5D Mark II image quality question and update on a previous post

<p>Hello all.</p>

<p>I purchased all the gear I said I would in my previous post:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00UjeI</p>

<p>I ended up getting insurance on the kit ONLY. I have contacted a couple of insurance underwriters in the NY tri-state area and they tell me they can't insure for accidental damage only for theft (which I already have in my homeowner's ins). </p>

<p>I am really happy with my purchase. I have snapped over 200 pics already with my new 5D MII and already see the difference in image quality vs. the 40D. And to think...some of my close peers told me that this is TOO MUCH CAMERA FOR ME. What the heck where they talking about? Where they just envious? Because how can someone say something like that. I made some picture comparisons and found that the 5D MII produces "better" "higher" "sharper" images over the 40D.</p>

<p>To my question on image quality selection:</p>

<p>On my 40D I always shoot on the highest allowable JPEG and RAW resolutions. When I do this on the 5D MII with a 16 gig CF Extreme card I get 402 images. That is so little for such a large card and yes I know it's because the files are WAY larger than on the 40D. </p>

<p>What resolution are you 5D MII owners shooting in? I want to be able to blow up images to very large sizes like 30x40 and don't want to compromise by shooting in lower resolutions.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Alexander,</p>

<p>Full sized RAW files normally come in around 25mb, but many go under 20mb with a few over 30mb each so your 16GB card should end up giving you closer to 500 images. My 8GB ones normally run mid 200's.</p>

<p>Glad you are enjoying the new gear, never worry about what others say, I hope you got it from out of State though! Sales tax be damned.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

In regard to the insurance.<br>

I took out with Nationwide what they call an "Inland Marine Policy". It just covers all my camera gear and<br>

it covers <em>any type of loss, even me dropping something, </em> and there is <em>no deductable.</em><br>

This cost approx. $10 per thousand. VERY Inexpensive.<br>

You may want to try your homeowner insurer if they don't have a similar seperate type policy just for<br>

your camera gear, Not a "rider".<br>

Best Wishes</p>

<p>I shoot RAW only and carry plenty of 8gb cards, for some casual stuff I will shoot small fine jpg and RAW.<br>

Ross</p>

<p>You said yourself, "I have snapped over 200 pics already." So I guess you weren't even close to capacity. Doesn't sound like a problem yet. Shoot full resolution RAW + JPG for as long as it is serving you.</p>

<p>If you are shooting RAW+JPG, you are making a compromise. You sacrifice some space on your memory card for the benefit of having the shot pre-developed once already. Shoot RAW only, and you'll squeeze off a bunch more frames per GB.</p>

<p>On the other hand, 400 pictures isn't so bad. With 2-3 extra cards, you'll still be able to shoot away happily for hours without having to stop and unload.</p>

<p>Insurance: another alternative is "personal property floater"<br>

If you only shoot RAW, you will <em><strong>have to</strong> </em> process every single image before you can print it or whatever. Buy more cards and HD capacity and shoot RAW plus large jpeg.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Always RAW. Not shooting in RAW reduces or eliminates a number of the advantages that might lead you to use this camera.</p>

<p>You may already know this, but there is much more to being able to blow up images to 30" x 40" (!) than using a FF body... Just sayin'</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And to think...some of my close peers told me that this is TOO MUCH CAMERA FOR ME. What the heck where they talking about?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a common refrain, and I agree: pointless. If you had picked up a 1-series camera, they might have a point, but still: it's <em><strong>your</strong></em> money.</p>

<p>Now, if it were your wife commenting... ;)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you only shoot RAW, you will <em><strong>have to</strong> </em>process every single image before you can print it or whatever.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most people don't print but, instead, view images on-screen in Lightroom, Aperture, DPP, etc. I print RAW directly from Aperture on an Epson. You only need to convert and save as TIFF/JPEG if you print at a lab or want to print after tweaks in PS.</p>

<p>I only shoot full sized RAW, but without the JPEG twin.</p>

<p>Shoot RAW plus small Jpg. I do that now because my Adobe Bridge with CS4 quit loading about 6 mos. ago, so I have to see the small JPG before I edit the Raws. </p>

<p>Prior to that I relied on Bridge to view my Raws. Sometimes software can real suck.</p>

