High ISO performance
There was a time when Canon was the only game in town when it came to the high ISO space. When I was a Nikon shooter (back in the age old D200 days) I would look upon the smooth IS0 1600 images of the Canon 20D with envy. That Canon dominance was further extended with the full frame sensor of the 5D, which along with Canon’s lens selection, eventually persuaded me to switch brands.
Canon’s reign as the high ISO champ came to an end with the release of Nikon’s D3 - the first time 5 digit ISO values got thrown around. Although Canon had the 1D Mark III which for most intents and purposes was a worthy competitor to the D3 up ISO 3200 and 6400 (a much under reported fact), the angry mob of pixel peepers wanted more from Canon.
So Canon countered with the 5D Mark II. Not only would it increase the megapixels from its predecessor, the 5D, it would promise to improve the high ISO performance at the same time.
There are dozen’s of reviews out on the web already which show high ISO performance of Nikon vs Canon vs Sony vs etc… so don’t expect me to add much to that in the way of side by side examples. However, no diary on the Canon 5D Mark II could be complete without mentioning high ISO performance from a photographer’s perspective, so I’ll chip in with some thoughts of my own here.
First of all, I will say one thing – the issue of noise gets misrepresented when it comes to photography. The truth is, noise often doesn’t ruin an image. Some of my favourite shots are littered with those noisy pixels and in fact, some of the greatest shots of all time are taken with immensely grainy ISO 1600 or 3200 film. The recent obsession with noise free images is overdone… However, that doesn’t mean I don’t care about high ISO performance at all. On the contrary, poor ISO performance has decimated many a would be great image of my own and when shooting some subjects (e.g. low light sports photography), it’s one of the most critical aspects of my decision making.
But it’s often not so much the noise itself that’s the problem. The real issue is what actually happens to the image at high ISO’s. When a sensor is unable to handle low light properly, the real issues that plague images are typically one or more of the following:
For me, all this comes back to the point that high ISO performance is quite subjective and as a result, like many other photographic aspects, hard to measure. However from a practical perspective, after a couple of weeks of using the 5D Mark II I have formed my initial conclusion. I’ll get to that in a second. First I wanted to share a few images to illustrate the performance at the high end.
Samples
These are all a night scene in Seattle – chosen as night shots show up noise the most. I shot these in manual mode to ensure an accurate exposure and a fair comparison. Everything shot in RAW, then with noise reduction applied in DPP and finally converted to JPG for resizing / posting. No processing done otherwise.
All images are shot with Canon 135mm L f/2 (wide open). All shots are at F2 which will affect sharpness but I’m using the 135 which is one of Canon’s sharpest lenses so this offsets this somewhat.
I haven’t included the ISO 1600 because honestly, it’s so good it doesn’t warrant a critique. So diving straight in, ISO 3200.
21 MP RAW - ISO 3200
ISO 3200. 1/40s
100% crop, Noise Reduction set to Low:
At NR set to Low, a lot of detail and colour is still being retained in the Space Needle. Edges are sharp and well defined, highlights are maintained and shadows in the background building are even. Of course, noise is still apparent and visible but this is totally acceptable. This performance allows for significant cropping or alternatively for very large prints with no discernable drop off in quality. Note that despite the excellent performance, I don’t feel confident enough at this ISO to shoot liberally with no regard for exposure, etc. Exposing the image correctly is important as although DR is good, it’s not going to be as good as a lower ISO image so latitude for mistakes or extracting DR through dodging / burning will definitely be less.
21 MP RAW - ISO 6400
ISO 6400, 1/80s, Low NR
100% crop, Noise Reduction set to Low:
Moving right along, we now see the same scene in ISO 6400. This is with NR still set to low and you can see a significant amount of noise has now crept in. Remember that night scenes are typically the most challenging scenes for high ISO performance (much more so than studio samples). Even so, the amount of noise isn’t intolerable. but the degradation of the blacks is now borderline. There is also a mild banding effect going on in the sky. This will start to show up in prints and even in web resolution images also. However, detail is still excellent and so clearly there is room for a greater degree of NR – which we’ll look at now.
ISO 6400, 1/80s, Medium NR
100% crop, Noise Reduction set to Medium:
Here is a much more pleasing result. I think the level of detail captured is still significant. I’m actually very pleased with this result. This will definitely be fine as a large print and will even provide a small amount of room for additional processing. The practical beauty of this is that with a telephoto lens of 135mm you really need at least 1/80s to effectively handhold a shot. By being able to shoot at ISO 6400, that’s exactly what I was able to get. Although I’m not actually a huge fan of this kind of the photography, the ability to be able to perform night scene citiscapes with a telephoto while handheld is pretty remarkable.
21 MP RAW - ISO 12800
ISO 12800, 1/160s
100% crop, Noise Reduction set to High:
Night scenes at ISO 12800 clearly surpass the capabilities of the sensor. I am sure this ISO level is suitable for some types of photography but it should be used only when there is really very little choice. Had I shot a scene of building in good / bright light, this would look quite different – but then there would be little point as there would be rarely a case when a situation would require that.
