Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Derryck on November 28, 2008, 05:49:09 am
-
I have just converted the original 5DII files in ACR the same as the 1DsIII and P25 files. As has been pointed out already these three shots have slightly different focus so please take this into consideration when comparing the three. I didn't have my afternoon coffee that day.
I have just reshot the scene with both Canon cameras and processed both in DPP. See further down the thread for the results.
Earlier this week I took delivery of the 5DII which I'd purchased as a backup camera for my 1DsIII. Since I have a two week shoot on location in Dec I didn't mind paying a premium to get one of the first released 5DII's. First let me say that this test is flawed because I wasn't able to process all three raw files using the same converter. I still don't have CS4 yet and so couldn't use ACR to convert the 5DII file, I instead had to use DPP which is awful. So please take these comparisons with a grain of salt. I hope to be able to update the 5DII files with ones that have been converted the same as the other cameras in the coming days.
The studio setup was as follows Profoto D4 pack with three Pro Heads, the two side lights shooting through 216 Lee filter and the top light on a superboom lighting the background. Camera's were set to their native iso. 50iso for the P25 and 100iso for the two Canons. I tried as much as possible to match image size, exposure and white balance. All exposures were taken at f11. The Canon images have had a small amount of sharpening applied to make up for the AA filter but apart from that no curves or saturation was applied to any of the files.
Hasselblad 555 ELD body with 150mm CFi lens + Phase P25 DB
Canon 1Ds III with 90mm T/S Lens
Canon 5D II with 90mm T/S Lens
I could have compared these cameras with an Aptus 75s, Leaf Afi 6 and a P45+ but I didn't think that it would have been a fair fight. There's no doubt that the color produced by the P25 was much more accurate and the DR a little better, but I knew that was going to be the case beforehand. I hope to shoot a comparison low light test between the 5DII and 1DsIII in the next day or so.
Cheers,
Derryck.
-
I'm about to pick up a 5D MKII and would like your view on the difference in IQ between it and the 1Ds MKIII especially DR at base ISO
Marc
-
I had to re-upload the files because I forgot to add which camera had taken which image. Fixed now.
-
You shouldn't be comparing different formats at the same aperture. Having equalised the FoV as close as possible, the P25 with a sensor double the area of full frame 35mm, should be stopped down one stop.
-
Ray, you are right, but given the depth of field required for this setup I don't think it matters too much in this case.
-
[attachment=9949:5DII_4_1_.jpg]
[attachment=9950:5DII_4_Sharpen.9.jpg]
[attachment=9951:5DII_4_Sharpen1.3.jpg]
Does the 5DII have a stronger AA filter? or was focus off just a bit compared to the 1Ds III? They seem to sharpen well though (focus fixer @ .9 and 1.3)
Marc
one with a little curves and levels to look at the image potential
[attachment=9952:5DII_4_S...s_levels.jpg]
-
If you asked me, I would say the 1Ds MKIII files are the best all around
-
When I get back to the studio tomorrow I will convert both Canon files with DPP so everyone can see what the 5DII is capable of.
-
If you asked me, I would say the 1Ds MKIII files are the best all around
I'm speculating that it has the best focus
Marc
-
Maybe you can post the raw files.
Where did you get the 5DII? I want to get a 5dII for a project, but i am not sure I can get it in time. I might have to stick to Nikon and get a D700. I would still like to see the 5dII raw files.
Added
I just made 2 calls one said, If I pay now April the other said maybe by feb. It sounds like a D700 for me. I feel like i am looking for a Wii system last year.
-
Seconded on the RAW files, that would be a treat. Then we could all do our own mojo on them and see what's what. They all look to be pretty close, which is interesting considering the cost difference of about 2x at each step. I think most clients would be happy with any of these files.
Best,
--Geoff
--
Geoff Smith Photography (http://www.geoffsmithphoto.com/)
-
Looks like the 5D2 and 1Ds3 have slightly different focus points, resulting in sharpness differences in different crops, while the P25 needs to be shot at a different aperture all together. The 1Ds3 crops show that you nailed the focus with that camera, so it looks the best.
