Dynamic Range 5D vs 1Dmark IIN

does anyone know if the dynamic range is better of the FF 5D or does the 1series give you better results?

arkturas wrote in post #2973204
does anyone know if the dynamic range is better of the FF 5D or does the 1series give you better results?

both cameras have same pixel size, the difference only is a 1.3 crop factor

arkturas wrote in post #2973204
does anyone know if the dynamic range is better of the FF 5D or does the 1series give you better results?

i was about to ask this question...before buying the 5D or wait for the MK3..

Here's a little small part of info from "Canon Full Frame CMOS white paper"

"Regardless of format, full-frame sensors are all about image quality. The most
obvious advantage of full-frame sensors is the ability to combine high resolution
with large pixel sizes. Compare two sensors with the same number of pixels, one a
full-frame unit and one smaller. The pixels of the full-frame sensor are larger. Each
larger pixel has a greater surface area available for gathering light. More light
collected means less amplification needs to be applied to the output signal of each
pixel for the purposes of readout and image processing. Less is better here
because magnifying low-level signals inevitably entails picking up and increasing
noise that will then have to be removed as thoroughly as possible in a later step.
---
Larger pixels help full-frame sensors to produce a higher dynamic range and
finer tonal gradations than their smaller brethren. Insufficient dynamic range for a
given situation means values at their respective ends of the exposure curve will be
compressed, showing little separation or variation, or worse, they will be entirely
featureless. These unwelcome events are called, respectively, “blowout” and
“black-crush.” Here are two difficult subjects rendered correctly:"

So I guess if you're camparing the two, 5D would give you a higher dynamic range.

tomhide wrote in post #2973462
Here's a little small part of info from "Canon Full Frame CMOS white paper"

"Regardless of format, full-frame sensors are all about image quality. The most
obvious advantage of full-frame sensors is the ability to combine high resolution
with large pixel sizes. Compare two sensors with the same number of pixels, one a
full-frame unit and one smaller. The pixels of the full-frame sensor are larger. Each
larger pixel has a greater surface area available for gathering light. More light
collected means less amplification needs to be applied to the output signal of each
pixel for the purposes of readout and image processing. Less is better here
because magnifying low-level signals inevitably entails picking up and increasing
noise that will then have to be removed as thoroughly as possible in a later step.
---
Larger pixels help full-frame sensors to produce a higher dynamic range and
finer tonal gradations than their smaller brethren. Insufficient dynamic range for a
given situation means values at their respective ends of the exposure curve will be
compressed, showing little separation or variation, or worse, they will be entirely
featureless. These unwelcome events are called, respectively, “blowout” and
“black-crush.” Here are two difficult subjects rendered correctly:"

So I guess if you're camparing the two, 5D would give you a higher dynamic range.

Your actuailly wrong, this compairson would work when compairing the 5D and the 30D which have different pixel sizes, however the 1D Mark II and the 5D carry the exact same pixel technology. The ONLY difference between the two from a sensor point of view is that is 1D Mark II is a smaller "cut" or "crop" of pixels. The pixel density and pixel size are the same.

If pixel density and physical size-per-pixel are the same, then 5D and 1DMKII should have the same dynamic range. No difference.

Thanks for the clarification guys, I had no idea. I may rethink about the next choice of camera with this consideration.

I think that the IQ of these two bodies is so close that you should make your choice based on other factors that matter to you and your shooting needs.

Deciding between those two like Tapeman said shouldn't be an IQ issue. It should be wheter you need fast action a razor AF, or having a FF (making a 24mm focal length seem really wide) and using ISO 3200 without worrying about noise.

Now i am wondering where is 1Dsmk2 would be, all people talking about 5D and 1Dmk2 and MKIII or even 400D, so where is 1Dsmk2? is it a bad camera now.

Tareq wrote in post #2975957
Now i am wondering where is 1Dsmk2 would be, all people talking about 5D and 1Dmk2 and MKIII or even 400D, so where is 1Dsmk2? is it a bad camera now.

stop measurebating and just enjoy your camera. you'll only haunt yourself looking for flaws. in 10 years it'll still take an amazing picture regardless of whats new and trendy

Just even further out of most people's price range Tareq

I'd love a 5D - high iso performance is very important to me.

Sure I'd love a 1ds, but then I'd also love to win the lottery. For most of us, there's about the same chance of those two things happening.

Tareq wrote in post #2975957
Now i am wondering where is 1Dsmk2 would be, all people talking about 5D and 1Dmk2 and MKIII or even 400D, so where is 1Dsmk2? is it a bad camera now.

For the price of the 1Ds Mark II, you could get a 5D, 1D Mark IIn, and 70-200 2.8 IS.

As i expected, it is money issue then.
I thought there are many performances or features issues.
I love all my cameras even my nikon 8800 and 350D as they all produce amazing photos just i use the higher level now and feel difficult to use lower level but doesn't matter.
so i hope you people guiding me if there is any technical or features issues rather than money and budget then to tell us, maybe it is easy to afford many bodies or glasses but difficult to tell what is hidden behind those gear [Technically].

They are both awesome and pretty equal in image quality