5D Mark II - First Shots

[alexniedra]

Hey everyone,





After picking up my 5D Mark II last week, I had the pleasure of taking it on vacation (and putting it to the test!) in Montreal, Quebec as well as in the Muskoka region of Ontario. Here are some of my favorite shots. By the way, I must say that the creative freedom offered by the 5D Mark II is truly remarkable. My 24-70 feels right at home. [].Unfortunately I lost quite a bit of reach on my 70-200 f/2.8L IS... But I'll save that discussion for another day. [:P]


C & C is welcome.


1. Busker in Montreal [1]


5D Mark II, EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM. 1/320 sec., f/5.6, ISO 500 @ 24mm[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.94/IMG_5F00_0069.jpg[/img]


2. Busker in Montreal [2]





5D Mark II, EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM. 1/800 sec., f/2.8, ISO 500 @ 70mm


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.94/IMG_5F00_0073.jpg[/img]





3. St. Patrick's Basilica, Downtown Montreal [1]


5D Mark II, EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM.


1/13 sec., f/5.0, ISO 2000 @ 24mm (I'm surprised I could handhold this. Also, ISO 2000 is, in my opinion, equivalent to ISO 800 on my 40D. I'm impressed - This was a dark church to shoot in.)


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.94/IMG_5F00_0280.jpg[/img]





4.St. Patrick's Basilica, Downtown Montreal [2]


5D Mark II, 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM. 1/25 sec., f/4.0, ISO 4000 @ 24mm


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.94/IMG_5F00_0290.jpg[/img]


5. St. Patrick's Basilica, Downtown Montreal [3]


5D Mark II, 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM. 1/25 sec., f/5.0, ISO 2400 @ 24mm.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.94/IMG_5F00_0298.jpg[/img]





6. Farm near Bobcaygeon, Ontario.


5D Mark II, 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM. 1/640 sec., f/10, ISO 500 @ 145mm


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.94/IMG_5F00_0555.jpg[/img]


7. 5D Mark II, 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM. 1/500 sec., f/4.0, ISO 250 @ 70mm


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.94/IMG_5F00_0679.jpg[/img]


8. Rocks and moss near Bracebridge, Ontario.


5D Mark II, 24-70 f/2.8 L USM. 1/250 sec., f/11, ISO 500 @ 24mm[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.94/IMG_5F00_0848.jpg[/img]

[Sheiky]

Wow Alex! Nice first set!


The first shot is not leveled which bothers me I think,I really like/love your second shot!

5D Mark II, EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM.


1/13 sec., f/5.0, ISO 2000 @ 24mm (I'm surprised I could handhold this

Are you sure you used the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L USM lens? My guess is that you secretly test the new version with IS, but I will keep my mouth shut [:#]


Again nice set! Oh and the lighting on the last shot...beautiful! Could be even better when the sun-rays where even more visible.


Have fun, but I'm pretty sure I don't have to tell you that [H]


Jan

[ddt0725]

Congrats on the new camera! Nice photos ...I especially like the ones of the church! ISO 4000 ...makes me cringe to think what that would look like with my 7D!

Denise

[EdN]

You're off to a great start with your new 5D Mk II! Those church shots are impressive! You are going to LOVE using the 5D Mk II on available light photography. Just jack up the ISO and go! I have even hand held as low as 1/5 sec and got reasonable keeper rates but that was using the IS on the 24-105 F4 L IS. It takes a bit of practice but you will be amazed what that sensor can see!

[BogdanD]

ISO 4000....my jaw dropped at the quality. Have fun with your new toy! []

[Tom Wertman]

If it were me I would be careful about pushing the ISO so high. It's nice to see the camera can do it without noise getting out of hand but with the exception of the last two shots all others are a bit over exposed. Notice the inconsistant color of the church interior from shot to shot. #5 (vertical) is probably the closest to reality. High lights of the stained glass and doorway are blown out and I'll bet the histogram confirms this. I have shot many many pictures in many churches so setting a custom white balance and getting consistant exposure is key.

