JayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 17 Posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 8377 times:
Peter Miller is a very acclaimed sports photographer with Sports Illustrated.
* * *
Canon EOS-1D Mark II-A Brief Encounter
By Peter Read Miller, Sports Illustrated
Last week I had the opportunity to shoot with a preproduction EOS-1D Mark II camera for two days at the Pacific Life Tennis in Indian Wells, California. What follows are my totally non-empirical impressions from those two days.
Look and Feel
Physically the camera is essentially the same as the EOS-1D. There is no longer an external window for the Auto White Balance-AWB is done completely inside the camera now. One of my favorite changes is the enlarged CF card door latch. Now you can open it even if you just trimmed your fingernails.
The zoom on the LCD screen is greatŠlogical, simple and very effective. The screen is also brighter that the 1D or 1Ds-making it more important to check the histogram for proper exposure. You can also break the histogram into Red, Green and Blue. There were a number of other changes in the menu system including the option to adjust JPEG compression more precisely.
Auto Focus seemed definitely faster with improved tracking-the result, I am told, of a new processor and improved software. Canon has also worked on improving the on camera flash metering. I just tested it in my hotel room, but again I saw improvement.
The camera has a bigger buffer, and shoots bigger files. Sports Illustrated shoots Raw plus JPEG's so we tend to see rather long buffer write times. The Mark II seemed to take about the same time as the 1D to write the buffer once it was full; however I was getting around 20-8MP files instead of 14-4MP files as on the ID, big difference. Also, I was using a 1gig 32X card. I'm sure things will speed up when the faster cards are available as the camera is designed to take advantage of the higher speeds. In addition, it seemed that you could squeeze off the first few frames as the buffer emptied a lot sooner.
Battery life was much improved-probably double the 1D, and with the same battery and charger. Since I did not have an SD memory card I wasn't able to explore the second card slot feature.
I sent my cards directly to Sports Illustrated in New York, so I really haven't seen the files from the Mark II. My boss Steve Fine, SI's Director of Photography, did look at them. His comments, as we await our shipment of Mark II's, were that "we will be very happy" when the production cameras arrive. The Mark II "will help make the photos in SI look even better". Enough said.
Canon has taken a great camera and made it even betterŠ
(Peter Read Miller is a staff photographer with Sports Illustrated. He is a frequent contributor to the Sports Shooter Newsletter.)
JayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 17 Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 8050 times:
I'm sure you could find out!
Seriously, yes it is an expensive camera, yet this camera is THE camera for our needs, at least in my opinion. It will definately take away sales from the 1Ds although that camera is not intended for airliner photograhy.
It is a vast improvement over the 10D and 1D, no doubt.
I've got my order in for one. Should come in around mid-April.
I think after I get it, I "might" have an EOS 1VHS for sale. I'm sick
of slides and the scanning problems I've had the past four months. I also think the digital process is MUCH quicker overall.
Riley From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 173 posts, RR: 51 Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 8016 times:
Jay, I've got mine on the way as well... You can check out an in-depth review of all the goodies on the Canon USA site. This is a very high-tech piece of equipment. I'm sure the manual that comes with the kit will be huge. Many of the custom functions, etc will almost require formal training.
I'm anxious to see how the 1.3 crop factor compares to the 1.6 10D with my lenses.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, RR: 17 Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7889 times:
I am sure that there will be a huge learning curve for me, moving to digital
Well at least the camera will be similar in many respects to the 1v, so from a handling and camera operation, much will be familiar which helps (same AF, same metering etc.)
Apart from familiarising yourself with the digital functions of the camera, I think the most important thing to come to terms with is the amount of post-processing required. I wouldn't expect anything to be useable straight out of the camera - the Mk II in particular seems to need a fairly aggressive approach to sharpening, and quite different to one you would use for scanned film.
For this reason, I suggest you shoot RAW from the start - this way you can experiment with processing time and time again without damaging your "original" - plus, in a few months time when you've refined your proceedure and tool kit, you can go back to your early images and bring them up to standard.
