evphotography

<p>L glass can be very good, but none of those lenses are perfect. Every lenses has its strengths and weakness. You need to decided which lens will work best for you and weather you need the extra build quality with a L lens. I posted a shot here taken with my 5D markII, that was taken with a non L $229 35mm f/2 lens. Please remember that this shot lost a lot of its sharpness when it was converted to JPEG for this posting. The original RAW image is awesome. Here is a middle section and corner section. You tell me if spending the extra $900 to get the L equalivalant is worth it, I don't think so.</p>

<p>Hey Armando,<br>

The last two posts from David and Micheal both hit the nail on the head. Don't get caught up in that pixel peeping, comparing IQ only at 100% viewing size on a computer screen. That is not real world results, unless for instance you are sending your shots to a stock agency or for editorial work somewhere, where they view the images at 100% and must be perfect or they won't use it. Do you know that an image printed from either the 1DsIII or 5D markII at 100% viewing size, would be a print that is over 4'x6'. That size prints I believe should be left for large format 5x7 or 8x10 cameras. If you ever looked at a high quality tango drum scan of very fine grained MF 6x7 film on a computer screen at 100% viewing, you would be shocked. It doesn't look pretty at all, you can see all the grain in the film, depending on how much sharping is applied, can look fairly soft as well. But when you make a print from that which is about 25% viewing size, man is it beautiful and sharp, can't see any of the grain at all. That is why when you see all these lens tests comparing this lens to that one, or noise tests comparing this camera against that camera, they are all done and posted at crops from 100%. Because if you didn't post 100% crops you wouldn't be able to see the differences they are talking about. So in real world situations where prints or images used are not from 100%, who cares.</p>

<p>This is one point I can't get across clearly enough, don't make your camera choice based on IQ viewed at 100%. Make your decision based on build quality, features and so forth that the camera has. I just picked up the 5D markII, but I bought it because feature wise it has everything I wanted in a camera for my landscape work and is less than half price of 1DsIII. Not because it has a one stop advantage in noise comparisons that you would never be able to see unless you compare the two at 100% viewing. If I shot sports or needed a camera that will hold up well in some really nasty shooting conditions, I would probably get the 1DsIII, because it would have the features and build quality necessary for that type of shooting.</p>

<p>So if you already have a 1DsIII, you have already have an awesome camera, the 1DsIII is Canon's flagship and I promise you will not see any improvement in IQ comparing it to the 5D markII in real world images. So when Canon does come out with 1Ds IV to compete with d3x which will probably have some of new features now as 5D markII, with high resolution LCD and maybe couple of other trivial things. It will probably be at least 24MP sensor or maybe more, then spend the extra thousands of dollars if those are the things you need in a camera, but not because you think it might have slight improvement in noise levels that you could only possibly see when viewed at 100%.</p>

<p>As a few have stated here, you are correct it doesn't perform nearly as good wide open, but that was one of the points I was trying to make. There are very few if any lenses out that do perform excellent from it's widest aperture to it's smallest. Learn what the limitations of the lens is and use it to it's strengths and you will get excellent results.</p>

<p>I don't think the 17-40 was designed to be shot wide open, it's not a very fast lenses and therefore not really designed for low light action type photography. Another thing I didn't really mention in my original post was just how well it performed at f/16. It performed almost as well at that aperture as it did f/11 (sweet spot) and better than f/8. Which for a lot of other lenses, including some expensive high end optics, diffraction at f/16 causes the entire image to be a lot softer compared to the 17-40L, making this a great landscape lens. I have also read a lot about how it doesn't perform nearly as well at long end 35-40mm, but again that is another limitation that once you are aware of, use it to it's strengths. Where as the 16-35L starts to really sing at the longer end, that is that lenses limitation, not as good on the wide end. I borrowed a friends 35mm f/2 and I am going out today and see how it stacks up against the 17-40mm at that focal length.</p>

<p>Your welcome Mark, I was hoping this post would maybe open the eyes to some beginner photographers that read those MTF charts and lens reviews and think they are gospel. I was little mad at myself for getting caught up in that when I first purchased the 5D II when I have known for long time, getting great shots is about the photographers ability to use his tools to their fullest and learn the limitations of your tools to get excellent results.</p>

