Should i use a lower resolution for 5d MK II?

[gary_chui]

<p>The reason why i ask this is because of this comparison:<br>

<a href="http://www.photographybay.com/2008/12/27/canon-5d-mark-ii-vs-nikon-d700-in-depth-iso-comparison/">http://www.photographybay.com/2008/12/27/canon-5d-mark-ii-vs-nikon-d700-in-depth-iso-comparison/</a></p>

<p>They made a comparison with D700 and 5D MK II on the noise they produce in different ISO settings, and the result seems to be better when the 5D MK II's resolution is reduced to the same as the D700.</p>

 

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Yes, go ahead if you mainly enjoy pixel peeping shadows for noise. Otherwise, enjoy the ultra high rez and huge prints possible with 21MP.</p>

[kari v]

<blockquote>

<p>and the result seems to be better when the 5D MK II's resolution is reduced to the same as the D700.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, yes, of course smaller image will look cleaner. If you want cleaner looking high ISO files and smaller resolution is fine then why not.</p>

<p>Interestingly I think 5D mkII beats D700 even at full size at ISO 3200. I mean there's some surprisingly good looking grain like noise and super high resolution (ISO 3200!). What's not to like?</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>It's a poor test, Gary.</p>

<p>The 5D II gives you everything the D700 can do, noise-wise - just downsize the images to D700 resolutions - but the D700 can't <em>ever</em> give you 21 mps' worth of detail.<br>

<img id="kosa-target-image" src="" alt="" /></p>

[elliot1]

<p>I have done several comparisons between the the various resolution settings and find there is a bit of a color shift when you stray from the 21mp setting.</p>

<p>I have also found when shooting RAW and post processing that there is really no difference from D3/D700 images to 5D Mark II 21mp when shooting at high ISO. The DXOMarkk site confirms that there is barely a 1/2 stop advantage to the D3/D700 over the 5D Mark II.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Gary, I got a 5D Mark II primarily for two reasons: it's outstanding image quality, and it's outstanding high ISO performance. I only ever shoot RAW at the highest resolution, and have never been disappointed. My final arbiter of how good a camera is is how good the images it produces are, and the images I've obtained with my 5D II are second to none. </p>

<p>The results of tests that are abstracted from the context of real-world photography simply don't interest me.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>How can anyone POSSIBLY care? You own a 5D2... how could you POSSIBLY care aboput the performance of the D700? Questions like this BAFFLE me. It's pointless.</p>

<p>Go back to shooting the 5D2 in consumer mode then... 1200x800 pixels. Why the heck would you even want or need a 21MP camera? Burn all you lens hoods and fire up those thick UV filters.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The noise levels on the 5D II in its native resolution mode are excellent. You can make huge enlargments from photographs done with the 5D and noise will virtually never be an issue.</p>

<p>This is a complete distraction/non-issue.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>Gary just joined and may never post again after this tongue lashing</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>www.PixelPeepers.net</p>

<p>For everyone who enlarges their images at 400% in PhotoShop and then presses their noise into their 24-inch monitor looking for faults (not for the shooter who actually PRINTS their work).</p>

<p>D700? 5D2? All good.</p>

[images_in_light_north_west]

<p>Don't worry about what other cameras do, just get out and shoot the lowest ISO you can and when you raise the ISO reduce your image size and use carefully applied noise reduction and don't look at you images at 100%, 50% is sufficient to determin image quality for prints.<br>

Ross</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>If you wanted lower resolution, you should have bought a lower resolution camera like the D700 or a 5D.</p>

<p>This is bogus: if oranges were apples they'd make much better cider, but have lower vitamin C.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Gary is receiving a fairly representative initiation to this forum, Brett. It's not exactly the most polite and respectful forum on photo.net, if you want the truth.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>OK, here is a polite response.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Should i use a lower resolution for 5d MK II (to reduce noise)?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No.</p>

<p>The noise levels in images typically produced by this camera are already low enough as to not be an issue in photographs - certainly not in small prints or online reproductions, and in my experience not even in pretty good size prints.</p>

<p>While you might measure lower noise levels as a result a) the decrease would be insignificant in photographic terms and b) you would be giving up one of the good reasons for getting this camera if you chose to reduce resolution.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[mpolfer]

<p>Do the ends justify the means? NO........simply put, no. Their has also been talk of the 50d being sharper than the 5d markII which is true because of the pixel density but in either discussion we find ourselves splitting hairs. The real measure that is not talked about much is dynamic range and in that department the D700 edges out most of the competition with the new D3 fx in front of all. (my 5d markII is very respectable though, thank you very much!)</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>"talk of the 50d being sharper than the 5d markII which is true..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well it is true that there has been "talk"...</p>

<p>...but it is surely <em>not</em> true that the "50D is sharper than the 5D markII."</p>

<p>Dan</p>