85L - Preview on LCD misleading?

Hi everybody... Just wondering if any other 85L owners have experienced this or if I'm hallucinating.

So I got a new 85L (mkII) a couple weeks ago. Was busy for awhile so I didn't have time to use it much until this past weekend. I went to a Renassaince Festival (not my usual thing, but they're great for portrait taking) to "practice" and put it through its paces...

I took several shots and of course checked them out on the LCD (I have a 5D mkII with the nice LCD) and was a little worried. To me I couldn't tell if they were sharp and/or if I was hitting focus or not. That's what I was most worried about with this lens because of the extremely thin DOF. So after a few, and still being worried, I stopped down to F2 and then F2.8. I was still a little worried as they just didn't look that sharp on the LCD. So eventually I swapped to my 70-200 2.8 IS (I needed some more length for stage shows anyway) and the pics with that looked sharp on the LCD.

Then when I went home and started post processing, the shots with the 85L were indeed sharp (sharper than the 70-200) and I was kind of disappointed that I had swapped, as I know some of the shots I took with the 70-200 would've been "better" had I stuck with the 85L.

Lesson learned I guess - as from now on I'll just have to trust that I got it with the 85L and not worry about sharpness on the LCD with that lens...

But I'm just curious if anyone else has had similar experiences...

Cheers!

Yes it is misleading.
I suspect that when generating a preview the camera uses a smaller jpg thumbnail that is attached to the RAW file not the real image. Even on 40D with its relatively low resolution display the zoomed in preview is practically useless.

Yes, before processing any view of a RAW file is of a very small jpeg file. Besides, I doubt review on the LCD is a good judge of sharpness anyway.

Remember sharpness is a perception of the eye to contrast. Shoot away and wait for your import to impress.

I have a 1Ds II. With a tiny screen that I use for the RGB histogram. Forget the LCD preview. 2.5 (and bigger) screens are a waste of time for me. It's all about the import and seeing keepers on my 24 inch monitor.

I've had similar experience and stoped judging sharpness with the lcd.

Yeah, but does anybody notice it specifically with a certain lens... Like I said, they seemed to look sharper with the 70-200 then with the 85L - but only on the LCD/jpeg preview.

Once in post with the RAW it was the opposite...

I have a 40D, and I heard it uses a smaller jpg, even when shooting jpg, when reviewing on the LCD. IT would explain why shots don't look as sharp, even when viewed "100%" on the 40D. It's not the screen, because the live view is perfect.

I still find it useful, as I have developed the 'feel' for what is sharp. That is, I know what will show up as sharp on my monitor, judging from the LCD.

I have noticed no difference lens to lens and I have shot with an 85L and a 70-200 at the same time.

Worry about the imports/true shots, not the LCD mini-jpg that is embedded in the RAW or JPG file to allow a preview.

If you're going to be using fast lenses, you may want to pick up the Eg-S focusing screen for your 5D MKII. It's much easier to tell in the viewfinder whether your subject is in focus, and it gives you a much more accurate representation of the DOF.

B&H has them here

I use this screen all the time with primes, however if I know I will be using f/2.8 or slower lenses, I put the regular screen back in--the viewfinder gets very dark.

Even on my monitor I sometimes can't tell I misfocused (slightly) unless I zoom in. I don't even bother using the LCD on a camera to judge focus accuracy unless it's not even in the ballpark.

I think 5DII's LCD itself is misleading. Maybe the LCD is too good, picture review looks better than on computer monitor, I know this is always true, but with 5DII vs computer & 5DI vs monitor, the difference is much large with 5DII.

Ha, the 5dMKII's screen is fantastic compared to the 1DMKIII or 1DsMKIII LCD screens, even my 5d MKI screen was far better when it came to focus.

BigDaveE wrote in post #8048841
Hi everybody... Just wondering if any other 85L owners have experienced this or if I'm hallucinating.

So I got a new 85L (mkII) a couple weeks ago. Was busy for awhile so I didn't have time to use it much until this past weekend. I went to a Renassaince Festival (not my usual thing, but they're great for portrait taking) to "practice" and put it through its paces...

I took several shots and of course checked them out on the LCD (I have a 5D mkII with the nice LCD) and was a little worried. To me I couldn't tell if they were sharp and/or if I was hitting focus or not. That's what I was most worried about with this lens because of the extremely thin DOF. So after a few, and still being worried, I stopped down to F2 and then F2.8. I was still a little worried as they just didn't look that sharp on the LCD. So eventually I swapped to my 70-200 2.8 IS (I needed some more length for stage shows anyway) and the pics with that looked sharp on the LCD.

Then when I went home and started post processing, the shots with the 85L were indeed sharp (sharper than the 70-200) and I was kind of disappointed that I had swapped, as I know some of the shots I took with the 70-200 would've been "better" had I stuck with the 85L.

Lesson learned I guess - as from now on I'll just have to trust that I got it with the 85L and not worry about sharpness on the LCD with that lens...

But I'm just curious if anyone else has had similar experiences...

Cheers!

I think you may be seeing the difference between F/2.8 and F/1.2 - F/2. Since there is less DoF with the 85 at those apertures than with the 70-200 at F/2.8, the latter may look sharper.

Another issue is that you should not go beyond approximately 5X magnification on the LCD in order to judge sharpness. At 5X you are already over 100 %, so DoF is even more critical in these assessments than before, and hence a thinner DoF doesn't really help. I find that just lookign at 1X magnification, IOW, no magnification, the images can be judged for sharpness well enough already.

Regarding the Eg-S screen, I use it too, and it is even better than the EE-S of the 5D. Unlike Tim, I also use it with my slower lenses, although slowest is relative (F/4, F/4, F/3.5-4.5 in my case). The standard focusing screen is relatively crude (literally) and shows the image as if you're viewing at F/5.6 (even though it is slightly brighter). The Eg-S in combination with the 5D II is so good that it makes it possible to easily focus manually. With the 5D and 40D the -S mattes were good, but this one definitely is a step up again.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

Thanks for the info Wim...

I currently use the Eg-D screen because I like the grid...

If I try the Eg-S I know I'll miss the grid... I wish they made an Eg-s with grid... an Eg-SD perhaps??

So how dark does the Eg-s grid make the viewfinder? My slowest lenses are f2.8, so in comparison to the default or Eg-D screen, how much darker would the viewfinder be with the Eg-S?

BigDaveE wrote in post #8050219
Thanks for the info Wim...

I currently use the Eg-D screen because I like the grid...

If I try the Eg-S I know I'll miss the grid... I wish they made an Eg-s with grid... an Eg-SD perhaps??

So how dark does the Eg-s grid make the viewfinder? My slowest lenses are f2.8, so in comparison to the default or Eg-D screen, how much darker would the viewfinder be with the Eg-S?

I don't really see the difference, if that helps, but then, I am probably weird anyway .

I think you will really only notice the difference with slower lenses. Do note that the VF of the 5D II seems brighter than its predecessor too, it does to me anyway, and even with the Eg-S it still does.

I wish Canon would do a Katz-Eye Optibright type coating on its focusing screens, however. That really makes focusing screens bright - too bright almost .

Kind regards, Wim