mikeengles wrote:
because the software we use is optimised for 100% viewing.
I have no idea what this means.
mikeengles wrote:
In my opinion one can only truly assess an image at 100%.
There is no magic to all of this, it is a scientific process and we should always try to be objective, try not to fool ourselves and in the process others.
Mike Engles
While my interest is to assess image quality at the image level, I have no problem with those who want to look at images at 100%, but comparing image quality of different cameras needs to be done in a valid and meaningful way. And what you fail to show any willingness to do is to do that assessment in a valid way.
If you want to compare the ability of the 7D, for example, to that of the 5D Mark III in focal length-limited situations, comparing 100% crops from both cameras is totally meaningless. The only meaningful comparison is to take the 5D Mark III image, crop it to the field of view of the 7D, and then upscale it to the 18 mp of the 7D. At that point, and only at that point, does comparing the two images at 100% become valid and meaningful. And well-controlled tests done by many over and over again show that, when this kind of comparison is done, the 7D image will show more detail than the cropped and upscaled 5D Mark III image, and noise will become a virtual wash.
And that is the very \"scientific process\" that you call for but that you continue to reject repeatedly.
mikeengles wrote:
I have found in all the threads about cameras and their qualities in this and other forums, that there seems to be a shocking lack of objectivity. For any prospective buyer of a camera, it is pretty useless to show a 18mp image downsized to 1mp. Almost anything will look good and the result is a completely misleading to such a person.
Considering the fact that most of those posting in this thread have and use, not only the 7D, but also a 1D Mark IV and/or a 5D Mark II or 5D Mark III, or so some other camera, I find it hard to believe that there would be any cause/motivation for lack of objectivity. In my case, I appreciate the strengths of both my 7D and my 1D Mark IV, but I also recognize that each one can be a better tool for getting the job done depending on the situation at hand. And I would be making the case just as vigorously against someone who tried to argue that the 1D Mark IV does not have advantages over the 7D in many situations.
And, frankly, with regard to lack of objectivity, I think that we may well have a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I would have to look for quite a while before I saw a better example of someone with a \"my mind is closed, and I will not be confused with the facts\" mindset.
mikeengles wrote:
That is in essence the purpose of such a forum. We all wish to show the capabilities of our chosen equipment and our own prowess in using them and impress others including prospective buyers. We should not be misleading or to put it more strongly dishonest.
Finally, I take offense with the notion that others are somehow being misleading or dishonest.
Les
Sep 02, 2012 at 09:22 AM
Previous versions of uz2work's message #10928849 « How noisy is your 7D? »