I haven’t even bothered to include ISO 25600 – again, only for absolute must cases.
More Samples in lower resolution
One technique for reducing noise is to decrease the size of an image – either in camera or through post processing. After all, do we always really need 21MP? What about the other excellent performing high ISO cameras (e.g. Nikon D700, Canon 1D Mark III) – they have less pixel density and therefore an inherent advantage when it comes to high ISO shooting. So doesn’t it make sense to try to reduce the image size to narrow the gap as it were… It does – and lets revisit ISO 6400 with that in mind.
10 MP RAW – ISO 6400
This shot is the same 6400 image that was shown earlier – but resized in Photoshop (using standard bicubuic resizing) to approx 10 MP.
Now, this is a different exposure (same shutter speed / aperture / iso 6400), but taken using sRAW in the camera
How do these compare? Well, contrasted to the 21MP images, there is definitely less noise. Not a huge amount – in a completely non scientific measure I’d say we’re talking 10 – 20% or something like that … but still significant enough to be able to notice. I actually slightly prefer the noise profile of the SRAW shot but that’s purely a matter of taste.
What’s the point and benefit of all this? Well a couple of things.
Another real world example
Another real world example is the following. This again is the 135mm f/2 shot wide open at ISO 6400. This is under tungsten lighting with the image being captured in SRAW (10 MP).
The high ISO speed means that I can still shoot telephoto under indoor lighting (it’s handheld at 1/50s), again something that is impossible with slower ISO speeds Now out of the difficulties of a night time scene you can see the full capabilities of the ISO 6400 setting – excellent amounts of detail retention while colour / contrst / DR are all excellent for this setting.
Comparisons to other cameras and a couple of conclusions
As I mentioned previously, a lot of emphasis in reviews is usually placed on high ISO performance between camera brands, or in the 5D Mark II’s case, between the 12MP Nikon D700, the 24MP Nikon D3X and the 21MP Sony A900.
Generally speaking, you’ll find most conclusions to be along the following lines:
Assuming these statements to be correct (and they are from what i have seen) a reader will likely conclude the 5D Mark II gives either the best of both worlds, or the worst. I saw one write up which concluded the latter but my opinion is the opposite. As a photographer, one of the most important things a camera can give you is choice / flexibility and that’s exactly what this middle ground provides. The 5D gives options – the ability to capture huge 21MP files for excellent resolution… or to sacrifice some detail with heavier noise reduction for better high ISO performance… or to shoot in SRAW in the first place for a lower noise profile. No other camera in that list can provide quite the same choice.
Overall however, its somewhat pointless to compare cameras pixel for pixel. For one, each manufacturer approaches photography from a very different perspective. Secondly, the system (i.e. camera + lenses + flash) is far more important than any single component by itself. The fact that Canon offers a 35mm f/1.4 which can shoot at an entire stop faster than the Nikon 35mm f/2.0 means that Canon could have an entire one stop advantage at this focal length when it comes to low light. Conversely, Nikon have a 12-24mm f/2.8 which Canon does not currently compete with. Which is better? You need to decide for yourself but when the performance is this close to call, you won’t find the answer in an individual pixel.
As a practical set of guidelines, here’s how I deal with the various ISO levels in the real world:
So my conclusions are really only about the Canon system. In short, it offers better than Canon 5D high ISO performance while shooting with a full 9 megapixel advantage. In fact, it is just about on par with Canon 1D Mark III, Canon’s former low light champion and and matches / exceeds it when shooting in SRAW (or resizing images for 10MP for a fair comparison). In my opinion, this is the best high ISO camera Canon have made yet.
Image Quality and the First One Thousand Clicks
Discussions of a camera’s ISO capabilities, resolution, AF and the like are all well and good but the truest test of any camera is what a photographer is capable of doing with it. This ultimately can be measured by only one thing – the resulting images.
Since I’ve had the 5D Mark II, I’ve had a few days opportunity to bring it with me around my new surroundings in Seattle, WA. In that time I’ve shot a wide variety of subjects but spent little time trying to set up anything special. Most of it has been spontaneous. The camera, on the whole, has been an absolute pleasure to use through this process.
Now, obviously a good photographer can take great images with any camera. The site which I run, Lost in Focus, is proof of that where the only thing that matters is the end result. It’s also a site where old medium format cameras, Canon G2’s, self developing of film, kit lenses and scratched glass all get more use and discussion than the pixel by pixel obsessions that rage the majority of forums. Having said that, the 5D Mark II is still a tool like any other, marketed by Canon as one of their best ever. So that assumption still raises an interesting question to test – and of course that’s what I attempt to do from my perspective in these reviews.
So image quality… how can that be defined? It’s a complex answer and certainly answering it in terms of purely resolution and noise is not sufficient. The ease of which I am able to produce good (better) images once focus is locked, is perhaps how I best define a camera’s capacity for image quality. And how does the 5D Mark II rank in my book? VERY highly. I still have a lot of shooting to do but so far, with the subjects I’ve been going after, I have been able to produce better images with less effort than with any other Canon I’ve used in the past (which most recently includes the 40D, 5D and 1D Mark III).
