I wonder what is the right way to compare pictures from two cameras, one with 4MP and the other with 10MP. Should I compare simple 100% crops from each and thus compare pixel to pixel or should I blow up the 4MP picture to 250% and thus compare equal picture sizes?
tonno1970 wrote:
Are you looking to substitute you 1D with the 40D?
No. I have both. It's just that after I got the 40D I am comparing 100% crops and the difference is not that big. I guess I should go the other way but I still want to know what is the conventional wisdom.
Uprezzing the 1D shot would not be fair to it IMO. 100% crops would be fairer. Don't forget the 1D had superb per-pixel sharpness and punched well above it's weight. At the time it was much sharper than the 6MP 10D and really unless you were after larger than A4 prints was unbeatable. Many still lament it's abilities. I'd die to see it's 1/500s flash sync and 1/16000 top shutter come back. Imagine the IQ from it now combined with Digic III and the improved microlens array, 14 bit capture. Make an awesome B&W camera.
Dec 02, 2007 at 09:16 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
It seems to me that the pixel to pixel comparison makes sense, but I would think that what is most important is the comparison at the image size you want to print to. How does an 8 X 10 from each camera look? How about an 11 X 14, etc.? I think what you will see is that pixel to pixel the 4mp looks better but as the print size increases the 10mp will start to look better and will eventually be clearly superior. Knowing what size the crossover in quality occurs would seem like very useful information. I hope this helps.
I would tend to do the comparison after getting the pictures to the form I want to use them in. That may be print or web-resized pictures or other. Not sure whether it is the conventional wisdom, but it would be mine (if I have any ).
Yakim Peled wrote:
I wonder what is the right way to compare pictures from two cameras, one with 4MP and the other with 10MP. Should I compare simple 100% crops from each and thus compare pixel to pixel or should I blow up the 4MP picture to 250% and thus compare equal picture sizes?
There are so many variables that it is almost impossible to come up with a truly objective way of doing this.
My thinking is that the best - and certainly most useful - test is to go through your normal workflow with both cameras, trying to create the best image possible in the sort of format that you might typically use: small web image, large prints, etc.
See what the result is in these real world cases and make an educated subjective evaluation. That's what matters.
Yakim Peled wrote:
Thanks for your suggestions. I take it that there is no conventional wisdom…..
There is, but it depends on the kind of end result you use your camera for.
If you shoot for web publication you'll have different constraints than if you print, say, 20"x30" size. The same applies to doing low light stuff (read: high ISO) or not, for instance.
Richard Nye wrote:
Why not do prints of each and compare the prints?
Exactly. Pixel to pixel doesn't matter much...it's how you display your images. If you only display them for the web, look at web shots. If you make prints...make prints!
It's one reason I never understand when someone sees an ISO 800 shots from the 30D or 40D and says "wow, that's a lot of noise!" If they'd just print it, they'd see that it's hardly any noise. You'll get an impression of how those to cameras output for display, and that will help!
I don't think viewing at 100% will help anyway since you are comparing different amounts of the sensor. My newly acquired 1DsII looks good at 100%, but it's when you realise that you're looking at an enormously tight crop that you realise there is a difference.
As others have said, the only fair test is to do a test shot on each camera, print em up and see what you think.
No. I rarely print. It's just an impression that I have. When I got the 40D I expected night and day difference in that regard. After all, 6 years is a small eternity in computer lifespan. However, I was disappointed. I keep shooting with it mainly because of the 1D's poor battery consumption.
).
