It's very hard to get conclusion on two different digital cameras, especially when they are different in pixel density (magnify ratio). I've seen reviews by comparing Canon and Nikon DSLR even with different lenses. A reasonable comparison would be using adapter to test the same lens on two system with same pixel density. Although the adapter may still affect the result, but this is probably the best way to go.
gabimaster wrote:
since you've made that pictures with 17-40mm on a 5D, the loss of a little sharpness is acceptable(from what I see in your pictures).
The image was made with a 1Ds3, at f11. Whether the corners are acceptable is a matter of personal taste. I am perfectly happy with them, but serious landscape shooters mightn't be.
brainiac wrote:
Well, I correctly predicted, in November last year, that the 1Ds3 would have a comparable noise performance (providing you want to make pictures, not crops) to the D3. I am going to be bold and make another prediction here: the 5D2 iso 12800 noise performance, optimally processed from raw, will look pretty much the same as that from the 1Ds3. Why?
(1) because Canon likely made some effort with the 1Ds3 sensor, so tweaks are unlikely to radically transform its performance, and
(2) sensor design and fabrication is a very expensive business in which costs are acutely sensitive to volume, so Canon would be foolish not to aim to use its latest sensor in more than one model at different price points, if it can get away with it, and
(3) Canon has stated that the 5D2 sensor is derived from the 1Ds3 design, and
(4) no detailed explanation has been offered of how the 5D2 sensor differs from that in the 1Ds3, and
(5) because 5D2 high iso performance is looking awfully familiar to me - it looks exactly like what i would get if I shot my 1Ds3 and didn't optimally process the files.
So basically the 5D2 is a 1Ds3, without all the fancy stuff, and Canon's claim to have enhanced the sensor is just lipstick on a supermodel. The fact that it does 3.9 fps suggests that the 1Ds3 could have done 7.8 fps if they had wanted to offer that, and that as we all know, these cameras are not the best that they can be in every feature, but are tailored to distinguish themselves from each other in the way that the marketing department wants them to. For instance, the 1Ds3 could have had a 6400 and 12800 iso setting, but Canon knows that pixel peepers and DPReview, in their ignorance, would have been scornful due to the lack of good in-camera NR....Show more →
Pretty obvious conclusion... If Canon gave it to us all the way, what will there be left to sell us next year? At least they know for sure that 5D2 owners will jump in the air when the 5D3 finally gets its 9 cross point AF + 6 assist points next time around ... Only to hear shortly thereafter that Nikon has introduced a 300 cross point eye controlled AF sensor... And the story continues... And the poor folks who are trapped inside these marketing fairytales, don't seem to realize that IQ has virtually remained the same all along... I am not buying it anymore (both the cams and the marketing BS)
phuang3 wrote:
It's very hard to get conclusion on two different digital cameras, especially when they are different in pixel density (magnify ratio). I've seen reviews by comparing Canon and Nikon DSLR even with different lenses. A reasonable comparison would be using adapter to test the same lens on two system with same pixel density. Although the adapter may still affect the result, but this is probably the best way to go.
Yes. That's why the example below was shot with the very same lens, via adaptor, on a D700 and 1Ds3 at the same aperture and shutter speed. The idea was to ensure that the same amount of light was hitting the sensor regardless of camera settings. The Nikon was set to iso 12800 (H1?) and the Canon to iso 3200 (H). Optimal raw processing and noise reduction were applied to each, and the 1Ds3 file was downrezzed to the dimensions of the D700 file. While the noise patterns were originally very different, with the Nikon having a little more lumi noise and the Canon having a lot more colour noise, after noise reduction the files are surprisingly similar. http://cyberphotographer.com/d700v1ds3/d700v1ds3_12800iso_b.jpg
Daan B wrote:
And the poor folks who are trapped inside these marketing fairytales, don't seem to realize that IQ has virtually remained the same all along...
I was with you until this line. 5 years ago I could not shoot iso 12800 in very low light. Now I do it at every job. Image quality has been transformed, and I, for one, am grateful.
brainiac wrote:
I was with you until this line. 5 years ago I could not shoot iso 12800 in very low light. Now I do it at every job. Image quality has been transformed, and I, for one, am grateful.
When you compare cameras of any manufacturer according to the same specs, the differences in IQ will only be marginal at best. In the end, all cameras share the same basic design and technology. THAT was my point
brainiac wrote:
Not much. You can take and print great shots with a 3 megapixel camera. It is for each to judge whether she needs or wants to pay for that facility. But the 5D2 has lots of other tricks, and great overall image quality, even if it is too sharp for you. And luckily they included a 5 and 10 megapixel raw mode, so pick a size and, dare I say it, have eosfun.
Not sure what you mean by "too sharp"? I haven't seen an image yet from it to suggest it has great image quality yet. Every high ISO image I've seen is mediocre at best, which isn't surprising as I don't think Canon has launched a camera yet with a portfolio of excellent samples.
I guess I'm just playing the devil's advocate in all of this.
Uprezzing creates (read: fabricates, interpolates, whatever) pixels that weren't there before. A straight 21MP file from the 5D2 has actual data in all of those pixels. You can't compare the two.
Uprezzing creates (read: fabricates, interpolates, whatever) pixels that weren't there before. A straight 21MP file from the 5D2 has actual data in all of those pixels. You can't compare the two.
