what is the issue here!!!!

[enerlevel]

hello guys... i am a nikon user who just shifted to canon. it was something personal and i liked the feel of the canon L lens and the persona attached with the Canon gears. but now i think i made a terrible mistake....
the nikon gear which i used to use was
NIKON D800
NIKKOR 24-70 F2.8 G
NIKKOR 70-200 F2.8 VR II


i changed it for something similar from canon
CANON 5D MARK III
CANON 24-70 F2.8 L V I
CANON 70-200 F2.8 L IS V I
CANON 85 F1.2 L


for some reason , i am getting very soft images as compared to the nikon counterpart. for example , @ 200mm f2.8 , the image is very soft compared to the nikon and @ 70 f2.8 , the image quality is not at all comparable to the NIKKOR.
is this because of the lens or the camera itself? are the VERSION I worse than the nikon ? or is it that the D800 has better sharpness then Mark III Raw files?
i could invest in the V 2 versions but from what i saw today at a local store, the 24-70 V2 was still very very soft @ 70mm f2.8 ... it could be a bad copy of the lens i am not sure...

 

[Mully]

So just what is your question?

 

[DiskoJoe]

You didnt think to check this stuff before you dropped all this coin? Just saying. Must be nice.

Ive seen awesome results from both so I dont know what to tell you. maybe some pic examples?

 

[dorian7]

I would take your 85 and shoot a pic at f4 with something that has a lot of detail in the middle of the image. It should be so sharp it will cut your eyes if you stare too long. If not then you have another issue going on here. The version II of the 70-200 is supposed to be a huge improvement over the ver I. I have the II and it is awesome. I have also shot some really sharp pics with the 24-70 v1 so I'm not sure what's going on with your 5D3. Like DiskoJoe said, do you have example pics?

 

[enerlevel]

I would take your 85 and shoot a pic at f4 with something that has a lot of detail in the middle of the image. It should be so sharp it will cut your eyes if you stare too long. If not then you have another issue going on here. The version II of the 70-200 is supposed to be a huge improvement over the ver I. I have the II and it is awesome. I have also shot some really sharp pics with the 24-70 v1 so I'm not sure what's going on with your 5D3. Like DiskoJoe said, do you have example pics?

thanks for the reply guys,

yea all the lens i have when stopped to F4 becomes very very sharp. only at f2.8 they seem to under perform. i will try to put some pics
and the question was that are the V 2 of 70-200 and 24-70 solve the sharpness issues or is it something to do with the camera model (5d mark III) itself? As i remember the Mark II pics were pretty soft with viewed at 100% ... and alot of them actually suggested to shoot at 12 Mp. in order to get getter sharpenss

 

[Overread]

Few things:

1) The 70-200mm f2.8 MII makes a noticeable improvement over the MI version. Basically the Canon and Nikon MII/VRII are comparable as are the MI/VRI. These lenses both gained a lot in their upgrade to the II version, esp wide open at the long end (which is basically a zoom lenses weakest point.
The MI is certainly a very good lens with many years of pro work behind it, the MII is, however, better.


2) If you compare a 100% crop from a smaller MP camera against one with a higher MP the one with the higher MP count will look softer. This is because the higher MP rating means that, when you view it at 100% you are actually viewing a much larger image than with a lower MP count. (you can see this easily just by comparing the width and height number of pixels against each other). As a result many find that they are more comfortable using a lower % magnification with some higher MP camera bodies - myself with a 7D I tend to prefer viewing at around 60% over 100%. Yes I use 100% for noise and sharpening controls, but as a general view of the quality I prefer 60%. You might well find that the 5DMIII is easier to judge at a lower % view - the photos - when resized and prepared for print/webdisplay (ie output) shouldn't have any softness problems at all.

 

[enerlevel]

Few things:

1) The 70-200mm f2.8 MII makes a noticeable improvement over the MI version. Basically the Canon and Nikon MII/VRII are comparable as are the MI/VRI. These lenses both gained a lot in their upgrade to the II version, esp wide open at the long end (which is basically a zoom lenses weakest point.
The MI is certainly a very good lens with many years of pro work behind it, the MII is, however, better.


2) If you compare a 100% crop from a smaller MP camera against one with a higher MP the one with the higher MP count will look softer. This is because the higher MP rating means that, when you view it at 100% you are actually viewing a much larger image than with a lower MP count. (you can see this easily just by comparing the width and height number of pixels against each other). As a result many find that they are more comfortable using a lower % magnification with some higher MP camera bodies - myself with a 7D I tend to prefer viewing at around 60% over 100%. Yes I use 100% for noise and sharpening controls, but as a general view of the quality I prefer 60%. You might well find that the 5DMIII is easier to judge at a lower % view - the photos - when resized and prepared for print/webdisplay (ie output) shouldn't have any softness problems at all.

i am not sure how clear this would be , but its shot with 70-200 f2.8 @ 70 f2.8 ... iso 1250 for me this image is still very soft as i can't see clear patterns of wood.

this ones takes from D800 with 24-70 f2.8 @ iso 4000 .. all the patterns are so clearly visible

 

[dorian7]

Can you post the actual pictures? I can't really tell from the screenshots.

Also what MM and shutter speed did you shoot the second one with?

 

[Tony S]

Well in the first one with the Canon you are shooting at 1/100 of a second and the image is under exposed. At 200mm it could very well be your technique that is killing your sharpness even with IS.

Comparing like subjects, with the same exposure, same focal lengths and at the same distances off of a rock solid support is the only real way to compare equipment. Haphazardly comparing different images shot with all the different variables you are using (focal lenghts, different lighting and exposures, different ISOs, differeing support) is not going to get you anything credible to really compare, even with the same camera.

I really think it comes down to how you are setting up and shooting.

 

[gsgary]

The problem is, all the gear no idea

 

[enerlevel]

Well in the first one with the Canon you are shooting at 1/100 of a second and the image is under exposed. At 200mm it could very well be your technique that is killing your sharpness even with IS.

Comparing like subjects, with the same exposure, same focal lengths and at the same distances off of a rock solid support is the only real way to compare equipment. Haphazardly comparing different images shot with all the different variables you are using (focal lenghts, different lighting and exposures, different ISOs, differeing support) is not going to get you anything credible to really compare, even with the same camera.

I really think it comes down to how you are setting up and shooting.

I actually have many shots which doesn't have the sharpness compared to my previous nikon setup. Yes I know different situations will yield different results but if none of the pics have the sharpness, then for sure something is wrong..... The only time I get better or comparative results is when I use my canon 85mm f1.2 @ f4

 

[gsgary]

I actually have many shots which doesn't have the sharpness compared to my previous nikon setup. Yes I know different situations will yield different results but if none of the pics have the sharpness, then for sure something is wrong..... The only time I get better or comparative results is when I use my canon 85mm f1.2 @ f4

it is because you dont know the fundementals of photography

 

[Dubaiian]

I also have a 5D3 with 24-70 & 70-200 both mkIIS and the combination is super sharp. With the 24-70 I did have to calibrate the lens slightly by using the spydercal tool.

 

[enerlevel]

I actually have many shots which doesn't have the sharpness compared to my previous nikon setup. Yes I know different situations will yield different results but if none of the pics have the sharpness, then for sure something is wrong..... The only time I get better or comparative results is when I use my canon 85mm f1.2 @ f4

it is because you dont know the fundementals of photography

hahah i like your attitude

 

[unpopular]

if you switched brands for perceived status, what difference does it make if the images come out soft?