Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Ray on July 01, 2006, 09:12:50 am
-
I've read many threads on the net discussing the resolution differences between the 1Ds2 and the 5D and they've all seemed very inconclusive, some photographers claiming the 5D is actually superior resolution-wise and some claiming the 1Ds2 has the edge if the print is large enough.
Having recently received Michael's 'Measuring Megabytes' disc, I decided to have a close look at the 1Ds2 and 5D files. I upressed the 5D file first, using bicubic, so I was comparing same size files and was surprised that I couldn't find one iota of detail, one smudge however faint, that was resolved on the 1Ds2 image but not on the 5D image. This is remarkable, but can't be right. So I kept enlarging the image on screen to a point where the equivalent print size of the whole image would be ridiculously large, far bigger than any printer I know of could handle.
And guess what! At 400% enlargement I found some micro detail on the dollar bill that was better defind on the 1Ds2 image. Here's the comparison below. No sharpening applied to either image of course.
[attachment=777:attachment]
Wow!
-
Yikes, Ray!
Thanks for pointing that out. I guess I'll keep saving my pennies for a 5D -- unless, of course, I decide to go into the billboard-size counterfeiting business.
Eric
-
What's interesting is to take that same crop from the P40, P25, 1ds2 and 5d and see the improvement in microdetail as you move up the food chain.
Dare I define microdetail as "detail that becomes apparent only at outrageously large print sizes"
I've printed out these 4 captures (f11's) at my measely 17"x24" and even with a magnifying glass I'm about 75% sure the difference I see are entirely in my head.
I usually roll my eyes a bit at the "how large can I print" posts, but find myself somehow drawn to the opposite question - "how large do I have to print before the difference becomes worthwhile?"
-
And guess what! At 400% enlargement I found some micro detail on the dollar bill that was better defind on the 1Ds2 image. Here's the comparison below. No sharpening applied to either image of course.
Wow!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69581\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, that looks like a pretty big difference to me, considering the 1DsmkII is only expected to have 14% more linear resolution.
-
Actually, that looks like a pretty big difference to me, considering the 1DsmkII is only expected to have 14% more linear resolution.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69594\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is a big difference, but it's a big difference on a huge print that would be far larger than any giclee type printer could handle.
On my 19" monitor with screen resolution of 1280x1024, a 400% enlargement of the entire image equates to a print size of approximately 17.5 feet wide. If I view such a print from a distance equal to the print's diagonal, then such differences that I see viewing the 400% crop from a distance equal to my monitor's diagonal, disappear completely. In fact, I only have to step back about 12ft from my monitor for those differences to become undiscernible.
Now I know people have a habit of walking up close to a print, whatever the size. I some times do this with billboards to check out the size of the ink dots (just out of curiosity ), but I submit, if these two 17.5ft wide prints were side by side on a gallery wall and you wanted to compare micro detail, by the time you'd walked over to the other print, you'd probably have forgotten the precise nature of the micro detail you'd been examining just 30 seconds ago. (Maybe not ).
I haven't made any prints of these crops yet, as Tim suggests, but at 67% enlargement on my monitor, the full size image is as big as my Epson 7600 can handle without borders on all 4 sides (ie, 36x24").
At this degree of enlargement (67%) the differences clearly visible at 400% are no longer discernible. It's my experience that what I can't see on the monitor, I can't see on the print (excluding subtle hues of color that might be outside the gamut of the monitor but inside the gamut of the ink and paper).
By the way, that 14% increase in resolution that the 1Ds2 is supposed to have is a theoretical calculation that can only be realised with a perfect lens. It represents an increase in sensor resolution as opposed to system resolution. In practice, the resolution increase will always be smaller and herein lies the difficulty as I see it.
The 30% increase in pixel count, of the 1Ds2, appears fairly substantial and creates the impression that the resolution increase should be substantial. However, the resolution increase in terms of lp/mm along one dimension is a theoretical maximum of 14% and probably no more than half that in practice.
In my view, some people incorrectly interpret this small increase (say 7% in practice) as an indication that current lenses are simply not good enough to justify any further increase in pixel density. My interpretation is, a 30% increase in pixel count is simply too trivial to make a worthwhile difference. You need to double pixel count to get an improvement that hits you in the eye. Such improvement, however, would be overkill for the printing of uncropped images at normal or average print sizes, but great for those wanting to get the most from their longest lenses, or for those occasions when an interesting composition can be found by heavily cropping an image.
-
I've read many threads on the net discussing the resolution differences between the 1Ds2 and the 5D and they've all seemed very inconclusive, some photographers claiming the 5D is actually superior resolution-wise and some claiming the 1Ds2 has the edge if the print is large enough.
Having recently received Michael's 'Measuring Megabytes' disc, I decided to have a close look at the 1Ds2 and 5D files. I upressed the 5D file first, using bicubic, so I was comparing same size files and was surprised that I couldn't find one iota of detail, one smudge however faint, that was resolved on the 1Ds2 image but not on the 5D image. This is remarkable, but can't be right. So I kept enlarging the image on screen to a point where the equivalent print size of the whole image would be ridiculously large, far bigger than any printer I know of could handle.
And guess what! At 400% enlargement I found some micro detail on the dollar bill that was better defind on the 1Ds2 image. Here's the comparison below. No sharpening applied to either image of course.
Wow!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69581\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I do not think that the comparison is valid. When an image is resampled, there is always some loss of sharpness. That's why sharpening is usually recommended after resampling. The resampling of the 5D image undoubtedly softened it. If you look carefully at the arc of the lines on the EOS 1Ds image near the arrowhead, you see that the pixels of the engraving line sweep out a smooth arc, whereas in the 5D image they are irregularly spaced above and below the arc. This indicates interpolation error.
Secondly, a great deal of alaising is present in both images, and alaising can add false detail or obscure real detail depending on the frequency mismatch between the image and the sensor. Take a look at the resolution charts on DPReview; near Nyquist the lines of the test chart are very poorly defined and false lines come and go.
-
I do not think that the comparison is valid.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69615\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I do not see what else I can do to make it more valid. If I sharpened the 5D image after upsampling, I think one would have even more reason for claiming the comparison is invalid. The fact is, whether I upsample with bicubic, bicubic smoother, bicubic sharper or even Genuine Fractals, I cannot get that extra detail visible in the 1Ds2 shot at 400%. Nor can I with any sharpening routine that I've tried.
I have no reason to suppose the extra detail in the 1Ds2 image is due to aliasing artifacts, and any aliasing artifacts in the 5D image, I would suggest, would not be visible on a 36x24" print.
-
Here's the same size crop of the 400% enlarged image using 'bicubic sharper' to upsample the 5D image, plus a minimal amount of sharpening with Focus Magic. The 1Ds2 image remains unsharpened.
