Cheap EF Lenses tip.

[Hatem Eldoronki]

I read in a review somewhere that the 1Ds MkII will outresolve other than L lenses. I now know how true that is!
The fact that I want to pay off my loan on the 1Ds is holding me back from buying even a flash for the camera. Which leaves me with the 17-40mm lens as the best mate to the 1Ds.
My other lenses (as in my signature) simply suck, and that's not just with the 1Ds, but also with the 20D. But not with the 10D!

Solution: drop the resolution to either S, M2 or M1.

I am absolutely convinced that above 6 megapixels, non-L lenses are worthless. Surprisingly, even the EF 100mm macro lens suffers horribly with the 1Ds, especially when NOT being used as a macro, and it's supposed to be better than the 50 f1.4 lens.
The same applies to the 20D. The sensor's resolving power is beyond what the lens sees.
(I tested my hypothesis over the last two days, and I was only satisfied with image quality when I either shot in S, M2, M1, or, shot in L or RAW, then used PS CS to downsample the image, then USM to increase sharpness: Something I never have to do with the 17-40mm lens. "Testing" was done using both the EF 100mm Macro, and, ehem, the EF 75-300mm IS. )

[tpinchback]

I would love the see some of the tests you took, please post some examples.

thanks

[Hatem Eldoronki]

Really no need to. Just use your 50 f1.8 and shoot two images, one at full resolution and one at lowest. Fix it on a tripod. My own tests were nothing near scientific. They relied on "what pleased my eyes"..I posted such "please the eyes comparo photos before" and almost got yelled at!

[kb244]

ok maybe look good to your eyes, as any smaller pic compared to the larger size is going to look good , hehe. As it is going from 6 megapixels, then being downscaled by the camera when saved to M1/S etc. Heres the other question, do you plan on printing the pictures at all, if so keep at 6 megapixels. If no more than 4x6 , then M2 ( 1600x1200 or so ) would be acceptible.

[Hatem Eldoronki]

ok maybe look good to your eyes, as any smaller pic compared to the larger size is going to look good , hehe. As it is going from 6 megapixels, then being downscaled by the camera when saved to M1/S etc. Heres the other question, do you plan on printing the pictures at all, if so keep at 6 megapixels. If no more than 4x6 , then M2 ( 1600x1200 or so ) would be acceptible.

You're absolutely right (about the eyes).
I will print at least 8x10.
My solution is just temporary, until I upgrade my lenses. It still beats my 20D at similar reslutions..

By the way, I like your photos on your website..

[Citizensmith]

The Canon 100 f/2.8 macro is one of the sharpest lenses Canon make. And that's corner to corner sharpness as that's part of what makes it a good macro. If you are seeing an improvement in your photos when the camera downsamples to a lower resolution (and remember, the same sensor takes the photo, so all differences are software based and nothing to do with hardware) then I think you may be seeing something other than differences in lens quality.

Or, you've got a really crappy 100 and 50 that should be sent back to get fixed.

Or, your tastes are just different to most of us. Maybe you'd be better off with a 3mpxl S1 IS. :)

[kb244]

From my understanding having worked as a canon rep, best buy employee ( prior to that ), and currently a photographer, and been constantly printing stuff from numerous printers intended for home and semipro use for the past 3 years. This is pretty much what i've come up with that 90% of consumers need in order to find the prints looking 'great'.

8x10-8.5x11 = Least 4 megapixel resolution
5x7 = Least 3 megapixel resolution
4x6 = Least 2 megapixel resolution

now when I say resolution, i dont mean that the sensor just has 4 million pixels cramed into, but having 4 million distinct clear pixels. I mean if you take one of the kodak 5 megapixels camera, its probally going to do similar results to a Canon or Nikon point and shoot camera at 3 megapixels printed.

