5D better than 1Ds mkII ?!?

[turgut_tarhan]

Here is a <a href="http://www.mrx.no/5d_vs_1DsII.html"

target="_blank"> link</a> that 5D is compared to 1Ds mkII. On this

page, I found the first pair more comparable, because it's a static

object. Both samples enlarge to full jpeg images when the first

images are clicked. Having saved both, I upressed the 5D to the image

size of 1Ds mkII only for direct comparison purpose (note that no

data is lost unlike downressing).<br>

<br>

As the unexpected result, the 5D image appears MUCH BETTER than that

of 1Ds mkII in almost all aspects, like resolution, acuity, noise and

dynamic range (yet 1Ds mkII seems more contrasty). Even some

unreadable writings on the posters at 1Ds mkII sample become readable

with 5D (e.g. the namelist on green background below the theater

announcement with cactus graphic). Amazing! But at this point, I have

two concerns; one is that I guess the author did not use a tripod

(because the frames are slightly different), and therefore the

comparison may include some artifacts due to any possible shake. The

other issue is the use of ISO 1600 setting, which does not compare

the best of two cameras.<br>

<br>

Though I don't want to draw any premature conclusion, and I'm aware

there needs a comprehensive test; still isn't the result interesting?

Would you please try the same routine and include your opinions.<br>

[edward_h]

1. You are a pixel peeper.

 

2. The ONLY thing the 5d can do better than the 1Ds2 is "be small".

 

3. Unless you've personally tested both cameras under completely controlled conditions several times, I'm going to go right ahead and believe you as much as I believe anyone who says that the world will end tomorrow.

[roger krueger]

There are a lot of possible differences, including presence/absence of focusing errors and,

if these are camera jpgs, in-camera sharpness and contrast settings. It wouldn't surprise

me at all if a semi-pro camera had punchier defaults. I also have to wonder if the exact

same lens was used.

 

The noise performance on the 5d certainly looks better, but I've heard rumors that it's just

in-camera NR, that the raws are similar. Until the (probably far, far off) day I personally

have a 5d to shoot alongside my 1dsII I'll take all of this with a gigantic grain of salt.

 

But, since a lot of what I do is high-ISO, if after Neat Image, the 5D @ 1600 still looks

better, AND it's AF works at least as well in extreme darkness I might be tempted to trade

down.

[jake_v]

"Edward H , oct 02, 2005; 05:05 p.m.

2. The ONLY thing the 5d can do better than the 1Ds2 is "be small"."

 

Oh come on now... don't go THAT far overboard just because a camera is 2-3x the price.

 

The 5D can "do better": Fit more images on a CF card, cost less than half the price, weigh less, be used without a battery grip, take smaller images (at smaller jpg), use cheaper batteries, has a joystick, etc...

 

Not in any way saying 5D is better, but get real if you think that's the only benefit to using one over a 1d series camera.

[ky2]

It's obvious. The 5D is much better. Sell your 1DsMk2 and buy two.

[steven_wartofsky1]

This is part of the transition people will have to make now that cameras are more like computers, in the digital age; last year's top of the line, priciest componentry is next year's not-as-good-as-the-latest-at-a-fraction-of-the-price update.

 

You either live with that, or you spend like crazy to keep up with rapid technology improvement. Or, you wait until the tech is available to meet your particular needs, and then don't worry about the fact that something twice as good at half the price shows up the year afterwards. :)

[turgut_tarhan]

<p>Here is another comparison <a href="http://www.pbase.com/jayseejay/florida_wildlife__canon_1ds" target="_blank">link</a>, but at ISO 100. This time, 5D is no longer better, but nearly matches 1Ds mkII for the same parameters above. Before seeing any thorough bench tests, by

analyzing other available samples, I wish to presume that the new camera can yield acceptable quality images, comparable to 1Ds mkII, keeping the advantages regarding its price, size & image storage.</p>

<p>Personally, I'd prefer to wait about a year for its successor, probably a 16-17mp 5D mkII manufactured with this new imaging technology.</p>