To be a little more specific:
Areas where I’m still deciding on have been the image quality at very high ISO’s (6400+). It’s been impressive so far but it takes a lot of samples and experimentation (with different settings) to see what it means from a real world perspective. I’ll post findings on this tomorrow.
Anyway this post is already too many words, and not enough pictures. So, here are a dozen and a half or so shots from my wandering around over the past few days with the Canon 5D Mark II.
24mm f/1.4L lens. ISO 200, f/3.5, 1/200s
24mm f/1.4L lens, ISO 400, f/1.4, 1/50s
50mm f/1.4 lens, ISO 320, f/1.6, 1/320s
85mm f/1.8 lens, ISO 1250, f/2.8, 1/1000s
85mm f/1.8 lens, ISO 1250, f/2.8, 1/1000s
85mm f/1.8 lens, ISO 100, f/4, 1/160s
24mm f/1.4 L lens, ISO 1600, f/1.4, 1/13s
24mm f/1.4 L lens, ISO 200, f/1.4, 1/640s
50mm f/1.4 lens, ISO 320, f/1.8, 1/125s
50mm f/1.4 lens, ISO 250, f/4, 1/400s
35mm f/1.4 L lens, ISO 1600, f/2, 1/160s
50mm f/1.4 lens, ISO 1250, f/4, 1/100s
50mm f/1.4 lens, ISO 400, f/1.4, 1/60s
85mm f/1.8 lens, ISO 640, f/1.8, 1/100s
200mm f/2.8 L lens, ISO 1600, f/3.5, 1/500s
24-70mm f/2.8 L lens, ISO 640, f/2.8, 1/2000s
135mm f/2 L lens, ISO 6400, f/2, 1/80s
This last image is ISO 6400 – more on this subject tomorrow.
Depth of Field
This will be a short post...
There are a number of reasons why Full Frame can make a difference to a photographer's images. Perhaps the one most commonly cited is that compared with cropped sensors (1.5x, 1.6x etc as found in the Canon 40d / 50d, Nikon D300, etc), you get a larger sensor. A larger sensor means more space to fit pixels onto which means lower pixel density for the same number of megapixels, or more megapixels for the same density. The result therefore, in theory, should be higher megapixels, less noise, or both. In practice it's often true as well.
The other benefit of FF is that lenses work as they should. A 24mm lens on a Nikon D300 gives a field of view which is actually equivalent to a 36mm (1.5x) on a FF camera. So lenses work as they should and wide lenses look really nice and wide. Of course, there is the downside for sports / nature photograpers who want telephoto reach (and therefore like the multiplying effect). Of course there's the retort that higher megapixels in FF mean you can crop more later on anyway... but this is off topic.
What I really wanted to talk about was what I perceive to be the greatest benefit of FF - shallow depth of field. Shallow depth of field (DOF), when produced through good glass and a competent photographer, is one of the most creative tricks that can be applied in photography. In allows for subject isolation, for a dreamy effect to be applied, for a different perspective than what might be normally seen, or all of the above.
The best way to get shallow DOF is to shoot with fast glass. High ISO performance in modern cameras like the 5D Mark II is making fast glass less important. Now a photographer with a good camera and an f/5.6 lens can shoot at the same shutter speed as a photographer with an f/2.8 lens by going two stops higher in ISO. With a Nikon D3, Canon 5D Mark II or a handful of other cameras, that higher ISO does not always mean a worse picture. The speed that fast glass provides, and comes at such a price premium, is still important - but the importance is not what it was.
However, there's still no way to fake shallow depth of field (ignoring post processing). And that's where good glass comes in. It's so important to me in my photography that I shoot prime lenses 95% of the time. It's also so important to me that I do not ever consider switching back to Nikon due to the fact that Canon produces a 24mm f/1.4 and a 35mm f/1.4 and Nikon does not. And as I mentioned above, it's the most important benefit of Full Frame.
I don't shoot with shallow DOF all the time. Like any ingredient, too much of the same thing can be a bore. Subtlety and choice is the key. But having the right tools in the first place certainly helps. The reason I make a big deal about it here is because very rarely talked about in reviews. Again, with most things that are important in photography, there is no scientific way to measure it. And if you can't measure it, you can't draw a chart. The good news about prime lenses is that with most brands, you can buy a cheap 50mm f/1.8 to get started if you have not already. I preach the virtues of prime lenses in a previous post.
To give an idea of what Full Frame and a good lens gives you, here are a few examples. Again, no lens charts - just a few examples of why for most photography, full frame does offer a genuine benefit over just megapixels. These were all taken in the last few days with the 5D Mark II.
24mm f/1.4
ISO 200, f1/1.4, 1/400s. Converted from RAW, some minimal processing. I liked the distortion effect I was able to achieve with the wide angle as well.
