Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Jcolman, May 20, 2008.
Still on the fence between this and another 5D
I can pick it up for around $1800, which is what this camera was selling for used over a year ago.
i've been looking for one myself. its kinda odd how the mk2 and the mk2n has stayed at 1800 and 2300 respectively, for over a year now. i was kinda hoping to find the mk2 for 1400 now. that being said. i'd offer 1700
I did. $1770 and I pay for shipping + paypal fees was his counter offer. I'd rather have the "n" version but I can't find one.
get the N version
I think you're right. That's the one I really want. I just have to be patient.
minus the bigger screen, bigger buffer, newer menu system, what other advantages are there?
Those are enough for me.
Also, iirc there were some sort of issues with the mk ll that the n version corrected. I don't recall what the issues were, I just remember reading something a couple of months ago.
changes to the AA filter
but the one that I want more than even the LCD, is better dual card support. Write jpeg to one, RAW to the other.
the only downside, besides a little more money, is a few N's have had banding issues at iso3200. but its not all of them, so its kinda weird
Canon literature says that the MkII-N produces much sharper files than the MkII. Id definitely save up the money and get a II-N if thats what you want. Its a worse low light performer than the 5D though.
I'm keeping the 5D. I want a second camera that I can shoot sports and other fast action.
what canon literature states that? im just curious.
i wonder if the low light performance is atleast on par with a 30d/40d.
its better than the 30d for sure, haven't used a 40d o can't say. but its on par with the 5d and has always been better than the 1ds series
Negative. RAW files too. Try reading up on it
Need for sharpening with Mark II files:
As with the new Mark III series, an anti-aliasing filter is used directly in front of the imaging sensor in these cameras, and accordingly
their files will definitely benefit from some measure of electronic sharpening to really maximize the detail that the sensor is capable
• EOS-1Ds Mark II: the need for sharpening and recommendations are very similar (subject, of course, to a photographer’s
individual opinions) to the Mark III series cameras.
• EOS-1D Mark II N: again, the amounts and type of sharpening required are very similar to the newer EOS-1D Mark III.
While critical users may discern very slight differences, and prefer to modify sharpening in one vs. the other, their essential
character is very similar
• EOS-1D Mark II: this one is definitely different. It required a much greater amount of sharpening, either in-camera or
at the computer (some users got their best results applying both). Unsharp Mask settings of 300% or more were often needed
in Photoshop to get real “bite” out of files from the 1D Mark II. Again, to be clear, this is only the EOS-1D Mark II — the
revised and updated EOS-1D Mark II N model tended to need less sharpening, even if none was applied in-camera.
Suggested starting points for Unsharp Mask sharpening in the computer
Once again, there are no “right” settings for Unsharp Mask in Photoshop, or sharpening in similar image-editing programs.
What follows are suggestions for initial settings, and they presume little or no in-camera sharpening applied. The same caveats
about the need to carefully assess sharpening needs, and vary settings depending upon the size of finished output, of course apply.
Shooting for the web is definitely different than shooting 4x6-foot trans-illuminated displays with an EOS-1Ds Mark II!
EOS-1D Mark II N and EOS-1Ds Mark II:
Low ISO images — Amount 200–250%, Radius 0.3–0.4 pixels, Threshold 0 or 1
High ISO images — Amount 200–250%, Radius 0.3–0.5 pixels, Threshold 4 or 5
EOS-1D Mark II: this camera will usually need more aggressive Unsharp Mask settings. A preliminary recommendation:
Low ISO images — Amount 250–350%, Radius 0.2–0.4 pixels, Threshold 0 or 1
High ISO images — Amount 250–350%, Radius 0.3 pixels, Threshold 4 or 5
And I dont know why you treat me like I dont have a clue.
they can claim that, but MANY people did tests and didn't find any noticeable differences with RAW
wtf, you need tougher skin man, if a smiliey gets to you I hope to god you never ever go infront of an art director
I dont know what to tell you. They claim it and the two people I know personally that have used both MUCH preferred the N files over their MkII files and all they shoot is RAW.
not that I'm saying for him to get the non N