1DS3 vs 5D CoC shootout in MFDB forum

[dwdallam]

I think it's generally accurate to say that the larger the sensor compared to the pixel density the better the camera will resolve, such as comparing the 1D to the 1DS.

So, the question remains: If you had to shoot products in the studio and wanted the best DoF you could get with the best detail, would you use either a 5D or a 1DS3 (given a print size of no more than 12 x 18 or for web usage)? I don't have any other cameras so those options are irrelevant for my practical purposes.

There is something more to this also, unless I'm wrong, but when you shoot a 2D subject parallel to the film plane, such as a currency note or flat laser printed text page, perhaps that is not as telling as it might be.

Could a lower MP camera perhaps have less detail in the areas further away from the focal point when shooting something like a ruler from near to far--you would have the ruler at one inch towards the lens and the other end facing away from the lens, with the HF point at the 12" mark on a 3' yard stick?

[Ray]

Could a lower MP camera perhaps have less detail in the areas further away from the focal point when shooting something like a ruler from near to far--you would have the ruler at one inch towards the lens and the other end facing away from the lens, with the HF point at the 12" mark on a 3' yard stick?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207233\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think the indications are that the lower MP camera will have less detail at the plane of focus but closer to the same amount of detail away from the plane of focus. Reducing resolution at the plane of focus will have the effect of increasing the perception of DoF if the print is sufficiently large, but I don't think that's a good idea.

I'm very pleased that a camera such as the 24mp A900 is likely to provide at least some improvement in detail at F16 because I use F16 quite a lot. What I intend to examine now is the possibility that my simulated 26mp full frame DSLR at F22 might be close enough in resolution to the 5D at F16 whilst providing the increased DoF that one expects from F22.

[Mark D Segal]

Having looked at a few more tests at various apertures, it's clear the 26mp sensor provides a substantial improvement in detail at F8, as expected, compared with the upressed 5D crop at F8.

At F22, I have to admit that, even after applying a bit of additional sharpening to the interpolated 5D image, the 40D image looks better, slightly finer grained and perhaps even has a greater 3D effect, although I'm still doubtful if such subtleties would be noticed in a normal size print of, say, 22"x33".

A 100% crop of a 26mp image on this laptop represents a print size of about 5 feet by 3 1/2 feet.

Here's the F8 comparison, followed by the F22 comparison with the interpolated 5D crop sharpened 100% at pixel radius 0.8.

[attachment=7412:attachment]  [attachment=7413:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207219\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, this set of results is VERY interesting - and also much as one would expect. Both images are clearly sharper at f/8 than at f/22, indicating once again that the theory about diffraction has a practical impact, and at least in the f/8 example, one clearly sees as you say that the 40D outresolves the 5D. However, in the f/22 comparison, it is much harder to see this difference because it is smothered by the diffraction hit in both cases.

PS. The up-rezzing of the 5D crop is an additional factor that may be contributing to its relative unsharpness. Can you judge what the uprezzing may be doing?

[Mark D Segal]

I think it's generally accurate to say that the larger the sensor compared to the pixel density the better the camera will resolve, such as comparing the 1D to the 1DS.

So, the question remains: If you had to shoot products in the studio and wanted the best DoF you could get with the best detail, would you use either a 5D or a 1DS3 (given a print size of no more than 12 x 18 or for web usage)? I don't have any other cameras so those options are irrelevant for my practical purposes.

There is something more to this also, unless I'm wrong, but when you shoot a 2D subject parallel to the film plane, such as a currency note or flat laser printed text page, perhaps that is not as telling as it might be.

Could a lower MP camera perhaps have less detail in the areas further away from the focal point when shooting something like a ruler from near to far--you would have the ruler at one inch towards the lens and the other end facing away from the lens, with the HF point at the 12" mark on a 3' yard stick?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207233\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Doug - as both cameras have the same sensor dimensions the lens focal length, aperture and shooting distance will determine the DoF. With aggressive ETTR exposure, all else equal, you should get more detail from the 1Ds3 at apertures in proximity to the optimum for the lens.

[juicy]

Ray I hope you don't mind that I modified your images a little
[attachment=7417:attachment]

Cheers,
J

[ejmartin]

Ray I hope you don't mind that I modified your images a little
[attachment=7417:attachment]

Cheers,
J
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207294\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to conclude here.  All I'm seeing from your modification of the 5D image is an image which continues to have less detail resolution than the 40D image, but now has higher accutance than the one that Ray originally posted.  Sharpness is not detail.

[juicy]

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to conclude here.  All I'm seeing from your modification of the 5D image is an image which continues to have less detail resolution than the 40D image, but now has higher accutance than the one that Ray originally posted.  Sharpness is not detail.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207356\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi,
Nothing has been done to the images themselves except that now it's easier to compare the 5D shots to the 40D shot as both of the 5D images are seen at the same time (on top of each other). Why there's so little difference between the f8 and f22 5D images is a bit weird and actually it seems the f22 is a bit sharper. And as already concluded, the 40D image has a lot more detail. The point being that when comparing these images, 40D @ f22 has more detail than interpolated 5D @ either f8 or f22.

Cheers,
J

[ejmartin]

Hi,
Nothing has been done to the images themselves except that now it's easier to compare the 5D shots to the 40D shot as both of the 5D images are seen at the same time (on top of each other). Why there's so little difference between the f8 and f22 5D images is a bit weird and actually it seems the f22 is a bit sharper. And as already concluded, the 40D image has a lot more detail. The point being that when comparing these images, 40D @ f22 has more detail than interpolated 5D @ either f8 or f22.

Cheers,
J
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207378\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

OK, got it.  I was misinterpreting what you were trying to do, sorry for that.

[juicy]

OK, got it.  I was misinterpreting what you were trying to do, sorry for that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207381\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No prob. I wasn't clear myself. But that actually proved my original point which was that it's really futile to compare images by trying to remember what they look like at this hyper-pixel-peeping level. Side-by-side is the way to go.
Anyway, maybe Ray could give some more details how the images were prepared because as mentioned it's quite weird that there are little difference between the f8 and f22 5D images.

Cheers,
J

[Ray]

Ray, this set of results is VERY interesting - and also much as one would expect. Both images are clearly sharper at f/8 than at f/22, indicating once again that the theory about diffraction has a practical impact, and at least in the f/8 example, one clearly sees as you say that the 40D outresolves the 5D. However, in the f/22 comparison, it is much harder to see this difference because it is smothered by the diffraction hit in both cases.

PS. The up-rezzing of the 5D crop is an additional factor that may be contributing to its relative unsharpness. Can you judge what the uprezzing may be doing?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207259\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark,
I'll have to wait till I get back to base to check out the impact of these subtle differences in a print. I'm no expert on sharpening techniques. I use Focus Magic quite a lot but I don't have that program on my laptop which, with CS3E is proving to have rather inadequate processing power, and as you pointed out, is probably not revealing everything I would see on a desktop monitor. The graphics uses shared memory, for example, and I've noticed when printing from this laptop I get more detail in the highlights on the print than I see on the laptop screen.

Glad you find the results interesting   .

[Ray]

No prob. I wasn't clear myself. But that actually proved my original point which was that it's really futile to compare images by trying to remember what they look like at this hyper-pixel-peeping level. Side-by-side is the way to go.
Anyway, maybe Ray could give some more details how the images were prepared because as mentioned it's quite weird that there are little difference between the f8 and f22 5D images.

Cheers,
J
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207385\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Juicy,
I've always found the 5D to be insignificantly worse at F16 than at F8 for general landscapes. However, shooting a model's sharp eyelashes might reveal more noticeable differences.

As far as I recall, all images were exposed to the same sharpening procedures in ACR, but the 5D at F22 has had additional sharpening after conversion, of 100% at pixel radius 0.8.

ACR sharpening consisted of 50 clarity, 40 sharpening at pixel radius 1 and detail 60.

I should add that I rarely use F22 with the 5D because I do see a loss of detail compared with F8, which is why I decided to give the F22 image a bit of help with additional sharpening which I think is appropriate after significant interpolation.

[Mark D Segal]

Ray, just a point on testing technique - I think there are two ways of handling the sharpening issue: (1) don't do any so you see only and exactly what the combination of lens settings and sensor is telling you - i.e. the "intrinsic, raw quality", or (2) sharpen the way you would for a "real world" print and see what that tells you, because in the "real world" this is what you would do to achieve the image you will sell/live with. I think both of them have their place, because they each answer a different question; therefore it is good to do it each way. Needless to say - when you get back to your studio - I'm impressed by how you are managing to do what you've already been doing from a laptop on a mountainside and posting it all here.

[Nick Rains]

ACR sharpening consisted of 50 clarity, 40 sharpening at pixel radius 1 and detail 60.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207431\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just a point of technique...

There's not much point in using anything less than 100 for detail in these circumstances. Similarly, masking should be 0. For lens and CoC testing why would you want to reduce the detail or mask areas? That would cloud the issues at hand.

BTW and IMHO, I find detail and masking be be essentially useless for any sort of image where full detail is needed, like landscapes. Maybe masking for a noisy high ISO blue sky but reduced detail, I don't think so.

[dwdallam]

Doug - as both cameras have the same sensor dimensions the lens focal length, aperture and shooting distance will determine the DoF. With aggressive ETTR exposure, all else equal, you should get more detail from the 1Ds3 at apertures in proximity to the optimum for the lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207263\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well what I had in mind was using the same lens on both cameras at f16 at the same distance, which is fairly close for a studio shot, and f16 is not optimum for any Canon lens. So something like shooting a ruler front to back at say 4 feet to the focal point on the ruler, or yard stick. At the focal point, I'd expect the 1DS3 to out resolve the 5D, but what about as the DoF decreases from the focal point in each direction?