[Sheiky]

I must say that I'm not entirely with you on your analysis Tom.

If it were me I would be careful about pushing the ISO so high. It's nice to see the camera can do it without noise getting out of hand

Agreed on this part, and Alex also look out for the tweener ISO's. ISO 2000 for example looks lower than ISO 3200 and so you might expect lower noise levels, but that isn't true. That only counts for true ISO values: 100-200-400-800-1600-3200-6400. ISO 2000 for example is a picture taken with ISO 3200 and processed 2/3 stop underexposed in camera-processing. It might not technically precisely work like this, but the idea is sound. So you get the idea [] Therefor I personally have set my ISO to only use full stop numbers.

with the exception of the last two shots all others are a bit over exposed

I'm not sure what your idea is of over/underexposure, but the lastoneactually seems underexposed to me. I can't imagine a shot like that one exposed properly with those settings: 1/250 f11 ISO500. With those settings and lighting I would assume this shot is taken early or lately during the day, but we don't see the actual level of light that was available at that point. Mostly because for having those settings, a pretty decent amount of light is needed to expose naturally, which we don't really get to see. I do like the shot, but I don't think it is "naturally" exposed. But I guess this shot was intended this way and proper exposure is very subjective?

Notice the inconsistant color of the church interior from shot to shot

I agree that custom white-balance or post-processing white balance adjustment would be a good idea.

High lights of the stained glass and doorway are blown out and I'll bet the histogram confirms this

I don't think this is an honest challenge since the camera would never be able to capture the actual dynamic range that is available there. You must lose some detail in either the darker parts or the lighter parts of the picture. If I were to shoot my own room or a church or whatever else indoor with a window viewing outside and I would expose for the interior it would seem obvious to me that the windows and everything else of the exterior would be blown out. The camera just can't handle such a wide dynamic range. HDR would cover this part pretty good I think. But with those shutterspeeds and without a tripod I wouldn't take my chances [A]


I guess my idea of proper exposure is different than yours, so just look at my idea as an opinion and not the absolute truth.


If you want to, I'm really interest in a shot of the interior of a church or something with consistent exposure and white balance so I would really like to see an example from you. Perhaps it will change my opinion.


Jan

[Jon Ruyle]

ISO 2000 for example looks lower than ISO 3200 and so you might expect lower noise levels, but that isn't true.

I'm not sure this is correct, Jan. Photon noise is a function of sensitivity and the amount of light hitting the camera. When you set your camera to ISO 2000, it uses a slower shutter speed and thus lets more light in than it would have if you had used ISO 3200.


The problem with fake ISO's isn't that you get too much noise, but rather, you lose range (see below)

ISO 2000 for example is a picture taken with ISO 3200 and processed 2/3 stop underexposed in camera-processing.

The camera also "overexposes" the picture by 2/3 of a stop as compared to an ISO 3200 shot. Thus you lose highlight headroom.

[Dave Johnston]

Congrats on your purchase, Alex.


I really want to go full frame. Just waiting to graduate. After 8 years of post high-school studies, I think I deserve it. Ha!


Keep shooting! Then post.


Dave.

[Daniel Browning]

The camera also "overexposes" the picture by 2/3 of a stop as compared to an ISO 3200 shot. Thus you lose highlight headroom.

To be clear, here is the whole story behind ISO 2000:

• Sets the camera to ISO 1600 (but displays "2000")
• Adds a hidden -1/3 stop EC to the autoexposure meter.
• After the photo is taken, it increases brightness of the raw file by 1/3 stop (with a linear digital push)

<div>The net result is that you lose 1/3 stop of highlight headroom, just as you said. You can simulate ISO 2000 by setting ISO 1600, -1/3 EC, and then increasing brightness in post. The only difference is that when you do it yourself, you can increase brightness in a way that doesn't clip highlights.</div>
<div></div>
<div>It's the same story with all the "plus 1/3" ISO settings: 125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000.</div>