Canon EOS-1D Mark II N User Report

[dmwierz]

You guys have probably already seen this, but for those who haven't, here's a good user's review of the II N:

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1490

[JBillings]

Haven't seen it. Wonder how their comments compare to my observations. Thanks!

[hickory]

I think this was posted in the Sports thread just recently. Its an interesting article but just one persons opinion, IMHO : )

[Pekka]

Interesting stuff, especially when CMOS/AA and DIGIC II are identical. I can understand that N's JPEG output is better (more sharpening or different algorigthm applied in camera), but on robralbraith.com one guy said that N's RAW was sharper, which is highly unbelievable, unless they now apply sharpening to RAW, too (which would explain it).

Part of all this is perhaps a placebo effect coming from badly calibrated Mark II to good version of Mark II N. Or simply because that new camera is clean internally!

[MDJAK]

Well, it's always interesting to read "hands-on" reports. They have a certain "there" quality that other reviews don't.

That said, and while I don't own the 1dmkII, I don't buy the knock on the 1dmkII in any way. I've seen too many amazing shots, both here and in the newspapers and magazines made with it to believe there was a longstanding problem.

[Doc Nickel]

Interesting article, but it strikes me as more psychological than actual. He'd taken a few soft shots or missed a few shots with the earlier camera, and had convinced himself the new camera was "better" and wouldn't do that anymore.

I can understand that. It always seems a bit more fun to drive your car after you've spent the day washing it, changing the oil and plugs, vacuuming it out and waxing it. Same concept. :D

Doc.

[tim]

unless they now apply sharpening to RAW, too (which would explain it).

RAW is unprocessed sensor data with EXIF added, i'm 99% sure they'd not mess with it in any destructive way (sharpening is destructive). If they messed with it it wouldn't be RAW any more... :)

[Mark_Cohran]

I know several people that use the 1D Mark II and they never complained about soft shots. I really didn't have a significant problem with soft shots on my 10D or 20D either, but I've been shooting digital since the advent of the D30 and SLR's since the 70's - so I had an idea of what to expect and how to compensate. I love my 1D Mark II N, but I was ready to buy the 1D Mark II when the N was released, so it wasn't a hard decision to get the newer version at a lower list price.

Mark

[Pekka]

RAW is unprocessed sensor data with EXIF added, i'm 99% sure they'd not mess with it in any destructive way (sharpening is destructive). If they messed with it it wouldn't be RAW any more... :)

Canon 1D series is not sharpened in RAW. D30, D60, 10D are, and so are all compact models. This info is from Canon's Chuck Westfall. Don't know about 20D and 5D yet.

[primoz]

There's one thing which most of people are missing here. This review is not written by some wanabee photographer but by one pretty experienced shooter. I don't know Brad personally, but personally I'm not jumping around of happines and thinking about new names how to call my new camera. And I don't think he does that either. Once when you have camera for earning money it's just a tool and nothing else. This puts aside all that hype someone else might have when testing or "testing" new camera. But on the other side it doesn't mean that if he wrote it, it has to be truth and nothing but truth.
PS: Personally I don't have any problems with sharpness on any of my 1dmk2, but I'm not saying someone can't have it. Everything is possible, including me winning loto :)

[MDJAK]

One look at the reviewer's photos and his byline would indicate to anyone, including us, that he's far from a newbie. We all realize he's a professional. How else would he be getting those shots and "assignments" at the World Series. No, we didn't miss that, at least I didn't.

However, please consider that the Olympics last year, along with hundreds of thousands of other events were shot with the 1dsmkII, not the new N.

What I don't get is that "now" when the shot is slightly soft or otherwise, he's willing to blame user error, but not before.

[Pekka]

Pro or not, he can have opinions and say things and so can I.

"Pro" does not equal to knowledge. I'm not saying that about reviewer, but many just shoot without knowing the gear too well.

The other day one pretty "big name" came to photograph my work, we met in elevator and I saw the green line on his lens and said "oh, you shoot with DO", he looked at the lens and said "well it says here DO IS USM - don't know what it means".

400 f/4 is really too slow a lens choice for the hall we play in. Most shooters have 70-200 IS, 300/2.8 or 200/1.8. So he spent lots of his time holding the lens to seats - maybe he did not find that IS switch.

Later I asked why don't you guys never use the mirror noise reduction mode (all shooters on our concert halls use Mark II without mirror NR on, and it is distractive especially because they do not know the music). He said it is a personal setting and he cannot access it. I told "you can set it with computer". He said "But it can only be set on or off, I do not need that all the time". I told "after you set that personal function active you can set it on and off whenever you like". He did not know that and thanked me for the info.

[primoz]

I guess you understood wrong, or I wrote wrong, or better yet... it's my English which caused missunderstanding :)
Anyway... I agree with most of stuff what you wrote now. But I wanted to tell that most of pros (if not all) consider their cameras and lenses just as tool... nothing more nothing less. And most of them don't shoot charts to compare one lens to other, so "reviews" are usually quite different then those made by people doing only reviews.
PS: I agree also with that what Mdjak wrote as answer to my previous post. Beside I wrote myself... I'm perfectly happy with all my 1dmk2, so most of time if photo is soft it's my fault.

[Mike K]

Canon 1D series is not sharpened in RAW. D30, D60, 10D, and so are all compact models. This info is from Canon's Chuck Westfall. Don't know about 20D and 5D yet.
Yes, this was quite a revelation to us Canon shooters at the time the 10D was new. Based upon Phil Askeys comparative reviews, (both the numerical and image comparisons) I would guess that there is also significant noise reduction smoothing done to the 20D image, but I have no clear idea about the 5D. It is clear that the philosophy towards the 1DsII and 1DII cameras was to maintain minimal or no smoothing at higer ISOs. As an opposite extreme, the D2x crop at high ISO shows significant loss of detail, while the noise (especially luminance) is kept low. Thus lots of smoothing. From what I have seen 20D and D2x do not signifianctly increase their noise in TIFF outputs so I presume this smoothing is done on RAW. This difference in 1D series processing philosophy may explain how the prosumer 1.6 crop cameras maintain comparable or even better S/N with significantly smaller pixels. They sacrifice detail at the higher settings
Mike K

[SeanH]

Been saying the exact same thing for about 8 months now.........and of course taking major heat for it. I returned the old Mk2 after 3 days of shooting with it, the images were totally soft & flat....even at max settings, but now that I have the "N" it's all good! Everyone thought I was a total nut........."what do you mean the Mk2 takes soft photo's.......mines razor sharp". Like I tell my Wife, "Man is gets old being right all the time". :wink:

I would say 1 of 3 things are happening........#1 there is a HUGE bad batch of Mk2's that got out of the factory "not quite right"........or #2. People spent 4 grand on a pro level Canon and for whatever reason just can't bring themself to the fact that it takes soft pictures.......or maybe #3. Most people using this level of camera shoot 90% RAW and are used to sharpening the living piss out of the files (cause the files will take it) and just think JPG's look crappy anyway.

[Mike K]

SeanH,
I am not implying that the 1DmkII or IDsmkII are not sharp. I have a 1DmkII that has an impressive amount of detail, but yes, I sharpen more than my other cameras, often in two stages. What I am saying is that the D2x and the 20D probably reduce noise via smoothing to a much stronger degree than the 1DmkII. All digital cameras perform some noise smoothing at higher ISOs, but with different approaches and amounts. In addition the 20D probably sharpens prior to RAW encoding, similar to the 10D. The out-of-camera lack of sharpness in the 1DII output would suggest that this isn't so, but obviously the detail is there as it snaps back with sharpening. The low noise performance of the 1DmkII (and 5D) at higher ISOs without strong smoothing helps maintain sharper, cleaner images. I can't comment upon your 1DII or how you performed your post processing. Here is an example of mine, looks sharp to me:
http://www.fototime.com/B1C05145EFF2187/orig.jpg
Mike K