So you can get an idea of the extent of aliasing artifacts in both images, I've included a crop of the Betterlight image, which of course is very, very much better. I wonder if we'll ever have such quality in a full frame 35mm DSLR, whilst I'm still alive. .
You can see I haven't bothered doing any color corrections in the 35mm images. The Betterlight image was already converted on the disc.
[attachment=781:attachment]
Well, I suppose I'd better make an attempt at a better white balance, otherwise my methodology might get criticised . Is this better?
[attachment=782:attachment]
-
I do not see what else I can do to make it more valid. If I sharpened the 5D image after upsampling, I think one would have even more reason for claiming the comparison is invalid. The fact is, whether I upsample with bicubic, bicubic smoother, bicubic sharper or even Genuine Fractals, I cannot get that extra detail visible in the 1Ds2 shot at 400%. Nor can I with any sharpening routine that I've tried.
I have no reason to suppose the extra detail in the 1Ds2 image is due to aliasing artifacts, and any aliasing artifacts in the 5D image, I would suggest, would not be visible on a 36x24" print.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69623\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If I were doing your test, I would downsample the 1Ds2 MII image using bicubic and upsample the 5D image also using bicubic to a common file size. In that way one camera would not have any advantage. Adobe recommends bicubic smoother for upsampling and bicubic sharper for downsampling, and you might want to try that too, but it would introduce another variable.
The 36 X 24 inch print would be a more reasonable print size, but weren't you talking about a 72 foot image for your onscreen views?
If resolution is your only concern, it is not surprising that the the higher resolution camera would come out better. However, perceived image quality does not relate well to resolution at very high frequency with a very low MTF, but rather to the resolution at a MTF of 50%. In the 21st century one should include the MTF for any resolution figure. Your greatly enlarged images are showing small details at a MTF probably around 10%, which is not considered to contribute much to perceived image quality.
I downloaded the resolution charts from DPReview for the 5D and EOS 1Ds and determined the resolution at MTF 50 with Imitest. The results are as follows:
5D: vertical 2192 lw/ph, horizontal 2181 lw/ph
1Ds2: vertical 2136 lw/ph, horizontal 2234 lw/ph
lw/ph = line pairs / picutre height
The design advances of the 5D appear to compensate for somewhat lower pixel density.
-
I've included a crop of the Betterlight image, which of course is very, very much better.
[attachment=781:attachment]
Interesting find Ray!
(And now you also know why I recently adopted a Betterlight back )
-
If I were doing your test, I would downsample the 1Ds2 MII image using bicubic and upsample the 5D image also using bicubic to a common file size. In that way one camera would not have any advantage.
And if you did that, I would criticise you mercilessly.
The purpose of this comparison was to find out if there are any circumstances in which the 1Ds2 might show some resolution advantage, however small. My purpose was not to throw away some 1Ds2 image detail in order to equalise both images. In any case, all prints larger than 14x21" would require upsampling of both images at the recommended 240ppi resolution.
The 36 X 24 inch print would be a more reasonable print size, but weren't you talking about a 72 foot image for your onscreen views?
You're just a little bit out there, Bill. I was talking about a 17.5ft image, but I imagine those subtle differences would be visible in a much smaller print, say 8ft wide, but not 3 ft wide.
Your greatly enlarged images are showing small details at a MTF probably around 10%, which is not considered to contribute much to perceived image quality.
I know. You're not getting the impression I'm suggesting rushing out to buy a 1Ds2 on the basis it can produce such a miniscule improvement over the 5D, are you?
-
(And now you also know why I recently adopted a Betterlight back )
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69635\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jack,
I'm a firm believer in using the best tool for the job. I guess you will now be able to produce stunningly detailed shots of the Grand Canyon at the largest size a giclee printer can manage. What is that size? 4ft high, 6 ft high, 8ft high? Do you have such a printer?
-
And if you did that, I would criticise you mercilessly.
The purpose of this comparison was to find out if there are any circumstances in which the 1Ds2 might show some resolution advantage, however small. My purpose was not to throw away some 1Ds2 image detail in order to equalise both images. In any case, all prints larger than 14x21" would require upsampling of both images at the recommended 240ppi resolution.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69636\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, you don't want to throw away 1Ds2 detail, but have no reservations about throwing away 5D detail? I don't have the LL DVD and do not know in what format the images are supplied, but I inferred they were raw with as trial version of Capture 1. If this is the case, how did you process the images?
I read Bill Atkinson's test methodology with some interest since he is a scientist and software expert as well as photographer. In his testing, he used Capture 1 at default settings with no sharpening or noise reduction. He cropped a selected area of the images to 8000 x 6000 pixels at 360 dpi with bicubic interpolation, normalized the images for contrast and color using the color checker squares, and then applied a standardized sharpening, which was necessary to bring out the differences in the captures.
Your test would be more valid if you followed Bill's methodology and upresed both images to a constant large size before making the comparison. You might also check the contrast. The 1Ds2 appears to have more contrast. Finally, some sharpening is necessary in a realistic test, since it would always be applied to a real print.
I know. You're not getting the impression I'm suggesting rushing out to buy a 1Ds2 on the basis it can produce such a miniscule improvement over the 5D, are you?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69636\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, I do not get that impression. The 5D's larger pixel size give it an advantage in dynamic range and lower noise, which is an advanatage in many situations. It is interesting that in the 30D Canon did not match the resolution of the D200, but opted to keep the larger pixel size.
-
but I imagine those subtle differences would be visible in a much smaller print, say 8ft wide, but not 3 ft wide.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69636\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, those minor differences are visible in prints 24" wide.
But this is where the "which camera is better" debate always falls apart. If you want to see those differences, you have to compare large prints (and by large, I mean over 16" on the short dimension). This requires you optimise each camera's file to the final output resolution. This in turn requires in most cases completely different settings from raw conversion through final print sharpening.
IMO the only real way to settle it is to get a 5D shooter and a 1Ds2 shooter together, each takes the same image with the same lens on their camera, then each process their own file as they deem optimal for their camera, then both files are printed out on the same printer and compared.
Of course I did that for myself when I first got the 5D and I saw distinct advantages to the 1Ds2 file. However I had an early 5D and it is certainly possible that 1) I had a bad copy and/or 2) due to my more limited experience with the 5D I did not process its file as optimally as the 1Ds2's. But I followed it up with a friend and his 5D a few months later and we saw the same result -- FWIW he sold his 5D and is now shooting the 1Ds2.
Admittedly, the differences while visible are small and may not be significant enough for others to even worry about -- a decision wholly up to the artist IMO.
-
If this is the case, how did you process the images?
I haven't installed the trial version of Capture One that's included on the disc. This is an initial look at just a few of the test shots addressing an issue that's been puzzling me for a while. Jack Flesher will understand. This issue was hotly debated on the old Galbraith forum.
