Canon 1D MK II sharpness issue

[HKFEVER]

My Nikon 2100 & 5700's image looks sharpener than my new Mark II with 24-70mm /F2.8L USM len.

Just wonder why?

[ssim]

Are you comparing the JPG from one against JPG against the other. What are your settings in the MKII vs the other cameras.

I have the same setup as you and have no issues with sharpness. I shoot nothing but RAW and am fully aware that there has to be some post processing with respect to sharpening on a camera of this calibre.

[HKFEVER]

I know it is no way to compare camera to camera. But I have Stupid Snapshort digital Nikon 2100, Consumer Nikon 5700, D70, Nikon F5, Canon MKII, Mamiya 645 Pro TL, etc..

And generally, I found the Mark II 's colour & sharpness is not as Canon mentioned in advertisment.

I sold the 28-135mm IS and upgrade to 3 L class lens because the sharpness is poor from 28-135mm. But after upgrade the lens, the sharpness did improve but not much.

Just wonder why.....



Are you comparing the JPG from one against JPG against the other. What are your settings in the MKII vs the other cameras.

I have the same setup as you and have no issues with sharpness. I shoot nothing but RAW and am fully aware that there has to be some post processing with respect to sharpening on a camera of this calibre.

[HKFEVER]

What do you mean about the "some post processing with respect to sharpening on a camera of this calibre"?




I know it is no way to compare camera to camera. But I have Stupid Snapshort digital Nikon 2100, Consumer Nikon 5700, D70, Nikon F5, Canon MKII, Mamiya 645 Pro TL, etc..

And generally, I found the Mark II 's colour & sharpness is not as Canon mentioned in advertisment.

I sold the 28-135mm IS and upgrade to 3 L class lens because the sharpness is poor from 28-135mm. But after upgrade the lens, the sharpness did improve but not much.

Just wonder why.....



Are you comparing the JPG from one against JPG against the other. What are your settings in the MKII vs the other cameras.

I have the same setup as you and have no issues with sharpness. I shoot nothing but RAW and am fully aware that there has to be some post processing with respect to sharpening on a camera of this calibre.

[jgbeam]

Can you post some samples from each camera?

Jim

[sGu]

It could be your camera, BUT before you do anything to it, make sure you fully understand how it works and how to adjust settings to make it work for you.

This issue has been raised and discussed millions times in various active forums, such as dpreview.com, FM board and Rob Galbraith forum.

You can set sharpness level internally or you can shoot RAW and do all the processing yourself.

I'd suggest you do a search on dpreview, you'll get answer much quicker.

[ssim]

What do you mean about the "some post processing with respect to sharpening on a camera of this calibre"?

Most P&S digital cameras have built in sharpening so that the end user doesn't have to worry about this. The MKII leaves this to the user preferences. What do you have your processing parameters set to?? These are on page 58/59 of your manual. If your sharpening is set to 0 then the camera is not performing any sharpening (I leave mine at 0 and do it myself).

[chris.bailey]

I have found the jpg MkII image to initially look a little soft even with in camera sharpening set on 2 but in Photoshop you can boost sharpness a lot more than from say a 10d without degrading the image at all right up to the point that they cut with a knife. I would say you need to play around with your post processing a bit to get more out of it.

I would agree that the 28-135 is not quality enough glazing. I find the 28-70/MkII combination to be just awesome though.

[CyberDyneSystems]

http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/11242.html

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/digitalphotography/learnmore/sharpening.mspx


Your older cameras applied a significant amount of sharpening, color saturation and contrast adjustment to your files in camera.

The MkII is not doing this for you in the smae way.. but rather is leaving such tasks to you.

There are Parameter adjustments that you can make in the MkII to help with this.. but the best solution will be to do it in post processing.

[Persian-Rice]

Yes the MkII is known not to sharpen to the extent of P&S's. It's not an issue really, as it was built to do this.

I think the first misconception that many people have who are new to d-SLR's is that the images will look significantly better(sharper/saturated) right out of the camera. Though true in many cases, when it comes to the highest end camera's its usually the opposite.

The manufacturer leaves more up to the photographer rather then handling it internally. I think this is actually a great thing, considering the fact that post processing is the same as developing film, thus giving more control back to you. The major advantage is that because the camera has not manipulated the image, you get something of absolute highest quality which means you lose less quality during processing.

Its like sharpening something that has not been damaged with previous internal sharpening. It is best to do some research on workflow and post processing.

Cheers.

[JX]

Hi HKFEVER: I bought my MK II a month ago and thought the same thing. I started shooting in raw format and was amazed at the difference. I am still not satisfied when I shoot in JPEG format. But now I know that the problem is more of a learning curve on my part, rather than the Mark II ability produce sharp vibrant photos.

Jim

[Transfix]

Are you shooting in Adobe 98 or 3H Color? I've found the 3H setting to produce a more Nikon like image if that makes sense.

[HKFEVER]

I use to shoot with film, and what I shoot is what I will see in the film. No need to sharpen or soften the files. If you shoot the picture out focus or not at right explosure, too bad.

I set the sharpness in 0. If you need to sharpen the image by software, that mean you did not shoot the picture correctly or the hardware has problem.

Do you thing so?

[Transfix]

Not correct. The 1D and 1D Mark II i've used have always produced images that don't pop or jump out at you. I don't do any sharpening inside the camera. I leave that to my workfolw via photoshop.

[Cordell]

I use to shoot with film, and what I shoot is what I will see in the film. No need to sharpen or soften the files. If you shoot the picture out focus or not at right explosure, too bad.

I set the sharpness in 0. If you need to sharpen the image by software, that mean you did not shoot the picture correctly or the hardware has problem.