I have seen some samples of the 5D2 at ISO 50 where the focus is perfect, and it's outstanding. These crops shouldn't be representative of the quality of the 5D2, but we all know that.
Even the tests at Dpreview have this flaw, where different areas of the image are in focus for the different cameras that are being compared. Go interpolate the 12MP 5D dpreview tabletop image to 24MP, and compare it to the 24MP Sony A900 dpreview tabletop image. The upsized 5D file will show sharper details in some areas, while the Sony will be a little sharper in other areas due to the different focus points.
-
After looking at the Chivas Regal still life... the 1Ds3 has the "crispest" image by far. No contest really.
The 5D2 seems to have the best DR, retaining the most detail in the dark patches of the knit fabric.
-
Ray, you are right, but given the depth of field required for this setup I don't think it matters too much in this case.
It matters regarding resolution at the plane of focus. This issue cropped up recently when reviews of the Canon 50D came out. The point was made by many that you needed really good lenses to benefit from the extra resolution provided by the greater pixel count of the 50D; greater resolution than can be obtained with ordinary lenses at F11.
Now the P25 doesn't have a greater pixel count than the 1Ds3 or 5D2, but it does have wider pixel spacing, a lower absolute resolution in terms of lp/mm (as opposed to lines per picture height), and therefore records image detail at a higher MTF, for any given F stop, than the smaller formats do with their greater pixel density. (Assuming the lenses used are similar in quality, which at F11 they would be.)
Using the same f stop of F11 when comparing cameras of different format would be equivalent to using different f stops when comparing cameras of the same format.
What would you say if I were to compare the Canon 40D with the 50D, using F8 with the 40D and F11 with the 50D?
Edit: I should add that it can be perfectly legitimate to compare same formats at different F stops, or different formats at the same f stop, provided the purpose is stated. If I compare a 40D at F8 with a 50D at F11, it would be for the purpose of quantifying any resolution difference at the plane of focus, for practical purposes. Can I use the 50D at F11 and get the same resolution (at the plane of focus) as I would get with a 40D at F8, for example? This sort of information can be very useful in the field. At F11 the 50D will provide significantly greater resolution away from the plane of focus (ie greater DoF). That it also provides resolution equal to the 40D at F8, at the plane of focus, makes those extra pixels worthwhile. In other words, I don't have to make a gigantic print in order to appreciate subtle resolution differences at the plane of focus. The benefit is in the greater DoF.
-
Send me a PM and I'll process them out in CS4
-
Thanks Darryck; very helpful information.
Bruce
-
After much feedback I decided to reshoot the test for just the two Canon cameras and process them with the same software (DPP) since I couldn't process all three with the same program. I also made sure that focus was set to exactly the same distance, this time on the face of Chairman Mao (this was achieved with "Live View" at x10). Both images were shot using a 135mm f2 lens @ f11 and 1/125sec using the same lighting setup as before.
Both images were processed in DPP using the standard curve with no sharpening and no NR applied. In Photoshop both images were sharpened using Smart Sharpen at 60% with a radius of 0.6.
Now things have been evened out the results are a lot closer. I'll leave it to you to decide which is the better camera.
Unfortunately I've run out of time today to shoot a iso/noise comparison but hope to early next week.
Cheers,
Derryck.
-
It seems like we are approaching a saturation rate with digital finally, at least in high end cameras. Soon it won't really matter what you shoot, but how you shoot it and how you process it. Getting a good picture these days is teh first step. Tehn comes all the other weapons and how to use them creatively. It's good to know. Waht do you al think, a couple more years and top end cameras will be close enough that comparing them will be a past activity?
-
After much feedback I decided to reshoot the test for just the two Canon cameras and process them with the same software (DPP) since I couldn't process all three with the same program. I also made sure that focus was set to exactly the same distance, this time on the face of Chairman Mao. Both images were shot using a 135mm f2 lens @ f11 and 1/125sec using the same lighting setup as before.
Both images were processed in DPP using the standard curve with no sharpening and no NR applied. In Photoshop both images were sharpened using Smart Sharpen at 60% with a radius of 0.6.
