gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.9 #10 · 5DC vs 5D2 colors? 5DC better? | |
Mescalamba wrote:
I guess its cause it has "just" 12 mpix, which is somewhere around ideal resolution for full-frame (12-16 mpix). Plus it apparently doesnt have that super strong AA filter that 5DMK2 has, so fine detail isnt all gone, which can increase "feel" from scene. I noticed that sometimes it can do a bit of moiré, so it probably doesnt have much strong AA.. tho without AA its even better. Well and CFA is better than in 5DMK2, colors can increase "3D" from scene, cause when you shoot in color, colors and contrast are tied and so is 3D feel with it....Show more →
The AA filter on the 5D2 is weaker not stronger. The "strength" of the AA filter is modified based on the density of the photo sites - closer/smaller photo sites require "weaker" AA filtering.
The "ideal resolution for full frame" notion is a very odd one. Strange to imagine how ideal would be some low value on DSLRs and some much higher (more than explainable by larger sensor area) for MF digital systems.
The "loss of fine detail" that you think you perceive is quite possible the result of comparing 12MP and 21MP full frame samples as equal pixel dimension 100% magnification crops - say looking at 500 x 500 100% images from both. If you do this, the 5D will look better, as it should. But this isn't because the 5D is "better." It is because you are looking "more closely" at a smaller percentage of the total image area on the higher MP sample. 500 x 500 pixels is a smaller portion of the full frame image on a 21MP sensor than it is on a 12MP sensor.
(This comparison, which so many seem to do, is equivalent to looking at a slide under a 10X loupe and pronouncing it sharp, then looking at the same slide under a 15x loupe and proclaiming that the slide became less sharp.)
A more rational comparison is to make two prints of equal size, both optimized in all the ways that a skillful photographer, post-processor, and printer would normally optimize them - including the use of the same lens, aperture, and shutter speed to shoot the same subject; typical post-processing techniques to optimize image quality and create the best color balance; effective sharpening techniques including output sharpening. Make good size prints - say 20" x 30" and compare. I'm confident that most people would be unable to distinguish between images from the two cameras at 12" x 18" sizes, even with very close inspection. Both can produce excellent prints at larger sizes, so perhaps try a similar comparison at 16" x 24". Here, no one would be able to consistently differentiate on the basis of color or any of that sort of stuff, but a very careful inspection at nose-length distances would begin to reveal some subtle differences in fine details.
I'm at a loss to offer a rational explanation for the differences in "colors" that some claim to see. From these reports you might imagine that if you compared a batch of 5D images to a batch of 5D2 images you would see some clear and consistent "color" difference. Having several tens of thousands of images from both cameras, I have to say I'm just not seeing it.
Now, I am not going to claim that the color output of the two cameras is identical. There are, no doubt, some subtle differences in the data from the sensor and, by extension, the data that you import via the raw file. But these differences, to the extent that they exist at all a) are very subtle, b) they cut both ways, c) are as much a result of your raw-conversion settings as anything else, and d) they are completely swamped by typical variations in the color of the subjects we shoot and the light we shoot in.
And, sorry, but once one start invoking the "3D effect" from cameras and lenses and the rest, you've completely lost me. The "3D effect" notion is a very subjective thing that has some vague but not completely useless meaning when we speak subjectively of a photograph - "Wow! That almost seems 3D!" But it is not associated with cameras or lenses but rather with a whole range of aspects of the photograph itself.
If folks want to convince themselves that the 5D (which I own) somehow produces remarkably better photographic quality than the 5D2 (which I also own), I guess they are welcome to this belief. But in the end, there is little or no objective photographic evidence that this is the case. Both are, indeed, fine cameras and you can make wonderful photographs with either if you know what you are doing. But I can guarantee that your photographs are not going to improve in any way, subjective or objective, if you eschew the 5D2 for the 5D.
Take care,
Dan
|