Here come the pantomime dromedaries ;-)
Downrezzing doesn't work either. I was downrezzing a landscape picture the other day, when my wife walked into the room. She looked at the screen and the downrez had turned the landscape into harcore porn. It's a lottery. Interpolation produces images which are in no way related to the source.
brainiac wrote:
Here come the pantomime dromedaries ;-)
Downrezzing doesn't work either. I was downrezzing a landscape picture the other day, when my wife walked into the room. She looked at the screen and the downrez had turned the landscape into harcore porn. It's a lottery. Interpolation produces images which are in no way related to the source.
Now that was stupid, don't you know that you have to lock the door when you downrez?
(Dear moderator, I didn't say that he was stupid, it was a humerous comment in reply to his joke) Sorry guys, I'm on probation at present...
Daan B wrote:
When you compare cameras of any manufacturer according to the same specs, the differences in IQ will only be marginal at best. In the end, all cameras share the same basic design and technology. THAT was my point
That wasn't true in September 2005. I compared the 5D to the Nikon D2x and switched immediately. Nikon could not match the 5D back then, for any price. Today it's a bit different, and Nikon's sensors are much better, but it is a glib fallacy to maintain that all the gear is really the same.
Sigh, life was so much simpler when we waited a few years for film manufacturers to improve color, grain, ISO by some small amount, and plastered the magazines with ads about revolutionizing photography...
Not that I want to return to any "simpler times", no way, no how!
brainiac wrote:
I was downrezzing ... the other day, when my wife walked into the room. She looked ... and the downrez had turned ... into harcore porn...
Photon wrote:
Sigh, life was so much simpler when we waited a few years for film manufacturers to improve color, grain, ISO by some small amount, and plastered the magazines with ads about revolutionizing photography...
Not that I want to return to any "simpler times", no way, no how!
Actually, they did... Kodak is coming out with Ektar 100, due in October or November. Promises to be VERY good (better than Ektachrome E100G) and replaces the Ultra Color UC100/400 films.
Fuji I believe is also fully comitted to film, mentioning something recently.
brainiac wrote:
That wasn't true in September 2005. I compared the 5D to the Nikon D2x and switched immediately. Nikon could not match the 5D back then, for any price. Today it's a bit different, and Nikon's sensors are much better, but it is a glib fallacy to maintain that all the gear is really the same.
I switched from the D200 to the 5D, probably for the same reasons last year. But that's not what I meant... I was talking about the here and now (and the near future). Also, I was referring to technology rather than gear.
Looking at the grand scheme of things... The technology is out there... The cams that they are now making are a shadow of the cams they could be making (and maybe should be making). This goes for all the manufacturers. So they are working towards a virtual point in time through marketing driven intervals of tiny upgrades.
For the manufacturers it is a game of who is first with the release of these (tiny) upgrades and who will follow. In other words: who makes the most money by being first. It is a never ending cycle in which we, the customers are trapped (if we don't watch out). At least, Canon and Co expect us to pay 1000's of clams every year for these so called upgrades. Even stronger, we fight whole battles on forums based on the accompanying feature lists.
But in the end, all the manufacturers use basically the same design and technology. Even if they want to make us believe otherwise. Through marketing campaigns marginal differences are blown way out of proportion. So, when comparing todays DSLR's according to the same specs, differences in IQ will only be marginal when keeping the grand scheme of things into the back of our minds.
Daan B wrote:
I switched from the D200 to the 5D, probably for the same reasons last year. But that's not what I meant... I was talking about the here and now (and the near future). Also, I was referring to technology rather than gear.
Looking at the grand scheme of things... The technology is out there... The cams that they are now making are a shadow of the cams they could be making (and maybe should be making). This goes for all the manufacturers. So they are working towards a virtual point in time through marketing driven intervals of tiny upgrades.
For the manufacturers it is a game of who is first with the release of these (tiny) upgrades and who will follow. In other words: who makes the most money by being first. It is a never ending cycle in which we, the customers are trapped (if we don't watch out). At least, Canon and Co expect us to pay 1000's of clams every year for these so called upgrades. Even stronger, we fight whole battles on forums based on the accompanying feature lists.
But in the end, all the manufacturers use basically the same design and technology. Even if they want to make us believe otherwise. Through marketing campaigns marginal differences are blown way out of proportion. So, when comparing todays DSLR's according to the same specs, differences in IQ will only be marginal when keeping the grand scheme of things into the back of our minds. ...Show more →
I can't offer an informed opinion on whether they all have the access to the same technology , but I do agree with your other points. Just look at Canon's ridiculous upgrades from 20d-30d-40d, and 1dm2 to 1dm3.
scott f wrote:
I can't offer an informed opinion on whether they all have the access to the same technology , but I do agree with your other points. Just look at Canon's ridiculous upgrades from 20d-3-d-40d, and 1dm2 ato 1dm3.
Hang on a minute, you are expecting a kind of Moore's law for cameras. There isn't one. Just because there have been occasional leaps, that doesn't mean that there is no value in incremental upgrades. The 1Ds3 and the 40D weren't targeted only at 1Ds2 and 30D owners. They are often bought by people who don't have that kind of camera yet. Should Canon hold back the technologies that went into the 1Ds3 until all 1Ds2 users are ready to upgrade? Upgrade when you feel like it, and be glad the manufacturers continue the 'evolution' of their products with regular updates.
... Only to hear shortly thereafter that Nikon has introduced a 300 cross point eye controlled AF sensor... And the story continues... And the poor folks who are trapped inside these marketing fairytales, don't seem to realize that IQ has virtually remained the same all along... I am not buying it anymore (both the cams and the marketing BS) 