You do realize, don't you, that "common sense" and "conventional wisdom" are both oxymorons??
You could temper your disappointment by realizing that the 40D is like a "free" 2x converter compared to your 1D (for a given lens and camera position) The large size of the 1D pixels is offset quite a bit by the improvements in sensor design, so the "pixel quality" isn't that different. As others have said, another way to think about it is the size of the virtual print when you compare at 100% on screen
Just peek at the picture in the LCD on the back of the camera. Opps, just kidding!
If you photograph to make prints then print to the maximum size you want to print to and compare. If you photograph for computer display (web or slideshow) create the images to the maximum size you would normally want to display them. Then compare. No other way. The fact that pixel to pixel an image looks great means nothing if the final image size doesn't look good at the end use/size of the image.
Dec 04, 2007 at 02:11 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
If you want to compare similar sized images on screen and you have a Mac this is quite easy. Open both files in photoshop then select image size for each file. Set the image size to whatever you size you want to look at it in inches or cm and ignore pixels. Set the same size for both images then save them both. Open them in preview and click actual size. This will show them not in terms of pixels but in terms of physical size on the screen. Differences in noise should now be easy to see and should be similar to differences if you printed the images. I hope this makes sense and it is helpful.
AJSJones wrote:
You do realize, don't you, that "common sense" and "conventional wisdom" are both oxymorons??
No, I don't. Please elaborate.
AJSJones wrote:
You could temper your disappointment by realizing that the 40D is like a "free" 2x converter compared to your 1D (for a given lens and camera position) The large size of the 1D pixels is offset quite a bit by the improvements in sensor design, so the "pixel quality" isn't that different. As others have said, another way to think about it is the size of the virtual print when you compare at 100% on screen
Andy
Unfortunately, I don't see it that way. As much as I love tele, the small viewfinders in APS cameras bug me to no end. For me, 1.3X is the minimum acceptable. If I was in Nikon I'd surely get the D3.
Forgetting about sensor size differences, comparing an almost identical picture taken in both cameras and viewing at 100% in your post processing tool of choice I imagine would suffice or at least make it reasonably close.
Not sure about conventional wisdom, but Phil Askey in his camera comparison tests at DPReview compares 100% crops of each image (not resized), and where the sensor size is very different, he shoots with a lens that will give a similar field of view - 50mm for crop (1.6x and 1.5x) and 85mm for full frame - refer the paras under 'Lenses Used' and 'Studio Scene Comparison' on this page: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD200/page26.asp
The only correct answer is that it depends on your final output. Are you making gallery prints? Then make a gallery print of each and compare. Your will find that the extra resolution of your 10mp camera will be extremely beneficial. But are you just displaying on the web? If so, you won't see a significant difference in IQ between the two, no matter what the cameras are.
If you mostly produce images for web display, where image size is generally rather small and detail limited by the pixels of the computer monitor, the advantages of newer cameras with high MP counts are relatively minor. I've seen images that looked great on the monitor that were shot with 4MP P&S cameras...
There is a night and day difference. The 40D images spank the c*ap out of the 1D images.
You have stated that at the per-pixel level the cameras seem equal to you (which is not true but about which I won't quibble). Well, the 40D has a truckload more of those pixels. The image captured by the 40D is far superior. Image-quality speaking, the two cameras are in a different class, with the 40D far ahead. (AF and build-wise, of course, it is the reverse.)
jvarszegi wrote:
There is a night and day difference. The 40D images spank the c*ap out of the 1D images.
You have stated that at the per-pixel level the cameras seem equal to you (which is not true but about which I won't quibble). Well, the 40D has a truckload more of those pixels. The image captured by the 40D is far superior. Image-quality speaking, the two cameras are in a different class, with the 40D far ahead. (AF and build-wise, of course, it is the reverse.)