35mm f/1.4
ISO 6400, f/1.4, 1/60s. Shot in JPG. With another system or camera this simple snapshot might have been is an impossible photograph. A glance at the settings (ISO 6400 and f/1.4) should give an indication as to how little was available. The subject isolation caused here is quite remarkable (it almost looks like selective sharpening which it is not).
50mm f/1.4
Although there is a faster and more expensive 50mm f/1.2, I shoot with the f/1.4. I've provided two examples here with the 5D Mark II.
ISO 320, f/1.6 (so not quite wide open), 1/320s. Shot in RAW and converted with little processing to speak of.
ISO 500, f/1.4, 1/100s. Shot in RAW and converted. A bit of processing on the colours but not much else. Composed in live view with the camera near the ground. I liked the swirling bokeh in the foreground of this image.
85mm f/1.8
Again, Canon makes a faster lens - the practically legendary 85mm f/1.2 - but it's very specialist and does not focus as fast as the cheaper and more better allrounder f/1.8.
ISO 640, f/1.8, 1/125s. Shot in RAW and processed to create the "high key" effect. You can see here the sharpness in the eyelashes contrasted with the ghostly out of focus ears, hair, etc (the model is part submerged in the water).
So no conclusion here - there isn't anything unique about the 5d Mark II compared to other full frame cameras in this respect, but it is an important point and one I wanted to share and illustrate through a few examples. More soon...
Autofocus
This post will focus on the important, often misunderstood and almost always badly reviewed aspect of Autofocus. The reason I say it’s usually badly reviewed is because at this time of writing (and very likely for quite some time), there is no easy, accurate or realistic way to test or rate Autofocus from a scientific perspective. Rob Galbraith probably came the closest with his 1D Mark III work, and I followed in those footsteps by shooting thousands of frames for my review of the same camera. However, I feel we both only really scratched the surface on the subject, and certainly were not able to come up with an empirical / foolproof measurement for AF performance in all situations.
The lack of a good review framework doesn’t stop the reviews however. Most of the time, AF often gets discussed in two ways… First, the number of AF points, whether each AF point is a cross hair, etc. This is interesting and I cover it below. The second thing that often gets a mention is the time taken to acquire a focus lock in a lab or studio. This gives an indicator but it is truly representative only if you want to measure the speed of locking AF onto lens charts – it says nothing for the cameras ability to hold focus on a moving subject, track a subject through a crowd, distinguish a foreground from a background and so on. As I said, I’ve yet to see a good scientific approach to this kind of testing…
So I’m going to try to tackle this area as I do with most photographic subjects – with a mostly qualitative assessment based on real world situations / experience, with a few relevant numbers and examples sprinkled on top.
AF points
So first of all, lets talk about the AF points. Criticism has been occasionally pointed at Canon due to the relatively low number of AF points it puts in its entry level, prosumer and mid range (e.g. 5D) cameras. The 5D Mark II ships with 9 AF points and 6 hidden assist points which can be activated through the menu system. The Nikon’s from the D300 up, in contrast, have 51 AF points which on paper is very impressive. I’ve heard very good things about the new Nikon AF systems but unfortunately I can’t comment from personal use as I’ve never used them for sports. I will say the 1D Mark III had the most heavily scrutinized AF system of all time and I rate it as Canon’s best ever. In fact, I’ve never seen any compelling evidence that to suggest that any other camera in the world is its peer for all round sports photography. I’d love to see the same scrutiny applied to Nikon’s D3 but anyway, that’s off topic.
So other thing to bear in mind about the 5D Mark II center AF point is that you need to use f/2.8 lenses and faster to get the best out of it. The truth is that, with the exception of perhaps some long zooms, the best lenses for the 5D are all f/2.8 and better anyway as anything slower is often not an L and will suffer with softer images, etc.
The center AF point is the cross sensor. This is the fastest, most accurate and the one I use 95%+ of the time. Some photographers do not like the 5D’s arrangement of AF points which cluster near the center of the image. I’m unconcerned with this for three reasons:
- I’d rather use the most sensitive AF sensor in the vast majority of cases than a sensor at the edge which might be closer to the subject but slower to acquire focus
- I find (and recommend) the technique of focus lock –> recompose to be the most effective way of getting good photographs for the vast majority of cases. I set my camera up specifically for this purpose. Even with a much more dispersed arrangement of AF points, I still tend to use the center focus point the majority of the time (I do this on my 1D Mark III also which has 19 cross sensors and 26 assist)
- Due to the huge resolution of the 5D Mark II the need to compose accurately in camera is beginning to become less important (which I wrote about here). Purists and people who shoot thousands of images per week may not like this but it’s the reality and learning how to use these advantages yields better pictures
So, in terms of AF points, sure I’d like to see a few more cross sensors but even if they existed, I am not sure I would use them very much – except for some sports in AI Servo mode. But AI servo mode is much more than just the number of AF points and we get to that later.