Now far as saying anything thats non-L is utter crap, even tho you may get same 'sharpness' at a lower resolution, printed the lower resolution will not appear as sharp when printing at 8x10, unless of course yer talking about 4 megapixels vs 6 megapixels then it wouldnt make a difference unless printed larger. I've shot things with my Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro, that appeared tack-sharp, course keep in mind the Canon 100mm Macro supposed to be sharper than the sigma. But the main thing I noticed is that it all depends on the aperature at which the shot was performed as well, my sigma keeps things tack-sharp at 5.6 to 8, or so, anything lower or higher gets a bit "soft".

I guess to reproduce what you are finding to make no difference, I would need to know which lens, what settings were used to generate the pictures that you find would result in same quality. Because to myself I cant find the logic in your statement that a 6 megapixel shot is going to print the same as M1, or definitly that it would print at S (which I think is 1600x1200 ?).

The other thing to consider, is while the 1Ds is double the megapixels, and the sensor size is larger. Is it perhaps that the pixel density on the 1Ds sensor is tighter at the given megapixels that standard lenses look like crap on it compared to the 20D with the same lens.

But as I read your original post, you complain that using non-L glass ( or as some of us call the super-sharp cocaine made by canon ), on higher than 6 megapixel shots yeilds same results as lower cameras when blown up to the same size or something like that. Just that simply non-L lack the sharpness in area that the L glass can reproduce on a more sentative/fine sensor area. But if you are going to be only printing 8x10 , do you need more than 6 megapixels, arnt the shots you do from a non-L on a 1Ds going to appear as sharp if not sharper on the same 8x10 paper. It matters not unless you start printing upto 20x30 near 300 DPI, but if you are printing 20x30, arnt most people going to be standing back 10 to 15 feet away from the paper? Based on what you said, the only possible reason you'd want to use an L glass with a camera above 6 megapixels, is so that you can crop out portions of the picture to print just those areas, otherwise it makes no difference.

[kb244]

...
Or, your tastes are just different to most of us. Maybe you'd be better off with a 3mpxl S1 IS. :)

hehe funny, consumers I know in the stores, tend to love the camera, most of the folks that love DSLR hate the S1. But maybe he's thinking from the standpoint of "I paid 8 grands for this camera, if it cant reproduce better results than my 2 grand camera using the same lens, it must not be worth it" , course when you downscale 16 megapixels to 8 whats going to look sharper, something thats nativly 8, or one thats nativily 16 downscaled to 8.

[kb244]

Oh better yet, crop out the 1.6x area from the 1Ds Mk2 shot, which would represent the area the 20D would have taken with the same lens and see whats sharper.

[Hatem Eldoronki]

Or, your tastes are just different to most of us. Maybe you'd be better off with a 3mpxl S1 IS. :)

Judging by your avatar, your right. :lol:

[DocFrankenstein]

I beleive it's worth stopping down the 50/1.4 to f/2.8 or f/4

If that doesn't give the you the "quality"... you're out of luck. :confused:

[Hatem Eldoronki]

Oh better yet, crop out the 1.6x area from the 1Ds Mk2 shot, which would represent the area the 20D would have taken with the same lens and see whats sharper.

OK.
1-If a lens shows signs of CA, wouldn't it be emphasized by a bigger sensor? Therefore a non-L lens that works good on your 10D would look like crap on the 1Ds.
2-I said I printed AT LEAST 8x10 and not all the time 8x10.
3-Your statement that I quote here really tells me you don't know a lot about the MkII: simply picking a 1.6 crop area is not the end of story. the 20D and MkII have different-sized photosites anyway..

[Hatem Eldoronki]

Maybe I should have directed this tip to 1Ds MkII users? It's not a matter of stopping down or increasing the shutter speed. The 1Ds sensor magnifies imperfections of the cheaper EF lenses.

[DocFrankenstein]

simply picking a 1.6 crop area is not the end of story. the 20D and MkII have different-sized photosites anyway..
I beleive the photosites on the 20D are actually smaller than that on MKII :confused:

Anybody knows for sure?

