1D Mark II mini review and C1 (beta) full size images

I left that part off for a reason, it was the same reason i was about to leave "lighting off". You pretty much said what i expect(ed) to hear.

Take a 1Ds or an MKII photo and shrink it down to 800x600 for the web and display them on the monitors we all use and the real quality of the photo is lost. Even with 6.5mp cameras the real quality cannot be displayed on a computer monitor.

Print them out and then everything changes. Then you'll see the difference.

Fair enough, but i go back to my original opinon of lens choice...this is an L lens is it not? (pekka)

Amazing, the woman with the instrument, I can even see she's wearing contacts!

There has been alot of disapointment expressed on Rob Galbraith's Forum about the Mark II's low light AF capability. Many people have complained that it can't focus in low light. I suspect that this is related to the difficlty I had using AI Servo in low contrast/heavy overcast skies. There are over 95 posts in this thread about problems with low light AF:
http://www.robgalbrait​h.com …psed&sb=5&o=&fp​art=1&vc=1
Regards,
Scott

timmyquest wrote:
A tad off topic but seriously

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

How much of this picture is:

Camera
Lens
Lighting

I think "Mark II" in this shot is mainly the dynamic range - in those same conditions I simply never was able to keep white scores and foreheads from overexposing, while having a good exposure on the rest. It all required lots of curve fiddling if you wanted to get above "look" and if the shot was ISO 1600 then the quality would not have held together.

Lighting on that photo was fixed concert hall roof lighting and lens was the good 70-200 f/2.8L (which I btw decided not to swap to IS version because my copy is so suberbly sharp over whole range). It was up to me to a) choose a lens and b) find a position where light was good c) shoot.

Of course it is so that all cameras are very much alike (after certain basic requirements) and can take similar pictures (on that size). Why Mark II then, and not 300D? When you pick up Mark II, even if you never touch burst mode or 45 point AF, you will get more good shots simply because of handling (balance, viewfinder), speed (shutter, buffer, preview), accuracy (AF, metering) and low noise / high DR. I find that at the moment of taking a shot I think now less about camera and AF than I did before with D30/60 and 10D. A feeling worth paying for.

I could not agree more. Well said.

All I can say is.......

........SLURP.........​.

That Mark II is delicious!!!

Ro1

scottbergerphoto wrote:
There has been alot of disapointment expressed on Rob Galbraith's Forum about the Mark II's low light AF capability. Many people have complained that it can't focus in low light. I suspect that this is related to the difficlty I had using AI Servo in low contrast/heavy overcast skies. There are over 95 posts in this thread about problems with low light AF:
http://www.robgalbrait​h.com …psed&sb=5&o=&fp​art=1&vc=1
Regards,
Scott

A big part of focusing is the focusing screen: I wonder if anyone has made any tests using alternative screens, or even default screen from another batch?

As I said in the review, I've had some problems with low light focus, but they have not been about not getting focus lock - instead they have been problems with locking to closeby more contrasty focus target.

But the oddest thing is that I don't have that problem all the time. For example today at work intervals I did lots of low light tests and I got only couple of nontargeted focus locks out of 80. Perhaps I'm starting to know what Mark II thinks after all.

Pekka, from what I've read (all 51 pages at www.robgalbraith.com), it seems to vary with the lens used and the kind of lighting. Surprisingly, Chuck Westphall of Canon, while commenting on a number of issues raised about the 1D Mark II, has thus far remained silent on this issue.
Regards,
Scott

Hi Pekka, Enjoyed your article very much. In fact, so much, I have just put in my order for the MkII. I may have to wait a few weeks, but it's done!! and I hope worth the wait, I'm sure, by what everybody says, it will be. Look forward to more of your views on the MkII in the near future. Regards [F.R.]

Pekka,

it's a great review with great pictures.

Best regards,
Andy

GenEos:

I like the pinkie shot on your website.
Great posture, vivid colours.
However, daring decision to put it on the web so everyone can see it

Do we have an idea about the dynamic range of the Mark II? I was wondering about like vs the 10D. I'm waiting to see a camera that can produce pics where they usually get left in the dust but your eyes can see all as it should be. I'd like to be able to do this without taking a) 2 pics and photoshopping them later, or b) blowing out sky to get ground/underexposing ground to get sky in landscape pics.

In the mean time we've come a hell of a long way in technology since the first digital cameras! I think it just a matter of time now.