Following discussions in a couple of threads I decided to do a couple of tests to compare the difference between 7D and 5D MkII compared to the variation that you get when you use different RAW developers .
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.
I found the results interesting so I thought I\'d share them.
Set up, subject
I used the 70-200 f/2.8 MkII lens as it has very high optical quality across the zoom range and it allowed me to compensate for the 1.6x crop factor of the 7D. The lens was mounted on a heavy and very steady video tripod (Manfrotto 535 CF + 503HDV head). A cable release and mirror lock down was used:
For subject I selected a building that I can see from my balcony. The distance is 190m. Apart from convenience the subject was chosen because it had a nice dynamic range with both highlights and shadows, detailed texture and sharp straight lines and edges. The sky was overcast so the light was very flat and even.
This is what the full scene looked like (with the crop subject marked):
The tests were done at 200mm f/8 for the 5D MkII and at 125mm f/8 for the 7D. Manual mode, with two different ISOs (100 and 3200). The shutter speed was 1/50s and 1/1600s). Single point auto focus with 10x magnified live view verification was used to guarantee that the subject was not out of focus. All was shot RAW.
RAW processing
I processed the RAW files in Adobe Lightroom 3 Beta 2 (LRb3), Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP) and DxO Optics Pro 6 (DxO). Default settings were used in all instances with no manual modifications. The files were saved to JPG highest quality and then cropped in Photoshop. The difference in size of the crops is due to the 22 Mpixel of the 5D MkII vs the 18 Mpixel of the 7D. So keep in mind that these are 100% crops and we\'re comparing by pixel and not how good it will look resized for screen use or printed on equally sized media.
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. The choice of three different procedures give us an idea of how sensitive the quality is by changes in that variable. Default settings were chosen as the operating point for the software used as it is guaranteed not to be biased by me manually changing any settings. This is not something unique digital photo review uses default settings in DPP as well.
Results
Follow up tests
I did some prints on my Canon IPR5200R printer which is a high end consumer inkjet. The prints were on good quality semi matte paper. The difference in color between the 5D and the 7D is obvious on the prints but not much more than that. If you look really closely at some details you can see that the 5D has slightly higher contrast - but you really need a to look very closely. I could not spot any difference in sharpness even when using a magnifying glass. I\'ll do some printouts later on very high quality glossy paper and see if it makes a difference, but I doubt it will.
The difference between the RAW processors on the other hand are plain to see on paper in the ISO 3200 case where both DPP and DxO kill off all detail with too heavy noise reduction.
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.
Following discussions in a couple of threads I decided to do a couple of tests to compare the difference between 7D and 5D MkII compared to the variation that you get when you use different RAW developers .
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.
I found the results interesting so I thought I\'d share them.
Set up, subject
I used the 70-200 f/2.8 MkII lens as it has very high optical quality across the zoom range and it allowed me to compensate for the 1.6x crop factor of the 7D. The lens was mounted on a heavy and very steady video tripod (Manfrotto 535 CF + 503HDV head). A cable release and mirror lock down was used:
For subject I selected a building that I can see from my balcony. The distance is 190m. Apart from convenience the subject was chosen because it had a nice dynamic range with both highlights and shadows, detailed texture and sharp straight lines and edges. The sky was overcast so the light was very flat and even.
This is what the full scene looked like (with the crop subject marked):
The tests were done at 200mm f/8 for the 5D MkII and at 125mm f/8 for the 7D. Manual mode, with two different ISOs (100 and 3200). The shutter speed was 1/50s and 1/1600s). Single point auto focus with 10x magnified live view verification was used to guarantee that the subject was not out of focus. All was shot RAW.
RAW processing
I processed the RAW files in Adobe Lightroom 3 Beta 2 (LRb3), Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP) and DxO Optics Pro 6 (DxO). Default settings were used in all instances with no manual modifications. The files were saved to JPG highest quality and then cropped in Photoshop. The difference in size of the crops is due to the 22 Mpixel of the 5D MkII vs the 18 Mpixel of the 7D. So keep in mind that these are 100% crops and we\'re comparing by pixel and not how good it will look resized for screen use or printed on equally sized media.
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. The choice of three different procedures give us an idea of how sensitive the quality is by changes in that variable. Default settings were chosen as the operating point for the software used as it is guaranteed not to be biased by me manually changing any settings.
Results
Follow up tests
I did some prints on my Canon IPR5200R printer which is a high end consumer inkjet. The prints were on good quality semi matte paper. The difference in color between the 5D and the 7D is obvious on the prints but not much more than that. If you look really closely at some details you can see that the 5D has slightly higher contrast - but you really need a to look very closely. I could not spot any difference in sharpness even when using a magnifying glass. I\'ll do some printouts later on very high quality glossy paper and see if it makes a difference, but I doubt it will.
The difference between the RAW processors on the other hand are plain to see on paper in the ISO 3200 case where both DPP and DxO kill off all detail with too heavy noise reduction.
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.
Following discussions in a couple of threads I decided to do a couple of tests to compare different RAW processors and the results one can get from a 7D and a 5D MkII. I found the results interesting so I thought I\'d share them.
Set up, subject
I used the 70-200 f/2.8 MkII lens as it has very high optical quality across the zoom range and it allowed me to compensate for the 1.6x crop factor of the 7D. The lens was mounted on a heavy and very steady video tripod (Manfrotto 535 CF + 503HDV head). A cable release and mirror lock down was used:
For subject I selected a building that I can see from my balcony. The distance is 190m. Apart from convenience the subject was chosen because it had a nice dynamic range with both highlights and shadows, detailed texture and sharp straight lines and edges. The sky was overcast so the light was very flat and even.
This is what the full scene looked like (with the crop subject marked):
The tests were done at 200mm f/8 for the 5D MkII and at 125mm f/8 for the 7D. Manual mode, with two different ISOs (100 and 3200). The shutter speed was 1/50s and 1/1600s). Single point auto focus with 10x magnified live view verification was used to guarantee that the subject was not out of focus. All was shot RAW.
RAW processing
I processed the RAW files in Adobe Lightroom 3 Beta 2 (LRb3), Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP) and DxO Optics Pro 6 (DxO). Default settings were used in all instances with no manual modifications. The files were saved to JPG highest quality and then cropped in Photoshop. The difference in size of the crops is due to the 22 Mpixel of the 5D MkII vs the 18 Mpixel of the 7D. So keep in mind that these are 100% crops and we\'re comparing by pixel and not how good it will look resized for screen use or printed on equally sized media.
Results
Follow up tests
I did some prints on my Canon IPR5200R printer which is a high end consumer inkjet. The prints were on good quality semi matte paper. The difference in color between the 5D and the 7D is obvious on the prints but not much more than that. If you look really closely at some details you can see that the 5D has slightly higher contrast - but you really need a to look very closely. I could not spot any difference in sharpness even when using a magnifying glass. I\'ll do some printouts later on very high quality glossy paper and see if it makes a difference, but I doubt it will.
The difference between the RAW processors on the other hand are plain to see on paper in the ISO 3200 case where both DPP and DxO kill off all detail with too heavy noise reduction.
Following discussions in a couple of threads I decided to do a couple of tests to compare different RAW processors and the results one can get from a 7D and a 5D MkII. I found the results interesting so I thought I\'d share them.
Set up, subject
I used the 70-200 f/2.8 MkII lens as it has very high optical quality across the zoom range and it allowed me to compensate for the 1.6x crop factor of the 7D. The lens was mounted on a heavy and very steady video tripod (Manfrotto 535 CF + 503HDV head). A cable release and mirror lock down was used:
For subject I selected a building that I can see from my balcony. The distance is 190m. Apart from convenience the subject was chosen because it had a nice dynamic range with both highlights and shadows, detailed texture and sharp straight lines and edges. The sky was overcast so the light was very flat and even.
This is what the full scene looked like (with the crop subject marked):
The tests were done at 200mm f/8 for the 5D MkII and at 125mm f/8 for the 7D. Manual mode, with two different ISOs (100 and 3200). The shutter speed was 1/50s and 1/1600s). Single point auto focus with 10x magnified live view verification was used to guarantee that the subject was not out of focus. All was shot RAW.
RAW processing
I processed the RAW files in Adobe Lightroom 3 Beta 2 (LRb3), Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP) and DxO Optics Pro 6 (DxO). Default settings were used in all instances with no manual modifications. The files were saved to JPG highest quality and then cropped in Photoshop. The difference in size of the crops is due to the 22 Mpixel of the 5D MkII vs the 18 Mpixel of the 7D. So keep in mind that these are 100% crops and we\'re comparing by pixel and not how good it will look resized for screen use or printed on equally sized media.
Results
Follow up tests
I did some prints on my Canon IPR5200R printer which is a high end consumer inkjet. The prints were on good quality semi matte paper. The difference in color between the 5D and the 7D is obvious on the prints but not much more than that. If you look really closely at some details you can see that the 5D has slightly higher contrast - but you really need a to look very closely. I could not spot any difference in sharpness even when using a magnifying glass. I\'ll do some printouts later on very high quality glossy paper and see if it makes a difference, but I doubt it will.
The difference between the RAW processors on the other hand are plain to see on paper in the ISO 3200 case where both DPP and DxO kill off all detail with too heavy noise reduction.
Mar 28, 2010 at 08:12 AM
Previous versions of denoir's message #8293526 « 7d vs 5D mkII vs RAW development variation »