[Hatem Eldoronki]

I'm gonna rephrase this idea again:
L lenses are better than non-L (duh duh duh).
1Ds2 sensor's better suits L lenses.
If you're having a problem with the non-L lenses with your 1Ds2, try not to shoot at full resolution, until you can also afford buying L lenses.
Similarly, the 75-300mm IS is crappy on a 20D. Shoot with it at a lower resolution, or downsample. :)

[Hatem Eldoronki]

I beleive the photosites on the 20D are actually smaller than that on MKII :confused:

Anybody knows for sure?

I read that on Dpreview.

[Tom W]

I'm gonna rephrase this idea again:
L lenses are better than non-L (duh duh duh).
1Ds2 sensor's better suits L lenses.

That's a better way of putting it, though I've found that many non-L primes outperform L-zooms at their respective focal lengths. This isn't true of all situations, but the 50/1.4 out-resolves the 24-70L zoom at 50 mm by a small margin at wider apertures. This difference diminishes as you stop down.

If you're having a problem with the non-L lenses with your 1Ds2, try not to shoot at full resolution, until you can also afford buying L lenses.
Similarly, the 75-300mm IS is crappy on a 20D. Shoot with it at a lower resolution, or downsample. :)

I'd prefer to just limit the size of print that I might make rather than shooting at low resolution right out of the box. In other words, make the full 16.7 mpx shot with your 1Ds2, then look at the image and decide how large a print it will produce.

The 100% screen crop, coupled with 16.7 megapixels on a sensor that exploits the full image circle is a particularly treacherous test for your lenses, but keep in mind that the printed equivalent of that 100% screen shot is a good-sized poster.

[lomond]

I'm gonna rephrase this idea again:
L lenses are better than non-L (duh duh duh).
1Ds2 sensor's better suits L lenses.
If you're having a problem with the non-L lenses with your 1Ds2, try not to shoot at full resolution, until you can also afford buying L lenses.
Similarly, the 75-300mm IS is crappy on a 20D. Shoot with it at a lower resolution, or downsample. :)


You have the equipment, you've done the tests, lets see the results.
Don't cop out by saying do them yourself.
Prove it.

[Hatem Eldoronki]

You have the equipment, you've done the tests, lets see the results.
Don't cop out by saying do them yourself.
Prove it.

I will not post pictures on the internet, unless I really have to, or they are worthless to me. My test shots are not copyrighted yet, and I will not post them. On the other hand, it's a simple two-shot-deal you can do for yourself.

[Hatem Eldoronki]

I'd prefer to just limit the size of print that I might make rather than shooting at low resolution right out of the box. In other words, make the full 16.7 mpx shot with your 1Ds2, then look at the image and decide how large a print it will produce.

The 100% screen crop, coupled with 16.7 megapixels on a sensor that exploits the full image circle is a particularly treacherous test for your lenses, but keep in mind that the printed equivalent of that 100% screen shot is a good-sized poster.

Of course it's the right advice. I try to think the output while shooting rather than waste time thinking about how big to print later. It's just faster this way. I'll know that when I have the macro lens on, I'll do 8mp or Large jpg.

I always have a problem trying to explain myself. (English is my second language)
Thanks Tom.

[lomond]

I will not post pictures on the internet, unless I really have to, or they are worthless to me. My test shots are not copyrighted yet, and I will not post them. On the other hand, it's a simple two-shot-deal you can do for yourself.

Whats the difference between your test shots for the above and these test shots from your previous post;
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=394313#post394313

What's the big deal. :confused:

[Hatem Eldoronki]

That link is exactly why.
I can sell my test shots. However, if you want a picture of a Mitsubishi Galant, you can simply right-click the pictures from the link you dug up. That's the difference.
I don't even have a website anymore, because of copyright issues. Maybe I overreact to this issue, but I was so advised.
I enter pics in contests, and that's as far as I would go.
I apologize lomond, but that's my preference, and it's not hard for anyone to do anyway.