[primoz]

I would go here with your #1 option. It wouldn't be first time and probably not last time either. Question is only, how huge this bad batch is (or would be, if it exists). But as I said, I wouldn't be surprised at all, if it would exists. Same thing (soft or better to say out of focus photos) happend with whole first batch of old 1d which was shipped for I think Albertville Olympics #2 really doesn't go with me. I have sharp photos with both 1dmk2 I'm shooting with, and with my usual luck I really don't think only mine would be sharp :) Or maybe I and all my clients have different standards for sharpness :) And #3 definitely doesn't work for me, since I don't think more then 5% of my shooting is in raw. Raw just doesn't work for me and for that what I do.

[MDJAK]

MikeK, that is a beautiful picture.

[Incomplete Pete]

Got myself a 1D MkIIn today and have done the traditional shots around the house and am already impressed. Not only is the screen awesome and the custom filenames are great, but the sharpness is great! Finally don't have to rely on my old 1D to get sharp shots out of the camera. Can't wait to test it properly at the Track Cycling World Cup in Manchester this weekend. I can already tell that it's far better than my 1D MkII!

[peeps27]

Hi Incomplete
Am thinking hard about upgrading but will probably wait until the new year. Do you mind me asking where u bought from and if cheaper than £2550? Thanks Paul

[Pekka]

Got myself a 1D MkIIn today and have done the traditional shots around the house and am already impressed. Not only is the screen awesome and the custom filenames are great, but the sharpness is great! Finally don't have to rely on my old 1D to get sharp shots out of the camera. Can't wait to test it properly at the Track Cycling World Cup in Manchester this weekend. I can already tell that it's far better than my 1D MkII!

Could you post a link to one of your full size N photos (processed or not) which you consider really sharp. I would like to see one. Thanks!

[Incomplete Pete]

Paul, where did you find one that cheap? I paid just over that much...might take it back and get a cheaper one lol

Pekka, will do a test shot for you tomorrow morning, a shot inside my house isn't ideal!

[SeanH]

SeanH,
I am not implying that the 1DmkII or IDsmkII are not sharp. I have a 1DmkII that has an impressive amount of detail, but yes, I sharpen more than my other cameras, often in two stages. What I am saying is that the D2x and the 20D probably reduce noise via smoothing to a much stronger degree than the 1DmkII. All digital cameras perform some noise smoothing at higher ISOs, but with different approaches and amounts. In addition the 20D probably sharpens prior to RAW encoding, similar to the 10D. The out-of-camera lack of sharpness in the 1DII output would suggest that this isn't so, but obviously the detail is there as it snaps back with sharpening. The low noise performance of the 1DmkII (and 5D) at higher ISOs without strong smoothing helps maintain sharper, cleaner images. I can't comment upon your 1DII or how you performed your post processing. Here is an example of mine, looks sharp to me:
http://www.fototime.com/B1C05145EFF2187/orig.jpg
Mike K

Nice shoot Mike.....Bodie?
But yes I agree the images will take the shapening, But I think I just couldn't handle the sticker shock of a body that cost 4 grand that in some shots needed over 300USM @ 0.3. I just felt that was to much PP considering the cost of the camera......at least IMO.

[SeanH]

Could you post a link to one of your full size N photos (processed or not) which you consider really sharp. I would like to see one. Thanks!

I might have sharpened it.......if so 150 @ 0.3, but straight JPG. Keep in mind 400 ISO.....and the 17-40 is not the sharpest lens I own.

http://www.pbase.com/blue622/image/53257527

[Pekka]

I might have sharpened it.......if so 150 @ 0.3, but straight JPG. Keep in mind 400 ISO.....and the 17-40 is not the sharpest lens I own.

http://www.pbase.com/blue622/image/53257527

Thanks, looks ok. With RAW you can get crisper output but I suppose if you shoot sports RAW is not practical.

