p.2 #1 · 7d vs 5D mkII vs RAW development variation
Well, I'm going to be slightly evil : The 5D II *is* perfect for portraits It's not so much an increase in sharpness or anything like that. It's that some focal lengths are magnificent on a full frame while being mediocre on a crop body. The 135mm f/2L or the 85 mm f/1.2L (or the 1.8 version for that matter) are lenses that are just OK on a 7D but become amazing on a FF camera. It is a question of increased FOV or relative DOF that makes that difference.
Mar 28, 2010 at 04:27 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.2 #2 · 7d vs 5D mkII vs RAW development variation
>DPreview uses the default settings for DPP.
...
How dare they doing such useless reviews..
Yes - I agree. I have been critical of DPR's broken methods for years.
>And the digital picture? You know with all those great ISO charts that people use when choosing their glass. Default DPP settings with only the sharpness slider turned down a notch. Truly useless, right?
Not really, no. TDP offers tests of different lenses on the same camera via the same conversion process. That enables reasonably informative assessments of COMPARATIVE lens performance.
>The hypothesis being tested is that the process RAW development has a greater impact on image quality than sensor size has.
That hypothesis is trivially true and hardly needs demonstrating. Any one of us can use raw conversion controls to produce a better image from a 10D than from a D3x. All that tells us is that conversion software can be misused. I accept that you have demonstrated that.
p.2 #3 · 7d vs 5D mkII vs RAW development variation
brainiac wrote:
Yes - I agree. I have been critical of DPR's broken methods for years.
Well, that is your prerogative but it does also disqualify your statements about what constitutes useful information. I have no data on this, but it would hardly be a stretch to assume that most people here do find DPR:s reviews useful.
Not really, no. TDP offers tests of different lenses on the same camera via the same conversion process. That enables reasonably informative assessments of COMPARATIVE lens performance.
Comparative performance of lenses using a slightly modified default profile, yes. You can't have it both ways. If default profiles are useless indicators of real world results, then it will apply to TDP processing as well as mine. If you want similar processing as TDP, look at the center column of my results, labeled "DPP".
Let me put it in a different way: If TDP instead of just using the DPP default profile (with sharpness turned down) presented results that included results processed with LR and DxO default profiles, would you consider the reviews less useful?
That hypothesis is trivially true and hardly needs demonstrating. Any one of us can use raw conversion controls to produce a better image from a 10D than from a D3x. All that tells us is that conversion software can be misused. I accept that you have demonstrated that.
Using standard settings can hardly be called misuse. If I had done some extreme RAW transformations then yes, but the default profiles are conservative in nature and do not involve what could be considered radical effects.
I think your criticism here stems from the fact that you misunderstood my intention with the test. It was probably my fault that I was not more clear in my original post. It's a comparison of cameras and the RAW development comparisons are there to show that even when using conservative default settings you will get differences in results that are larger than the differences between the cameras. Had I not added the Lightroom and DxO results then you would have most likely not have objected. That information still exists in the test. If you are offended by the Lightroom and DxO transformations then just look at the DPP results. It's after all nearly identical to the processing that TDP uses and which you approve of.
Mar 28, 2010 at 05:33 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.2 #4 · 7d vs 5D mkII vs RAW development variation
OK - understood. The problem is that around here people get quite worked up about raw convertor superiority, so presenting comparisons of different convertors in this way is bound to lead to... ahem... discussion.
p.2 #5 · 7d vs 5D mkII vs RAW development variation
Paul Gardner wrote:
Thanks for the test Denoir, and I agree with your approach. When processing a large amount of images I also want a default batch setting to start my selection with. After pulling out the images I wish to PP I can than do the tweaks on them.
Paul
Yes, but those default setting for your batch DO NOT have to be the defaults that came with the software. You can change the defaults to whatever you like. For example, you can turn off noise reduction, set this as your default and from then on, you will process images with noise reduction off. Just using the defaults right out of the package does nothing for me.
p.2 #6 · 7d vs 5D mkII vs RAW development variation
brainiac wrote:
OK - understood. The problem is that around here people get quite worked up about raw convertor superiority, so presenting comparisons of different convertors in this way is bound to lead to... ahem... discussion.