<p>Please give me any feedback about this, let me know what you think. <br>

I recently purchased a Canon 5D mark II and after all the different postings on forums and lens tests I have seen on other sites I was convinced that my 17-40mm f/4L wasn't going to cut it. Because the resolution on the 21MP sensor is so good that it brings out all imperfections of the lens. So I have spent hours searching and checking out alternative lenses to use with an adapter, but was concerned about problems sometime associated with using those as well. Then I came across this article by Ken Rockwell "lens sharpness" and it kind of opened up a hole new light on the subject. Here is some of what he said.</p>

<p>"In real-world photography, natural factors do more to screw up a picture than any lack of lens sharpness. Sharpness tests are unlike real photos because a test does everything possible to eliminate any source of unsharpness. In a lab, nothing moves and the target is usually flat."<br>

<br>

Here is a link to his article it is worth reading I believe.<br>

<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm</a></p>

<p>So I decided to test his theory and low and behold he was correct. I staged a scene shot the scene at 17mm, 21mm, 24mm & 28mm. Shot it at f/8, f/11, f/13 & f/16. For each focal length and f stop used I focused on shot on foreground, middle ground & background. Used mirror lock up with 2 sec timer. Manually focused using live view at 100% to assure proper focusing and so back focus issues couldn't play a factor. When I compared the results, what I found was that the plane of focus and depth of field at different f stops had much more impact on lenses sharpness from center to corners than the limitations of the lens itself. When I found the correct plane of focus and f stop I could get great results in all the corners of my images. Much better results then any of other lens test or reviews I have seen. Where they staged the scene, shot each lens using one plane of focus only at different f stops. I have seen several tests comparing the 17-40mm to Carl Zeiss lenses, Nikon lenses and so on. My lens had much better performance than any of theirs did. Maybe I am lucky and just got a good copy from Canon, because I do believe that not all lenses that come off the production line are created equal.<br>

<br>

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to say that 17-40mm lens is as good as Carl Zeiss lens, or other really high end lens, but just that when you learn how to get the most of your lens you can get excellent results. Also remember that all these lens test you see comparing this one to that one, are displayed from 100% crops, pixel peeping as they call it. When I also compared my test shots at 50% viewing size the differences where even much less, corner softness was lot less and overall results looked a lot better. Nobody makes prints that are as large as an image at 100% viewing size on computer screen, that would be at 52"x 78" print from my 5D mark II.</p>

<p>So probably wondering what is the point of this posting, which is that when proper technique is used and you select correct plane of focus and f stop, you can get great results even in the corners. I found that my lens at f/11 - f/16 was Excellent across the entire frame. The corners were indeed softer then the center of the image at 100% viewing, but when viewed at print size the difference was so small that you could hardly see the difference at all. There are limitations to every lens, just need to test the lens and find what the limitations are and you can get great results. But if you are truly a pixel peeper and are mostly concerned about how good image looks at 100% viewing, then indeed you need to spend the extra thousands of dollars for those expensive high end optics.</p>

<p>This test saved me a lot of money and trouble now that I know how to get most out of my 17-40L and not to worry if the corners are little soft when viewing it at 100% on my screen. Because in the end the prints will look awesome and you would have to look at even large prints like 16-24" very very close to see any imperfections of the lens.</p>

 

<p>I'm not sure about the Zeiss, but from reviews I have seen I would go with the Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM. DP review shows that lens when used at it's prime aperture 5.6-11 is about as good as it gets. Wide open it's not nearly as good, so I guess it depends on what you shoot and need the lens for.</p>

<p>I'm looking at getting a Contax C/Y 35-70mm f/3.4, Nikon 28mm f/2.8 AI-S and probably Olympus 21mm f/2 or f/3.5. You can pick these up for about $275-400 each, depending on the lens. I agree David when I shot the 5D the 17-40mm was great, but with the new 21MP sensor the resolution is so great that it really brings out any flaws at all in a lens. The softness in the corners is really apparent when you get into that high of resolution sensor. Much more so then with a 10- 12.8MP sensor. I could pick up all three of these lenses for about same price as one Canon 24mm f/1.4L and any one of them will be equal and most of them better. With my landscape photography, I like to make large prints so I need a lens that is sharp across the entire frame. Not that the 17-40mm lens is not good enough, for most people it probably is, but it just depends on how critical you are on the quality of your images. I always strive to get the highest quality possible out of my images.</p>