Planedoctor From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 286 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7882 times:
I would agree with Colin. Having never moved from film to digital (I jumped straight into digital, baby!), I would suggest tinkering with RAW, but for a beginner it might be a bit overwhelming. I think it depends on how comfortable one is with a computer and editing. The only problem with starting with RAW is that you might end up sending the camera back in the first week out of frustration! If you feel pretty good about using photoshop and working your way around the computer (you must if you can upload to this site at least!) then you probably are okay with RAW. But most people I know start with jpegs since at least you can enjoy getting your feet wet. Most of the MKII reviews have the sharpening set to "0", and I think if you turn the sharpening up in-camera you might not need much anyways. On the 1D and 1Ds I shot jpegs only when shooting professionally, and I had the sharpening set to a mid-amount, and the images came out perfect for printing. For most everything else I do shoot RAW now. But the bottom line is- do what Colin says and shoot RAW first. If that is too frustrating, then either send the camera to me, or go ahead and shoot jpegs!
JayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 17 Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7851 times:
It is my understanding from reading some reviews on this camera is that you can shoot "both" in Raw mode and jpg mode at the same time!! One of the reviews said that wedding photographers would love this option, since they can shoot Raw and then for the jpgs to use for mini-albums or 4x6 prints.
I am "fairly" good with the computer and Photoshop, so I think I can handle that. Just what is the difference between Raw and jpg format though?
I don't think I'll sell my EOS 1VHS just yet............I might find a need to shoot film at some point, but for the life of me, I can't seem to know why after getting this bad boy!!
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, RR: 17 Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7838 times:
Jay - that's correct, the camera can take a RAW and a jpg at the same time (with various size & quality options on the jpg).
RAW is a record of what the sensor recorded, it is not an image until this sensor data is processed. You do the processing on the PC which allows you to select various processing data (eg. colour balance, sharpening - even exposure compensation) to the image after you've taken it. And of course you can reprocess the image again and again to try different settings.
With jpg, the image processing is done in camera - the sensor data is filtered via the in-camera settings and an image is created. This is fine IF you've got everything just right at the time of shooting. But of course in creating the jpg, much of the original sensor data is thrown away, which means if you do find you have to edit the image after the fact (say you got the white balance wrong) you are making corrections to a much smaller data set, with a resulting loss in quality.
Here's a crude way of thinking about it - RAW is like creating a negative, jpg like making a print. Both are fine if the original exposure is spot on, but if you want to make any adjustments, you're much better working from a scanned neg than a scanned print.
I understand you hanging onto the 1vhs ... I hung on to an EOS 3 for a full year after buying the D60. But I never used it!
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, RR: 17 Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 7792 times:
White Balance - you know that with film you had to switch film types or use filters to cope with, say, the differing colour temperatures of tungsten and daylight. Well with digital, the camera has to determine the light temperature to record the colours correctly. In other words, the camera will attempt to establish a setting which will record pure white as white regardless of the type of lighting.
DSLRs incorporate an auto-white balance feature which works pretty well most of the time, but it can get fooled - eg. the warm glow of a sunset might get somewhat neutralised by the auto white balance. Hence cameras also provide a means for you to set the white balance yourself - if for example, you are shooting under studio lights, and you know the colour temperature of those lights, you can simply dial that value into the camera - result, perfect colour rendition.
Of course, unless you happen to carry with you a light temperature meter, it is seldom you know exactly what the correct setting should be in the field - so you use auto, or guess a setting, which will probably provide good results, but results which might be improved on. By shooting RAW, you can reset the white balance when you get back home to provide the optimum colours.
I know it will be hard to part with the 1VHS - but remember, its just an object. I'd be very surprised if that expensive camera doesn't transform itself into an expensive paperweight when you get the Mk II - I certainly wouldn't rush into it, but I would consider transforming the 1VHS into, say, additional L glass a much better use of your original investment!
JayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 17 Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7762 times:
Thanks for the explanation Colin...........