<p>Enjoy that 5D2! </p>

Hi: You don't have to convert from Raw to JPG one image at a time. You can batch convert in several softwares. I

assume you don't print large fraction of your images. You can spend more time post processing only on the images you

plan to print. You made the right decision. Have fun. Sandy

I assume you never shoot film. I use 8MB

UDMA cards in my 5DII and my 7D and never have a space issue. Unless I am shooting sports I always shoot RAW at full resolution. I find that the discipline of having a limited number of shots actually helps my photography. Compred to an MF or LF camera digital has almost an unlimited number of shots. Slow down and enjoy the 5DII quality - even the 7D does not get close on IQ

<p>Thanks all for the comments.</p>

<p>Full RAW it is then. I don't print all the images, just some. And I guess I shall have to buy a few more cards :-)</p>

<p>This is the one I am using:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=workaround.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=646867&is=REG">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=workaround.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=646867&is=REG</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Alexander,<br>

When I bought the 5DMk2 one of my friends made a joke "Does the camera sing or dance for the money you spent?" The camera was an upgrade from previously owned XTi. I really enjoy the built quality and I can see the difference of the image quality. I shoot RAW only. <br>

Enjoy the camera and have fun.<br>

Ivan M.<br>

</p>

<p>I can only repeat, that even doing as various people have said, working only with RAW files is still more complex than "batch processing" the shots in the camera by <strong><em>also</em> </strong> making jpegs set up for your normal tastes.</p>

<p>I will also point out that RAW formats are proprietary, and you will not necessarily be able to read those files in 10 years time; but the commitment to jpeg is so broad, that it will likely remain readable for the foreseeable future. At some point, I suspect that all of us will find ourselves converting our old RAW files over to some lossless format that <em>is</em> standard.</p>

<p>JDM,</p>

<p>Whilst RAW formats might be proprietary if you have the software to open them now you will have the ability to run the software in the future. It is extremely unlikely that people like Adobe and Apple will start dropping older RAW file formats and they, Adobe, seem quite committed to the .dng and the ability to convert any RAW file into a DNG, for free. Adobe have a good history of industry standard open file formats with long lives. </p>

<p>Producing jpeg and RAW files concurrently really is a matter of choice but there are good reasons for doing it and good reasons to not do it, it really is case specific.</p>

<p>Shoot jpeg and RAW if your camera can produce the look you want in your jpegs, but realise that it is almost always fiddly to adjust jpeg parameters on the fly. You are basically stuck with one "look" unless you have enough custom function storage settings to cover all your bases. The RAW file will give you the ability to "work" any image that really is worth the time and trouble or you want to print really nicely. Even if you think you are just going to get the jpegs for web uploads or emailing you still need to adjust the size and optimise them to be efficient.</p>

<p>Shoot RAW only, if you know any images that you are going to use will need some tweeks or if you shoot varied subjects across a wide range of situations that custom jpegs are not consistent enough for. Also if your camera has any inconsistencies with WB, exposure etc etc RAW is worth its weight in gold (Doh!). Also if you use RAW enabled image viewing programs there is no real benefit shooting both, Aperture, LightRoom, iPhoto, Bridge etc all handle RAW's just as easily as jpegs. RAW really is essential for good prints that show up the quality of our equipment.</p>

<p>The overwhelming positive for jpeg is file size, but now storage is so cheap it is not the issue it was until quite recently, and to utilize that positive you end up throwing away too much valuable information for my liking.</p>

<p>Personally I shoot RAW only, pre LightRoom I shot RAW and jpeg.</p>

<p>Thanks Ivan...the things people say lol</p>

<p>Scott,<br>

After reading your and the other's suggestions I have chosen to shoot in RAW only. It's much simpler and it is saving me space. If I decide I want a JPEG out of a few images it's easier for me to just work on the RAW and save the JPEG.</p>

<p>Alexander,<br>

Depending on what I am doing with the images I may change the resolution. When I photograph weddings I have found that sraw1 provides the resolution I need. However, anytime I know I will blow up the photograph larger I use full raw, which pretty much means anytime I do landscape work, architecture, etc... I never shoot both Raw and Jpeg, as I have experimented with that in the past and have yet to see a reason for doing so. I convert to jpegs quickly in lightroom. <br>

One thing I did was invest in more cards, as my 8gigs hold anywhere from 240-300 or so images in full faw. CF cards are cheap, so just buy a few.</p>