RDKirk wrote:
You wouldn't give DIGIC IV some credit for performance in the 5D2?
For jpeg, sure, but my 1Ds3 produces excellent 6400 iso, and (sometimes, depending on lighting conditions) excellent 12800 iso raw files. I really don't expect optimally processed 1Ds3 iso 6400 raw files to look much different from optimally processed iso 6400 5D2 files.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Ran across these examples between the 5D and 5DII. Seems to me the 5D, while not quite up to the 5DII, is putting in a very good showing. I would have expected a greater spread and this, to me, does show that the 5DII is indeed less sharp than the 5D at the pixel level. So much so that even interpolated up, the 5D image sharpness is rather close to the 5DII.
Example showing the superior per pixel iq of 5D which, even when interpolated up, is close to the iq of the 5DII, even with a 50 1.4 at 5.6:
DoubleNegative wrote:
You're "throwing away" information but averaging real data to create the smaller size. With upresing you're "adding in" information that is an average of adjacent pixels, not real data. Slight difference... In the end though, neither are accurate representations.
The reason why I feel that upresing its the proper way to look at this is that if I want to print above the camera's native resolution I am going to have to upres the file anyways.
For me (printing on an Epson 9880 at 240dpi on premium luster) the largest print a 5DmkI can make is 18x12 while the 5DmkII can make a 24x16 print without resizing. If I want to make a 24x16 (or larger) print from a 5DmkI file, I need to upres it. If I'm making a 18x12 or smaller print, I can do it at the native resolution of the camera. The small prints don't matter to me. My 1DmkI can make good 8x10 prints. My last set of prints in a show was 30x24 prints done on a H2/P25 combo (which still required upresing), so the 5DmkII is very interesting to me because it's actually usable at high ISOs (I don't use the P25 above 100 really) and it's a lot less nerve wracking to take a 4k camera + lens out into the field instead of a 20k one.
Trying to make some universal baseline standard seems pointless to me. Comparisons should be done at the largest print you think you are going to make using the work flow you would use to make that print (lenses, ISO, upresing/sharpening routines). If you can't tell the difference between the 5DmkI and the 5DmkII at your target final output size, then there is really no point in getting the 5DmkII even if it does have more resolution or better high ISO performance.
Thejavaman1 wrote:
The reason why I feel that upresing its the proper way to look at this is that if I want to print above the camera's native resolution I am going to have to upres the file anyways.
For me (printing on an Epson 9880 at 240dpi on premium luster) the largest print a 5DmkI can make is 18x12 while the 5DmkII can make a 24x16 print without resizing. If I want to make a 24x16 (or larger) print from a 5DmkI file, I need to upres it. If I'm making a 18x12 or smaller print, I can do it at the native resolution of the camera. The small prints don't matter to me. My 1DmkI can make good 8x10 prints. My last set of prints in a show was 30x24 prints done on a H2/P25 combo (which still required upresing), so the 5DmkII is very interesting to me because it's actually usable at high ISOs (I don't use the P25 above 100 really) and it's a lot less nerve wracking to take a 4k camera + lens out into the field instead of a 20k one.
Trying to make some universal baseline standard seems pointless to me. Comparisons should be done at the largest print you think you are going to make using the work flow you would use to make that print (lenses, ISO, upresing/sharpening routines). If you can't tell the difference between the 5DmkI and the 5DmkII at your target final output size, then there is really no point in getting the 5DmkII even if it does have more resolution or better high ISO performance....Show more →
When I read the OP post I didnt understand what the purpose of the post was. Well stupid me. I cannot believe people making a decision on a camera over a 200%-300% crop they looked at on their monitor. I agree completely with you(thejavaman) pick your print size and have at it. Which camera wins. I made some comparison shots with my 5DmkII and 1DmkIII full size at full screen they are close and out of the camera I liked the 1D3 better. Start cropping the 5D is the winner. I printed these at 8x12 and conclusion confirmed. Im tired of the noise at 200% comments what do those people buy cameras for status or pictures.
hhski wrote:
When I read the OP post I didnt understand what the purpose of the post was. Well stupid me. I cannot believe people making a decision on a camera over a 200%-300% crop they looked at on their monitor. I agree completely with you(thejavaman) pick your print size and have at it. Which camera wins. I made some comparison shots with my 5DmkII and 1DmkIII full size at full screen they are close and out of the camera I liked the 1D3 better. Start cropping the 5D is the winner. I printed these at 8x12 and conclusion confirmed. Im tired of the noise at 200% comments what do those people buy cameras for status or pictures....Show more →
There is a direct correlation between how much noise you see on screen, the number of pixels, and how much noise you will see in print. If two files are displayed on screen at the same magnification, and one is noisier than the other by a discernible amount, then it is overwhelmingly likely that the noisier file on screen will produce the noisier print. People are so keen to highlight the differences between screen and print, that you would think the two have nothing in common, and that adding red in photoshop will make a print greener. Our systems are designed to make screen and print representations as close as possible, and it is generally true that if you see a difference between two files on screen, that difference will also be visible in some (large enough) print. In many ways a good monitor is just as good a representation of the image data as a print is, especially considering you can look very closely at the data by zooming. That's why I always use analysis of images on screen in order to choose which camera to buy. BUT, I am always careful to display images from different cameras at identical magnification, so that scrutiny is fair. To do this I uprez the lower megapixel file to the same number of pixels as the higher, and sharpen optimally. This method gives the most accurate way of assessing a camera's file quality independently of any deviant printing system, and believe me, they are all deviant, and more so than most well-calibrated monitors.
The argument that only a print is a reliable way to compare image quality from two cameras completely ignores the fact that printers and prints vary enormously, and unreliably, and next year you are as likely to change your printer as your monitor. In fact, it is quite possible to favour a camera that has a tendency to produce green shadows simply because you are testing it using a printer which prints pink shadows. Monitors can err in this way too, but the point is that printing is a no more reliable way to test cameras than careful on-screen assessment. One common reason why so many mistrust on-screen assessment is that they have failed to compare files at identical magnification, and have therefore been surprised when prints reverse an apparent superiority which only arose due to on-screen assessment at highly unequal magnification.
Calibrate your monitor, and trust it, even to choose a camera, but do be sure to compare cameras at identical magnification, even if that means uprezzing the sparser file.