[lomond]

mcouper, if you don't wish to post the proof then fine.
I admit I have heard that the 1Ds mkII can out resolve some lenses, but I have yet to see the proof ( hence my challenge ).

I respect your right not to post, especially if photography is your livelihood and I apologise therefore for pressurising you into doing so.

Geez, I've apologised twice today.
I've got to stop talking crap. :o:

p.s. The blame lies in a small island called Islay. :D

[Tom W]

That link is exactly why.
I can sell my test shots. However, if you want a picture of a Mitsubishi Galant, you can simply right-click the pictures from the link you dug up. That's the difference.
I don't even have a website anymore, because of copyright issues. Maybe I overreact to this issue, but I was so advised.
I enter pics in contests, and that's as far as I would go.
I apologize lomond, but that's my preference, and it's not hard for anyone to do anyway.

I post a good number of test shots, as well as reduced-size versions of some of my "better" shots (that's not to say that my shots are real good, but some are decent). If you're worried about copying of your better images, then just post small versions of them. A 640X480 image will not make a very good print, nor will it fill a screen.

Also, if you're comparing resolution and such, you can take crops of your 100% full-screen shots and post those. They will usually have no artistic value since they are only a portion of your full image, but they will have the value of showing the resolution of the lens-sensor combination of that part of the image.

As far as testing myself, I can't do it because I don't have the 1Ds Mk-II. I suppose I could try different resolutions with my 1D Mk-II, but it wouldn't be of much value to me - the full-sized images are very good already, in my opinion.

[Tom W]

mcouper, if you don't wish to post the proof then fine.
I admit I have heard that the 1Ds mkII can out resolve some lenses, but I have yet to see the proof ( hence my challenge ).

I respect your right not to post, especially if photography is your livelihood and I apologise therefore for pressurising you into doing so.

Geez, I've apologised twice today.
I've got to stop talking crap. :o:

p.s. The blame lies in a small island called Islay. :D

A couple of posters on Fred Miranda's site and Rob Galbraith's site have done extensive testing with their 1Ds Mk II. One in particular has a photography business that relies on producing the absolute best that can be done, so he's very picky. The general findings are that the camera doesn't necessarily "out-resolve" the lens, but that it does exploit the lens'es weaknesses, particularly at the corners and at wide apertures. The wide-angle end is where lens weakness is the most prominent, from what I've seen.

BTW, the Island of Islay is one which brings me a fair amount of enjoyment at times. :)

[lomond]

BTW, the Island of Islay is one which brings me a fair amount of enjoyment at times. :)


You said it and I'm not going to argue with what you say.
I have a preference for the Lagavulin side of the Island, how about you Tom.

[Tom W]

You said it and I'm not going to argue with what you say.
I have a preference for the Lagavulin side of the Island, how about you Tom.

Port Ellen, Bay of Laphroaig might be a favorite part for me. :)

[lomond]

Port Ellen, Bay of Laphroaig might be a favorite part for me. :)

I do love to hear that.
All the way from Chattanooga.
I like Laphroaig but if you get a chance try Lagavulin and the older the better.
You wont be disapointed.

[Adam Hicks]

Well first off... your tastes ARE different than others. That's why you have that ugly car (LOL) and second off, it you want me to, I'll send you my 20D and take over payments on your 1DS. Problem solved.

Long live the S52!

[Tom W]

I will give it a try, Cameron.

What's odd is that I sit in "Jack Danials" country - lots of bourbon drinkers around here. I don't particularly like bourbon whiskey.

[ron chappel]

Something doesn't quite add up with this whole thing.....but i' can't work out what as yet.

