Canon EOS-1D Mark II N User Report

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.co​m/B1C05145EFF2187/orig​.jpg
Mike K

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.

MikeK, that is a beautiful picture.

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!

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

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!

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!

Mike K wrote:
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.co​m/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.

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/b​lue622/image/53257527

SeanH wrote:
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/b​lue622/image/53257527

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

Your sensor is dirty.

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

Pekka wrote:
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.

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/showthre​ad.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.co​m …082208canoneos1​dmkiin.asp

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

http://web.canon.jp …m2n/html/30_fea​tures.html explains all significant changes. No new sensor, no new Digic.