steve_t wrote:
The math is correct, but the conclusion is wrong. The resolution in lppm is NOT the important factor, otherwise medium and large format cameras would have been consigned to the dustbin of history long ago in favour of 35mm.
What makes for picture quality is lpph - line pairs per picture height. How much detail can you get out of the system. Combine that with the signal/noise ratio to get the measure of a system.
It's quite posible that the combination of DMR and Leica lenses produce results that are more pleasing to you, but the reason ISN'T lppm.
Actually, it's something of a myth that large and medium format lenses lack the resolving power of 35mm lenses. If you go to the Zeiss web site you can search their archives for an article discussing that, I've lost the link. Modern medium and large format lenses can resolve 80-120 lpm.
Otherwise, I agree with your notion. Indeed, Jorge's saying with the DMR we should be able to approach the resolution of film, but I believe the consensus is that the 12-16 MP cameras easily surpass even medium format film in terms of final image quality. This is probably true for the DMR too, but no one has any concrete data to prove it. Projecting image quality based solely on a single factor, like pixel size, is mental onanism.
Camera models will frog leap one another as new models are introduced.
I think it is quite stupid and endless to switch camera system basing on the specs of the body alone.
One should look at the system as a whole. What are the range of lenses, full-frame vs non-full frame, potential of the company to renovate and keep introducing new features etc....
I'm quite happy with the Canon system. Using Canon bodies, I can also pick a flavour of wide ranges of other brand of lenses like Leica and Zeiss.
Here are some comparisons. They are not apples to apple but very close. Shot from different angles but same distance.Canon shots were a little closer than those with the Leica. Lighting different as well. However its someting to look at. The canon shots where done with the Zeiss 35-70 The Leica shots were done with the Leica 28-90. These are 100% crops of a section. Exif data should be there if you save the file.
weekh wrote:
Camera models will frog leap one another as new models are introduced.
I doubt we'll see that with the DMR.. I would be surprised if they release an upgrade again this decade. I'm sure a fair number of Leica users will be able to their slow pace of R&D into a system advantage... Kinda like how cameras that are MF only have an advantage over camera systems that can either AF or MF..
Jorge,
I am not saying one way or the other but you are adding another variable into the equation.... the lens, since you did not shoot using the same lens. I am not saying that the Zeiss lens is worse or better than the Leica, it is just not the same lens.
OK, I understand your point but I must have missed the purpose of the comparison then. Sorry. There is also a lighting quality difference between the two shots. I am not trying to downplay your effort, BTW, and I am open-minded, you know that.
braindeadmac wrote:
Jorge has owned the 1ds2 or 1ds before I believe, and I for one don't see this as a "troll" topic. Jorge is really just trying to create a topic for discussion. The people who've been following and watching for this camera to appear are genuinely interested.
This is no different than a Canon compared to Nikon or Canon 1ds2 compared to 10D topic. Why the hostility?
I really don't care what you think and if I was hostile you would know it. I have own allot of equipment too but if I'm going to compare two cameras or lenses it will be based on examples from both not some mathematical calculation.
Jorge lastest post to this thread is at least providing an attempt at a viable comparison of these two cameras. However it would be more informative if the comparison was at least made using the same lens.
I have nothing against Jorge or his attempts to tell everyone how nice his DMR is. I just didn't think the Canon forum was the place based on his original presentation.
Now that he has revised it to provide at least an attempt to compare the two cameras based on real world examples it provides more credence to its relevancy on this forum. I retract my previous designation as a "Troll Topic"
I welcome a viable comparison of any Canon camera with others as long as it based on sound testing procedures. I assure you that any of his defenders would expect the same of anyone that tried to compare two lenses on this forum without proper documentation.
Jim Victory wrote:
I really don't care what you think and if I was hostile you would know it. I have own allot of equipment too but if I'm going to compare two cameras or lenses it will be based on examples from both not some mathematical calculation.
No, you obviously don't care what other people think. Otherwise, your posts would have some civility.
If your point is that the comparison should be made from actual examples and not some mathematical computation (with which I agree, by the way), then why the hell not just say that?
braindeadmac wrote:
No, you obviously don't care what other people think. Otherwise, your posts would have some civility.
If your going to quote me at least get it right. I stated I didn't care what you thought not other people.
braindeadmac wrote:
If your point is that the comparison should be made from actual examples and not some mathematical computation (with which I agree, by the way), then why the hell not just say that?
I believe I just did but only because Jorge revised his post to do so. His original sumation wasn't such a comparison.
This isn't a troll post any more than the "I can't afford it" leica/CZ discussions are...
There are some of us that can't afford a CZ lens shade
I am very interested in the DMR, and...that's ok too. I one doesn't like the thread...you know, just ignore it. I am certainly willing to be gracious and encourage the discussion.
OK, I got it, Jorge !
I'm slow, Folks. Sorry, if you already got it.
Jorge's point is that both the DMR and 1DsMK2 have 1.3x crop sensors. And DMR is more dense and without AA filter. Thus, it should be more sharp for any given lens. I think the logic is flawless.
steve_t wrote:
The math is correct, but the conclusion is wrong. The resolution in lppm is NOT the important factor, otherwise medium and large format cameras would have been consigned to the dustbin of history long ago in favour of 35mm.
What makes for picture quality is lpph - line pairs per picture height. How much detail can you get out of the system. Combine that with the signal/noise ratio to get the measure of a system.
It's quite posible that the combination of DMR and Leica lenses produce results that are more pleasing to you, but the reason ISN'T lppm.
Pondria wrote:
OK, I got it, Jorge !
I'm slow, Folks. Sorry, if you already got it.
Jorge's point is that both the DMR and 1DsMK2 have 1.3x crop sensors. And DMR is more dense and without AA filter. Thus, it should be more sharp for any given lens. I think the logic is flawless.
Perfect logic, except for the fact that the 1DsMK2 is 1.0 crop not 1.3.
IF the two cameras had the same sensor size then pixel size would make some (limited) kind of sense for comparison (like comparing a 10D without AA filter against a 20D with one).
What you compare in the real world are prints. For a print of any given size the 1Ds2 image will have more pixels per millimeter but the AA filter may render each pixel less sharp. Trying to get a properly controlled and informative comparison between the two bodies is an interesting problem and I'd like to see this done but we haven't got close yet.
The major point I got from this thread is that Leica owners - and I was one for over 30 years - now have a competitive digital camera. Thats good - just as it is good that Nikon has a winner in the D2x. Competition can hopefully lead to lower prices - and that helps us all.
I do have some reservations about the blind worship of Leica lenses. My experience - admittedly not with the newest glass - was that many of their telephotos and normals were wonderful - their wides somewhat less so. Just like Canon - although some might quibble that the Canon wides are even less wonderful than Leica's. My feeling is that you can get world class results with any of these top level slr's - but more time and money should be put into wide angle glass design and manufacture.
I saw an early post about shooting a bunch of lines with a 4999 size sensor vs a smaller sensor. And the smaller sensor having to be further away to capture the same subject due to its crop. This is not my point nor question. Let me try and clarify tghis and maybe someone can shed some light on it for me.
Larger sensor will capture more of the subect. No arguing this. You see 20 windows in a building with FF and maybe 16 windows of the same building with crop.
My point is not how much subject you can get in one image but rather how much detail of the subject can be captured by the camera.
Lets just say that both cameras have the same sensor size. Lets bring the canon down to 1.37 like the leica. however the pixels are still the same as on the original design. Does this mean that the camera with smaller pixels will capture more detail of the same subject than the camera with larger pixels will? Remember subject detail and not subject size is what I am referring to.
, this thread has fallen apart.