Focus acquiring – still subjects
This is what most people need – a camera that locks onto a subject quickly and accurately. Looking back in time a bit, with the original 5D, I found its Single Shot AF mode to be excellent. I used the 5D as my primary camera during my shooting of the hit TV show, the Contender Asia, and I never had any trouble. Of course, that is not to say it was the best available – the 1D Mark series have always been noticeably faster at focus acquisition. However, this doesn’t detract from the 5D’s AF system and I recommend taking a look at a sampling of my Contender Asia images – this will give an idea of what was possible with the old 5D, its AF system and 3 fps. If 5D owners complain about not being able to focus quickly on subjects, then I suggest a problem with the photographer, not the tool.
So, lets forward wind now to the new 5D. Somewhat unsurprisingly, the new version for focus acquisition is much of the same really. That is, using the center focus point, it is fast, accurate and a pleasure to use in almost all situations. It may be slightly improved over the 5D but not so much that I can tell in real world situations. It is still obviously slower than the 1D series but this does not cause a major issue until you get into very demanding situations which most people never encounter (by which point a 1D would probably be the better choice anyway).
It’s hard to illustrate focus acquisition in samples as the subjects are often static and when subjects are moving, you would typically be in AI Servo mode anyway. My Contender images are the best examples of focus acquisition with a 5D like system but for the new body I do have two samples from the past week though where fast focus acquisition was needed. The first is a picture of my dog (which I have posted before).
To take a shot like this, you need to first have a dog that likes to jump and mash snowballs in mid air :). Once you have one of those, make a snowball, put it in your left hand while holding the camera to your eye in your right hand. Then lob the snowball up in the air and squeeze off a couple of shots as your maniac dog attempts to slam dunk it. It’s impossible to prefocus as you don’t know where the “reception” will take place so the camera has to quickly focus lock, as it did here. I have many examples like this – and when I got it right, the camera was right there with me.
The second example was when I was out in the snow and noticed some birds flying overhead. Heavy snow was falling and I quickly aimed upwards, snapped off a single shot and then forgot about the image till I looked on my camera later (this is cropped btw – I had a short 24-70mm lens on at the time). Despite the falling snow the AF system was able to easily pick out the contrast of the birds and produce a perfectly focused image.
Unfortunately I don’t have more examples as I’m trying to keep these review entries from becoming too much work – and besides as I say, they’re difficult to simulate (particularly in this weather). You’ll just have to take my word on it for now but if more opportunities crop up later, I’ll add the pictures here.
Oh, total side point – the Canon 5D Mark II has a microadjustment feature which I found invaluable on the 1D Mark III. I haven’t had to use it with any of my lenses yet on the 5D however.
AI Servo
So, the 5D Mark II can quickly focus on static subjects and also lock onto moving subjects. Great. How about subjects that keep moving? Well, that’s where AI Servo comes in.
I’m going to make this section easy and start with a conclusion. The 5D Mark II is not, and should not be expected to be a pro sports camera where AI servo is required. From what I’ve seen so far, the camera produces world class image quality, but it does not have Canon’s 1D AF system and will not be able to focus track as fast or as accurately. If you shoot sports where you can use Single Shot focus mode, then I can already tell you the 5D2 will do that superbly. If you need AI Servo in challenging situations, think again.
OK now we’ve got that out of the way, lets turn to a practical example of what this means in the real world. Last year I shot the Federer vs Sampras exhibition match. I sat in the press box next to the Reuters, Associated Press photographers, etc with a great view. Unfortunately I didn’t have a 1D Mk 3 with me (as it was pre AF problem fix at the time) so I shot the match with a 40D and fast telephoto primes. Through a combination of Single Shot focus and AI Servo I was able to get some great photos from the match, but the hit rate was low. The reason for that was because the AI Servo on the 40D was unable to track a fast moving player in relatively low light – it simply couldn’t do it. So instead I adapted my style and focused on shots when the player was positioned waiting for the ball, leaving me to focus on timing. This worked fine but it restricted me to a certain style.
Fast forward a few months when I was in the same position shooting Sharapova at an exhibition match. Here I had my fixed 1D Mark III and saw a hit rate many times better than at the Federer match while shooting the entire match in AI servo mode. You can’t necessarily tell from my samples from that match, but I can tell you, the difference was night and day.
The takeaway from all that? Well the 5D Mark II from my experience so far seems to have similar AI Servo capabilities to the 40D. Or to put it another way, don’t take the 5D Mark II to a professional tennis match if you want to shoot AI Servo all day.
Now, that is not to say that the 5D Mark II can’t AI servo at all. It can and thanks to my trusty action subject, I have a sequence to share.
AI Servo Sequence
To test AI Servo properly, you have to spend weeks doing it. I did that for my Canon 1D Mark III review but am not going to repeat it here – as I already know the 5D Mark II won’t be my primary camera for this kind of work. What I was interested in however were some real world examples of whether it could track a fast moving subject at all and some anecdotal evidence of what kind of accuracy I could achieve.
To do this, I got my dog to run at me at full(ish) speed so I could test the AI servo on a subject moving closer towards the camera. I ran this simulation about 6 times – enough for about a hundred images.