[Mark D Segal]

Well what I had in mind was using the same lens on both cameras at f16 at the same distance, which is fairly close for a studio shot, and f16 is not optimum for any Canon lens. So something like shooting a ruler front to back at say 4 feet to the focal point on the ruler, or yard stick. At the focal point, I'd expect the 1DS3 to out resolve the 5D, but what about as the DoF decreases from the focal point in each direction?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207514\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You're talking about the comparative resolution of blurred images shot with the same lens, same settings between these two cameras? Have I understood the question? The extent of blur should be identical and I'd be hard-put to imagine visible differences of resolution through the blur between these cameras in the conditions you describe. But why not just test it and see?

[bjanes]

Ray, just a point on testing technique - I think there are two ways of handling the sharpening issue: (1) don't do any so you see only and exactly what the combination of lens settings and sensor is telling you - i.e. the "intrinsic, raw quality", or (2) sharpen the way you would for a "real world" print and see what that tells you, because in the "real world" this is what you would do to achieve the image you will sell/live with. I think both of them have their place, because they each answer a different question; therefore it is good to do it each way. Needless to say - when you get back to your studio - I'm impressed by how you are managing to do what you've already been doing from a laptop on a mountainside and posting it all here.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark makes a good point, which is amplified on by Norman Koren (author of Imatest). If you are using the same camera to measure lens performance, you should not use any sharpening. However, if you are comparing different cameras you have to use sharpening. Otherwise, the camera with the strongest blur filter will be at a disadvantage.

Here is an Imatest plot I made with the D200 and the 50 mm f/1.8 lens at f/5.6 I used autofocus and there may be some focusing error since the maximal MTF is not quite as good as one would expect. The plot shows MTF with and without sharpening. Without sharpening, the MTF falls rapidly with increasing frequency, but with sharpening, the MTF at lower frequencies is improved. At the highest frequencies, the sharpening makes little difference.

[attachment=7426:attachment]

SQF (subjective quality factor) adds information, since the perceived image quality is affected by relatively low frequencies. For example, [a href=\"http://bobatkins.com/photography/technical/mtf/mtf4.html]Bob Atkins[/url] has calculated that for an 8 by 12 inch print made from a 35mm negative and with normal viewing conditions, the most important MTFs on the film are 4-16 lp/mm. For a 16 by 24 inch print, the corresponding MTFs would be 8-32 lp/mm.

This is an Imatest plot for SQF with the D200 and the same conditions.

[attachment=7427:attachment]

Bill

[joedecker]

So, the question remains: If you had to shoot products in the studio and wanted the best DoF you could get with the best detail, would you use either a 5D or a 1DS3 (given a print size of no more than 12 x 18 or for web usage)? I don't have any other cameras so those options are irrelevant for my practical purposes.

You want better DoF and prints only at 12x18, and get to use as much light as you want?

You might seriously consider a Rebel XSi.  No wait, hear me out.

12MP is about as many pixels as the 5D, the bare resolution of the 5D is clearly potentially acceptable to you, the 1.6x crop sensor gives you a better DOF at the same "effective focal length" and aperture, I seem to recall means you get a 1.6x increase in DOF.

Ta da!

[joedecker]

12MP is about as many pixels as the 5D, the bare resolution of the 5D is clearly potentially acceptable to you, the 1.6x crop sensor gives you a better DOF at the same "effective focal length" and aperture, I seem to recall means you get a 1.6x increase in DOF.

Sorry,  this was kind of muddled.

My point was you say you want two things, best resolution in general *and* best DOF.  If the former is good enough with a 5D, its' good enough with a Rebel XSi, and the Rebel XSi leaves you a grand or more to buy a 90 TSe with in addition, *and* a free 1.6x increase in depth of field at the same aperture and effective focal length.

What's not to like?  

--Joe

[ejmartin]

You're talking about the comparative resolution of blurred images shot with the same lens, same settings between these two cameras? Have I understood the question? The extent of blur should be identical and I'd be hard-put to imagine visible differences of resolution through the blur between these cameras in the conditions you describe. But why not just test it and see?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually, I answered this question earlier in the thread, but nobody picked up on it:

[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=26420&view=findpost&p=207216]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....ndpost&p=207216[/url]

(BTW, there is a nice feature to put the FF and APS-C side-by-side for comparison).  Now, the comparison there is between the 40D and 5D, but having these two data points I think one can extrapolate to the in-between pixel size of the 1Ds3.

I also did a similar analysis for Nikon in a DPR thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=28590555

The upshot is that decreasing the pixel pitch increases the resolution, even well into the diffraction-dominated regime; it's just that the resolution gain is rather less than the ratio of pixel pitches.

[Mark D Segal]

Actually, I answered this question earlier in the thread, but nobody picked up on it:

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207683\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Emil, I read your post but I didn't pick up on it in relation to Doug's latest question because he SEEMS (if I understood correctly) to be concerned about the resolution of out-of-focus image areas and this makes me wonder what the point is - seems to me that the resolution at which one sees these out of focus regions is hardly determinative of image quality.