<p>I have used both 100-400mm and 400mm f/5.6L and the 400mm lenses was definitely a better lens for sharpness. When shooting wildlife I hardly ever used the 100-400mm at anything but 400mm. The 400mm is smaller and lighter and little cheaper as well, but you don't get IS which for some is very important. Tough call but either lenses I think you would be very happy with.</p>

<p>If money is not an issue then as many have stated go for the 5D MkII, but remember if you do then you will need great lenses. I just got my 5D MkII and I can see already my 17-40L isn't going to cut it for landscape work, something to consider. I personally loved my old 5D for the IQ it had, but feature wise wasn't cutting it for what I need. It basically was a 30D with FF sensor at 12MP. I do 100% tripod shooting and having the live view with new high resolution screen is awesome, I wouldn't consider having a camera without the live view. But those are my needs and yours may be different, so you need to figure out what will work best for your type of shooting.</p>

<p>As James pointed out, not all adapters are created equal. Here is a link to a site that might be helpful in finding a good adapter. This site isn't for Nikon adapters, but it will give you a good idea of which companies make good ones and they almost all make them for Nikon.<br>

<a href="http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Leica_db_Adapters.html">http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Leica_db_Adapters.html</a></p>

 

<p>Hi Durr,<br>

If you can afford it go for it, if the extra resolution is important to you. I just got mine yesterday and even though I haven't had the chance to take many shots with it, I am very impressed. I am not worried about testing the IQ, because I have read enough reviews to know it is top notch. Only problem I can see now is I need better lenses, my 17-40mm F/4L just isn't going to cut it for landscape work I do. But feature wise and build quality I am impressed with, I couldn't be happier.</p>

<p>Hers is shot taken by friend of mine last week thought it was very fitting for this occasion. I just received my new Canon 5D mark II yesterday, so yes it was a very merry Christmas for me and I hope for everyone else. MERRY CHRISTMAS to all on Photonet and I hope you all have a great 2009 as well. I have enjoyed time spent on this site and I want to thank everyone for their critiques and comments on my images and portfolio.</p><div></div>

<p>It is true the 5D MKII does have pretty good weather sealing built in and probably better than any other prosumer cameras to date. It isn't on par with their 1Ds or 1D lines, but look how much less the cameras are. Weather or not it is as good as D700, not sure, but I'm sure that it is very close if not as good. I wouldn't put much into what you read on other posts, probably most of those comments come from the Nikon vs Canon debates you see all the time and are from mostly Nikon users. Unless you are hard core journalist and shooting in some really harsh conditions, the weather sealing on any of Canons prosumer cameras is more than adequate and shouldn't need to worry about.</p>

<p>Hey Al,<br>

Please read Edward Ingold's post. As he states sRGB and Adobe RGB are not monitor profiles. There should be default profiles for your monitor already there and you need to use them only until you create new ones with your Calibration tool and software. That is probably where is problem is.</p>

<p>Seemed kind of expensive to me and you could probably make something similar yourself for lot cheaper and get just as good of results.</p>

<p>I haven't personally, but with all the video reviews that have been out saying out excellent it is in low noise for low light situations, I would say no. I use live view all the time on my 40D and never noticed any problems with increased noise, but then I always shoot between 100-200 ISO.</p>

<p>I have made prints 20x30 from 6x4.5 film with 300MB scans that look beautiful, can not see any grain the image at print size. Probably anything larger would be pushing it, 6x7 you could probably go bigger.</p>

<p>I agree with Ellis Vener's post, that is probably the best method for editing. Yes hard drive space is getting pretty cheap, but if an image is technically flawed for some reason, over exposed, underexposed, blurry or what ever reason, no reason to hold on to those.</p>

<p>If you are a landscape photographer and use a tripod, I use about 90% of the time. I wouldn't consider owning a camera now without it. If you don't shoot with tripod, it won't come in handy at all. Like Ilkka pointed out, you might me surprised how many times your focus is not dead on with autofocus. Now if your focusing is perfect and you have zero back focusing or front focusing then probably not big of deal. But I can focus way more accurately manually using it than the camera can. For checking your DOF, way way better to view with live view than through the viewfinder. Another thing I use it for is composition. I can get a much better idea of what my composition is going to really look like viewing it on back of my camera than I can looking through one eye on viewfinder. How many times have you composed an image, shot it, once you download it then realize your not happy with composition and so you crop something out. Also when shooting when it's windy and with longer lenses, put on live view, magnify 10x and you can see any movement whats so ever on your lens that you wouldn't notice just looking at the lens itself. That has saved me several times from getting soft images. Most people haven't really taken the time to explore what a great feature it is, almost like mini view camera. But almost all of these benefits are only useful when tripod shooting, especially landscape work.</p>