I used ACR 3.4 to convert both RAW files, as shot with no adjustments, WB correction or sharpening. In my experience, sharpening does not create detail where none exists. It merely enhances detail that is already there. As stated before, my purpose was to look for any additional detail in the 1Ds2 file and assess its significance in a real world image (if one can really call it that) as opposed to a test chart of high contrast lines.
Now I could try lots of different types of processing, comparing C1 with ACR with RSP, upsampling both images to various but equal resolutions, using different types of interpolation algorithms etc etc, but I've got my own tests to do which are more relevant to my own purposes. However, if anyone else has got the time to experiment with these 2 images in different ways which can somehow change the differences between them in some significant way, I'd be interested in seeing the result.
Your test would be more valid if you followed Bill's methodology and upresed both images to a constant large size before making the comparison. You might also check the contrast. The 1Ds2 appears to have more contrast.
I can't see the logic of this since I was comparing just 2 images. I threw in the Betterlight image so you might get a clearer idea of the artifacts in the 5D and 1Ds2 image. Sharpening doesn't create additional detail. Nor does interpolation.
You seem to be getting hung up on the cosmetics of this, Bill.
-
Actually, those minor differences are visible in prints 24" wide.
With or without loupe, Jack?
IMO the only real way to settle it is to get a 5D shooter and a 1Ds2 shooter together, each takes the same image with the same lens on their camera, then each process their own file as they deem optimal for their camera, then both files are printed out on the same printer and compared.
If the 5D shooter was me and the 1Ds2 shooter you, then I'm sure the 1Ds2 print would look much better, Jack.
-
I can't see the logic of this since I was comparing just 2 images. I threw in the Betterlight image so you might get a clearer idea of the artifacts in the 5D and 1Ds2 image. Sharpening doesn't create additional detail. Nor does interpolation.
You seem to be getting hung up on the cosmetics of this, Bill.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69707\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
IMHO, this is not cosmetics, but a flaw in your test procedure. Interpolation can and usually does degrade image quality and was done on one Canon image but not the other, so the comparison is invalid. Sharpening does not add any detail, but it does bring out what detail is present and was considered desirable by Bill Atkinson for a comparison of the images. Why don't you rebut his suggtions also?
-
Geez!, Bill, you're an exasperating guy. You know that, don't you.
Interpolation can and usually does degrade image quality
There's no noticeable image degradation when upsampling the 72MB 5D image to 95MB. I know because I've got the images and I'm looking at them. When comparing 2 or more images of the same FoV but different pixel densities, it is correct methodology to upsample the images with the smaller native resolution to that of the largest image. This is what Bill Atkinson has done and it's what I've done. We've both upsampled the image(s) to the size of the largest, highest resolution image which we are comparing, which in my comparison is the 1Ds2 and in Bill's comparison is the 6000x8000 Betterlight.
In general, interpolation gives an impression of additional softness because the interpolated image is larger. The larger any image is interpolated, the softer it will appear at that larger size and conversely the smaller any image, the sharper it will appear to the point where one has reached the limit of one's eyesight. For example, if I compare the 72MB 5D image with itself when interpolated to 95.1MB, at equal magnifications on screen the interpolated image will be larger and appear very marginally softer. If I reduce the degree of enlargement of the interpolated image so the 2 crops are of identical size, which in this case would be 400% for the uninterpolated image and something like 358% for the interpolated image, there is no discernible difference between the 2 images, no noticeable degradation. This however, might not be the case when images are interpolated by a huge degree.
Sharpening does not add any detail, but it does bring out what detail is present
No amount of sharpening of the 5D image can restore that small amount of extra detail present in the 1Ds2 image. I've tried it. I've also provided you with 2 sets of comparisons, one with no sharpening at all to either image, which makes the 1Ds2 image appear marginally sharper and more contrasty, and the other with sharpening applied to the 5D image, which makes the 5D image appear marginally sharper and more contrasty.
These results seem pretty conclusive to me and I see no flaw in the methodology in relation to the purpose of the comparison. If there is a flaw, then someone else will have to demonstrate the flaw by producing a different result. I'm sorry I can't email you the RAW images. I'm on a dial-up 56k connection. If you want to pursue this matter, I suggest you buy the disc.
-
Geez!, Bill, you're an exasperating guy. You know that, don't you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69714\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
Yes, others have made that point also . I could say the same about you, but I always learn somethings from our discussions and sometimes play the devil's advocate when something in the discussion does not seem quite right to me. However, at this point can think of no reasonable further objections, and I accept that you have made your case. Thanks for your patience, sound reasoning, and civility.
-
Jack Flesher will understand.
SNIP
I used ACR 3.4 to convert both RAW files, as shot with no adjustments, WB correction or sharpening.
Jack Flesher does understand.
But he also knows that ACR cannot extract the maximum detail from a 1Ds2 file. Love the color, love the workflow, but the detail simply aint there. However, it seems it CAN extract all the detail present on a 5D file -- or at least Pixmantec's Rawshooter does not glean much more from a 5D file than ACR does. But on a 1Ds2 file, there is no contest, the 1Ds2 files come alive. Download the freebie Rawshooter if you don't believe me.
So I also understand Adobe's recent aquisition of the Pixmantec technology.
-
But he also knows that ACR cannot extract the maximum detail from a 1Ds2 file. Love the color, love the workflow, but the detail simply aint there. However, it seems it CAN extract all the detail present on a 5D file -- or at least Pixmantec's Rawshooter does not glean much more from a 5D file than ACR does. But on a 1Ds2 file, there is no contest, the 1Ds2 files come alive. Download the freebie Rawshooter if you don't believe me.
Now that's interesting, I have missed this fine point earlier.
Do you know how this might be with e.g. the 20D, 1D2, Nikon D2X and D200, or if anyone else has tested that in a reproducible manner?
I'm so incredibly uncomfortable with RSE's user interface that I cannot perform a comparison between them for the first two mentioned models myself.
-
I agree that if you want to compare the quality of the 5D to the 1D MKII that you should take the same picture with the same lens on both backs. Use the same software to process say a 20x30 image. Have the two images printed on the same printer. Now what you can say is this:
Given X software with X lens and X processing rules using X printer, the 5D Compared to the DII is X when viewed with my eyes.
That result may or may not mean that the DII isn't much better because what I am hearing here is that ACR can't even process a II file properly!
So when do you think Adobe will correct this--along with offering a 64 bit multithreaded PSCS?
-
Hi!
There is one more factor and that is the antialisaing filter in front of the sensor. The D1S II has a couple of advantages in this sense:
1) They can probably afford a higher price AA filter (they are expensive)
2) As they are closer to resolution limits of lenses they can have a weaker AA-filter
The AA filter acts a "low pass filter" techically speeking. Unfortunately it not really possible to make an optical low pass filter
Erik
It is a big difference, but it's a big difference on a huge print that would be far larger than any giclee type printer could handle.
