comparatif eos 5 D vs eos 5D mark II

[rico7578]

Sur dpreview le 5D est légèrement meilleur à 100 ISO que le mkII, un peu plus piqué (filtre anti-aliasing un peu moins fort). Mais dpreview regarde en 100% et non pas à taille de tirage égale

- Voici leur conclusion d'un comparatif à 100 ISO en raw : Canon EOS 5D Mark II Review: 33. Compared to (RAW): Digital Photography Review

"Both cameras produce considerably more detailed and sharper results from the RAW than they did in JPEG mode. On a pixel level, the original 5D is still slightly better than the Mark II, but this is to be expected as the original 5D had a very weak anti aliasing filter. In real world use the 5D Mark II will more than make up for any difference in pixel level sharpness with all those extra pixels, so if you need it, the 5D Mark II represents a significant resolution hike over its predecessor.

There is no visible difference in noise of either camera, the RAW file confirming what was seen in JPEG, which is that both cameras produce essentially noise free images at base ISO."

- Et en JPEG 100 ISO aussi : Canon EOS 5D Mark II Review: 29. Compared to (JPEG): Digital Photography Review

"The EOS 5D Mark II sensor has 64% more pixels than the EOS 5D - giving us files that are 1248 pixels wider and 832 pixels taller. Obviously this produces larger images - and a higher magnification in our 100% crops, but the good news is that it also increases resolution, though (perhaps inevitably) not by as much (the 5D was no slouch in the detail department).

It's also obvious - looking this close - that the Mark II can't match the original 5D's 'per pixel' sharpness, and the output looks a little softer. Part of this is doubtless down to in-camera sharpening (which is fairly high by default on the original 5D), some will be the sensor design. Either way it isn't likely to make a difference in real world use where the extra resolution of the Mark II - and a touch of sharpening - will more than make up for the slightly softer output."

- En sRAW aussi : Canon EOS 5D Mark II Review: 37. Compared to (sRAW1): Digital Photography Review

"While the comparison between the 5D Mark II and the original 5D presented a problem in that the Mark II is so much higher in resolution, the 5D Mark II also has an sRAW1 mode which produces an image slightly lower in resolution to that of the original 5D. In this comparison we can see that on a per pixel basis the original 5D is better than the sRAW1 file, but there is not a huge amount of difference. The conclusion is that sRAW1 would be a good choice if the absolute highest resolution is not needed; it also represents a smaller file size and thus a speed increase in use for the 5D Mark II."

Concernant le bruit je n'ai pas trouvé de comparaison en RAW, elles sont toutes en JPEG, donc on compare plus le traitement interne du bruit que le bruit intrinsèque des capteurs.

- Sinon Juza a l'air de dire qu'au niveau du pixel (donc toujours en 100%) il n'y a pas d'amélioration du bruit mkII par rapport au 5D : The Canon 5D Mark II noise myth

"The Canon 5D2 is actually a great camera - it has a lot of advanced features (live view, great video), great price/performance ratio, and a much smaller and lighter body than the 1DsIII. Its image quality is good, but it is in line with the 1DsIII (that uses an almost identical sensor) and it has not great high ISO capabilities: the Nikon D3 and D3s, the Canon 1D4, and even the old 5D "Mark1" have lower noise at high ISO."

Mais à taille de tirage égale, le bruit du mkII est noyé dans la résolution et se voit moins que sur le 5D apparemment. (je n'ai jamais trouvé de comparatif sur le web montrant ça clairement, mais je le crois vu les nombreux témoignages qui le disent)