Image Quality

I currently shoot with a Canon EOS 1D Mark II (8.2 mg). I use the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L lens and Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS L on it. If I use the same lenses on the Canon 5D will I see any image degredation compared to the Mark II? Will images quality be softer at the edges because of the full frame? Would I see any other drawbacks from switching to the 5D? Would the image quality be a lot better than the Mark II?

Any input would be appreciated.

Fred

Fred,

Going to 12.4MP from 8.2, you will likely see the limitations of your lenses as you've never seen them before; there's no escaping it. Full-frame sensors on digital cameras have traditionally been rougher with lenses; the 24-70 exhibits some assorted drop-offs when wide-open at the wide angle end, and the 70-200 has some very minor issues as well - check Google using the keywords "drop off" or "vignetting" for some reviews...

IIRC, you lose multi-frame speed with the 5D. You'll lose apparent magnification and gain more wide-angle capabilities... In exchange, you get newer technology and some more pixels that will generally improve your image quality, though not massively.

If you were going to be shooting mostly landscape stuff then I'd recommend the 5D. It was a huge difference over my 11mp 1Ds in image quality. Also, the 5D is going to see almost a full stop better in dynamic range. But, if you are looking for an all around body for both wildlife and scenics then I'd keep the 1D MK2 and save my money so that I could own both!

I shoot very very little wild life--it is predominately landscape work. Speed as in multiple frames is not an issue either. I am looking for the best image quality at a reasonable price. Would using prime lenses be any better than the zooms or would I see the same problems?

Ah, now you're talking. Again, since you are shooting mostly landscapes it's a no-brainer for me. Buy the 5D and think about getting the TS-E's as you can afford them. The image quality is superb on the 5D!

While I have not used the 5D it is my understanding that the micro lens system on the 5D is less efficient than that on the 1DsMK2 so that there will be drop off at the edges compared to the 1Ds MK2. The 1D MK2 or MK2N will not show this, but same lens on the 1Ds MK2 not show fall off either.

Relative to pixel count, if you enlarge an image from the 5D to achieve the the same subject size in the printed output (assuming the same print size) the image will be the same. This is due to the fact that many of the extra pixels on the 5D are used to cover the larger surface area of the sensor. Since the 1DMK2N sensor produces 30% more magnification the 5D image must be equalized for a true comparison. When this is done the actual number of pixels used to expose the subject is really about the same. The true advantage of the 5D in landscape is the full frame usage of the true focal length of the lens. The extra pixels covering the extra acreage of the sensor are useful to get the full wide angle of your wide lenses. Now the 1Ds MK2 is a different animal all together. 16MP actually have a much higher density of pixels ( about 33%) than the 5D or 50% more than the 1D MK2N, so the image will be noticeable sharper after equalizing for crop factor.

Ed, as far as I know the only lens that has had a problem on the 5D is the 24-105L and when stopped down it's acceptable. I've had no problem with fall-off with my 5D with even my 17mm. Also, the 5D sensor is new compared to the 1D & 1Ds MK2's and in comparisons the 5D really holds up very well in sharpness to the 16.7 mp 1DsMK2 and has approx. 3/4's stop better dynamic range. As for the size of the final image file the file size will be bigger and will require less up-rezing for enlargements giving one a sharper more detailed image over the 8.2 mp file. As for equalization, this is relative only to shooting wildlife or subjects that one needs extra focal length. If one does as it should be done the 5D would be shot with a longer focal length to equalize not a crop of the image. This is why I would choose the 1DMK2 for wildlife and the 5D for landscape.

I agree with Jerry - the 5D is an excellent camera all round, and for landscapes would beat the 1D Mk II hands down. You'll enjoy the new wide-angle possibilities.

As far as full-frame and lens problems, you won't have problems with the glass you have - just stop down a bit on the 24-70 and you'll avoid any corner softness/vignetting.

Hell, I use a Sigma 12-24 on my 5D - talk about extreme perspective. Corner softness and vignetting are an issue with that lens (since it was designed primarily for crop-factor cameras), but I'll gladly trade off for the sense of scale and place it offers.

Peter

I found a significant difference in edge sharpness with my full frame camera (1ds Mark 2) by going with fixed focal lenght lenses especailly in the wide range. I use a 24, 45 and 90 TSE and try to never stop down more than f11 (the benefits of TSE). The results are impressive especially at f8 and with the lenses tilted for optimal DOF. I use these three lenses as a replacement for the 24-70 f2.8L. Plus all the benefits of TSE (there are many) outwiegh the inconvenience of not using a zoom. If you are serious about landscapes, the TSE's are essential!

I also use primes for my telephotos,a 135mm f2.0L and a 300 f4L but the 70-200 f2.8L preforms really well even on the full frame camera. Darwin

Thanks for all your input! It is very much appreciated. This is a great group to belong to.
Fred

My understanding is that the 1DMII is essentially a cropped sensor as used in the 5D, which would mean that resolution is the same. You won't be able to see any more lens imperfections with the 5D than you would with the 1.3 crop. With the same code powering both bodies, the IQ should also be the same.

John,

I'm sure the sensors are more different than that. The sensor on the 5D is a newer design than the 1D series. THat's why it has a wider dynamic range.