JohnBrose wrote:
Don't know if you have to necesarily have to go to Zeiss to get better glass. You could get some of Canon's tilt/shift lenses like the 17 or 24mm which both are very sharp and would be great for landscape. You could also to a vertical shift and stich the image together for a high resolution square image. Pretty much all of Canon's primes would be better than your zoom also so any of them would be an option, then there are Rokinon's 35mm, 14mm and now 24mm that are very sharp, manual focus lenses. You can get alot of nice glass for your 5d for the price of the Pentax....Show more →
+1
On the ZE side I can mention the 21/2.8, 50/2 MP and 100/2 MP. Superb by all accounts. Then again, on these kind of prints sizes, MP matters so you need to re-test.
You should print a strip at the exact size you intend after all the editing you need and then scan (or photograph at viewing distance) that in and post it here if you want honest opinions based on samples. Print patterns are totally different than anything you can do from raw to screen digitally.
I guess most people who read here already know my opinion. I think the entire question rests on viewing distance! If hanging on a typical wall in a typical room of a typically nice house that's probably about 3 to 4 meters. At 3 to 4 meters away an 8mp image looks absolutely perfect on 40" to 60" paper - especially when sharpened for print as Doo-bop demonstrated. And your 5DII is considerably larger than 8mp. The advantage of the 645D would of course be crop freedom.
kuri wrote:
I'm sorry, but I also have to chime in. In my opinion, there is almost no comparison between the two shots. The Pentax shows more fine detail, there are more tonal graduations compared to the Canon (the blacks looks crunched), and the Canon seems to look like a rather blurry mess.
I'm a bit confused as to how you cannot see that, when it seems rather apparent to most of us here, judging by the responses so far. If indeed there is no difference to your eyes, then perhaps sticking with the Canon (or the upcoming Nikon) would be better?
Did you not read this?....
pahrens wrote:
...However, like I said, the difference is less noticeable in print. I did a blind test with my fiancee and she struggled to tell the difference until she was quite close.
....
You'd think you'd be able to see the better tonal gradations from the Pentax via the print even if fine sharpness isn't even coming through. The tree taken with the Canon does look nearly like a featureless blob against the Pentax.
I wonder if printing both and scanning the prints for comparison would be in any way useful. One also wonders what the Canon would look like without the AA filter but the Pentax has resolution on its side.
bluetsunami wrote:
You'd think you'd be able to see the better tonal gradations from the Pentax via the print even if fine sharpness isn't even coming through. The Canon really does look nearly like a featureless blob against the Pentax.
I wonder if printing both and scanning the prints for comparison would be in any way useful. One also wonders what the Canon would look like without the AA filter but the Pentax has resolution on its side.
Yeah, that's what I said too.
Of course there's DR difference tho. I see that easily just in those little crops. I was mostly talking about apparent resolution - just to clarify.
The 645D is the ultimate digital landscape camera (under $10k) - I don't think that's debatable.
Yes, I did read that. hmm, the thing is, I've done blind tests with my wife & friends as well in the past, and to be honest, it's hard to say how useful it is. A lot of times, they wouldnt be able to tell the difference between a shot taken by an iphone, compact cam, or a 5dmark2.
If indeed that's all that really matters is the blind test with the better half, then the OP's current setup should completely suffice no? No need for zeiss glass or 645D.
kuri wrote:
Yes, I did read that. hmm, the thing is, I've done blind tests with my wife & friends as well in the past, and to be honest, it's hard to say how useful it is. A lot of times, they wouldnt be able to tell the difference between a shot taken by an iphone, compact cam, or a 5dmark2.
If indeed that's all that really matters is the blind test with the better half, then the OP's current setup should completely suffice no? No need for zeiss glass or 645D.
Oh, come one. Your telling me that if you made a large print of the same scene with your
5d2 and your iPhone that your fiancee couldn't tell the difference? That's just pure silliness.
The point is that many times we get caught up in looking at tiny crops of huge images on these forums and even with decent sized prints the difference would be negligible.
And sometimes a smaller format is better. I took this shot yesterday with my X10 and its sharp corner to corner @ f/5 with all of the briars in the foreground and the window in the background in focus, couldn't have done that with my 5d unless stopped way down on a tripod.... http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/i-72w9nMm/0/XL/i-72w9nMm-XL.jpg
A lot of discussion on the sensor size...virtually none on the technique side...how were both images prepared for print...what was the printer, the paper, the settings, and so in.
Personally...for landscape...I'd be tempted to spend a fraction of the money on a Fuji MF rangefinder such as the GW 690 or the Mamiya with the benefit of a choice of lenses. I have seen 1 meter sq prints from a Hassleblad shooting HP5 and they were amazing.
This..with a 5D11 and a decent lens, would be a great combination.....
FWIW, I've seen 30x40" prints from the 645D (from Kerrick James who was around to show it in Boston for a day when it was introduced)....zero grain that I could see and amazing gradations for a sunny daylight shot of a southwest national park :-O
Based on print size viewing distances, he could have blown it up much bigger. I'm fairly happy w/ an antelope canyon shot hanging on the wall that's 20x30" and was shot w/ a 10MP K10D and slightly cropped. At normal viewing distances (4' away?) it looks amazing. Up close, I'm bummed I didn't use a higher resolution sensor...
kenyee wrote:
FWIW, I've seen 30x40" prints from the 645D (from Kerrick James who was around to show it in Boston for a day when it was introduced)....zero grain that I could see and amazing gradations for a sunny daylight shot of a southwest national park :-O
Based on print size viewing distances, he could have blown it up much bigger. I'm fairly happy w/ an antelope canyon shot hanging on the wall that's 20x30" and was shot w/ a 10MP K10D and slightly cropped. At normal viewing distances (4' away?) it looks amazing. Up close, I'm bummed I didn't use a higher resolution sensor... ...Show more →
The thing is....many photographers want the grain for aesthetic reasons, to provide some sense of structure to the artefact. The way in which media is applied to a surface and the surface itself is a major consideration for most practicing artists and designers. The camera manufacturers have been allowed to virtually re-define the photographic aesthetic to equate visual quality with absolute sharpness and no 'grain' (read noise)...and this has been readily adopted by numerous people who use pixel peeping as the primary means of assessing both images and camera bodies.
At a personal level I often use my G10 for B+W landscape shots...at around ISO 800 the noise gives a nice grain like structure to the image...a bit like Delta 100 to my mind. I'm still tempted to enhance the grain digitally on top. I can easily get a very sharp A3 print from this camera. If I take a second body anywhere...if is usually a 35mm rangefinder loaded with PanF. My next 'upgrade' will be to a MF rangefinder.......once I can afford one I like!!
anthonygh wrote:
The camera manufacturers have been allowed to virtually re-define the photographic aesthetic to equate visual quality with absolute sharpness and no 'grain' (read noise)...
You can't add grain/noise in post? I know, not quite the same but so many film makers are croaking that you'll have no choice after a while
douglasf13 wrote:
What kind of sharpening processes do you use for AA-flitered cameras?
I sharpen some in lightroom and then use USM in photoshop. I'm probably not the most sophisticated photoshop mechanic but I don't like to spend much time in front of the computer anyway. I'm looking for the most efficient means to an end.
The advantage of the 645D would of course be crop freedom.