On my 19" monitor with screen resolution of 1280x1024, a 400% enlargement of the entire image equates to a print size of approximately 17.5 feet wide. If I view such a print from a distance equal to the print's diagonal, then such differences that I see viewing the 400% crop from a distance equal to my monitor's diagonal, disappear completely. In fact, I only have to step back about 12ft from my monitor for those differences to become undiscernible.
Now I know people have a habit of walking up close to a print, whatever the size. I some times do this with billboards to check out the size of the ink dots (just out of curiosity ), but I submit, if these two 17.5ft wide prints were side by side on a gallery wall and you wanted to compare micro detail, by the time you'd walked over to the other print, you'd probably have forgotten the precise nature of the micro detail you'd been examining just 30 seconds ago. (Maybe not ).
I haven't made any prints of these crops yet, as Tim suggests, but at 67% enlargement on my monitor, the full size image is as big as my Epson 7600 can handle without borders on all 4 sides (ie, 36x24").
At this degree of enlargement (67%) the differences clearly visible at 400% are no longer discernible. It's my experience that what I can't see on the monitor, I can't see on the print (excluding subtle hues of color that might be outside the gamut of the monitor but inside the gamut of the ink and paper).
By the way, that 14% increase in resolution that the 1Ds2 is supposed to have is a theoretical calculation that can only be realised with a perfect lens. It represents an increase in sensor resolution as opposed to system resolution. In practice, the resolution increase will always be smaller and herein lies the difficulty as I see it.
The 30% increase in pixel count, of the 1Ds2, appears fairly substantial and creates the impression that the resolution increase should be substantial. However, the resolution increase in terms of lp/mm along one dimension is a theoretical maximum of 14% and probably no more than half that in practice.
In my view, some people incorrectly interpret this small increase (say 7% in practice) as an indication that current lenses are simply not good enough to justify any further increase in pixel density. My interpretation is, a 30% increase in pixel count is simply too trivial to make a worthwhile difference. You need to double pixel count to get an improvement that hits you in the eye. Such improvement, however, would be overkill for the printing of uncropped images at normal or average print sizes, but great for those wanting to get the most from their longest lenses, or for those occasions when an interesting composition can be found by heavily cropping an image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69613\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Now that's interesting, I have missed this fine point earlier.
Do you know how this might be with e.g. the 20D, 1D2, Nikon D2X and D200, or if anyone else has tested that in a reproducible manner?
I'm so incredibly uncomfortable with RSE's user interface that I cannot perform a comparison between them for the first two mentioned models myself.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69778\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have never converted 20D files on anything except RSP so I cannot comment.
On my 1D2, RSP definitely gave a more detailed final file than ACR, enough so that I saw no appreciable gain in OVERALL resolution from the 5D -- a fact I cannot explain since the two cameras have the same pixel pitch.
I don't have enough experience with Nikon's digital cameras or NEF's to comment on them.
Once you learn RSP/E interface, it is a batch dream, however very different than ACR's workflow.
-
So when do you think Adobe will correct this--
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69789\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think it is pretty clear they just did that with their acquisition of Pixmantec, the developers of RSE/P. I am willing to bet we will have that raw conversion technology in CS3's ACR and/or the final version of Lightroom.
-
But he also knows that ACR cannot extract the maximum detail from a 1Ds2 file. Love the color, love the workflow, but the detail simply aint there. However, it seems it CAN extract all the detail present on a 5D file -- or at least Pixmantec's Rawshooter does not glean much more from a 5D file than ACR does. But on a 1Ds2 file, there is no contest, the 1Ds2 files come alive. Download the freebie Rawshooter if you don't believe me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69746\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's not the impression I get when converting the 2 files under discussion using RSP. If anything, I would say the additional detail extracted by RSP is greater in the 5D image than it is in the 1Ds image.
In the images below, I've used the default zero setting of the detail extractor and no sharpening for the RSP conversions. For the ACR conversions I've used the default sharpening at 25, which I think is fair because RSP's detail extractor appears as though it's a type of sharpening.
[attachment=785:attachment]
-
That's not the impression I get when converting the 2 files under discussion using RSP. If anything, I would say the additional detail extracted by RSP is greater in the 5D image than it is in the 1Ds image.
In the images below, I've used the default zero setting of the detail extractor and no sharpening for the RSP conversions. For the ACR conversions I've used the default sharpening at 25, which I think is fair because RSP's detail extractor appears as though it's a type of sharpening.
[attachment=785:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69825\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And here we go...
Detail extraction is not really a type of sharpening -- it is in fact more a type of noise reduction, or more accurately a lack of it.
To get the most from a 1Ds2 file you have to add sharpening during the conversion step -- so if you turned sharpening off in RSP for the 1Ds2 file you were handicapping it and and there is even more detail to be gleaned.
Sharpening off in RSP is not the same as setting the slider to zero -- it is the toggle button on the batch conversion page. For the 1Ds2 file try leaving sharpening on and set the slider to -10. Detail extraction at zero is fine and will render a smooth image, though I would use +5 for a well lit ISO 100 file and get even a bit more detail out of the image even though it might have a slighter harsher look.
So I guess one could claim it is fair to leave sharpening off in RSP, but only if you want to handicap the RSP conversion to make it look closer to the ACR conversion. Again, I don't think you will see a significant difference between the two converters on the 5D file when both are optimised -- but with the 1Ds2 files you most certainly will.
-
Jack,
There are a lot of options. I didn't try RSP sharpening at -10 but at zero I could see halos. In any case, it's a very subjective impression to claim that the improvement in one image is greater or less than in another image. Having looked at other parts of both images, it's clear that the 1Ds2 really does produces more detail than the 5D even at 100% on screen (which still represents a print about 65" wide on my monitor.
I'll try some more conversions with -10 sharpening, but the images below give a definite edge to the 1Ds2. I assume that focussing would have been on the same spot with both cameras and accurate .
[attachment=786:attachment]
-
it's clear that the 1Ds2 really does produces more detail than the 5D even at 100% on screen (which still represents a print about 65" wide on my monitor.
[attachment=786:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69834\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes it is quite clear -- and as you know, it always has been to me
But keep in mind even though your onscreen resolution is effectively a 65" print, you will still see a significant difference in a 16" or 20" print. If you don't believe me, take the images you processed and cropped to form the above set and size them all to 16" at 300 PPI, crop those same portions out from each and print it on a gloss or luster photo paper with a good profile. If you do, I suspect you'll clearly see the advantages to the 1Ds2 RSP over the 5D RSP or 5D ACR in the resultant prints and will also clearly see the advantages in the 1Ds2 RSP file over the 1Ds2 ACR file (assuming you sharpen in RSP). Though you probably won't see much of a difference between the 1Ds2 ACR, 5D ACR and 5D RSP files.