Now things have been evened out the results are a lot closer. I'll leave it to you to decide which is the better camera.
Unfortunately I've run out of time today to shoot a iso/noise comparison but hope to early next week.
Cheers,
Derryck.
Hello Derryck
Thank you for the great comparison
It looks there is no difference at all, in color, sharpness, or DR. It is the same sensor...
To my eyes, in the first comparison, the Canon 1DSmIII is slighly better in sharpness, or the same as the P 25 in other aspects.
Reiss Menachem. www.reiss.co.il
-
Derryck
Thanks for taking the time to do this
I had a 5DII on order and it came in today so I picked it up
Marc
-
Well done on the second comparo. I agree that for all practical purposes, there is no visible difference between the 1Ds3 and 5DII. I would only say that, a bit surprisingly, there seems to be a bit more noise in the shadows of the 5DII frames. Look at the lower left green area of the wine bottle. You can see it in some of the other images too. On the other hand, there might be just a bit more tonal range in the shadows of the 5DII images as well. Again, almost insignificant. Certainly, both camera/lens combinations outperform the P25 in my view. By the way, I would say that DPP does a slightly better job of converting Canon raw files that CR does, IMHO.
-
It looks there is no difference at all, in color, sharpness, or DR. It is the same sensor...
Just to keep things clear: the sensors of the 1DsMkII and 5DMkII are definitively not the same.
Different dimensions in pixels, different pixel organization, different noise characteristics. Though both are full frame, for sure.
-
I agree the second combo shows that the two are giving quite similar IQ in general. I wonder in real life shooting situations with AF and other parameters, which would do better. I suspect the high iso images are going to be much better with the 5DII. I also agree in general DPP does a better job of converting Canon RAW images from the 5D/ 1DsmKIII than CS. However, usually due to ease of use, I go with CS. Mark
Well done on the second comparo. I agree that for all practical purposes, there is no visible difference between the 1Ds3 and 5DII. I would only say that, a bit surprisingly, there seems to be a bit more noise in the shadows of the 5DII frames. Look at the lower left green area of the wine bottle. You can see it in some of the other images too. On the other hand, there might be just a bit more tonal range in the shadows of the 5DII images as well. Again, almost insignificant. Certainly, both camera/lens combinations outperform the P25 in my view. By the way, I would say that DPP does a slightly better job of converting Canon raw files that CR does, IMHO.
-
It seems like we are approaching a saturation rate with digital finally, at least in high end cameras. Soon it won't really matter what you shoot, but how you shoot it and how you process it. Getting a good picture these days is teh first step. Tehn comes all the other weapons and how to use them creatively. It's good to know. Waht do you al think, a couple more years and top end cameras will be close enough that comparing them will be a past activity?
I think that point has already arrived if you compare the performance of the sensor only, as you would compare the performance of a brand or type of film. However, in a couple of years' time there might be a breakthrough, a new paradigm for the way the light is recorded, which will allow for another leap forward.
It's so easy to examine differences of image quality on the monitor at 100% and 200% magnification, but it takes more time and some cost in ink and paper to print out the results to see what the practical significance of such differences are.
We should not forget the benefits of other features built into the upgraded models. LiveView was a big step forward as an aid to manual focussing accuracy, and whilst the extra pixels of the 50D compared with the 40D (for example) might not count for much on the final print, the 50D's higher resolution LiveView screen is a joy to use. I think many owners of the 5D MkII are also finding that's the case. Doesn't the 1Ds3 have the old 230,000 pixel LCD screen?
-
I am planning to shoot an iso comparison tomorrow morning. Also update the original comparison with the 5DII file processed in ACR and use the P25 this with the correct f-stop. Just have to finish reading the chapter about obtaining correct focus when using a Hasselblad :-)
It's probably not the best idea to organize and post a review after having shot for five days that week.
-
I am planning to shoot an iso comparison tomorrow morning
If you want to create raw files suitable for measuring the noise and the DR, as opposed to judging based on appearance, then the images should contain spots
1. smooth (but not reflecting),
2. unicolored,
3. uniformly lit (this is the most difficult part),
4. in the very dark shadows, in different darknesses.
