veroman wrote:
It doesn't? Seems to me it contains the sort of fine detail that would be a good test for ANY camera and lens combo. Unfortunately, I agree with others who do not think your photo is a "best example" of the resolving power of the 5D II. Since my Nikon D2x and Canon 1Ds II can resolve better than what you're showing here, I'm not sure why the resolution in your shot isn't fully representative. That said, it will still probably make an outstanding print of good size.
But don't forget to uprez this crop in the linear ratio 5616/4272 before comparing, otherwise you are comparing sharpness at different magnifications, which is thoroughly misleading.
brainiac wrote:
But don't forget to uprez this crop in the linear ratio 5616/4272 before comparing, otherwise you are comparing sharpness at different magnifications, which is thoroughly misleading.
Yes, it's different magnifications. But I don't think it's "thoroughly misleading." Maybe a bit misleading, but even "misleading" isn't really accurate. What I'm showing is the resolving power of two different cameras, not the resolving power of the 5D II VERSUS the xsi.
You're somewhat right in suggesting that the xsi file size be increased to a true 5616/4272 in order to be absolutely fair and make things a level playing field. But what would that prove? That the 5D II has higher resolution than the xsi? We already know that. What we don't know is why the representative sample from his 5D II doesn't look as sharp as my sample from the xsi, when indeed it should look even better.
veroman wrote:
What we don't know is why the representative sample from his 5D II doesn't look as sharp as my sample from the xsi, when indeed it should look even better.
Different light, different lenses (?), different AA filter/sensor (?), different technique (?), different PP
I would call 31% misleading 'thoroughly'. If you tested a lens which had been dropped and had lost 31% of its sharpness that would be a thoroughly misleading test. If you want to compare image sharpness between two cameras, you need to ensure that any crops are viewed at equivalent magnification.
And it most certainly will I can promise you that! The lighting conditions are completely different. You are comparing a highly magnified image shot in very good light with a macro lens vs a scenic night shot in dim tungsten or fluorescent lighting. The contrast alone was extremely difficult for the camera to handle.
veroman wrote:
What we don't know is why the representative sample from his 5D II doesn't look as sharp as my sample from the xsi, when indeed it should look even better.
- Steve
Jan 07, 2009 at 01:53 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
veroman wrote:
You're somewhat right in suggesting that the xsi file size be increased to a true 5616/4272 in order to be absolutely fair and make things a level playing field. But what would that prove? That the 5D II has higher resolution than the xsi?
- Steve
IMO, I think it also proves that your comparison with the Xsi isn't really relevant and is taking the thread off on a tangent.
brainiac wrote:
I would call 31% misleading 'thoroughly'. If you tested a lens which had been dropped and had lost 31% of its sharpness that would be a thoroughly misleading test. If you want to compare image sharpness between two cameras, you need to ensure that any crops are viewed at equivalent magnification.
Since when is resolution an indication of sharpness?
Daan B wrote:
Different light, different lenses (?), different AA filter/sensor (?), different technique (?), different PP
How about going out there and just shoot? This thing will never end since everyone has a different taste and different style. We can't really compare unless there's a 100 of us at a get together and shooting at the SAME place & the SAME spot(get my drift?)
brainiac wrote:
Apologies. Substitute resolving power for sharpness. You knew what I meant.
Not really. You talked about lens sharpness deteriorating, then image sharpness between two cameras. I really thought you were equating resolution with sharpness. No matter. I know what you're ultimately suggesting. Besides, time to move on. There's no end to these kinds of threads.
Thanks for that PP. You pointed that out before, and I was looking for it the other day and couldn't find it. Looks like a fairly made test, except, perhaps for lens discrepancy and iso non-equivalence, which are probably fairly minor variations.
It is extraordinary that there is no difference for detail between 1Ds3, 5D2, D3x and a900. Even more extraordinary is that for high iso performance they are all about the same too, and you can include the D3 and D700 in that. Perhaps we really are beginning to see the physical limit of what is possible with current technology.