Do you thing so?

First HKFEVER, this is not film. The process is slightly different. With a DSLR you have the controll of sharpening or not. With film, you had control in the darkroom but not as much as you do with digital. DO NOT CONFUSE THE TWO. Open your mind to the new level of image capture and processing. There is way too much to cover on these issues than we can give you. Sure everone here can give you their process, but you need to understand what the process is. My suggestion is to find a recent book on digital capture. Or you can do a search on digital + photography + "how to" + process + dslr + software

Good luck

[JX]

Hi HKFEVER,
Until a month ago I shot film too. I made the switch from Nikon (film) to Canon (digital). I had the same questions you have. I thought my film pictures were sharper at first.

What you need to do is take out your Mark II and Canon manual and experiment. Go out and shoot the same subject and change the sharpness parameters with each picture. Experiment with the color matrix settings. Just keep experimenting until you understand the camera.

I believe that my digital JPEG pictures are as good as what I was taking with film. Shooting in raw format and post processing with Photoshop CS is producing photos that I think are far superior to what I could ever achieved in my darkroom.

Good luck

Jim

[HKFEVER]

Thank you.

If not talk about FIlm vs Digital. I still find Nikon film is SHARPER than Canon film.

If talk about digital, I know there has a lot of software to work with and all the commercial shoot are heavy worked before they were posted.

But if you like to take picture to record that special moment, do you think that modify your shoot with software is not turely recording that particular moment???




Hi HKFEVER,
Until a month ago I shot film too. I made the switch from Nikon (film) to Canon (digital). I had the same questions you have. I thought my film pictures were sharper at first.

What you need to do is take out your Mark II and Canon manual and experiment. Go out and shoot the same subject and change the sharpness parameters with each picture. Experiment with the color matrix settings. Just keep experimenting until you understand the camera.

I believe that my digital JPEG pictures are as good as what I was taking with film. Shooting in raw format and post processing with Photoshop CS is producing photos that I think are far superior to what I could ever achieved in my darkroom.

Good luck

Jim

[ssim]

If not talk about FIlm vs Digital. I still find Nikon film is SHARPER than Canon film.
If you are talking about comparable bodies, comparable lens quality and that the printing was done at the same time by the same technician, the comparison would be valid.

But if you like to take picture to record that special moment, do you think that modify your shoot with software is not turely recording that particular moment???

Doing minor sharpening and color corrections is the same as what the lab technician does when he prints your film. I do not see this as not being a true reflection of chaning the "moment"

I get the impression that you are not happy with the 1D MKII. If your desired result is to have a digital image that will be out of camera ready, then you should continue to use a P&S. The reality is that the MKII is a great piece of hardware and software wound together that will give you fabulous images with post processing.

[timmyquest]

But if you like to take picture to record that special moment, do you think that modify your shoot with software is not turely recording that particular moment???

If you cant get over this aspect of digital photography then i'm going to suggest that you get your money back while you can.

You ought to realize what it really is. It is an advantage. Lets say your taking a picture of a wrinkly 40 year old women. Would you rather flatter her with a softer look, or would you rather bring out the lines and pores in her face?

Someone once quoted Ansel Adams on these boards "You dont take a photograph, you make it". There are things you can do in the digital dark room that you couldnt dream of doing in an actual dark room. Removing a stray hand in the backround of a picture for example. Meshing a sky from another photo to the foreground of the other (I'm sure it can be done with film, but i'd rather not attempt it if i dont have to).

The truth is that the photography has undertaken a major change, the biggest change it's ever seen perhaps. Some "old schoolers" will never be able to accept it. My 75 year old boss at the photo studio (who has been doing this for more then 50 years) for example...i think he'll die hating the digital format. His son however, has bought a D100 and is begining to play around with it.

There is nothing wrong with shooting film, you can still get fantastic results, but the digital format makes everything easier i think. I think that is the key difference.

[JX]

You summed that up most eloquently.

[JX]

HKFever Wrote:But if you like to take picture to record that special moment, do you think that modify your shoot with software is not turely recording that particular moment???

I have my own darkroom, when I shot that special moment; I developed the film. Then I put the negatives into my enlarger exposed the photographic paper. Burn and dodged the print where needed. Then developed the print. So tell me what the difference is? Digital and film processing both have work flows. Both processes will give you that same picture of a “special moment”.

[HKFEVER]

Thank you for all your points. As far as it goes, I am taking picture with the Mark II and a Mamiya at the same time.

Mark II for testing different setting first and final the shot with the Mamiya.

This is the best way to use the Mark II ( a bit over kill, but save a lot of film cost).

And I am don't care about sharpness anymore, because my Mamiya A 150mm can produces very sharp photo.

Thanks again to help me solve my doubt.

[HKFEVER]

And I am selling my Canon gear and will convert back to Nikon system.

[JX]

You have spent about $9,000.00 on camera equipment. I think you are just wasting the forums time. If you’re spending that much money on camera equipment and have such little insight to the potential of the Canon EOS 1d Mark II, then I think you should sell your Canon equipment, stick with a good point and shoot camera.

[HKFEVER]

Hi JX, just kidding. I am not that stupid to waste money. :)

I just need time to adjust from film to digital.

And I just see the reaction from Canon school vs Nikon school. :twisted:

In fact, I use to shot with Nikon F5 and Mamiya 645 Pro TL. But Nikon did not have any piece that can't have 800 pixel at the time that I was looking for digital, andprice of Mamiya's digital backing can buy at least 3 Mark II.

Plus, I read a lot of reports before I go ahead to buy the Canon gears. So the Canon will stay for a long time...... May be......

1Ds MARK II is selling now :shock: , so should I replace 1D Mark II...... :?: