fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              7              9       10       11       end
  

Archive 2008 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!

  
 
brainiac
Offline
[X]
p.8 #1 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


The crop I inserted above shows 100% crops from a D700 file and a 1Ds3 file downrezzed to D700 dimensions. Both are shot with the same lens (via adaptor on the Canon), aperture and shutter speed. The D700 was set to H1 iso, whereas the 1Ds3 was set to H. The underexposed 1Ds3 file was pushed two stops in DPP. Each file was optimally processed, the D700 file in Capture NX with Nikon's excellent noise reduction, and the 1Ds3 file was noise reduced in NeatImage which is as near as dammit to Nikon's noise reduction, as far as I can see. Before anyone chimes in suggesting they should be processed by some third party package, I think Canon and Nikon's own supplied raw processors are at least as good as any third party packages. A third party package might well suit one camera better than the other, so it would be no more fair.


Sep 26, 2008 at 02:24 PM
Hask
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #2 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


That's still qute a feat of the D700 then, if it holds it's own against a file which already has noise cancelled out because of resizing, even with both of them having a NR treatment


Sep 26, 2008 at 03:17 PM
theSuede
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #3 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


Agreement again... I think this is my fault for not being clear with what I type. Rephrased, Brainiacs question could also be "See those 1DsIII extra pixels paying off? Me neither."
If reverse engineered this means: At base ISO, the larger photosite is less noisy, and has a better graduated dynamic range. At base ISO, the 21MP camera has a SPATIAL RESOLUTION advantage, but a DYNAMIC RANGE RESOLUTION disadvantage when compared with a 12MP camera with the same size sensor. If the 21MP sensor had the same per pixel qualities that the 12MP sensor has, it would humiliate the lower resolution sensor at all ISO's. Walk all over it. Surprise (not) - It doesn't! At high ISO's the detail per frame is about the same. The amount of spatial detail may even be higher in the "low" resolution sensor. This means that the low spatial resolution sensor has a higher intensity/colour resolution.

Yes, total square mm of real estate senor area equals total dU/dA (integral of noise amplitude over total sensor area) if the sensor technologies are equivalent. So, yes, I would guess the 1DsIII/5DII about equals the D3/D700 in total noise amount over the frame. Not necessarily the distribution of noise (the "character"), but the amount. I thought we agreed on that earlier... Canon has chosen to use more (and noisier) pixels, Nikon has chosen to use fewer (and less noisy) pixels. Which of them has chosen the "right" way? I don't know! This is of course up to the individual users of the cameras.

What I would want to see from both of them, if I were to try to explain it more clearly, is an increase in base dynamic range. This is what separates the 135 format and the MF format digitals, more than the resolution does. The high-ISO capabilities of the CaNikon higher end cameras indicate that the dynamic range available from the sensor technologies chosen is sufficient, but that we have no way of getting to it. DSLR's are optimized to retain maximum usability at very high ISO values, so the analog signal readout dynamic range at lower ISO's is compromised. At base ISO a DSLR is not even close to MFDB quality (per pixel, resolution nonwithstanding). The difference is not so much dependent on which of the sensor technologies you choose, it depends on what you prioritize when choosing your compromise between dark-noise and amplification induced noise/current noise. High base dynamic range - worse high ISO performance (or) low base dynamic range / better high ISO performance. And to get a sufficiently high precision in the analog readouts, you can't make the photosites to small - not enough electrons will flow at ISO's higher than just base to get a sufficiently graduated readout to make the dynamic range "smooth". This is why I say that the quality per pixel is dependent on resolution. Too small photosites limits the dynamic range available in a most significant way - at all ISO's except base. Note: I'm not saying that the Canon photosites are to small! I'm saying that there is a limit. For different uses - different limits!

The trade-off is almost linear - one stop more dynamic range means roughly one stop less high-ISO capability. I would be VERY happy to cash in the highest ISO value in either of the cameras in exchange for a full stop of dynamic range (and colour resolution!) at all ISO values below that. This is why I say that for (my personal conception of) maximum picture quality, I would like to see the manufacturers increase dynamic range more before increasing maximum available ISO or resolution.

Picture quality is constituted of more than just resolution. It is also about tonal gradation. Camera usability is constituted of more than just the highest available ISO. It is also about not clipping or posterizing shadows and highlights.



