Here's a 150% crop from the 50D image compared to the uprezed versions of the same image from the 5D (top-right), 450D (bottom-left), and the 40D (bottom-right).
davenfl wrote:
Much as I like Imaging Resource this test proves absolutely nothing and most certainly does not support your conclusions. Who started this nonsense about the current lens being outresolved by a 15mp 1.6 sensor. There simply is no such thing in reality, please.
Thank you. Anyone know the wavelength of visible light? Think about it.
Ok dcains, I have to admit I don't get that last one... what does 625nm of light waves have to do with the 50D test? not that comparing cameras makes any sense at all at this point...shoot with whatever the hell you want and leave it be.
I'm just commenting on the notion that sensors and/or lenses may "outresolve" one another. Sure, it may happen in some cases, as the weak part will always determine the limit, but under optimal circumstances, there's a long way to go before a sensor will routinely outresolve a lens or vice-versa.
gml1 wrote:
Here's a 150% crop from the 50D image compared to the uprezed versions of the same image from the 5D (top-right), 450D (bottom-left), and the 40D (bottom-right).
Thanks gml1 for dealing with facts, rather than opinions and speculation, and for taking the time to share. FYI, the hierarchy of your results are the same as mine, at least as far as I can see, even though you used a totally different setup. So there is some consistency.
And so much for the theory that says that greater resolution not visible.
gml1 wrote:
Here's a 150% crop from the 50D image compared to the uprezed versions of the same image from the 5D (top-right), 450D (bottom-left), and the 40D (bottom-right).
This is how the differences will look like on 75x50 inch print @ 96ppi: http://i.pbase.com/o6/17/716817/1/104037501.th7Ri0Bo.1.bmp
You are obviously a fool who refuses to admit you are wrong.
The 18-200 IS lens OUTRESOLVES the 50D at the center between 18 and 24 mm : see here. And this comes from a reliable lens tester.
So, there goes your MYTH about sensor outperforming lens resolution.
Note that the poor edge performance of the 18-200 (expectedly) is mostly due to the 10x zoom range. Looks like the Canon 18-200 IS is behaving like the Nikkor 18-200 VR.
Me thinks Imaging Resource uses the 50mm 2.5 macro (at least according to the exif, which also says 70mm FL -?-) for all of their still life shots (regardless of what Canon camera is tested). Every time the same lens for the same test shots (as far as I can tell).
The 50D house shots were shot with a 24-105L @ 28mm (according to the exif).
BTW When you click on the exif info under the images, you are presented with a list of all the applied in-camera settings.
Both the 50mm 2.5 macro and the 24-105L aren't particularly bad lenses. But I wouldn't want to conclude anything based on these comparisons (yet).
Besides that, differences between 12MP and 15MP images are very small (if any at all) in small to medium sized prints. You have to print REALLY LARGE to see a distinction here. But even when pixel-peeping at 100% I doubt there will be a BIG difference visible.
Maybe we need a working definition of what "out-resolving a lens" should mean.
When I put a 17-85mm on a 10D using ± 20mm fl at f/8 photographing something say 50cm away I will get most of the frame in quite sharp focus.
Do the same using a 40D, and from about 50% and out of center the image becomes very soft.
DOF is equal, so it is not that...
Lens is the same, so not that...
Focus done manually, so not AF...
So why the differences in IQ and attaining sharpness and image detail?
thw2 wrote:
You are obviously a fool who refuses to admit you are wrong.
More of the same: here's a 100% crop of the 50D (middle) vs upscaled crops of the 40D (left) and 450D (right).
These crops are equivalent to looking at 48"x32" @ 96 ppi prints. http://i.pbase.com/o6/17/716817/1/104043856.5Xhmh90z.3.jpg
Again, look at the difference between the 50D (15mp) and the 450D (12) - well, there is none.
Both have slightly more detail than the 40D but the point here is that beyond 12mp on a CROP camera, you only get empty magnification (plus noise) but no more detail.
Remember, these crops are equivalent to 48"x32" @ 96 ppi prints.
gml1 wrote:
Again, look at the difference between the 50D (15mp) and the 450D (12) - well, there is none.
Both have slightly more detail than the 40D but the point here is that beyond 12mp on a CROP camera, you only get empty magnification (plus noise) but no more detail.
Remember, these crops are equivalent to 48"x32" @ 96 ppi prints.
I don't know what lens you used but "PRODUCT OF ENGLAND" at the bottom of the image appears noticeable sharper. All the finer prints are in fact. You have to remember the jump from 12 to 15 is a very small gain.
gml1 wrote:
Look at the difference between the 50D (15mp) center and the 450D (12mp) on the right - well, there is no difference.
The point here is that beyond 12mp on a CROP camera, you only get empty magnification but no more detail.
I don't know what screen you're using, but to MY eye, almost every instance of type (words) on the center crop is clearer (has more detail) than in the right crop. (Compare, for example, the center-vs.right views of any words below the bottom of the beer glass.)
Looks like 12mp is not in fact "outresolved by" the lens used, at least not in this case.
I'll take the 15mp camera, thanks, and you can take the 12mp camera!
gml1 wrote:
See above for 100% crops.
Btw, the bigger the distance, the smaller the differences that the (human) eye can see.
You need to get your eyes checked because I can see a difference from your examples. The 50D shows more resolution than the 40D or XSi. It is easily seen in the finer detail.
Jonathan Wong wrote:
"PRODUCT OF ENGLAND" at the bottom of the image appears noticeable sharper. All the finer print is, in fact. You have to remember the jump from 12 to 15 is a very small gain.
I agree. If the three crops above "prove" anything, it's that
a) There is indeed a perceptible difference going from 10 to 12 to 15 megapixels, and
b) as might be expected, the differences are harder to see as the percentage increase in sensor size gets smaller.
I'll believe that a sensor is being "outresolved" by the lens when I can't tell the difference between output of two sensors when one is twice as large as the other, not merely slightly larger as 15mp vs. 12mp is.
RalphJ wrote:
I agree. If the three crops above "prove" anything, it's that
a) There is indeed a perceptible difference going from 10 to 12 to 15 megapixels, and
b) as might be expected, the differences are harder to see as the percentage increase in sensor size gets smaller.
I'll believe that a sensor is being "outresolved" by the lens when I can't tell the difference between output of two sensors when one is twice as large as the other, not merely slightly larger as 15mp vs. 12mp is.
Of course we are talking pixel peeping galore here... 100% crops... These differences will be VERY HARD to detect even in bigger prints. Still, they are there
Regarding the comparative shots of the lager bottle I'm not going to join in the bun fight about which is sharper. Thing that strikes me is how damn good the Rebel image is. Perhaps when I retire my 40D I should have a good look at the 500D or whatever Rebel is current at that time.
On a per dollar basis the Rebel look remarkably fine to my eyes!