I'm losing what little I have of mind as I have no recollection of ever posting that link
I told my father-in-law that really there are no bad DSLRs these days the quality of results is limited by the photographer. I'd be happy with any of those megapixel monsters, even the butt ugly Sony.
however do note that at such high pixel density, alot of lenses, even canon's L lenses, would already be the limiting factor in terms of resolution, esp at wide open. Eg will be 24-105F4L. Thats why i am using my full range of Leica Primes more than L lenses on the 5D2.
I also did side by side comparisons and its certain for sure that at 100%, the 5D2 image quality is inferior to that of the 5D1. but for almost double the pixel count, its already better than i had expected. the image quality for 5D2 also deteriorates rapidly with ISO increases.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I told my father-in-law that really there are no bad DSLRs these days the quality of results is limited by the photographer. I'd be happy with any of those megapixel monsters, even the butt ugly Sony.
Hasn't this always been so? I recently revisited some old 10D RAW files and processed them with my recent versions of software. I even uprezzed two or three of them to about 11MP or so. I was amazed at the sharpness and level of detail exhibited in some of these shots, almost indistinguishable from a 1Ds or even a slightly downsized 5D image.
Aside from better noise control at higher ISOs, the ability to print big at native resolutions, and feature sets that sometimes can make a difference to the final outcome, IQ-wise I'm not so sure we've come all that far with the latest cameras. I think the laws of diminishing returns began to set in with cameras like the 5D Mark I and the Nikon D2x.
XC Pictorial wrote:
I also did side by side comparisons and its certain for sure that at 100%, the 5D2 image quality is inferior to that of the 5D1
I thought so too. I stayed with my 5D and my 1Ds II. I feel no need for a new DSLR, perhaps never will again. My old Minolta and Pentax film cameras lasted me more than 30 years.
brainiac wrote:
Thanks for that PP. You pointed that out before, and I was looking for it the other day and couldn't find it. Looks like a fairly made test, except, perhaps for lens discrepancy and iso non-equivalence, which are probably fairly minor variations.
It is extraordinary that there is no difference for detail between 1Ds3, 5D2, D3x and a900. Even more extraordinary is that for high iso performance they are all about the same too, and you can include the D3 and D700 in that. Perhaps we really are beginning to see the physical limit of what is possible with current technology.
I remember similar comparisons and comments being made about the 1Ds II and the Nikon D2x, with the Canon being the better for noise control and the D2x better for resolving detail. Other than those distinctions, popular opinion was that these two cameras were very close in performance (but, as always, worlds apart in handling).
And yet, when curiosity got the best of me and I finally purchased a D2x and shot with it extensively ... using some of Nikon's best glass ... I found its files to be EMOTIONALLY as different from the Canon 1Ds II as a Porsch is from a Mazda Miata. I thought that these two cameras delivered entirely different notions of what a photograph is supposed to look like, with the D2x rendering a somewhat colder, more finely tuned image than the Canon. The Canon images were consistently warmer, but not as delineated as the D2x.
I could on and on about the differences I found. The point is, I'm hard pressed to accept that the 1Ds III, D3x, 5D II and a900 are all that close in their rendering styles when it comes to real-world shooting, ie shooting subjects of real value for a month or so and not just snapping off a quick series of test subjects for pixel peeping. These companies have very different philosophies about photography, particularly Canon and Nikon. I've never shot with a Sony DSLR, so I have no idea what the EMOTIONAL aspect is of their cameras. I do know that the cooler, more clinical rendering of the Nikon turned me off after a time, so I sold it. I've grown very comfortable with the warmer and somewhat more natural look of the Canons. This has nothing to do with pixel peeping or high ISO tests or 100% crops. This has to do with working with their cameras for a time and discovering that Canon's particular set of compromises is the one I like best. I imagine that, for someone else, it's Nikon's compromises or Sony's.
One thing is certain in my mind and in my experience: these cameras are as different emotionally as they are alike technically.
veroman wrote:
I thought so too. I stayed with my 5D and my 1Ds II. I feel no need for a new DSLR, perhaps never will again. My old Minolta and Pentax film cameras lasted me more than 30 years.
- Steve
No way bro.
the sole reasons engineers, marketing ppl at canon/nikon etc are being paid? its to create more ways to make you part with your precious bucks...