Sep 26, 2008 at 06:17 PM
danmitchell
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #4 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


theSuede wrote:
A 4800dpi inkjet will realistically produce 200-240dpi measured usable output, with typically quite low colour fidelity, especially in the already shoddy highlight and deep shadow ranges.


Hmmm...

That would surprise quite a few high end photographers whose work is sold in major galleries - e.g. the "fact" that their prints feature "shoddy highlight and deep shadow ranges."

A bit of hyperbole, perhaps?

Dan



Sep 26, 2008 at 10:20 PM
dave chilvers
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #5 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


Brainiac

Great thread ( i just can`t stop looking at my images from the 1dsmk3 at 100%) I have to because i have to spot them for submitting to alamy.
I just WISH that someone would explain it the way you have to the checkers at this stock agency.
I think i have written before that my first submissions after buying the mk3 were turned down as " not enouigh detail or not sharp enough" So, I went back to the drawing board and tightened up my technique with some success but still not the 100% pass rate that I had been enjoying from my mk1 and mk2. So after reading the many excellent threads on here i moved into the alternative lenses and the pass rate shot up (still not 100% though) which supports your writings.
So now, i use Contax lenses, good technique and add(which is not allowed) a very small amount of smart sharpen which now sees my images getting through the !Q tests. Now, when I get an image refused I can normally see the reason and it`s 99.9% my fault.
It does take getting your head around that your new expensive state of the art camera images look worse than your 11 mega pixel out of date camera at 100% but thats just the way it is. I have many 11 and 17 million pixel images for sale and you could say that why do I need the extra 4 or 5 million pixels but they are priceless when you need to crop.

Till dust is done away with all together we need to spot at 100% so must get used to it.

Thanks for the thread

Dave



Sep 27, 2008 at 05:29 AM
DavidB
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #6 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


danmitchell wrote:
That would surprise quite a few high end photographers whose work is sold in major galleries - e.g. the "fact" that their prints feature "shoddy highlight and deep shadow ranges."


But who these days uses 4800 dpi inkjets? Is that the typical dot resolution of Canon/HP printers (which use pixel resolutions of 300 ppi)? For example we (all of us who use Epsons) feed our Epson inkjets either 360 ppi or 720 ppi images, and the printers often use 1440, 2880, or 5760 dpi to translate all those pixels into dots. Certainly when done properly I wouldn't consider these prints to inherently be flawed in the ways described above.


By the way, theSuede has been writing comparing the 21 Mp images from the 1DsIII to the 12 Mp images from the D700. The major issue to keep in mind here is that these are not 21 Mp images from the 5DmkII. It is a new sensor, and we're hoping that both the noise and dynamic range are improved from the 1DsIII. Of course we won't know for sure until the cameras are in our hands, but if you're going to assume that there's been no improvement, be clear that you're basing your comments on that assumption.



Sep 27, 2008 at 06:00 AM
brainiac
Offline
[X]
p.8 #7 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


dave chilvers wrote:
Thanks for the thread


It's been a pleasure - and it's great to hear feedback from photographers on the coal face like you who are coming across the 100%/magnification method error in the industry. It's a worrying phenomenon, akin to the problems we used to encounter when pre-press droids would call up to complain that a digital file wasn't 300 dpi, without ever specifying print size. I have wasted hours of my life on the telephone trying to persuade people that the 20 megapixel file really is good enough to print at 5x4".



Sep 27, 2008 at 07:43 AM
theSuede
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #8 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


Of course the 5DII will be better in high ISO's than the 1DsIII - if what Canon says about the evolutionary steps taken with the sensor is true... By a bit, at least, how much remains to be seen. I do believe it will be clearly noticeable, but not revolutionary. Everything Canon has said so far indicates that it is the same base sensor die, with tweaked ancillaries. Of course this is good - it will be bettering a camera that is already very good in that aspect (the 1Ds...).

About inkjets - yes, they do have quite limited presentation of highlights and shadows. Anyone that has ever compared different print technologies side to side in controlled QC conditions will admit to this. Anyone with access to photospectrography equipment can verify it. The reason that you can look at a normal print and say "that's sufficiently good" or "that's very good" is because you don't have ANY reference at all nearby, nothing to compare with, except maybe the RGB representation on your monitor (at a lower dpi).