These were all shot with a Canon 200mm L f/2.8 (a superb and underrated piece of glass – better than the 70-200L in some respects) with camera settings of ISO 1600, f/2.8 and 1/800s shutter speed. You can see from the ISO that the light wasn’t very high – this was early in the morning. The images were in JPG. Shooting in AI Servo takes a fair bit of skill (as well as the right setup on the camera) – it is something that must be practiced to obtain good results.
With the 5D Mark II, I found the accuracy rating to be variable – but somewhere in the 50% – 75% range. On some bursts, I saw up to 3 images out of focus as the camera was trying to catch up. Other times I had a series of 7 or 8 sharp images in a row which was great. Overall, the above percentage seemed to be ballpark. Remember, this is only one set of conditions so take it with a big pinch of salt.
To compare with the 1D in this kind of situation (at f/2.8 on the same lens), I regularly achieve an accuracy rating of 90% and above. That is, more than 90% of frames are acceptably sharp. You can see evidence of that in my 1D review here.
So coming back to the 5D Mark II, lets talk real world again. What does a 50% – 75% accuracy rating give you? Well, here are a random sampling of the good images.
Below is an example 100% crop of one of the sharp images.
For parents, dog owners, occasional sports shooters who want to take advantage of this feature – I think it’s great.
The images are not ultra sharp – losing a bit of accuracy compared to the 1D series, but it is still good and would result in a very nice print up to 20” or so. Also remember that this is AI Servo mode at ISO 1600 with the subject moving at fast speed towards the camera. Shooting at lower ISO, in brighter conditions, at a smaller aperture would all have yielded a sharper image.
Overall, for a prosumer AF system, I think this performed quite well in AI Servo mode. It’s not on par with the 1D which shoots at 2.5x the speed yet still achieves a more accuracy rate, but then the 1D (mark III) can’t shoot at 21MP.
Conclusion
From my experience thus far, the 5D Mark II looks to have a good AF system which performs well at the tasks it was expected to be used for. I do not find the number of AF points, nor their arrangement an issue for real photography. When in single shot mode (and particularly when using the center focus point), focus lock is fast, accurate and a pleasure to use. A lot of sports can (and should) be shot with Single Shot mode with the right skills and understanding of the subjects (i.e. anticipation). So with the 5D Mark II’s excellent resolving power and high ISO performance, I do not rule out the 5D Mark II as a sports camera by any means. In some situations it would even be superior to the 1D Mark III. However, that should only be said with the very strong caveat that the AI Servo mode on the 5D Mark II is nowhere near the 1D Mark III. It is decent / usable but does not have the same degree of accuracy as Canon’s top of the line bodies. So it depends on the subject really. As for my area of expertise in sports photography – i.e. boxing / fight images – I can only wish I had this on the set of The Contender Season 4 during our filming in Oct 08, as this would have undoubtedly have been my primary camera.
Note – as I said above, AF is one of the most difficult areas to review in photography so these are my conclusions thus far. They could change as I encounter more situations with the camera and if they do, I’ll write another installment to Autofocus.
RAW and exposure latitude in post processing
[Note – the samples below may vary significantly depending on monitor type / brightness – the final example looks v well exposed on my monitor. Your mileage may vary on your own setup)
This time round I’m going to touch briefly on exposure, RAW and post processing.
One of the major benefits of a good sensor which produces image quality at high ISO is not so much the lack of noise that the sensor produces, but that the image retains good detail, dynamic range, contrast and colour. Too often noise is measured as a lack of noise – and camera companies occasionally latch on to that and try to get round the issue by applying heavy post processing techniques. The result? Images which are relatively noise free but end up having a pale, washed out, water colour like effect which is instantly recognisable even at web resolutions.
The thing is, the presence of noise does not detract from an image (look at good film grain @ iso 1600 and you’ll know what I mean) – it’s more the fact that it ruins attributes associated with image quality.
Related to this is the fact that a good sensor gives you latitude for errors and post processing, even at high ISO’s. For advanced and professional photographers, the ability to be able to successfully manipulate / mould an image into a finished product is sometimes as or even more important than what initially rolls off the compact flash card in the first place. In this post, I’m going to show how the 5D Mark II performed in such a situation – the scenario is an example of when the photographer (in this case, me) screwed up a shot at high ISO and whether the camera provided enough latitude to to rescue the image. Not your usual High ISO / Noise tests I know – but in many respects just as relevant (and besides, the regular “here’s a shot @ iso 3200” will come later).
So here’s the shot, straight out of the camera:
The shot settings;
- Lens: 35mm f/1.4
- Settings: 1/4000s, ISO 1600, f/4
I know… what the hell happened? Well I was trying to catch my dog in motion as he was destroying a snowball mid air. The camera was set to Aperture mode and matrix metering and metered too much of the snow and underexposed the image. This is typical when you shoot a mostly white background (sky, wall, snow, etc) and I hadn’t compensated for it or switched to manual as I normally would (it was early in the morning). Still, I knew my timing was good and wanted to see if I could rescue the image in post.