-
Yes it is quite clear -- and as you know, it always has been to me
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69838\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not so fast, Jack. It looks as though Bill Janes was right. The tests are not valid, but not for the reasons he gave. Focussing appears to be out.
Below is another comparison from the same 2 images showing the 5D provides better detail. What can I say! Cough! Cough!
Perhaps the differences between the 5D and 1Ds2 are truly so small that the best attempts of a group of experienced professionals cannot provide sufficiently accurate focussing to reveal such differences.
Hope I'm not embarrassing anyone here .
[attachment=789:attachment]
-
I suppose it's now incumbent upon me to look at the other shots at f11, f16 and f22. I chose the f8 shots to compare because some folks seem very concerned that Canon lenses are not good enough. All good 35mm lenses are sharper at f8 than at f11 to f22. The dollar bill was my first point of comparison because I understood from the article that this was the point of focus.
I've just done a series of conversion in RSP using Jack's recommended settings of -10 for sharpening and +5 for detail extraction. You might find the comparisons below revealing. Draw your own conclusions.
[attachment=790:attachment] [attachment=791:attachment]
[attachment=792:attachment] [attachment=793:attachment]
[attachment=794:attachment]
-
Not so fast, Jack. It looks as though Bill Janes was right. The tests are not valid, but not for the reasons he gave. Focussing appears to be out.
Below is another comparison from the same 2 images showing the 5D provides better detail. What can I say! Cough! Cough!
Perhaps the differences between the 5D and 1Ds2 are truly so small that the best attempts of a group of experienced professionals cannot provide sufficiently accurate focussing to reveal such differences.
Hope I'm not embarrassing anyone here .
[attachment=789:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69861\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, Ray, nobody can claim that you aren't persistent!
Throughout this thread I've been lurking, and getting my hots for a 5D. Even with this new bombshell, it looks like a pretty good upgrade from my 10D. Thank you Ray, Jack, Bill, and any other contributors to this lively thread.
Eric
-
Great effort Ray. Problem is that you start suffering from diffraction effects on the 1Ds2 after f8 and seriously so at anything over f10 on it. The 5D's larger pixel will be somewhat more forgiving in showing this and the effects of diffraction will begin to equalise the two cameras regardless of processing parameters.
And unfortunately we run into the problem of many lenses not being up to the sensor at apertures wider than f4 or f5.6, so to glean the maximum potential from the 1Ds2 one really needs to shoot it primarily between about f4.5 and f10 -- a fairly narrow band, but fortunately (for me) one that integrates well with the types of imaging I mostly do.
IOW, if you shoot a lot under f4 or over f11, in most cases you won't see much detail advantage in the 1Ds2 over the 5D regardless of lens used.
Cheers,
-
Great effort Ray. Problem is that you start suffering from diffraction effects on the 1Ds2 after f8 [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69881\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I know, I know, Jack. But let's get down to practicalities. Perfect focussing is an ideal rarely achieved. In a studio set-up, I guess you can achieve perfect focussing on the model's eye lashes. Everything else is mediocre or totally out of focus.
Show me such some shots, comparing the 1Ds2 with the 5D (or other equivalent shots). Focussing is critical.
-
Focussing is critical.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69886\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Never said it wasn't
I am also on record saying if you don't use a tripod, the 1Ds2 will give little over the 5D. Or if you don't use the best lenses, the best exposure...
Keep in mind the test images you are playing around with were 1) shot using the camera's built-in AF and 2) they were shot in a studio environment and the main subject is only about 1-1/2 meters away.
Re #1: How accurately the camera in question AF's is important.
Re #2: Focus is significantly more critical at closer distances than it is at longer distances.
,
-
I agree completely. So show me the results. I thought Michael's tests would be definitive, but it seems they aren't.
Show me some definitve results, Jack, so we can put this matter to rest.
-
I agree completely. So show me the results. I thought Michael's tests would be definitive, but it seems they aren't.
Show me some definitve results, Jack, so we can put this matter to rest.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69889\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
We already have them -- just use Michael's f8 shots.
,
-
We already have them -- just use Michael's f8 shots.
,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69892\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This proves that for any tests other than hardware type tests that photozone does, it's a crap shoot. On photozone, they tested they 24-70L against the 28-70L and the lab tests showed that teh 28-70 was technically superior to the 24-70L. In Michael's tests, it's obvious that the 24-70 has an advantage, but where we go again with all the variables in an uncontrolled environment.
I would say take the best picture in a studio that you can given a specific lens with both backs. Upsize them to 20x30 at 320 ppi and then print them using the same printer. Let your eye tell you what's up.
-
I would say take the best picture in a studio that you can given a specific lens with both backs. Upsize them to 20x30 at 320 ppi and then print them using the same printer. Let your eye tell you what's up.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69898\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Having examined various sections of the f8 shots on the screen at magnifications ranging from 100% to 400%, I've got a pretty good idea of what to expect on a 24x36" print. Some parts of the print will appear sharper on the 1Ds2 print. Some parts will appear sharper on the 5D print, and some parts will appear equally sharp on both prints.
As we move up (or down depending on your biases) from f8 to f22, some of the differences will merge till at f22 they are virtually indistinguishable, but not completely indistinguishable as in the following examples which have been sharpened just a tad with Focus Magic. As I see it, we've got almost the same difference here, even at f22, at what must be close to the actual point of focus.
[attachment=795:attachment]
-
This proves that for any tests other than hardware type tests that photozone does, it's a crap shoot. On photozone, they tested they 24-70L against the 28-70L and the lab tests showed that teh 28-70 was technically superior to the 24-70L. In Michael's tests, it's obvious that the 24-70 has an advantage, but where we go again with all the variables in an uncontrolled environment.
Also add the other tests that show a slight superiority ni the favour of the 24-70, and you'll have general mayhem.
But this is what clinches it for the 24-70:
- moisture/dust seals
- availability (you can buy it new)
- bokeh (according to some people, anyway)
Oops, that was a digression.
On the general point, I agree with you. I really miss Photodo, but even Photodo didn't take everything into consideration (bokeh, for instance, is completely missing, and vignetting isn't insignificant either).
-
Ray:
Okay, I'll do it.
Go ahead and send me your 5D body and I will perform a controlled comparison using a very sharp 90 TSE and a more common 50/1.4 at various apertures. I will test focus accuracy and dynamic range along with color-quality and resolution in a typical landscape shot. (It won't be a particularly interesting image -- it's summer here and landscapes are blah -- but I will endeavor to include significant elements for comparison.) I'll show crops of the actual files and then try to quantify the print differences based on my observations along with those from a small group of third party viewers in a blind presentation.
I estimate I'll need your camera for about a week. Email me directly at jbflesher-at-msn-dot-com so we can arrange date and shipping particulars.