Clearly you are right about that. I thought the FF vs crop results would be controversial not the RAW processing
I did however mess up the presentation. Originally I just intended to do a 7D vs 5DmkII test using LR for RAW conversion and post it in the "testing 7d, not happy thread". Then I got the idea to expand the test and try a couple of different tools for the RAW conversion. I did however not make it sufficiently clear that the focus was on the cameras not on the RAW conversion. I meant in no way imply that one converter was better than another (I too have my opinions on that, but I'll shut up about that for now ). I hope that by renaming the thread and by adding some clarifications in the text I have now made my intentions clearer.
p.2 #8 · 7d vs 5D mkII vs RAW development variation
Hey I'm not going to dis Denoir for his effort, but personally the idea of using defaults sends a shiver down my spine. I know ACR/LR2 defaults are crap and IMO one of the reasons they get bad press. I'm sure many people might use defaults at first but after a while they'll start to experiment, listen to what others have to say and move away from the defaults.
Using the defaults is like comparing a Ferrari and Corolla and just driving them to the shop and back while gently accelerating and braking, taking corners at a sedate pace etc and then concluding the Corolla is a just as good a car since it can do everything the Ferrari can but is much quieter and uses less fuel.
p.2 #9 · 7d vs 5D mkII vs RAW development variation
I think many of you are missing the point....The OP said "The reason why default settings were used are very simple: I'm testing the performance of FF vs crop sensor size, not RAW development software."
Presumably, when you compare an image from a 5D using default values to an image from a 7D using default values, the only difference you will see is attributable to the camera, not the software. It is that difference that the OP was looking for.
p.2 #10 · 7d vs 5D mkII vs RAW development variation
I'm sorry but you use the settings that enable the best results from your camera. A good setting for the 5D II is not necessarily a good setting for a 7D. If you are going to use defaults why even worry about what camera you use. With those settings a 300D will stand up against a 7D.
p.2 #11 · 7d vs 5D mkII vs RAW development variation
The default settings are not the same for the 7D and the 5D MkII. In all three programs the RAW development has been optimized for the specific cameras.
If you are going to use defaults why even worry about what camera you use. With those settings a 300D will stand up against a 7D.
It definitely won't. As I said, dpreview uses the default settings and the digital picture (the ISO charts that are universally so admired) used the default profile with some sharpness turned down. If you are not willing to accept default profiles, especially the DPP default profile then you can't accept any of the popular camera tests and reviews. Using the default profile is a standard method applied universally by camera testers. And that is for obvious reasons. How objective would the tests be if you custom tweaked the RAW conversion process? Using the defaults removes any reviewer bias or incompetence.
But again, you are reading the results incorrectly. The assumption is not that different RAW developers should produce similar results. When you compare the results you should be looking at the same RAW developer for the two cameras at different ISO:s. So you would compare ACR for the 7D and the 5D2 and then you would look at the DPP series etc
p.2 #12 · 7d vs 5D mkII vs RAW development variation
brainiac wrote:
I also wonder whether f8 is the best aperture to test 7D resolution potential. F5.6 would be safer from a diffraction point of view.
+1. Every test with any lens I've tried on the 7D shows diffraction softening at f/8 compared to 5.6. I've also found that enabling the color blur and CA filters in DPP can improve sharpness with certain profiled lenses. (The 7D is hell on lenses.)
p.2 #13 · 7d vs 5D mkII vs RAW development variation
denoir wrote: And now, please, before commenting on the use of default settings in the RAW developers, please keep in mind that this is not a test of various RAW developers. The hypothesis being tested is that the process RAW development has a greater impact on image quality than sensor size has.
Edit: Added the bold part, changed title etc. So many have completely missed the point of this test that I needed to clarify things.
Denoir, I think perhaps if you had pivoted your data and presented the 5D2 and 7D results side by side in a separate box for each RAW processor, people would have gotten your point more easily. As it is, your presentation format suggests that people should be looking for differences in the RAW processing for each camera, rather than differences between the cameras for each RAW processor.
p.2 #14 · 7d vs 5D mkII vs RAW development variation
denoir wrote:
The default settings are not the same for the 7D and the 5D MkII. In all three programs the RAW development has been optimized for the specific cameras.