Good thoughs about changing the EOS 1VHS for some more L glass.
I already have the 70-200 f-2.8 and the 28-70 f-2.8, the 85 f-1.8 and both the 2x and 1.4x converters. What I'd like to get is the 70-200 f.28 with IS.
I've seen it in action at a trade show and man was I impressed. I think that might be a possibility after a while or just keep my EOS 1VHS for a back-up.
Right now I have a EOS 630 as a back-up..........I also have another one laying in a drawer..........
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, RR: 17 Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7695 times:
I think "late April" is the party line ... the big question is how many? In other words, if you aren't in the first delivery (and some dealers are saying they only expect to get 2 or 3), how long till the next shipment? I don't think there is any doubt that demand is going to out strip supply for a considerable time.
As to cards - it seems this has almost become a religion with some people (won't use anything except Lexar, Sandisk or whatever). Personally I use Sandisk Ultra and have no complaints - paradoxically, the fact that I did have one fail which was replaced with no hassle actually makes me feel more comfortable with them. But I haven't done any comparison testing.
Actually, due to the enormous buffer of the MkII, I wonder how crtical card speed will be in practice.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 18, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7671 times:
What Colin describes as a buffer is basically this. When a digital camera takes a photo, there is a lot of number crunching it has to do to the "file" before it resembles an image. All of the processing (white balance, color space, sharpening, contrast, etc.) need to be done before you "see" it as an image. The it needs to be written (saved) to a media card. This all takes place remarkably fast. But, there is a physical limit to this speed, and when multiple images are taken, they are queued for processing in a memory area called a buffer.
Similar to RAM in a pc or pda, the camera's "buffer" memory accepts the image and basically queues it up to be processed and then written to the storage media (compact flash card). Until that data gets written, it is volatile. If you shut the camera off during that time, you loose the image, just as you would with a pc if you pull the plug before you save your 10 page Word document.
The current generation of cameras (10d, D100) allow for 3 frames per second to be shot, up to 6-9 images at a time. These "files" are then in the buffer and must then be processed and written to the card before any more shots can be taken. This is only a few moments usually, as the camera normally starts processing and writing them as the buffer fills. Usually not a concern, unless you get trigger happy and fill the buffer just before the shot you want presents it self....and your waiting for the card write to finish. Keeping your finger on the shutter usually prevents the camera from turning over control to the write function by keeping it in a "shooting mode". You'll have to read about that as well. There is a display that should tell you the number of shots remaining that can be taken.
The Mk II's buffer is much larger in comparison, and there should be little or no delay caused by a full buffer. In practical use, card write speed is not an issue. There are a few tests that have been done on write speed out there that should not be too hard to find, and will explain it better then I.
Joe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 55 Reply 19, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7654 times:
I think the new EOS D Mark II is a beautiful machine, but I have to be frank- i'll take my 10D to any photo shoot someone takes a Mark II and i'm confident that I can achieve similar results 99% of the time. Given the price of the body, i'd be looking at adding to the L collection before going for more megapixels, 45 point autofocus, etc. -the 10D has really handled the toughest situations i've put it through so far, i'm very pleased with it.
ExitRow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7645 times:
unless you get trigger happy and fill the buffer just before the shot you want presents it self....
Guilty of this more times than I care to admit. Thank god it's the only thing I am premature at...
This new camera looks very good to me as well. I have long been desiring a 1Ds for my commercial work, but hell... who has a spare 8 grand laying around? I've used a 1Ds and damn near fell in love with it on the spot.
I am going to keep my eye on the MkII. Could be my next gun.