The problem? Well the image was at ISO 1600. This means that noise will be present in the image but whenever you try to correct underexposure in post, it significantly increases the amount of noise in the image. So, an even better test.
So here’s what I did:
- Open the image in Canon’s DPP RAW converter and apply a significant curve boost to push the midtones and shadows
- Convert the image to TIFF (8 bit)
- Open the image in CS4. Apply some additional levels tweaking, increase shadows now to correct the overexposure and take a burn tool to apply it to the snow (which the curves boost had caused to almost disappear). Zoom and crop for better framing
- All this work started to do funny things to the colour of the snow which was turning blue. So I quickly took a desaturation brush and removed the unnecessary cold colour of the white balance
- Dodge his face just a little, then resize, sharpen and post to web
(it sounds like a lot but this took about 2 mins).
And finally, the finished result:
In rescuing the image I actually realised could have focused a little better on his face – but hey, the timing was good so not bad for a first attempt at before 8 in the morning.
So how did the camera do? Well the RAW image that rolled off the sensor, even at ISO 1600 provided a pretty incredible amount of latitude for post processing. Being able to do this at a low ISO on the previous 5D wouldn’t have surprised me – but being able to do it at ISO 1600 was fantastic. Even with the massive underexposure, I was able to boost the shadow details significantly – all the while being able to retain an acceptable amount of the colour, contrast and dynamic range of the scene (remember, black dog on white snow – doesn’t get more demanding than that from a DR point of view).
With the original 5D, anything this underexposed I would typically have thrown away at ISO 400 and above. Some might remark that the best solution is to just expose correctly in the first place – to which I’ll wholeheartedly agree. But it’s like insurance, you never really care about it until you need it and besides this extra cushion opens up an exciting new number of opportunities for pulling details out of shadows – and obviously not just at high ISO. In essence, you can consider that to be the real point of this post.
So there you have it – an unscientific but very real world example of what good high ISO performance can give you. More topics coming soon…
I’ve made the decision on whether to pull together a 5D Mark II review. The quick answer is that I’m going to go ahead with it, although to save myself time while making it as comprehensive / useful as possible, I’m going to do this differently from the other equipment reviews I’ve done in the past. This time, I’m going to write the review as I go along – effectively writing it as a short series, letting it evolve as I discover more about the camera. I don’t have a structured plan on exactly what I will cover, or in what order - as this is going to depend significantly on subject availability, weather, time and so on – but along the way I definitely expect to write a significant amount on a number of subjects. Expect detailed thoughts on the camera’s ergonomics / controls / usage, image quality, RAW / JPG performance, AF, ISO performance and how it compares to other Canon’s, best lenses to use it with and a bunch of other areas. There’ll be lots of real world samples and reporting, and little in the way of lens charts.
So, as I don’t have a plan on exactly how I’m going to do this, I guess I’ll just start at the beginning. As for when this will end, I guess when I get tired of writing. I will NOT be proofing my posts – my intention is to spend under an hour on any given entry so if you see any typo’s, just circle past them.
Very first impressions
Even though it shouldn’t have, when I unboxed it, the 5DMk2 surprised me at how similar it is to its predecessor.There are differences of courses and the first two I noticed first were how the right hand grip has become much more sturdy (the 5D had a hollow / creaky kind of feel to it around the battery compartment), with the other difference being that nice big, super sharp LCD on the back. I’ll come back to both points later on but on the whole the camera felt great. I guess I’ve gotten so used to handling the full size 1D series lately that I’d forgotten how convenient it is sometimes to have a smaller DSLR in your hands.
In the box were the usual manuals, strap (which says 5D Mark II on it) and Canon’s DPP RAW conversion software (which I tend to use as my primary RAW converter even if the interface / software itself isn’t great).
That was it for first impressions really. As I say, on the whole it feels and looks a lot like a better built version of the 5D (which is a good thing). The first thing I did with the camera itself was slap on my favourite 35mm f/1.4L lens, shoot some ISO 1600 pictures of my dog and then fumble around with the video. I suspect a very large percentage of new 5D owners will begin their experience in a somewhat similar fashion! Anyway, I’ll come back to controls and features (and movie / ISO later). As I’m liberated from having to write this like a traditional review, I’m going to jump straight into resolution and cropping
Resolution and cropping
This could also be titled as “what the hell do I do with 21MP”? Well, there are really only two answers as to why you’d ever (ever) want as many megapixels:
1. You want to print really, really large
2. You want to crop
Although I’ve had prints done bus stop sized in the past (using my previous 5D ), I rarely print *very* large (13” x 19” is the max I have on my walls at home). In fact, I’m often the last person to ever praise the addition of megapixels – thinking they have been far overemphasised in modern digital photography, often at the expense of real image quality. Megapixels should ALWAYS be secondary to IQ. However, if you can maintain (or even improve) quality output while increasing the amount of data captured – things can get pretty interesting. For instance, what is very appealing to me is the ability to crop during post processing. In fact, having good quality 21MP files during my Contender shoot would have been a god send as it would have allowed me to ditch the zoom I had to use and I could have shot almost everything with my 35mm f/1.4, taking advantage of its legendary resolving and contrast capabilities, while still being able to print to the 30” requirements we had. So today I ran an illustrative test of what latitude 21MP’s gives you in a real world scenario. This was the sample I shot:
Lens: Canon 24-70L f/2.8
Settings: ISO 200, 1/200s, f/4
Focal Length: 43mm
This is the original which was shot in RAW, processed slightly with a little levels adjustment but otherwise just resized:
Normally I would have framed this much tighter – I know the shot has too much whitespace above and around the tree. But sometimes that’s the reality of not having time to frame properly, not having the right lens on, or not having enough reach.
