for the full frame bleeders out there
www.dpreview.com/articles/3491252931/canon-5dmarkii
yeah at first glance it sounds great, espesh if it is under $3,200
as far as shooting action stuff - apart from only 4fps-ish, it unfortunately sounds like it only has one cross type autofocus point (middle one) but it's hard to find a definite answer as a couple of sites state it has 9 cross type. i know 5d has always been a still subjects cam, but would have been nice for it to have a couple more fps
i was thinking of talking my boss into getting the 5d for the office (architectural). there's been talk of getting something newer than the d70 we currently use.
means switching to canon but we only use 1 lens anyways.
the thing that seemed to spark some interest when i mentioned it was the near medium format quality and the HD video.
if they decide to get one i would be able to play with it from time to time. fingers crossed.
quick question >
do any of you guys use adobe colorspace or any other settings with your jpeg settings? seems to be a mixed response online.
cheers
Select to expand quoteGestalt said...
i was thinking of talking my boss into getting the 5d for the office (architectural). there's been talk of getting something newer than the d70 we currently use.
if that's what you do you might also want to consider a 24mm tilt and shift lens. Canon has some superb lenses in that area. One of the reasons I went to Canon 5 years ago.
If money is an issue get the 24-105 F4.0 lens. What ever you do make sure you have an 'L' lens. Anything less and you won't see the full resolution the camera can deliver.
the thing that seemed to spark some interest when i mentioned it was the near medium format quality and the HD video.
HD Video yes... near medium quality no. Medium quality film resolves to between 50 and 75 mega pixels. The digital medium format backs and cameras are now reaching that. However, lenses for medium format systems have always had a much higher resolution/ quality than 35 mm film lenses. So in many ways once the full frame 35 mm equivalent cameras reach 25plus megapixel lens makers will most likely have to re-design some of their pro level lenses.
do any of you guys use adobe colorspace or any other settings with your jpeg settings? seems to be a mixed response online.
[/b]
Depends on what you want to do... ideally you always want to shoot in RAW and Adobe RGB. In my opinion the image quality in combination with a good RAW converter beats any JPEG output the camera does.
Personally I always shoot RAW + JPEG with JPEG at 80% compression and Adobe RGB as the color space. Photos are post processed either in Photoshop Lightroom or Photoshop CS3.
cheers,
i use raw + jpeg for everything except windsurfing photos. i do the initial tweaks on the raw files in adobe bridge and then go into photoshop.
i have setup a user setting for windsurfing photos with the jpeg setting on neutral. i'm not convinced this is a good setup though because i have to post process all of my images and figure if i am doing this i should be in raw mode because it's editing features are so much more powerfull.
have been thinking about shooting in jpeg (landscape picture style) and then i won't need to do as much processing. either that or shoot in sRaw + jpeg for the windsurfing....
will try adobe colorspace for a bit and see what the difference is.
edit*** just read the manual. maybe a custom picture style for windsurfing jpeg would be better. landcscape style with no sharpening?
I do all of my work in JPEG. If you can set the camera up right you shouldn't need to shoot in raw. Yes, raw has better editing for post, but if you get it right in pre production then you will save a lot of time. Used to own the original 5d now I shoot with the 1ds3. Awsome camera.
echostorm,
When your camera takes a RAW image straight of the sensor and stores in onto the memory card in RAW format there is no processing done at all. If the camera stores JPEG files it will convert the RAW into JPEG. By doing this it will apply specific settings such as white balance, exposure adjustment, contrast, saturation, sharpening etc.
Even though your camera might allow you turn most of those settings either off or to zero it is my understanding from talking to Canon that there are still changes being applied to the image.
If you take the RAW image and convert it to JPEG using a software based RAW converter such as Photoshop CS Camera Raw or Photoshop Lightroom the conversion will be quite different. Pretty much every photographer I know agrees that you will get a better quality JPEG conversion using a RAW converter compared to the in-camera conversion.
Especially when you are looking at up-sizing the image there is definite advantage in using RAW.
That said, I usually shoot either RAW+JPEG (studio, architecture, corporate, stock) or just JPEG (sports, events). Although with memory cards getting cheaper and cheaper and computer ever faster the computing overhead with RAW is in my opinion become less of an issue.