An easy way to verify this, even if you don't have access to advanced measuring equipment is if you take a "macro" photograph covering a print area that is about 2" wide. Work out the (supposed) print resolution to capture resolution ratio, and downsample your capture by this ratio. This resulting crop should be pixel-perfect in quality if your printer does what you want it to do (think it does). Is the resolution in the print anywhere NEAR what you expected? In 99 cases of 100, the answer is very clearly no. I've spent to many hours with microscopes and photospectography comparisons in professional printing and pre-press to belive that inkjet delivers according to the sales blurbs. Inkjet is not as good as a good offset print. A good offset print is noticeably not as good as a National Geography class high-res offset print. I've seen 12-base supplement colour diffusion prints that make the NG-prints look bad. How big do you think the difference between that reference print and the best commercially available inkjet is? I tell you, it is HUGE...

Printers available for "normal" use will evolve as Brainiac says, I've just been at a presentation of a state-of-the-art wideroll 6+2 colour inkjet, and the results were very good. Screen technology will also evolve, we are already seeing 110% AdobeRGB gamut screens with really good dynamic range resolution (9bits, gammacorrected). To be able to use those new presentation facilities to the max, DSL's will also have to improve. At the moment (for "reasonable" presentation sizes) dynamic range and dynamic range resolution is the limiting factor if you're after the maximum picture quality, not spatial resolution.



Sep 27, 2008 at 07:52 AM
theSuede
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #9 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


@brainiac - / about the phonecalls... I recognize that feeling, but for me it's about commercial PR firms and graphical design companies... Never with photographers. Photographers can moan about "artistical abuse" from the GD firms, but never about technical stuff. If you state what you want in minimum res and colour space, a photographer almost always deliver. In cases of otherwise, it's usually a communication error, and quickly remedied.


Sep 27, 2008 at 08:05 AM
crfrey71
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #10 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!



Not to be argumentative, but what is the point of going for more megapixels, if there is little to no difference on print? What are we gaining besides bigger files to handle and store?


Exactly! We are really limited by the printing process. I get sick of the old sales person saying that with more megapixels, you can produce larger prints.

WRONG!!!

The print labs at a certain print size actually switch to a lower DPI setting.For example, for Smugmug users. If your print is larger than 10X15, then the resolution lowers from 302 dpi to 254 dpi.

For me, I am more concerned with bit depth, higher and cleaner ISO's, focus speed and accuracy.



Oct 20, 2008 at 04:33 PM
TR3B
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #11 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


I read the entire thread and heres what I got out of it,

"Canon are explicitly stating that the 5D2 sensor is newer and better"

Well of course it is. Isn't newer and better always better in this planned obsolescence.



Oct 21, 2008 at 11:14 AM
minhnestrone
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #12 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


Would it be ok to start a forum asking which lenses work best on the 5D Mark II? Or does that belong on the Master 5DII thread?

By work best I mean able to resolve and get the most out of 21.1 Megapixels. I'm assuming the primes will do best as stated earlier in this thread. But which primes? Which zooms? Is it time to look at getting a Zeiss ZE for extra clarity?




Oct 24, 2008 at 01:14 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #13 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


minhnestrone wrote:
Would it be ok to start a forum asking which lenses work best on the 5D Mark II? Or does that belong on the Master 5DII thread?

By work best I mean able to resolve and get the most out of 21.1 Megapixels. I'm assuming the primes will do best as stated earlier in this thread. But which primes? Which zooms? Is it time to look at getting a Zeiss ZE for extra clarity?



depends if the corners matter
anywhere near the center just won't be a problem it's no higher density than a 20D! and even on the 50D i find that any decent lens brings a lot more detail than on a 20D.



Oct 24, 2008 at 05:21 PM
Strid3r
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #14 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


Put this in the g*d d**n 5D thread!


Oct 24, 2008 at 07:10 PM
J.D.
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #15 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


Sorry to spoil your party Strid3r but I had the same problem comparing my 10D with my 40D. The 10D was sharper.


Oct 25, 2008 at 04:29 AM
hans98ko
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #16 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


brainiac wrote:
I want to pre-empt an inevitable controversy.

BE WARNED, there is certainly going to be a lot of gnashing of teeth and wailing about how noisy and unsharp the 5DmkII is after it ships, and people start comparing 100% crops with their old 5D's. Ignore it. This will only happen because people will fail to uprez their 5D files to 21 megapixel before comparing 100% crops.

Even reviewers like DPReview and Luminous Landscape routinely make this methodological error when comparing cameras.