As someone above says-if your 100 macro and 50/1.4 are getting easily beaten by the 17-40/4 L then something is wrong with them!
Sure the 17-40 could be better suited to digital sensors than the primes (which were designed some time ago) but it shouldn't be any huge difference

Perhaps it was the blanket statement that 'all L's are better than primes on the 1Ds' that grates.
On one hand it's silly to say that an L zoom can better a prime...but also there could be something about the 1Ds that suits certain lenses better...?

[Andy_T]

MCouper,

I tend to agree with what Ron said ... but then, I don't have a 1Ds to test out.

However, I am a bit amazed given that thousands of professional photographers using the 50/1.4 and 100/2.8 macro don't seem to have problems with these lenses on their film bodies, even if they go for large enlargements.

Did you consider checking if the focus on these lenses is calibrated correctly with your 1Ds?

I'd suggest to sell your IS lenses, as they seem to be the weakest links in the chain. On the other hand, these lenses normally have a very good resale value, as they are sought after for use on prosumer cameras. Also ... not many people I know really need 3 bodies.

I don't know how well the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI performs on a full frame sensor (especially as it's a lens designed for digital), but it might be worth a try, now that you obviously are on a budget. It works very fine on my 20D.

Best regards,
Andy

PS: I also promise NOT to print out your test shots of the Mitsubishi and put them on my wall, thus robbing you of your livelihood ;)

[Hatem Eldoronki]

Alright everyone. I work three jobs, so give me a week max, and I will set up a new "scientific" test. It will include these lenses and settings:

EF17-40mm @40mm, EF75-300mm @100mm and the EF100mm Macro lens. I will shoot with these settings:
1/100sec, f5.6, ISO 800, Large jpg size, tripod-mounted 1Ds. I will try to frame all shots the same way, so I'll have to move the tripod to compensate for the shorter focal length of the 17-40mm lens.
Would this be fair enough, or am I missing something?
Please let me know.

[Andy_T]

Sounds ok.

I'd include a faster shooting speed for the shots at 100 mm.
Add MLU and self timer, and you're set for a scientific test. Don't forget to get a ruler.
I wonder how your lensbabies will work out :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

[CyberDyneSystems]

p.s. The blame lies in a small island called Islay. :D

Yes,. clearly they are to blame for not producing enough, as you must be dieing of thirst! ... ;)

Or are you one of those really annoying "Happy Drunks"? :lol: :lol:

I actually love bot the Lagavulin and Laphroig,. thoug it has never occured to me to try to see which I prefer? I think some serious scientific testing of another nature needs to be planned for this weekend,..

We'll see if Lagavulin can "out resolve" my tumbler glass better than Laphroig,..

.... hmmm which begs the dilemna...

Do I post Pics??

[dsze]

...copyrighting test shots? Hmmm?

[Citizensmith]

I wonder how much of this is expectations as much as anything else. My step father just moved from a 6mpxl fuji P&S to a RebelD with 18-55 and 75-300IS. He thinks its fantastic and absolutely the best camera ever. OK, he's not been sucked in to the financial vortex known as L lenses just yet.

And back to the original topic. I also have read that on a technical view (lpm and such) the 1Ds2 will out resolve some lenses. What I'm not sure I go with is that downsampling is actually solving this. If the camera outresolves the lens you don't get any particular error, its just that the lens is failing to provide detail the camera is capable of capturing. I look forward to the test, and thanks for putting in the time to do it.

[ron chappel]

Sounds like a great test mcouper.
I'll be very interested in how it goes

[daveh]

I'm gonna rephrase this idea again:
L lenses are better than non-L (duh duh duh).

Define "better". This forum gets silly about the whole "L religion" but not all L lenses perform as well as all non-L lenses. This is especially true if you compare an L zoom to a non-L prime. Even if you compare primes to primes, the key feature of many Ls in increased speed while keeping the quality similar. The 50mm f1.8, 50 mm f1.4 and 100 mm macro are all great lenses that outperform many Ls.