The question now is, what latitude do I have for cropping this image? Well, if I zoom in, I get to the following image. This is unmodified from the original above, with the exception is has been zoomed in heavily:
This resulting shot is a fraction under 6MP in size. As you can see, it gives a very different perspective, with the focus now being the two subjects in the bottom right with the tree cropped out of the way. At this level of detail, this 6MP print will be printable to at at least 10” x 15” (I’d probably be happy with it 13 x 19” actually). If I had started with 12MP image in the first place and had to crop this heavily, I’d be left with a far less usable 2MB – 3MB shot.
Alternatively, having this many pixels gives the opportunity to crop creatively. Here’s the same shot but with a landscape crop:
Again, same shot but with a different feel which also resulted in a fraction under 6MP’s. Having this much latitude definitely provides for some interesting post processing opportunities.
To give a feeling of the level of detail being captured, here is a 100% view of the image. This is a largely unmodified with a minor unsharp mask applied.
Opinions will vary on the amount of detail being captured here (particularly amongst those who have developed a skill for pixel peeping), but my opinion is that this is very good to excellent. Stopping down to a smaller aperture than F4 would have yielded a bit more detail as would a heavier sharpening pass, but if you check back at the original and then recall that at 100% we’re able to accurately make out individual clumps of pine needles, it’s impressive. I am certain this would look excellent in print way up to poster+ size. My initial conclusion is that this certainly met my expectations.
Just for completeness, this was the actual framing I preferred the most on this shot btw – and how I would have framed it in camera if shooting it to get it “right first time”.
I’ll leave with one more sample. This is not resolution related but it came off the same location (btw I hope you’re not going to get tired of dogs and snow – they’re two of the main subjects I have to work with at the moment). This was deliberately overexposed to wash out the snow – also shot with the 24-70 f/2.8:
OK so that covers Part 1. I’m sure this won’t be the last time I come back to resolution but it’s a start. I’ll try to get part 2 will be up before the weekend is out.
To review or not to review, that is the question.
I just picked up my 5D Mark II body - getting it earlier than I anticipated - after an unexpected surplus
at a local camera store. Due to recent time constraints, I think this is the first tie that I've bought a new camera where I've been able to completely avoid the hype / buzz / early reviews / criticism on the forums so I'm coming into this very fresh and unbiased.
The main question I have now is whether to take advantage of some of the time off over the Xmas break and perform a review of the camera. It's a reasonably time consuming affair but can be fun when looking at a camara that offers something revolutionary / unique. I guess my biggest issue is whether I will be prepared to go out and shoot the wide varity of subjects that my reviews demand (as I'm not exactly the typical studio / lens chart reviewer). If you feel particularly strongly about wanting to see some thoughts on the camera, drop me a note or post a comment to let me know.
In any case, sample shots and anecdotal thoughts will definitely be coming thick and fast after this so stay tuned for more.
In the meantime, here are a couple of obligatory early images fresh out of the camera .
ISO 1600 with all default settings:
100% crop (slight unsharp mask but no additional NR):
And a couple from this morning (I know, all of my boy - more serious stuff coming soon):
I'll hold off from too much early feedback as I'm finding my impressions of the camera are evolving after just a couple of days use... Having said that, initial thoughts are positive so far and last night I was able to print a ISO 400 image (shot indoors) as large as 12" x 8". This is typically how I evaluate ISO performance (as lets face its the output that matters in the end). At this ISO and size, the print quality really surprised me as it was very good and it's going to be interesting how this plays out in other situations. I will have to go back and check but I think this is the largest I've been able to acceptably print on any compact camera I've used. With the G9, I never considered much bigger than 4x6" to be very great under similar circumstances. So that was cool. The picture in question btw was of my two little ones (shot in JPG, no NR, white balance set to tungsten but still looks a little yellow). The image here has hasn't been NR'd and you can just about see some noise creeping in but the colours are v well preserved.
BTW, this was 1/3s at F2 and ISO 400. Pretty cool knowing that this would have required 1/1.5s on a slower lens (e.g. f/2.8) at the same ISO or ISO 800 for the same shutter speed.
Another couple of snaps from the past 24 hrs (each are processed with basic levels adjustments, etc):
OK - enough for now. Check back in a week for more !
Recent Comments