Planedoctor From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 286 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7640 times:
I agree that in most situations the 10D will get as many good shots in the hands of a good photographer, and you did say 99% of the time. I shoot indoor sports professionally, both with my own business and with another outfit in town. Some have tried indoor soccer with the 10D, and others of us have used the 1D... I have used both cameras quite extensively. And while the 10D is a great camera (I have now added one to my stable) it is really not in the same league as the 1D-type camera. I consider myself a decent sports shooter, and yet I get probably 20% fewer keepers with the 10D than with the 1D in situations with fast movement of basketball, hockey, and soccer indoors. In our business we shoot bulk photos (hundreds per game) for the sale, and a camera has to perform as close to flawlessly as possible. Like you said, maybe you could match our 1D performance with your 10D, and if so we'd probably hire you! I agree that for outdoor stuff like planes, and also for portraits, most wildlife, and other things the 10D is a great performer. But I think that once you have been spoiled with one of Canon's "1" digitals, it is hard going back! I have been without my 1D and 1Ds for about a month now since I sold them in anticipation of the 1DMkII, and I have a 10D to hold me over until the MkII arrives, it is indeed a long wait! Cheers, Joe, I always have enjoyed your aircraft pics and you seem to know how to handle your 10D well.
Joe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 55 Reply 22, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7635 times:
I should have been more specific- I really mean aviation/airport work- for a soccer game, indeed the 10D would lag the pro dslr's. I have the EOS-1VHS so i know what the topline canon machines can produce. Here is a good example, last week I did work for a client here in CLT- inside the airplane with flash, without flash, outside in sun, clouds, action shots of people working around the plane, stills- almost 1.5 gig worth of 10D raws and the results were fantastic. I know I would not need a high end DSLR to achieve these results, instead, i'd go for a 400MM F2.8 IS -yummmy
Planedoctor From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 286 posts, RR: 2 Reply 23, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7629 times:
Ah- I see, Joe- thanks for the clarification. About the 400 2.8 being "yummmy"... I have long lusted after a long L prime, and after selling selling some gear I did finally get a 300 2.8 IS. I have grown used to the weight of what I thought were big lenses before... if I only knew! And the 300 2.8 is small compared to the 400 2.8. Now that is what you call a serious load! I have yet to take my 300 2.8 to the airport since I can just imagine how quick to cops will be checking me out with a lens even that size. I am now wondering if I should cut back to the 300 f4 instead since I can actually hold it for more than a few minutes at a time. But for sports the 300 2.8 is AWESOME when used with a monopod, and that is why I got it. But for casual stuff it is a beast for sure.
Joe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 55 Reply 24, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7628 times:
I got the 300 2.8 IS last year, that thing is like no other and i shoot at CLT and JFK with it heavily, even with 1.4x and 2x converters- it is a joy to use and i've gotten very used to the weight. When you factor in converters and 960mm F5.6, the cost of the lens is put in perspective.
25 ExitRow: One factor for me is selling commercial images to stock agencies. (Not talking aviation here.) Except in certain circumstances, they won't accept 6.3
26 Joe pries: William, that is a good point. I used to deal with stock agencies when i was shooting slides only, now I don't deal with them anymore, but i can see t
27 Ckw: Joe - you make a very good point, and I will confess to a certain amount of simple, unadulterated lust when deciding to buy the MkII. I had been think
28 Planedoctor: Colin, I do see the MkII as evolutionary too, but one that hits really close to the sweet spot in many areas. After reading your post, though, I admit
29 Ckw: Ken - fair comment ... but while the move from 6 to 8mp is not going to be a huge advantage, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with "just" 4mp. But much mo
30 Joe pries: Colin, I guess it comes down to what you're going to do. I have never in my life done an airshow or much general av. a/c, I dont shoot studio, so for
31 Planedoctor: Colin, Seeing that you wanted to do portraiture of some type, too, the MkII makes a whole lot of sense. I do some portraiture and a little landscape,
32 JayDavis: Joe, Colin and Ken, Great thread! I shoot everything with my cameras. female models , airplanes, sports, portraits, etc....so I need a camera that can
33 Ckw: Sorry Ken, I'm not relinquishing my place I must admit I do tend to think of the MkII more as an "affordable" turbocharged 1Ds rather than an upgraded
34 JayDavis: Hi Colin, It isn't a question of whether I can afford to hold on to it or not, I am definately going to hold on to it. Can't beat it for a film camera
35 Ckw: The good ol' Photosmart - still got one somewhere. I still remember buying that not so many years ago. My first foray into digital photography of any
36 Maiznblu_757: Forget the 10D. I already have a camera as good as the 10D. This will be my next camera (or something similar).