<p>Question I have is on last part of your contract you state <em>"If the client chooses to break this contract and cancel wedding photography services, clients agree to notify the photographer in writing with signature and date of cancellation." </em>So does that mean there is a time period in which that can cancel and you will refund their money? And if so then what is the time period? Overall I think your contract is iron clad and you shouldn't have any problems if you keep the $200, as long as you respond in certified mail with return receipt.</p>

<p>If you plan on making prints up 20x30", then it is a no brainer the 5D mark II. Even making prints that large with 21MP is having to upsample the the image a fair amount, in which you always decrease the IQ of the image when doing so. But a 21MP image will upsample to that size much easier than a 10-15MP camera without losing IQ. Look at features you need as well, original 5D is fine camera IQ wise, but it was basically a 30D with full frame 12.8MP sensor. Both the 50D & 5D MKII beat old 5D hands down feature wise. A lot of people will say, "I have made 20x30" prints with my 40D that are beautiful" which to them, friends and family probably are. But I guess it depends on how critical you are with your prints, do you want Gallery quality or prints that all family members will say look great. Look at magazines like "Arizona Highways" that won't even consider an image for their magazine that isn't shot on Large format camera, maybe Medium format 6x7 occasionally, or now probably images shot with Medium format and 39MP digital back. They would never consider images from 21MP FF camera, they are all about highest IQ. So these are all the things you need to consider if you plan on doing it professionally and then decide what are your needs.</p>

<p>I might notice a little difference but IV isn't that much faster. However if you get the new IV with UDMA, that will for sure make a difference. Little more money, but Sandisk has great rebate going to end of the month. They say the UDMA is a must for using the video.</p>

<p>Has anyone had a chance to see how compatiable the new 5D mark II is with Contax C/Y Zeiss lenses? I know in the past the original 5D would work well with some, but iffy on others. If anyone has had a chance to try it, please give me your input on which ones are compatiable.</p>

<p>Hey Ralph, there are several sites now that have done production models tests between the two and they

all say the same thing. The 5D markII images are as good and better on higher ISO's and the overall IQ is impress

ive to say the least. None of them have said there was soft images because of the noise reduction, plus you

can now choose how much noise reduction you want to use, another nice feature. When you cons

ider going from 12-21MP the IQ they have acheived is impressive. I know for me it was a no brainer, have mine orde

red and can't wait until I get it. If you check out Photography Bay's website they have links to several of these review

s. Problem with 5D is was it was basically a 30D with FF sensor and 12MP, so feature wise the new markII is leap

s and bounds ahead of the 5D, focusing is better, live view with new high resolution LCD, mico lens adjusments and s

o on. If you are a landscape photogher like me and use a tripod for most of you shooting then start using the live vi

ew function, there are so many benefits with it I wouldn't consider a camera that didn't have it. I can get much mor

e precise focusing now, much easier to see what my compostion really is when checking the live view and turn on the

grid option and it makes composing images a lot easier, no more having to buy the grid screens, Whooo! If the wi

nd is blowing good and your using longer lens just turn on the live view, set it to 10x magnifaction and you can s

ee if your lens is shaking at all, saved me couple times now from getting soft images. I use mine like

a mini view camera, what an advantage. I'm surprised more people don't talk about this feature when shooting t

ripod mounted shots, such an advantage. Now with new high resolution LCD if wi

<p>That is a great deal those cameras are made like a tank and focusing is far superior to 5D. But I would consider what are you going to be shooting mostly, if you shoot landscape like me and hike with the camera then the extra weight and bulk isn't appealing and focusing on it really isn't a benefit. But since you mostly shoot high ISO, I assume your not a landscape photographer. If you like shooting people, nature where you need good focusing that can follow a subject then 1Ds markII would be a no brainer. But personally I would go with Bob's suggestion, buy it, sell it for about $2500-2700 and then get new 5D markII, be like getting a 5D markII for $1700. You also mentioned you like the film like of the 10D which struct me odd, I had one and there is a lot more noise, but it wasn't film like. I think the noise in there newer cameras is more film like then the 10D.</p>