Previous versions of brainiac's message #6185491 « 5DmkII less sharp than 5D! »
brainiac Offline [X]
Re: 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!
Beni wrote:
If you need the higher native resolution for large prints or extensive cropping then I think it\'s very relevant to compare whether the mkII is as sharp and noise free at it\'s native resolution as the 5D is at it\'s. Yes the print size is larger but if you need that print size then are you getting as good quality as you were getting at the lower print size that originally fulfilled your needs? Hence I think that the DPReview comparisons are valid, not as a like for like comparison of course, but to see whether a mkII is as good at doing 21 megapixels as the mkI was at doing 12.8!
I take your point, but they don\'t present the information like that. Here\'s what DPReview actually says:
\"A 21 megapixel camera - even a full frame 21 megapixel camera - is always going to struggle more at higher sensitivities than one with a less ambitious resolution, so it comes as a pleasant surprise to see that the EOS-1Ds Mark III does an excellent job at up to ISO 800, and (from a noise point of view) more or less matches the EOS 5D right the way through the range. Noise (in particular chroma noise) at the highest settings is slightly lower than it was on the EOS-1Ds Mark II, but this may well be down to a slightly more aggressive approach to NR. Of course the Nikon D3, which has the advantage of far larger pixels, produces noticeably less noisy results at higher ISO settings (without any serious impact on detail) - and keeps on going all the way to an unprecedented ISO 25,600.
In truth the Mark III isn\'t likely to be the first port of call for anyone prioritizing very high ISO performance any more than it would be the first choice for a sports photographer; that\'s not what it\'s designed for. As a studio camera it offers far, far more versatility than a medium format camera/back (most of which max out at ISO 400) but there\'s a limit to what you can expect at ISO 1600 and 3200. It certainly seems that Canon is applying more luminance NR (and perhaps less chroma NR) at the highest ISO settings than Nikon does with the D3.\"
They have singularly failed to notice that if your goal was a 16x20 inch print in very low light requiring iso 12800, then a 1Ds3 will do about as good a job as a D3, and a better job than a 5D.
Sep 19, 2008 at 08:41 AM
Previous versions of brainiac's message #6185491 « 5DmkII less sharp than 5D! »