37 JayDavis: Well Maiznblu_757, What is it? You didn't tell us which camera you own that is good as the 10D. I'm anxious to know. You left us all hanging by the se
38 Maiznblu_757: Hey smartguy, Check my profile and my photo remarks, its not hard.
39 ExitRow: Jay, I highly recommed reading this before responding to Maiznblu_757 : http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm
40 Maiznblu_757: Troll? lmao... I think not. That was a good one though.
41 Planedoctor: I found this link interesting, and the results posted as far as the MkI is concerned are right in line with my experience. It is here: http://www.rz.u
42 Maiznblu_757: Take a look at the photos taken with a 300D and a 10D... They look exactly the same, that is what counts. The 10D is a great camera, just why pay an e
43 Planedoctor: I agree that the image sensor/ quality is the same. But the people who buy the 10D aren't idiots. When I put my 10D in "AI Focus" I am reminded exactl
44 WellHung: I already have a camera as good as the 10D. I'm sure it's fine for what you use it for, but only a fool or someone who doesn't know jack about cameras
45 Maiznblu_757: Yes it is fine for what I use it for. I have also heard it is very good for Airshows, Airliner, Bizjets etc... Although I cannot remember utilizing it
46 Wietse: Chad, I am sorry but that is just not true. The MkII is aimed at professional photographers who shoot sports, wildlife, events and other things. You c
47 JayDavis: I sure am glad I didn't post the remark that the 300D is just as good as a 10D or even the upcoming Mark II! Talk about open mouth, insert foot. Chad,
48 Ckw: Easy guys - as I read it, Chad was comparing the 300D to the 10D, NOT the 1D mkI or II Is the 300D as good a camera as the 10D? As a total package, no
49 Wietse: Its not what you have its how you use it. Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood this oneliner of his. I saw an obvious reference to the 1D Mk1 or II there. W
50 JayDavis: Good points Colin. I too thought Chad was comparing the 300D to a Mark II. No comparison!! Yes, I think this new Mark II has all the features I would
51 Maiznblu_757: Hey guys... easy. I didnt compare the 300D to the 1D. How did you fellers get that?
52 Maiznblu_757: Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood this oneliner of his. I saw an obvious reference to the 1D Mk1 or II there. Wietse Wietse, Ha. How did you get that out
53 Wietse: Chad, sure! I know your reasoning behind it, and why you chose for the 300D instead of the 10D, it all makes sense. I just thought you meant with Its
54 Ckw: Canon is very worried that the new Mark II will take away sales from the 1DS Very true - esp. since the MkII is a LOT cheaper. But Canon worried? I ve
55 Planedoctor: Chad, I knew you weren't trying to compare the 300D to the MkII. Sorry if there was any misunderstanding from my standpoint. I do recommend the 300D t
56 JayDavis: Wow, 14mp, possible 16???? So will this mean that the sensor is actually bigger than a 35mm frame? Wonder how much that bad boy will cost? Yet, unless
57 Planedoctor: Jay, I have heard the rumor of the 16MP Canon... I think they are playing the game to stay ahead of the crowd, even if it means offering a camera that
58 Ckw: 16mp is a theoretical possibility on a full frame sensor by using a denser array and improved microlens technology (remember the 3mp D30, 6mp D60 and
59 Wietse: Anyone have an idea at how many shutter operations a 1D is certified? And if one fails after having reached that ammount of releases, how much will th
60 Planedoctor: 1D is rated at 150,000 shutter fires (remember this is a rating, with some lasting much longer). I have called Canon and the estimated cost is $250-30
61 Wietse: Nevermind I figured it out myself. The 1D shutter is tested for 150.000 exposures, but a similar system in a film camera has been up to over 400.000 e