[MDJAK]

Your sensor is dirty.

[Pekka]

Your sensor is dirty.

I think he knows it. Dirty sensor is not such a thing we like to share in public :)

[SeanH]

I think he knows it. Dirty sensor is not such a thing we like to share in public :)

Too funny.......I was going to include with that post "yes I know the sensor's dirty"....LOL

Hell it's always dirty, but since the spot healing brush is about a zillion times faster than spoting a print it doesn't bother me. If I need to print a shot then I clean it up. The funny thing is I am hardcore about lens changing........you know, have it 2 inches away when the other one comes off. I even blow off the rear element of the lens I'm putting on......still get dust. But I never use swabs on it, just a rocket blower......have never had a camera long enough to need to swab it.......LOL. Guess I'll have to break down and learn to clean it right, cause I'm keeping this one.

[Incomplete Pete]

Right, used my 1D MkIIn for two days of solid shooting over the weekend, didn't touch the old MkII once as its successor is so much better.

The main thing is the sharpness and focussing, whilst other photographers were having to prefocus the action, I was able to pick up the action almost instantaneously. 99% of my photos didn't require sharpening, they looked awesome bang out of the camera, colours and saturation too were great, barely any post processing was needed.

For examples from this dream camera please check in here:

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=119663

Now...should I sell the 1D and MkII for a MkIIn....

[Pekka]

Right, used my 1D MkIIn for two days of solid shooting over the weekend, didn't touch the old MkII once as its successor is so much better.

The main thing is the sharpness and focussing, whilst other photographers were having to prefocus the action, I was able to pick up the action almost instantaneously. 99% of my photos didn't require sharpening, they looked awesome bang out of the camera, colours and saturation too were great, barely any post processing was needed.

For examples from this dream camera please check in here:

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=119663

Now...should I sell the 1D and MkII for a MkIIn....

Do you agree to possiblity that the changes you see are because
a) JPEG processing in N version has been changed to have more sharpening by default
and
b) you Mark II was not calibrated properly to your lenses, or dirty?

Reason I ask is that nothing I have seen so far proves that N version has different AF or sensor or processors compared to original. I'd like to believe that RAW is sharper in N but simply there are no facts to back it up. It seems the effect of sharpness is due to new JPEG engine only.

Quote from http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082208canoneos1dmkiin.asp

"The only imaging pipeline change introduced to the 'N' are the new 'Picture Style' image parameters."

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos1dm2n/html/30_features.html explains all significant changes. No new sensor, no new Digic.

[Tomasz Dziechciarz]

Later I asked why don't you guys never use the mirror noise reduction mode (all shooters on our concert halls use Mark II without mirror NR on, and it is distractive especially because they do not know the music). He said it is a personal setting and he cannot access it. I told "you can set it with computer". He said "But it can only be set on or off, I do not need that all the time". I told "after you set that personal function active you can set it on and off whenever you like". He did not know that and thanked me for the info.

mirror noise reduction mode - tell me please what is it?

[Jon]

Special setting that slows the mirror down so it doesn't make such a loud "clunk" when you take a picture. Slows down the camera a bit, too.

[Incomplete Pete]

Do you agree to possiblity that the changes you see are because
a) JPEG processing in N version has been changed to have more sharpening by default
and
b) you Mark II was not calibrated properly to your lenses, or dirty?


a) I agree, I'm sure it's a software upgrade within the camera, however it does seem that the camera is greatly improved, maybe the same hardware but ever so slightly altered.

b) According to Canon, my MkII is perfect, however is isn't. All my lenses work perfectly with my 1D and MkIIn, yet not with the MkII. Canon asked whether I wanted to send all my lenses in, however I can't afford to sit about for a fortnight whilst Canon play with my kit leaving me without my tools!