There is a simple way to see what your new files are really like: uprez the 5D file to 21 megapixels, and
...Show more

I might agree with what you said, but definately disagree with the idea of using a white background like snow or cloud to compare sharpness and noise. No one in the optical industry will use it to test sharpness and noise because there is not much contrast and noise does not show up in white easily.



Oct 25, 2008 at 05:39 AM
cgardner
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #17 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


scott f wrote:
Not to be argumentative, but what is the point of going for more megapixels, if there is little to no difference on print? What are we gaining besides bigger files to handle and store?


In the practical sense if you can't see the difference in the type of work you typically do on the equipment you typically use then there wouldn't be a compelling reason to upgrade. So notwithstanding the excellent suggestion here for objectively evaluating two cameras of different resolutions via pixel peeping at 100% (up-rez adjusted) a more valid test, in practical personal terms of whipping out the plastic and buying every incremental upgrade, would be running shots from both through your normal workflow, making prints as large as you plan to ever make, then evaluate the prints side-by-side from a typical viewing distance. If you could see the difference in the final results, then it would be a matter of whether the net cost of the upgrade justified the improvement.

But when making that type of practical evaluation its important to understand the limiting factors, in the physical sense, of each step in the workflow. For example Brainiac mentions that some of your current lenses might not have as much resolution as the sensor and be a limiting factor. The type and size of the printer is also a limiting factor and will tend to mask and negate small incremental differences in camera resolution, in the same way that sausage makes it difficult to identify what part of the animal the meat came from.

If you are a pro, the ability to write-off the cost of the equipment as deductible expense also makes it easier to justify an upgrade to gain incremental improvement. There are also intangible factors, such as the importance of being perceived by sophisticated clients to have the latest / best equipment which might influence purchasing decisions. Many art directors are for the most part clueless regarding the actual technical implications of things like resolution and file formats, but if there is a 21MP camera on the market and you are still using a 15MP one they might not decide to hire you based on ill-informed biases. Some might not even consider hiring you unless you shot with a 39MP Hasselblad format. The recent article over at LL comparing a Canon 15MP G10 with a 39MP Hasselblad is quite interesting in that regard: pros shown prints of an identical scene shot with both cameras only identified the camera which took the shot correctly 50% of the time.

But its worth noting that 21MP does cross a publishing Rubicon of sorts: the ability to do a two-page magazine spread without up-sampling from camera resolution. For work printed in offset magazines the rule-of-thumb for resolution is to supply digital files with pixel-per-inch resolution with is twice the dots-per-inch resolution of the halftone screen ruling, typically 300ppi for printing at 150 DPI. A two-page magazine spread is typically 17 x 11 (allowing for bleeds) and requires an digital image of about 17MP (17x300) x (11x300) = 16.8 MP In the past it was necessary to up-sample camera files in Photoshop to fit a two-page spread at 300ppi, but with a 21MP there would be enough resolution to print without up-sampling with a margin for a bit of cropping.

Chuck
Happy 20D user





Oct 25, 2008 at 08:37 AM
veroman
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #18 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


scott f wrote:
Not to be argumentative, but what is the point of going for more megapixels, if there is little to no difference on print? What are we gaining besides bigger files to handle and store?


• Significantly better crops and cropping options
• Significantly better detail in prints 8" X 12" and larger
• Better upsizing when needed
• Files sizes in native resolution that meet or exceed the criteria of certain publications and stock photo houses (if you're a professional)
• Maximize lens qualities (if they're there to begin with)

I suppose there are more, but I have to go now. Others will extend the list.

- Steve



Oct 25, 2008 at 09:32 AM
mananetwork
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #19 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


Can someone sum up with some coles notes about the 5D, 5DII, and D700 in terms of resolution please, thank you.
I tried to read through it but it was pretty technical!



Nov 29, 2008 at 05:21 PM
vachss
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #20 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!


Having a sensor that outresolves your lenses is NOT A BAD THING. This is the situation you want in order to maximize the potential resolution of the lens. If we are finally getting to the point that each incremental upgrade in sensor resolution does not produce a proportional upgrade in image resolution then it just means we are nearing the point where we can take the sensor out of the equation and resolved detail will depend only on lens quality (and technique).


Nov 29, 2008 at 06:18 PM
1       2       3              7              9       10       11       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              7              9       10       11       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account