Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 16 Apr 2009 (Thursday) 02:44
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1 Ds Mark II vs 5D Mark II

Senior Member
580 posts
Joined Jul 2005
Apr 17, 2009 01:33 |  #16

maxloxton wrote in post #7746876 (external link)
Thanks a lot guys for your nice analysis and giving me nice feedback on what is better and what is best.

One thing that I forgot to mention was that I am mainly looking for a high quality Image and have heard people saying time and again that the Digic IV processor is way better than the Digic II processor. Plus, the new technology is of course better than the previous one.. i.e. Higher ISO, low noise, overall features.

Can you kindly elaborate in this regard.

Marketing horse pucky is what it is. People also mistakingly think that the "DIGIC" processor is responsible for all aspects of the camera--from focus to card write speed. It is NOT! It's just like the megapixel wars on the point and shoots. :cry: It's not just the number of pixels, but lots of other factors that contribute to the quality of the end result!

The "DIGIC IV" versus the DIGIC II or III is nothing more than a faster processor with updated software that processes the bits coming from the sensor and converting it to JPEG. If you shoot RAW, you actually bypass a lot of the software in the DIGIC processors.

Granted, a DIGIC II processor may not have enough horsepower to process 22 megapixels of 14-bit data. But a DIGIC IV is not the primary reason--let alone the sole reason--as to it's supposed imaging superiority over the previous generation of processors. The only thing we do know is that the DIGIC IV processor is faster and is running newer software than the previous DIGIC processors.

Picture quality has a lot to do with the ENTIRE chain--from the light to the lens to the sensor to the processor to the post-processing. All hopefully mostly controlled by the photographer. The DIGIC chip is but a cog in a complex chain that determines "image quality." I would argue that the lens, the focusing system and the image sensor is more crucial than the DIGIC processor. After all, garbage in, garbage out.

BTW--newer technology isn't ALWAYS better. Was Vista better than XP? Was DOS better than UNIX? The Segway better than the bicycle? What works better than a wheel? That's some old technology at work!

If I sound a little annoyed, it's because I am. I'm sorry--but this misunderstanding and/or misrepresenation of what the "DIGIC" processors do is so pervalent that I finally gave into the temptation to rant a little. Please forgive me.

P.S. Without peeking at the EXIF, can anyone tell me which DIGIC processor was responsible for the following image?


iLUKphotography (external link)

3,492 posts
Gallery: 235 photos
Likes: 549
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Ottawa, Ont, Canada
Apr 17, 2009 08:20 |  #17

You can download any of the full file samples from the link I gave you, and if you can see any appreciable difference in quality that shows the new technology from the old please let me know how. I've stared at the images for quite a while & I can't find it. On another forum with a similar discussion someone suggested that you will need to make a print the size of your living wall before finding a difference, and even then you may not.

A skill is developed through constant practice with a passion to improve, not bought.

133 posts
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Tucson Az
Apr 17, 2009 18:48 as a reply to  @ cicopo's post |  #18

I have not used the new 5D MII. But I have no reason for video and having the same AF as the 5D the choice was easy for me. The 1DsMII AF is far superior. 21 mp doesn't beat 16.7 when it's out of focus. And being able to use multiple spot metering is indespenable. And the 1D series build quality is an extra bonus.

Canon 5D Mk III , 1Ds MkII , 20D , 16-35 f2.8L , 24-70 f2.8L , 70-200 f4L IS , 28-135 IS , 85 1.8 , 2-600 EX II , 2-580EXII , 1-580 EX.

sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,465 views & 1 like for this thread
1 Ds Mark II vs 5D Mark II
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©

Latest registered member is socrbob
924 guests, 348 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.