Cheers,
-
On the general point, I agree with you. I really miss Photodo, but even Photodo didn't take everything into consideration (bokeh, for instance, is completely missing, and vignetting isn't insignificant either).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69903\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, we could learn a thing or two by referring back to the Resolution, Contrast, and MTF article by Lars Kjellberg on Photodo, from which the following quote is drawn:
"We chose 10, 20 and 40 lp/mm. The most important is 10 lp/mm. This frequency makes up 57% of the total assessment, while 20 lp/mm counts for 29%, and 40 lp/mm 14%."
Thus far in this discussion we have been focusing on examining very fine details in the image, which would correspond to MTF at 40 lp/mm. However, perceived image sharpness is also related to contrast at lower frequencies, which is often more important in determining perceived image sharpness. The relative importances are reflected in the weightings used by Photodo. This aspect of image detail has been largely ignored in the current discussion.
The resolution at an MTF of 50% is probably the best measure of perceived image sharpness, and as I reported previously, it is very similar for the two cameras being discussed. For subjective analysis of sharpness using large prints, it would be necessary to evaluate images with a predominance of high spatial frequencies (such as a landscape or the detail in the engraving of the paper money) as well as images with a predominance of lower frequencies (such as a portrait or a close up of a flower). Michael's test image contains both of these distributions, but thus far everyone has been concentrating on the high frequencies.
-
Yes, we could learn a thing or two by referring back to the Resolution, Contrast, and MTF article by Lars Kjellberg on Photodo, from which the following quote is drawn:
"We chose 10, 20 and 40 lp/mm. The most important is 10 lp/mm. This frequency makes up 57% of the total assessment, while 20 lp/mm counts for 29%, and 40 lp/mm 14%."
Thus far in this discussion we have been focusing on examining very fine details in the image, which would correspond to MTF at 40 lp/mm. However, perceived image sharpness is also related to contrast at lower frequencies, which is often more important in determining perceived image sharpness. The relative importances are reflected in the weightings used by Photodo. This aspect of image detail has been largely ignored in the current discussion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69931\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bob: I agree that at normal viewing distances 10 LPmm and 20 LPmm are more important than 40 LPmm. But when viewing a larger print critically and looking at (or for) the high-frequency detail -- and that is what I've been saying all along -- the 40 LPmm performance becomes significantly more important.
It is precisely why Quentin's 8x10 negative printed at 40x50 looks so much better than a 4x5 negative (or anything else) printed at 40x50.
If you don't print larger than 16" and don't look at your large prints up close, then 10 or 12 MP of resolution or medium format film is all you will ever need. If on the other hand, one wants to see detail when looking at large prints, they have to up the ante.
-
Okay, I'll do it.
Go ahead and send me your 5D body and I will perform a controlled comparison using a very sharp 90 TSE [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69920\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's very noble of you, Jack, but I'm sure there must be lots of readers of this forum who happen to own a 5D and who live much closer to you than I. You might even consider buying one to avail yourself of that superior performance at MTF 50 .
-
"We chose 10, 20 and 40 lp/mm. The most important is 10 lp/mm. This frequency makes up 57% of the total assessment, while 20 lp/mm counts for 29%, and 40 lp/mm 14%."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69931\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bill,
As I understand it, these frequencies would have been considered more relevant in the days of 35mm film. 40 lp/mm on the negative, enlarged 8x to make an 8x10 print, results in 5 lp/mm on the print which is close to the limit of anyone's eyesight at close viewing distances, without a loupe. On a 16x24" print that 40 lp/mm on the film becomes just 2.5 lp/mm and on a 24x36" print, less than 2 lp/mm.
If people insist on inspecting large prints from the same distance as small prints (and I think Jack is one of those who does), then a 14% weighting for 40 lp/mm seems too little to me, especially when you consider the effects of USM which can 'bring out' detail but not create it.
-
Bill,
As I understand it, these frequencies would have been considered more relevant in the days of 35mm film. 40 lp/mm on the negative, enlarged 8x to make an 8x10 print, results in 5 lp/mm on the print which is close to the limit of anyone's eyesight at close viewing distances, without a loupe. On a 16x24" print that 40 lp/mm on the film becomes just 2.5 lp/mm and on a 24x36" print, less than 2 lp/mm.
If people insist on inspecting large prints from the same distance as small prints (and I think Jack is one of those who does), then a 14% weighting for 40 lp/mm seems too little to me, especially when you consider the effects of USM which can 'bring out' detail but not create it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69962\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
Actually, Photodo used the same criteria for medium format as 35mm, but I think that you are correct in assuming that they were developed for an 8 by 10 inch print viewed at 10 inches. The eye is assumed to resolve 6.7 lp/mm, so 55 lp/mm would be required on 35 mm film (or full frame sensor) to equal the resolution of the eye with this sized print. That the MTF at 10 lp/mm is given more weight than that at 40 lp/mm tells us that contrast trumps resolution when it comes to perceived sharpness. In other words, rather than examining the magnification where image details are no longer distinguishable as in your large blow ups, you should back off and view the image at lower magnification so as to better evaluate the contrast at lower resolution.
Fujchrome Velvia 100 has a resolution of 55 lp/mm at MTF50, giving resolution/picture height of 1320 lp, compared to about 2100 lp/ph for the digital Canons under discussion, as I reported earlier on this thread. However, the film still resolves 100 lp/mm at MTF of about 25%. In view of these data, you can bump up the resolution weighting values for digital, but the same realationships still apply. I agree that the resolution cutoffs should be altered for digital. However, Canon still uses a maximum of 30 lp/mm in thier MTF charts.
Normally, a 16 by 24 print would be viewed at more than 10 inches, so that the needed resolution would not need to double. However, if you or Jack insist on viewing the print at 10 inches, then you would need to double the above resolutions to 20, 40, and 80 lp/mm for 16 by 20 and triple them for 24 by 36 inches to 30, 60, and 120 lp/mm. The point is that the most important resolution figure is well below the limiting resolution of the sensors, which is about 48 lp/mm for the 5D and 58 lp/mm for the EOS 1Ds2.
If you really want to preserve maximum sharpness apparent to the naked eye in an image larger than 16 by 20 inches by the above criteria, you would have to go to a medium format back or a scanning back such as the Better Light.
-
That's very noble of you, Jack, but I'm sure there must be lots of readers of this forum who happen to own a 5D and who live much closer to you than I. You might even consider buying one to avail yourself of that superior performance at MTF 50 .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69958\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray:
First off, I've bought one, tried it, didn't like it and sold it. So there is no way I am going to buy another just to appease your curiosity -- I already know there is no superior performance there to avail fo me!
Second, of the four other guys I regularly shoot with who have owned a 5D, ALL of them have sold theirs too, so I don't have one close to by to do the test with.
So until somebody sends me one or joins me for a shoot with one, it sounds like this argument is over The good news is you seem quite happy with yours so it has obviously been a good decision for you.
