ABSOLUTELY NO difference in RAW...
dhphoto said:
I'd really appreciate an input from someone who knows, definitively, whether there is indeed a 'milder' AA filter in the 'N' as the images I am getting are far more pleasing straight out of camera (RAW of course) and need much less post-processing.
David
...There is absolutely NO difference in the 1DMKII or 1DMKII-N in terms of sharpening requirements (both from a spectral and strength point-of-view), in RAW files, but that is where the story ends.
There ARE, however, BIG and SUBSTANTIAL differences between the output that these cam's on-board pipeline produce in .JPG format. The differences are tonal/contrast, chroma, spectral and noise-wise.
Spectrally speaking, the 1DMKII .JPGs allow you boost acuity to levels that are basically *unbelievable*. The N .JPGs, on the other hand, can not provide the same astronomical levels of acuity (much lower indeed), but provide a much, much stronger in the mid-frequency range (coarser detail such as textures on clothing, etc.) It also allows to extract an impressive amount of detail from the HIGHLIGHTS (not tonal, but frequency/spectral wise), as well as much, much better overall color, with excellent shadows saturation, and better balance of shadow detail-vs-shadow noise.
I have a few samples available to show this difference, both in synthetic ISO12233 output, as well as in real samples, where differences become even more compelling.
In the shadows is where chroma and noise differences will certainly bring the 1DMKII-N ahead, NOT by virtue of better analog-to-digital processing, but by virtue of much better management of the output, in terms of contrast curves, and Canon's new color processing approach.
In short, there are things that the 1DMKII .JPGs can do that the N would not, and vice-versa. Fortunately, I was able to process the N's output from the get-go, because I had the tools to address these marked spectral differences (that is, again, in .JPG, which I need as much as .CR2)
Happy shooting!