It definitely won't. As I said, dpreview uses the default settings and the digital picture (the ISO charts that are universally so admired) used the default profile with some sharpness turned down. If you are not willing to accept default profiles, especially the DPP default profile then you can't accept any of the popular camera tests and reviews. Using the default profile is a standard method applied universally by camera testers. And that is for obvious reasons. How objective would the tests be if you custom tweaked the RAW conversion process? Using the defaults removes any reviewer bias or incompetence.
But again, you are reading the results incorrectly. The assumption is not that different RAW developers should produce similar results. When you compare the results you should be looking at the same RAW developer for the two cameras at different ISO:s. So you would compare ACR for the 7D and the 5D2 and then you would look at the DPP series etc...Show more →
Fair enough, but you would normally present the defaults as a baseline and then go from there.
p.2 #15 · 7d vs 5D mkII vs RAW development variation
garyvot wrote:
Denoir, I think perhaps if you had pivoted your data and presented the 5D2 and 7D results side by side in a separate box for each RAW processor, people would have gotten your point more easily. As it is, your presentation format suggests that people should be looking for differences in the RAW processing for each camera, rather than differences between the cameras for each RAW processor.
Given the number objections my presentation has raised, I suspect you are right.
Mar 29, 2010 at 01:28 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.2 #16 · 7d vs 5D mkII vs RAW development variation
denoir wrote:
The default settings are not the same for the 7D and the 5D MkII. In all three programs the RAW development has been optimized for the specific cameras.
It definitely won't. As I said, dpreview uses the default settings and the digital picture (the ISO charts that are universally so admired) used the default profile with some sharpness turned down. If you are not willing to accept default profiles, especially the DPP default profile then you can't accept any of the popular camera tests and reviews.
DPR and DxO do noise comparison between cameras at different magnification, which makes their noise tests totally and utterly broken. The fact that so many people read and believe that crap probably causes a distortion in the market. Don't mistake page hits for rigour. The way DPR presents noise data ought to be illegal. It would be illegal in a manufacturer's advertisement, so please don't hold them up as some kind of example of how to assess cameras. They lack the scientific general knowledge to do their job with integrity. The only way to fairly compare cameras is to process their results as you would in real use. That means with the best settings that you would have time to apply, and by taking the same picture and always viewing both versions at equal image size (i.e. uprez the smaller one). DPR's contrary approach is a farce which generates quantifiable error.
> Using the default profile is a standard method applied universally by camera testers. And that is for obvious reasons.
One law for the lion and ox is oppression. The default profile is not a standard method as far as I'm aware. If I'm wrong, please point me to the manufacturer-independent and reviewer-independent published standard.
How objective would the tests be if you custom tweaked the RAW conversion process? Using the defaults removes any reviewer bias or incompetence.
Honestly, the defaults suit some cameras better than others, and tweaking them improves some cameras more than others. It's simply wrong to assume that there is any value in software producers' off-the-shelf defaults. To properly compare cameras one should do the best conversions one can, regardless of the defaults, AND try to match the results as closely as possible.
p.2 #19 · 7d vs 5D mkII vs RAW development variation
chez wrote:
Nice job of the test, but who would use any of these with default setting?
Very true. If you use default settings you might as well shoot JPEGs and save yourself the extra steps. The main reason to shoot RAW is so you can diddle the settings to taste and purpose, improving greatly on defaults.
p.2 #20 · 7d vs 5D mkII vs RAW development variation
The OP has, inadvertently, introduced rather than eliminated or "controlled for" may variables. This has stimulated a wide ranging and uncoordinated discussion of RAW converters among other things.
I would now essay to make a "Flameable" (IMHO) statement. I have owned and used various crop cameras and compared results thru the entire PP and printing process for 10s of 1000s of images. Invariably I find that when, comparing crop to FF, there is always less "THERE" there. Not surprising since since a 1.6x crop is approx 39% of FF.
So my conclusion is that crop sensors are useful when you are budget or pixel density limited. So I, presently, own 3 FF sensored DSLRs (Nikon & Canon) and a D40 that lives in my car trunk-a cheap just in case. Essentially a whim since I my S90 is my handicam and the FFs for most anything else.
It's not so much an increase in sharpness or anything like that. It's that some focal lengths are magnificent on a full frame while being mediocre on a crop body. The 135mm f/2L or the 85 mm f/1.2L (or the 1.8 version for that matter) are lenses that are just OK on a 7D but become amazing on a FF camera. It is a question of increased FOV or relative DOF that makes that difference. 