-
The point is that the most important resolution figure is well below the limiting resolution of the sensors, which is about 96 lp/mm for the 5D and 117 lp/mm for the EOS 1Ds2.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69983\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bob:
I think you will find those figures are the maximum linear resolutions for the sensors in question in "lines per mm" and not "line pairs per mm"... If you halve your numbers, you essentially get the maximum Nyquist Line Pair resolution. In my testing the numbers are pretty close too -- I get a maximum resolution on my particular 1Ds2 of about 54 LP/mm. A bit lower than Nyquist due to the AA filter I suspect.
~~~
Where the discussion gets interesting for larger prints is how well the digital file interpolates and still maintains detail in the 20 to 40 LP/mm range. With proper workflow, my experience shows the 1Ds2 interpolates very well (and FWIW so does the P45 -- extremely well in its case). And for that matter so does the 1D2. But for whatever reason, my particular 5D did not interpolate as well as my 1D2 with same pixel pitch -- an anomalie I am at a loss to explain.
Cheers,
-
Actually, except for a few very technically interested people, which is indeed extremely important information, what matters in the end is how the printed image looks at a respectable viewing distance. You print at 20x30 and you're not going to be looking at it from 10". At 20x30, probably more like 4+ feet. At 12x18 probably 1.5-2 feet at closest.
So tell us, how will they look when viewed with the same image processed and printed at the same rez? If I had a IdsII I could do the test myself. But I only have the 20D and 5D. It would be interesting to me to see a landscape printed image at 12x18 and 20x30 from the 20D and 5D side by side, and the 1Ds.
Like I said, the technical information is extremely important (and interesting) but how the image looks AFTER printing, it seems to me, is even more important. However, I know that some people are not as interested in how the printed image looks as they are in technical superiority. And don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there isn't a linear relationship between technical superiority and the printed image. But it is a matter of degree, not kind.
Case in point: I asked a guy in my town who bought a 5D and who had a 20D if he was going to take identical landscape shots and blow them up to 20x30 just to see what the printed difference was. His reply was an indignant, "I already know what it will look like, so I'm not going to do that." It is interesting that this particular person, who has a Masters Degree in computer science, would proclaim that he knows what something will look like without looking at it. It just proves the point that for some, the technical information is more important, not a real world test print, for although we may have a good idea what the print will look like, we have no way of knowing exactly what it will look like unless we at first view it. That "exactly" aspect is, I believe, what most people who want to print images are most interested.
-
Actually, except for a few very technically interested people, which is indeed extremely important information, what matters in the end is how the printed image looks at a respectable viewing distance. You print at 20x30 and you're not going to be looking at it from 10". At 20x30, probably more like 4+ feet. At 12x18 probably 1.5-2 feet at closest.
dwdallam,
This is very true. If you can position your over-enlarged print so that viewers are unable to peer at it closely, by placing a settee or large TV set in front of it, then you are home and dry. However, many people have an insatiable curiosity and can't resist walking up close to appreciate any fine detail that they think might be there. If the fine detail is not there when it should be, then it can cause disappointment. I do this sort of thing all the time just to check out whether I'm looking at a 35mm or MF enlargement, if for no other reason. If a settee's in the way, I'll climb over it. I'm not respectable, of course .
So tell us, how will they look when viewed with the same image processed and printed at the same rez? If I had a IdsII I could do the test myself. But I only have the 20D and 5D. It would be interesting to me to see a landscape printed image at 12x18 and 20x30 from the 20D and 5D side by side, and the 1Ds.
You should be able to work this out. The 1Ds2 has 100% more pixels than the 20D, or approximately 40% more pixels in each dimension. Whatever size print you make from your 20D, the 1Ds2 will produce a print of similar quality, (viewed from the same distance) but 40% greater in length along each side. If you still can't get a clear idea from looking at a print and imagining an extended field of view, then try stitching a few 20D images to a resulting file size of 48MB.
Case in point: I asked a guy in my town who bought a 5D and who had a 20D if he was going to take identical landscape shots and blow them up to 20x30 just to see what the printed difference was. His reply was an indignant, "I already know what it will look like, so I'm not going to do that."
Fair enough! Like many of us, that guy in your home town has probably already been through his period of extensive testing of various issues. I recall a few years ago using a lot of ink and paper to test the visual differences between prints made from images at 150 ppi resolution, 180 ppi, 240 ppi, 360 ppi etc etc and lots of other ink and paper-consuming tests. If you've ever done any stitching of images, you will get a pretty good idea of the quality that larger file sizes produce.
It's not going to mean very much to you if a complete stranger on this site tells you that he regularly makes 20x30 prints from 20D images and that they are perfectly satisfactory, is it? Peoples' standards vary. Jack Flesher probably wouln't have a bar of such a print .
-
That the MTF at 10 lp/mm is given more weight than that at 40 lp/mm tells us that contrast trumps resolution when it comes to perceived sharpness. In other words, rather than examining the magnification where image details are no longer distinguishable as in your large blow ups, you should back off and view the image at lower magnification so as to better evaluate the contrast at lower resolution.
Bill,
Again, I wonder how much of this practice belongs to film legacy. My instinct on this tells me I want the highest MTF possible at around 40 to 60 lp/mm. I don't care if the performance dives above that, and I'm not too concerned whether the MTF at 10 lp/mm is 98 or 92% because I figure I can increase contrast with USM to mimic the effect of a contrasty lens. But I can't create detail that was never captured in the first instance as a result of the contrast being too weak. I figure there's not much that won't be captured at 10 lp/mm because of a 10% loss in contrast rather than a 5% loss in contrast.
Some lenses are high resolving but low contrast (presumably as a consequence of a relatively poor MTF at 10 lp/mm), and other lenses are contrasty, producing better looking prints with minimal adjustment, but are not particularly high resolving.
I believe Leaica lenses tend to be of the contrasty variety rather than the high resolving variety. I think it's difficult here to get the best of both worlds.
I don't have any Leica lenses, so can't test my gut feeling on this, but I know I can increase contrast dramatically in PS with various amounts of pixel radius.
-
Ray,
Obviously you and Jack need an objective observer to mediate this dispute. I am willing to offer my time and expertise at a very low cost to do this for you. So Ray: please send me your 5D, and Jack: send me your 1DsII, and I'll be happy to do some comparisons when I get around to it.
I'm also willing to send the cameras back as soon as I get tired of either or both of them. How can you resist an offer like that?
Eric
-
I believe Leaica lenses tend to be of the contrasty variety rather than the high resolving variety. I think it's difficult here to get the best of both worlds.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70014\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, Leica lenses are of the higher-resolution, lower-contrast variety and by comparison I have heard Nikkor's are of the higher-contrast, lower-resolution variety. And I have also heard you cannot design in both attributes at the same time -- not sure why though I think it has to do with the fact that fancy coatings increase contrast and at the same time reduce resolution. (It's supposedly the reason Heliopan does not offer multi-coated filters.)