I have a feeling that the only way to convince you would be to do a double blind test in which you have to look at images and determine which came from the L and which came from the non L :D

[Phil V]

I've got a novel idea, if the 1ds means something to you, sell the 10d and or 20d and your least favourite lenses, then buy yourself some lenses that'll give you the quality that the camera deserves. OR sell the 1ds and buy some decent lenses. I don't understand why you'd need 3 bodies whilst struggling to afford lenses, unless of course there's something about your photographic needs that means you need 3 different bodies.

[Hatem Eldoronki]

I've got a novel idea, if the 1ds means something to you, sell the 10d and or 20d and your least favourite lenses, then buy yourself some lenses that'll give you the quality that the camera deserves. OR sell the 1ds and buy some decent lenses. I don't understand why you'd need 3 bodies whilst struggling to afford lenses, unless of course there's something about your photographic needs that means you need 3 different bodies.

Thanks for the tip.
I use only the 1Ds2. The 10D and the 20D are in my signature because they are currently available to me. I'm giving my brother-in-law the 10D, the 75-300mm, and the 28-135mm lenses. He can't afford buying new, and I hate selling stuff, so that's a perfect marriage :lol: :lol: :lol: (Pun intended)
So in general, I know what I'm doing, but thanks for the tip.

[Citizensmith]

Thanks for the tip.
I use only the 1Ds2. The 10D and the 20D are in my signature because they are currently available to me.

See this is why I just talk about camera bags in my signature. If I let slip I've got a Nikon F2 as well as my RebelD I'd be in big trouble. :)

[Hatem Eldoronki]

Ok I give up.
I'm not doing a test. However, I'll post samples. It's just easier.
First, here's from the EF 100mm Macro:

http://home.comcast.net/~eldoronki/tests/VW6T0202.jpg

And an actual pixels crop:

http://home.comcast.net/~eldoronki/tests/VW6T0202-100.jpg


What do you think?

[4walls]

EXIF data?

[Hatem Eldoronki]

EXIF data?

Oh yes..

Shooting Mode
Aperture-Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/200
Av( Aperture Value )
3.5
Metering Mode
Evaluative Metering
Exposure Compensation
0
ISO Speed
100
Lens
100.0 mm
Focal Length
100.0 mm
Image Size
4992x3328
Image Quality
RAW
Flash
Off
White Balance Mode
Auto
AF Mode
One-Shot AF
Parameters Settings
Tone Curve Standard
Sharpness 5
Contrast 0
Color Matrix
3H-saturat.
Color Space sRGB
Color saturation High
Color tone 0
Noise Reduction
On
File Size
14956 KB

[Tom W]

I think it looks good.

[Andy_T]

Dito.
Looks very good to me.
I assume you focused on the vertical pole in the center, and this looks plenty sharp to me ... even at 100%

Maybe you could post an example with the 17-40 as a reference, since you said that this is the best lens you currently own.

Best regards,
Andy

[Hatem Eldoronki]

I will post an example from the 17-40mm lens and from the 50mm f1.4 lens by tonight.

[Hatem Eldoronki]

A shot of a friend with the 17-40mm lens.


http://home.comcast.net/~eldoronki/tests/VW6T0669.jpg

And an "actual pixels" crop from PSCS:

http://home.comcast.net/~eldoronki/tests/VW6T0669-100.jpg

[MT]

Just as a point of order - your shots are copyrighted the moment you take them.

[Hatem Eldoronki]

Just as a point of order - your shots are copyrighted the moment you take them.

I don't understand..

[dsze]

Technically, as soon as you produce an image, you are the owner of that image much like a painter with his canvas. However, seeking damages without registering your copyrighted images is pointless, as I understand it. ....not sure who would be interested in stealing test shots though...or even if they were, why anyone would care. ?

-daniel

[4walls]

That is sharp... what about the same shot with the previous lens?

