Before selling my 5d, I thought a comparison was in order . . .
Here's the 5d vs 5dII. 5d is up-rezzed (taken at same location, same lens)
5d is nice - but the 5dII holds more information and the pixel quality is decent with a good lens. Leica 90/2 apo -
The live view is excellent for focus (for tripod use), and the remote capture even better. I found the chipped adapters are a little 'loose' in focus confirmation.
The 5DII even has better bokeh than the original, just look at the X shape in the upper background I'd say the focus is different enough to make this comparison meaningless.
I'm sure the 5DII can resolve more detail, but this is not a good example.
There was probably a 1/2-1 stop difference - and yes this a meaningless comparison for those who want to argue . . .
Focus on a 24" monitor with live-view remote. I took a few shots with each camera, but not much difference at 100%. I'm not a very good pixel-peeper, sorry if you think it sucks.
pdmphoto wrote:
The 5DII even has better bokeh than the original, just look at the X shape in the upper background I'd say the focus is different enough to make this comparison meaningless.
Bear in mind he interpolated the 5D up to the 5Dii's resolution. It's reasonable to assume that the interpolator won't know what was supposed to be fuzzy and add fuzz to areas that are solid in the initial image. Or, for another perspective, your first statement is arguably true.
kevin2i wrote:
There was probably a 1/2-1 stop difference - and yes this a meaningless comparison for those who want to argue . . .
Focus on a 24" monitor with live-view remote. I took a few shots with each camera, but not much difference at 100%. I'm not a very good pixel-peeper, sorry if you think it sucks.
Please don't feel too bad. I don't think it's a negative post.
One can't make reasonable comparison with the plane of focus at different point, can one? If you want compare the sensors between cameras, you've got to make sure the images are taken with the same set of parameters. This is not even pixel peeping.
I predict this is going to be the first of many such comparisons which are going to show that there is far less difference between the 5D and 5DII in practical image quality terms than many people hope or expect.
I believe that DPP only measured a 25% resolution improvement although if you read the 150+ pages of hysterical speculation on the FM Canon forum 250% is nearer the mark (or expectation)
shirozina wrote:
I predict this is going to be the first of many such comparisons which are going to show that there is far less difference between the 5D and 5DII in practical image quality terms than many people hope or expect.
koenrutten wrote:
Wow, is the difference really that small?
"small". Really? You think the difference in the example shown above is small?
This seems significant and quite noticeable to me. There is no way I would consider this difference to be "small". Not sure I would say ir's 250%. ;-)
But I would say that a 25% improvement is anything but "small" and would be easily as noticeable as it is above.
It's 29%. If you found a lens that resolved 29% better than your current one you would cream your pants over it. People expecting to see dramatically different pictures from what a 5D can do at low isos will be disappointed. It's still a good upgrade.
There's no way that the difference is significant - what planet are you on?.Also do you notice the artefacts around some of the highlight detail? In real world printed output and not 100% pixel peeping the differences are likley to be even less . OK I was out by 4% in the resolution whatever that looks like especialy if the above sample represents 29%
Not to sound like a broken record but...subject matter, subject matter and subject matter. The difference will be most noticeable when shooting objects further away from the camera, particularly landscapes with foliage and fine, intricate detail. The differences in the posted example are very noticeable to me when comparing specific areas but if this was a landscape, the difference would probably be day and night.
shirozina wrote:
There's no way that the difference is significant - what planet are you on?.Also do you notice the artefacts around some of the highlight detail? In real world printed output and not 100% pixel peeping the differences are likley to be even less . OK I was out by 4% in the resolution whatever that looks like especialy if the above sample represents 29%
Just looking at these images, the difference is significant to me. The 5Dll image is sharper, crisper, cleaner, less fuzzy, and yes, more detailed. The differences are obvious. A different example might show this more clearly for some. But I certainly see it in this example.
Now, let's talk about "real world printed output". If you're only printing images where this won't make a difference, then you don't need 21mp and 12 mp is fine for you and you don't need to upgrade (unless, of course, you would like the other upgraded features). However, what this does allow you to do (obviously) is to print bigger (or crop more) with better quality. And at larger print sizes (say, 16'x20") you will see a difference. Large prints are also real world prints. But I'm sure you know this, so i really don't understand where you're coming from.
And I would say Richard is right. If a lens provided 25% or 29% added resolution we would be all over it.
If a 25+% increase in resolution doesn't interest you then don't buy. But I, and I assume tens of thousands of others, welcome the added resolution and can see how it can be a significant benefit.
I can see the difference clearly enough and IMO it's not significant on this image - I respect others opinions as it's a subjective notion and their expectations may differ. In reality though does anyone know with certainty what 25 or 29% more resolution looks like? Sure it's an increase but it's not something we can easily quantify like having a print that's 29% bigger or a bank account that's 29% bigger. All I was realy getting at , and I've said it before, is that there is a phenomenal amount of hype and expectation around this camea and are potential buyers realy aware of exactly what they will be getting? When I moved from an 8mp 20D to a 12.7mp 5D the pixel jump is very nearly equal - yes I did notice a difference but it wasn't what I would describe as 'significant'. Maybe I would call that like looking at the difference between a 33 or 39mp MF digital image and a 12-16mp DSLR one.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Not to sound like a broken record but...subject matter, subject matter and subject matter. The difference will be most noticeable when shooting objects further away from the camera, particularly landscapes with foliage and fine, intricate detail. The differences in the posted example are very noticeable to me when comparing specific areas but if this was a landscape, the difference would probably be day and night.
Yes, and with fine detail the difference is more obvious in print. I would say the difference between these two is large. But focus isn't exactly the same.
With landscapes, there's a huge difference between printing an image with a camera resolution of 280ppi vs. 240ppi. For people not making medium to large prints, of the increased resolution doesn't matter.
But we seem to have reached a plateau. The difference between the images of the 20+mp cameras at lower iso is so small it's hardly worth discussing. And for people not printing beyond 11 x 17, there's little image quality reason to upgrade beyond 12mp cameras.
I would upgrade from the 5D for the LCD alone. I can focus with tilt in the field with the better lcd.
The biggest improvement for me is the AF improvement in the new camera. It is vastly more accurate than the piece of crap they had in the original 5D.
Oh yeah the image quality is much better specially at higher asa.
It's not all good news though. One of my two 5D 2's is DOA.
joeisayo wrote:
It's not all good news though. One of my two 5D 2's is DOA.
There seems to be quite a bit of teething problems with the new camera. You would think Canon would have gotten the 5DII roll out right given the combination of high expectations and recent blunders.
I'd say the focus is different enough to make this comparison meaningless.
)