There is definitely something wrong with a lot of MkIIs, however Canon refuses to admit it. Everyone using them at the Track World Cup was resorting to manual focus! I can't explain it, but there is a fundemental issue with many MkIIs which seems to have been solved with the MkIIn.

[SeanH]

I don't know if I would say "there is something wrong" with the old mk2's.......sure there's a chance, I know the one I bought put out terrible images.......UNLESS you sharpened the living daylights out of them, then they were good. Myself I believe Canon thought the pro's buying this camera wanted NO in camera processing, but they found out they were wrong. They might have discovered that a major percentage of the buyers just wanted a pro camera, and didn't really want to spend their time post processing EVERY shot. I'm a perfect example. I'm no pro, I just shoot for fun but I like having the best equipment and I can afford it, but the post processing was a drag........so I returned the old mk2, and always saying "if Canon could make the mk2 have sharper images I would buy another one in a heartbeat". Enter the Mk2N. Canon's not stupid, why would they HAVE TO sell me a 20D when I really can afford (and want) a Mk2? Canon knows "Bling"! Lets face it.........can that old man really drive that Corvette.........hell no, but he sure looks good in it. Canon understands this, that's why they make a upper level camera that has the best of both worlds.....great shots right out of the camera, or process your little heart out..........and those are just the jpg's.......of course there's always RAW.

Don't know if I am right or wrong, but that my take on this.

[attu]

I strugle to see how the MkIIN could have faster/better auto focus and more sharpening than the original MKII unless the parameters arnt equal, there isnt anything that the MKIIN should be able to do in this respect that the MKII cant and visa versa, I covered the Rally GB for a national magazine and out of the 2004 images i took using 2 1DmkII's id say 98% of them were well focused and sharp, just looking at the photos posted by KennyG and Cadwell in the Sports forum show whats regualy possible from the 1DMKII, Id honestly say that if anyone was getting any thing less then some thing is wrong either with the equipment or....dare i say it...the user ?

[Incomplete Pete]

attu, I think every photographer with a screwey MkII has had a crisis of confidence, that was until we returned to our trusty 1D and discovered we could still take a photo! lol

[SeanH]

[QUOTE=attu]I strugle to see how the MkIIN could have faster/better auto focus and more sharpening than the original MKII unless the parameters arnt equal, there isnt anything that the MKIIN should be able to do in this respect that the MKII cant and visa versa, QUOTE]



The "N" files are indeed different, and are sharper than the old Mk2.I have even read a couple posts from top pro's using this camera that even state the RAW files are better. Just the fact that the ACR that opens the old Mk2 files will not open the N files should tell you something. As far as the AF being faster......I doubt that. But the in camera sharpening is without a doubt much higher on the N than the old Mk2. I can't find the Canon web page anymore but it basically said the N had the same in camera sharpening as the 20D. If you look at the link below in the pages regarding sharpness (page 26) you will see the 20D has more sharpening than the old Mk2.

http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/EOS_Digital.pdf

[joeflux]

[QUOTE=attu]I strugle to see how the MkIIN could have faster/better auto focus and more sharpening than the original MKII unless the parameters arnt equal, there isnt anything that the MKIIN should be able to do in this respect that the MKII cant and visa versa, QUOTE]



The "N" files are indeed different, and are sharper than the old Mk2.I have even read a couple posts from top pro's using this camera that even state the RAW files are better. Just the fact that the ACR that opens the old Mk2 files will not open the N files should tell you something. As far as the AF being faster......I doubt that. But the in camera sharpening is without a doubt much higher on the N than the old Mk2. I can't find the Canon web page anymore but it basically said the N had the same in camera sharpening as the 20D. If you look at the link below in the pages regarding sharpness (page 26) you will see the 20D has more sharpening than the old Mk2.

http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/EOS_Digital.pdf

Does this mean that your zoom lenses can look at a higher quality to that of a prime lens?