shot film as well. The difference is that most people in the PJ/news and sports line did not do their own film processing - any post-shooting problems were sorted out by the processing and darkroom staff, before images got to the art directors desk.

You know the sort of exchange, "Paul, what did you rate that last batch of Sensia at?", "Oh, right", "could you rate the next lot a bit lower, they were a bit thin and flat this week". So you do, but they don't tell you that in the meantime they've changed the E6 chemicals for a fresh batch............................

Now EVERY digital photograher is/tries/has to be not only a photographer but a Photoshop technician (the new processing and darkroom set-up) as well, with pictures needing to go directly to the desk of someone who doesn't/can't do anything but crop the image to fit - this learning curve can be awesomely steep.
I know photographers who are excellent at taking pictures but hopeless with anything to do with computers/Photoshop - and vice versa............

John_Cornicello · #9 12-01-2005, 05:37 PM

Hi Paul.

Personally, I don't find the 1DmkII to be soft. Even with my RAW images I rarely have to do much sharpening. But whenever I say that others jump in to say how much "extra" sharpening they have to do.

I think many folks complaining about the sharpness are only looking at their screens and not at final printed images (be that photographic prints or half-toned images in publications).

John

PaulBoothroyd · #10 12-01-2005, 05:52 PM

I use exactly the same amount of USM that I used on a 10D. and I know which are the better images to start with.
In Photoshop straight out of the camera my 1DMk2 images at the default 72dpi are 48"x32" (rounded down to nearest inch) and I can veiw that at 100% on the monitor - a 35mm transparency would need to be viewed on a lightbox with a 32x lupe to equal that I believe (correct me if I'm wrong, please). So yes I think you are right John - pixel peeping?

Dennis_Wood · #11 12-01-2005, 08:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Does this article affect your thinking?

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1490

--bill

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting........I know Brad and I'm surprised he was so dissatisfied with the MkII....funny thing is a lot of the sports guys I've talked to aren't in any hurry to rush out any buy new cameras just yet.
I gotta disagree too, there's nothing soft about what I see coming out of my MkII, maybe I'm just not as critical of an eye as Brad is. I certainly can't fault his work, he's definitely one of the best.

KenRexach · #12 12-01-2005, 08:24 PM

Just finished scanning some 35m slides at 4000dpi, man, If any dslr put out files like the scans they would be called junk cameras. [and i was careful with the scans]

Brian_Hamfeldt · #13 12-01-2005, 09:11 PM

Dennis,

You just commented on what people might be missing:
"...surprised he was dissatisfied with is MkII..."
When he probably wasn't - but upon getting the -N-, he realized how much better is was.

I think alot of us are missing that. Everybody who has a MkII wants to think their investment is justified and that getting a newer model is NOT justified. And that is probably the case for most people. However, Brad seems to think differently.

So the question for all who say their images aren't soft coming out of their MkIIs - who can say they've compared similar images made with a II and an -N-? I think the sharpness issue of the -N- is a relative comparison, not a direct, point of fact statement.

Getting back to Christopher's original dilemma:
I think you have to look at your current shooting style to know what direction you need to head. Does your second 1D body act as a lens holder now - only as a backup? Or is it a fully functional second, active body?

I've had 2x 1D bodies for the past three years and use both of them quite often (close to 1 million shutters through both of them combined). I now have an -N- and the feature set is a nice upgrade - mostly similar to the MkII - but with a few more features. But after using the mini-plasma display on the -N-, it's very hard for me to squint at the grainy display of my 1D bodies!

Overall, I'd say go with door #2 (as I am) and work your way up to two similar bodies - but going with the latest technology has to offer. Like Canon states: the -N- is the MkII 'refined' and I think that is a good way of putting it. So, for me, I'd rather get the newer functionality of the latest offering, knowing that I'll be replacing it in another 3-4 years - and I didn't want to get some older bodies, whose life expectancy is already half over. (not really, just in an historical sense of current market trends: the Canon 1D is now in Canon's online "Museum")

Good luck...
Brian.

DavidHarpe · #14 12-02-2005, 02:07 AM

It's important to note that the Sports Shooter article, although from a reputable shooter, is truly anecdotal in nature. There are numerous unaccounted for variables (since he's a pro shooter he could have had one of the first 1DMkII's off the line, for instance). In his case, with his gear, the images appeared to be sharper to his eye. The article had no comparison samples, no controlled testing (even though he had access to duplicate bodies), etc.

Since he had access to both bodies, it seems that it would have been fairly easy to mount a 300 on a tripod and take identical photos to prove the point. This would be a test I would really like to see. You could also do focus tracking testing in the same way - point the 300 at a strech of road with cars approaching and do identical 8fps sequences, for instance.

I use my cameras to make money. I'd upgrade in a heartbeat if I thought my 1DMkII's were underperforming, but they aren't. I get consistently sharp images from both of my MkII's. But I also have late-vintage bodies (just a year old this month), which I think may be a factor in the softness issues.

Pro Photo Store

Visit the B&H Pro Photo Store for the best Gear Prices and regular specials!

Brilliant Color for any Digital SLR
White Balance Cap
The Pros Agree on ColorRight
What People Are Saying