[Hatem Eldoronki]

Technically, as soon as you produce an image, you are the owner of that image much like a painter with his canvas. However, seeking damages without registering your copyrighted images is pointless, as I understand it. ....not sure who would be interested in stealing test shots though...or even if they were, why anyone would care. ?

-daniel

My original "test" shots have already sold..They weren't meant to be test shots, but they weren't completely useless anyway. They contained people, whom I did not obtain model releases from, but they liked the pictures a lot and bought them.
However, they're not like us when it comes to evaluating a lens or a camera, so I think know what's a bad lens and what's good. They don't, as long as the picture is not blurry and the colors vibrant. Just the right customer at the right time. So I was shooting, while trying different lenses, but not solely to test the lenses..
They insisted that I do not post the pics online. I agreed, not liking the idea myself.
However, I'm starting to listen to advice on how to post online without giving all the good stuff away for free.

Here's one:

http://home.comcast.net/~eldoronki/art/oil-container.jpg

[Hatem Eldoronki]

Forgot to say it is by the 50mm f1.4 @ f22, 13 sec, ISO 100...

[Citizensmith]

Technically, as soon as you produce an image, you are the owner of that image much like a painter with his canvas. However, seeking damages without registering your copyrighted images is pointless, as I understand it. ....not sure who would be interested in stealing test shots though...or even if they were, why anyone would care. ?

-daniel

Technically as soon as you produce a new and unique image. If your image is a little too derivative of someone elses work you could actually be infringing on their copyright unless you can prove that at no point were you ever exposed to their work.

You've really got to watch yourself though, I had a friend who'd shot a load of San Fransico landscapes which without his permission made it on to postcards. Needless to say he was a bit pissed off and fortunately successfully managed to get compensated.

[ssim]

This thread is almost comical..... I'll post the pictures later.... oops sorry they're sold but they weren't any good anyway. :confused: :confused: :confused:

Looking at the exif for the first image that you did post, even at 1/200 sec. you can get camera shake. Were you set up using a tripod. The second image was taken in a whole different lighting environment. Hardly a true comparison. I can't find where you detailed your workflow for post processing. Are these right out of the camera via RAW conversion or have you tweaked them both equally.

In all honesty, I think both images are fine. It would only take a couple of seconds to throw a copywrite on the image before posting..

Now out of sheer curiosity, what type of things are you shooting that you sell that much of that you needed the 1DsMKII.

[4walls]

Hmmm, I agree with ssim... where is the 'unsubscribe from thread' link???

[Hatem Eldoronki]

This thread is almost comical..... I'll post the pictures later.... oops sorry they're sold but they weren't any good anyway. :confused: :confused: :confused:

Looking at the exif for the first image that you did post, even at 1/200 sec. you can get camera shake. Were you set up using a tripod. The second image was taken in a whole different lighting environment. Hardly a true comparison. I can't find where you detailed your workflow for post processing. Are these right out of the camera via RAW conversion or have you tweaked them both equally.

In all honesty, I think both images are fine. It would only take a couple of seconds to throw a copywrite on the image before posting..

Now out of sheer curiosity, what type of things are you shooting that you sell that much of that you needed the 1DsMKII.

You really are very funny, you know that?
"I'll post pix later" because I was at work. I work two full time jobs, and photography isn't one of them.
Why I got the 1DsMkII: why do I owe you an explanation?
I can't afford a "whole whack of Lenses". I'm still building up what I need.
And I never made a real test. It's just comparisons of different pictures. Is that so weird?
Hey, thanks for nothing really.
It's about time for me to leave this MB..

[Andy_T]

Mcouper,

calm down :lol:

Actually, SSIM said in very moderate words what a lot of people on the forum are surely thinking.

After all, you are making some very strong assertions against some of the finer glass Canon makes that do not really seem very founded (judging by your argumentation in this thread)

My best guess is that you are one of the touchy ones ... so one piece of advice ... just take it easy on Internet boards.
If you're easily offended, it'll just be bad for your heart.

Best regards,
Andy