For example a clean color checker card, underexposed 3-4 EV is excellent (the ideal is a Stouffer-wedge or like that).
Irrelevant
a. the lens,
b. the source and intensity of illumination,
c. equal scenery and equal illumination,
d. the highlights.
I think the P25 does not really have different ISOs, though I am not sure about ISO 50; perhaps that is different from ISO 100.
-
I think that point has already arrived if you compare the performance of the sensor only, as you would compare the performance of a brand or type of film. However, in a couple of years' time there might be a breakthrough, a new paradigm for the way the light is recorded, which will allow for another leap forward.
It's so easy to examine differences of image quality on the monitor at 100% and 200% magnification, but it takes more time and some cost in ink and paper to print out the results to see what the practical significance of such differences are.
We should not forget the benefits of other features built into the upgraded models. LiveView was a big step forward as an aid to manual focussing accuracy, and whilst the extra pixels of the 50D compared with the 40D (for example) might not count for much on the final print, the 50D's higher resolution LiveView screen is a joy to use. I think many owners of the 5D MkII are also finding that's the case. Doesn't the 1Ds3 have the old 230,000 pixel LCD screen?
Indeed it does. I'm hoping Canon will offer an upgrade to the new LCD for the 1DS3 owners, and not cost too much. I'd like to have that screen.
-
Indeed it does. I'm hoping Canon will offer an upgrade to the new LCD for the 1DS3 owners, and not cost too much. I'd like to have that screen.
A screen is more than a screen, it's also the electronics to drive the resolution and colours.
I strongly suspect that the 1Ds MkIII isn't designed for easy replacement of such parts.
-
Indeed it does. I'm hoping Canon will offer an upgrade to the new LCD for the 1DS3 owners, and not cost too much. I'd like to have that screen.
For me, the screen on my 1Ds3 is basically a non-issue. As a landscape and nature photographer, I'm mostly interested in the histograms and the camera settings anyway- the image you seen on the screen, whether at 230,000 pixels or 930,00 pixels is still just a rendering of the raw image, not what that image is going to look like when you open it in Lightroom or PS. For studio work, you're likely going to be shooting tethered so again, the screen is irrelevant really. A higher pixel screen is just another marketing gimmick as far as I'm concerned - nice to have if that's what turns you on, but not essential to the fundamental capability of the camera.
-
For me, the screen on my 1Ds3 is basically a non-issue. As a landscape and nature photographer, I'm mostly interested in the histograms and the camera settings anyway- the image you seen on the screen, whether at 230,000 pixels or 930,00 pixels is still just a rendering of the raw image, not what that image is going to look like when you open it in Lightroom or PS. For studio work, you're likely going to be shooting tethered so again, the screen is irrelevant really. A higher pixel screen is just another marketing gimmick as far as I'm concerned - nice to have if that's what turns you on, but not essential to the fundamental capability of the camera.
I use my 1DSMK3 for both kids portraits and nature and wildlife and agree with your sentiments. I really only ever look at the histogram anyway - the viewfinder is so bright its easy to compose the image through the viewfinder, then just check exposure on the histogram.
-
I use my 1DSMK3 for both kids portraits and nature and wildlife and agree with your sentiments. I really only ever look at the histogram anyway - the viewfinder is so bright its easy to compose the image through the viewfinder, then just check exposure on the histogram.
This is the sort of argument that people use when their camera is lacking, for example, in good high ISO performance. "I never use high ISO, so it's not an issue".... "I never use LiveView, so it's not an issue." Could be, the reason such people don't use such features is because those features on their existing equipment are not all that impressive.
When you look at a LiveView screen at 10x magnification with a 40mm lens, you are actually seeing what you would see through the viewfinder with a 400mm lens (with the limitations of the LCD resolution, of course). If you were to use a 400mm lens at F2.8 where focussing is very critical, LiveView at 10x magnification would give you the close up view you would get with a 4,000mm lens, looking through the viewfinder. That's a closer view than you would get stacking three 2x extenders on that 400mm lens.