Also, when I shoot RAW I generally convert all RAW images to DNG first.
it's not exactly identical pixels.
Arghh.. not this debate again 
! Both images are 5616x3717 pixels, just with different bit depth. Both are IDENTICAL in visual quality, just the post processing ability is effected. if you havent set the shot up right in the first place JPEG is a big disadvantage. If you do then raw is a big disadvantage (out NAS is now at 8GB capicity, if they were raw files we would be looking at 24GB). I shoot at 1 stop above zero contrast with 1/3rd stop under exposure. I found highlights can't be recovered from a JPEG without severe quality loss where shadows can to a moderate extent. We deal with the biggest creative and marketing agencies in the country and not once have we been critised for the quality of our work, aerial images in particular need to be extremely high resolution due to minute content. Raw just doesnt make sense to me, its either a computer or your camera doing the conversion, where the only difference is raw gives you the abiltity to save a stuff up that could be prevented with proper pre shooting technique.
This makes a good read... www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
Anyway, each to their own... whatever gets the results and pays the bills! 
Can I add - There is a difference between quality of RAW and JPEG, usually (i know, if set up right and all), especially if you zoom right in I find the image is just sharper, but 99.9% of people CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE. I mean you have to really, really look closely and by time the image hits the final medium, print, TV et al you've lost all that quality anyway, and now the quality of the medium is what is most important.
Each to their own though.
Now, you freaks may get off on this:
"I'm proud to finally share this short film with everyone - no time for words - let's let the moving images do the talking. Here is the raw footage (downsized to 1/4 resolution) from the prototype EOS 5D MKII that Canon allowed me to borrow over a 72 hour period. Many thanks to David Sparer and everyone at Canon.. The Behind the scenes video will be up shortly."http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/09/22/without-further-ado-reverie/
I noticed the new Nikon DSLR also shoots HD video?
chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/d90/en/
Edit: Bugger! I just got my D80!
i think the nikon d90 only does 1280x720p but that would still be handy
u probably know all this already - if u mean your jpegs are sharper, that would most likely be the in camera sharpening that is usually factory preset so ma & pa shooters think their camera is great , which is not applied to raw on most models.
i read somewhere that a famous photographer once said;
amateures worry about sharpness
pros worry about money
photographers worry about light
u probably know this already too - with regards to raw & JPG, it seems many landscape shooters prefer to blow out the pic so the red channel in RGB histogram is hard up against the right hand side and clipping slightly, and this seems to retain the colours and detail in shaded areas better with less noise when lightened, and most of what looks blown out can be recovered providing it's shot in raw and if the blue and green aren't clipped as well + u can fix your white balance, but not so recoverable if shot in JPG + you're pretty much stuck with whatever the cam picked for white balance
5dmk2 now has rgb histogram like 40d - yay, old one didn't
might also be because of the colour space you are shooting in. i think the 40d comes factory set to srgb which covers a narrower range of gradients per colour as compared to adobe rgb which has a broader gammut range of gradients for some colours, but both colour spaces have the same number of possible gradients. if you've changed your camera to adobe rgb, and not viewed the pix in srgb and checked that they look right before uploading to web, you'll probably find some colours look dull when viewed on the web compared to in photoshop because most browsers only display the srgb colourspace - therefore a colour like a vibrant green in adobe rgb is the equivalent to a duller green in srgb. it appears that if you intend to shoot for the web, it's worth leaving the cam set to srgb, and working solely in srgb in the likes of photoshop (preferably 16bit) until you've completed any editing and colour manipulation, then convert to 8bit & jpeg - then basically what you see in photoshop is what you'll get when you upload, in most browsers.
personal opinion - shoot & view/work in srgb @ 16bit, hit the photos with saturation of red, yellow (makes largest difference to foliage), and green at possibly 25% of each (not blue - makes pic look overdone) then export at 8bit for web
! Both images are 5616x3717 pixels, just with different bit depth. Both are IDENTICAL in visual quality, just the post processing ability is effected. if you havent set the shot up right in the first place JPEG is a big disadvantage.
so much said in this thread, I hope I am no repeating something, but if you shoot in JPEG and resave, dont re save as a JPEG, it compresses the file again, resave as a TIFF.