However, such impressive magnification is only really useful if the Live View screen is sufficiently high resolution. I recall a problem recently, when I was comparing the resolution of the 40D and 50D by photographing a banknote (more interesting than a line chart, I thought). Using Live View at 10x, I was sometimes unsure if focussing was really spot on, with the 40D, but never unsure with the 50D. To be certain I was focussed accurately with the 40D (even using LiveView at 10x), I had to resort to the same technique I use when trying to manually focus on line charts when looking through the viewfinder. That is, look for the tell-tale signs of color aliasing which always appear when lines are at a sufficiently close spacing, but only when the focussing is spot on. (Such aliasing is much less obvious, of course, when the light signal has passed through the sensor's AA filter.)
Unfortunately, most scenes in the natural world do not contain closely and evenly spaced lines to aid manual focussing in this manner.
Of course, it goes without saying that such critical focussing is only likely to be necessary when shooting at wide apertures. Even at wide apertures, autofocus can often be accurate enough.
-
With the 1DsMk3 Live view isn't necessary most of the time because the AF is so good. I agree it might be more of a requirement on the 5D2 with its limited AF capabilities. I also am one that only uses the rear screen to look at the histogram and camera settings.
-
Having used Live View on both cameras I can say that there is a huge improvement when trying to obtain critical focus using the 5DII.
-
This is the sort of argument that people use when their camera is lacking, for example, in good high ISO performance. "I never use high ISO, so it's not an issue".... "I never use LiveView, so it's not an issue." Could be, the reason such people don't use such features is because those features on their existing equipment are not all that impressive.
If it's not an issue for some, then it's not an issue.. period. That's the point being made. It doesn't mean it's a case of camera envy, as you suggest.
Obviously, for a few people like you who feel it helps for critical focus using liveview, it is an issue. I'd have to see for myself whether the higher res screen really makes all that much difference in my ability to focus critically. But I suspect that for most people, this higher res screen is pretty incidental to the art of capturing good images.
-
If it's not an issue for some, then it's not an issue.. period. That's the point being made. It doesn't mean it's a case of camera envy, as you suggest.
Obviously, for a few people like you who feel it helps for critical focus using liveview, it is an issue. I'd have to see for myself whether the higher res screen really makes all that much difference in my ability to focus critically. But I suspect that for most people, this higher res screen is pretty incidental to the art of capturing good images.
Of course! You can reduce such arguments to "The camera doesn't matter". I'm actually sympathetic to such arguments. The artist uses whatever tools he/she can master to achieve the effect he/she wants. If a Holga film camera suits your purposes, then that's fine by me. If the result is interesting then the fact such an image was taken by a Holga should not detract from the fact that the image is interesting.
-
For me, the screen on my 1Ds3 is basically a non-issue. As a landscape and nature photographer, I'm mostly interested in the histograms and the camera settings anyway- the image you seen on the screen, whether at 230,000 pixels or 930,00 pixels is still just a rendering of the raw image, not what that image is going to look like when you open it in Lightroom or PS. For studio work, you're likely going to be shooting tethered so again, the screen is irrelevant really. A higher pixel screen is just another marketing gimmick as far as I'm concerned - nice to have if that's what turns you on, but not essential to the fundamental capability of the camera.
You know I basically see it the same way. I never look at the full sized image. I'm always in histogram mode too. What I was hoping is that the screen would be easier to see in bright light. Sometimes I can;t even see teh histogram uless I cup my hands around the LCD, and then I can't see it anyway because I'm blind at that distance .
-
Of course, it goes without saying that such critical focussing is only likely to be necessary when shooting at wide apertures.
Uh?
For values of "wide" f/5.6 and f/8, perhaps.
Even at these apertures, it can be pretty easy to see small focusing errors, at least in portraiture and sports.
-
Uh?
For values of "wide" f/5.6 and f/8, perhaps.
Even at these apertures, it can be pretty easy to see small focusing errors, at least in portraiture and sports.
I should have added; for wide apertures and/or close distances. But bear in mind that focussing inaccuracies that might be apparent at the maximum lens aperture, which is presumably always used when focussing, can disappear when the shot is taken at F5.6 or F8.