I agree with you on contrast: No way max performance at 10 LP/mm is going to create detail at 40 LP/mm when none existed there in the first place. 10 LP/mm performance is great for billboards at 300 feet and 4x6 prints of aunt Meg's 80th birthday party, but not for 24" landscape prints at 3 feet.
-
Bob:
I think you will find those figures are the maximum linear resolutions for the sensors in question in "lines per mm" and not "line pairs per mm"... If you halve your numbers, you essentially get the maximum Nyquist Line Pair resolution. In my testing the numbers are pretty close too -- I get a maximum resolution on my particular 1Ds2 of about 54 LP/mm. A bit lower than Nyquist due to the AA filter I suspect.
~~~
Where the discussion gets interesting for larger prints is how well the digital file interpolates and still maintains detail in the 20 to 40 LP/mm range. With proper workflow, my experience shows the 1Ds2 interpolates very well (and FWIW so does the P45 -- extremely well in its case). And for that matter so does the 1D2. But for whatever reason, my particular 5D did not interpolate as well as my 1D2 with same pixel pitch -- an anomalie I am at a loss to explain.
Cheers,
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=69997\")
Jack,
Thanks for the correction. Yes, the resolutions for the cameras should be in lp/mm, not lw/mm. I corrected my posts.
The Nyquist frequency for the 1DsM2 is 69 lp/mm. For vertical MTF50, Imitest reports 34 lp/mm without sharpening and 45 lp/mm with standardized sharpening. In his review on DPReview, Phil reported an absolute vertical resolution of 2400 lines/picture height for the 1DsM2, or 50 lp/mm. Actual resolution is less than Nyquist because of because of the AA filter and imperfections in the de-mosaicing algorithm and defects in the lens.
The Imitest results from downloads of the images on DPReview are of interest. These are from in camera JPEGS, and your RawShooter Pro would probably do a better job in de-mosaicing than the camera's ASIC.
The 1DsM2 image is not sharpened, and Imitest shows the results for the non-sharpened image and the image with standardized sharpening. As the plots show, sharpening is critical for good MTF with digital images and that is why I think Bill Atkinson used sharpening in his tests and Ray should consider doing so in his comparisons.
[attachment=801:attachment]
The 5D image has been sharpened in camera as indicated by the overshoots in the top diagram, and Imitest attempts to correct for this sharpening. However, the increased response at and above Nyquist indicates problems related to a weak AA filter or oversharpening, and unfortunately Imitest can not distinguish the two. Therefore, I do not think that the Imitest results are valid for the 5D.
[a href=\"http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=16693479]http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=16693479[/url]
[attachment=802:attachment]
Perhaps the 1DsM2 does have a better AA filter as suggested presiously in this thread, but tests with unsharpened images would be necessary to check for this.
-
Bill,
Again, I wonder how much of this practice belongs to film legacy. My instinct on this tells me I want the highest MTF possible at around 40 to 60 lp/mm.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=70014\")
Ray,
Actually these considerations have more to do with the characteristics of human vision than the medium used for photography. According to sceintific studies, human vision has a peak MTF at 6 cycles per degree, which translates to 1 cycle per milimeter when an image is veiwed at 34 cm (13.5 inches). This means that the MTF at 1 cycle/mm (1 lp/mm) is most important in determining the apparent sharpness of the image for this viewing distance. If you are viewing an 8 by 10 inch print at that distance, the corresponding resolution on a 35 mm negative or full frame 35mm type sensor would be 8 lp/mm. This corresponds closely to the 10 lp/mm criterion for MTF. Of course it would be preferable that the lens also have high MTF above 10 lp/mm but in lens design there is a trade off between resolution and contrast.
For 16 by 32 inch image, the corresponding resolution on the sensor would be 16 lp/mm and it would be 24 lp/mm for a 24 by 36 inch print. So, where you want the highest possible MTF varies with the size of the image. According to this analysis, the MTF at 24 lp/mm would be most critical for the 24 by 36 inch print viewed at 13.5 inches and one would want to maximize MTF for that resolution. Of course it would be better if the MTF would remain high right up to the Nyquist limit of 69 lp/mm.
[a href=\"http://bobatkins.com/photography/technical/mtf/mtf4.html]http://bobatkins.com/photography/technical/mtf/mtf4.html[/url]
-
Phil reported an absolute vertical resolution of 2400 lines/picture height for the 1DsM2, or 50 lp/mm. Actual resolution is less than Nyquist because of because of the AA filter and imperfections in the de-mosaicing algorithm and defects in the lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70026\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
FWIW, I never was able to hit 50 LP/mm converting with ACR2 (the original version in CS2, whatever version that was), but got up to 54 with RSE/P and C1. So yes, the demosaicing algorithm plays a significant role.
-
Actually, Leica lenses are of the higher-resolution, lower-contrast variety and by comparison I have heard Nikkor's are of the higher-contrast, lower-resolution variety.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70023\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Whatever! I had in mind that either Zeiss or Leaica had a reputation for high contrast. Perhaps I got that the wrong way round. I own neither a Zeiss nor a Leica. In any case, I think that is now changing. Aren't Zeiss now boasting about absurdly high resolution for their latest lenses?
-
As the plots show, sharpening is critical for good MTF with digital images and that is why I think Bill Atkinson used sharpening in his tests and Ray should consider doing so in his comparisons.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70026\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When doing comparisons, I like to keep the variables to a minimum. However, sharpening will help make the image look better (cosmetics) and I always do some sharpening for a finished print.
I took some test shots today of my neighbour's fence with my 100-400 plus 1.4x extender, with 20D and 5D. There's no sharpening and no interpolation, yet it's quite clear the 20D/560mm at f22 is the sharpest and the 5D at f11 the least sharp. There might be some doubt comparing the 20D at f11 and the 5D at f22. They look so close they are as good as equal as far as I'm concerned, but I give the edge to the 5D at f22.
[attachment=804:attachment]
-
Shifting gears a bit, I think I should offer the following summary of these cameras so perhaps everybody better understands my reasoning for my current choices.
1) If I am primarily hand-holding the camera and using zooms (even L zooms), as say one might in a travel photography situation, then I suspect I would see little to no detail differences in the 5D and 1Ds2 images.
2) I might see some slight differences in DR or focus accuracy, and even detail in a few perfectly captured files, but even I doubt those would be significant enough to justify the cost or added weight of the 1Ds2 in that travel photography situation.
3) In fact, I'm not convinced that in hand-held, zoom-lens imaging I see a significant enough difference between the 20D (30D) and 1Ds2 in detail to justify the added weight/cost for travel. (Obviously I do see differences, though they are relatively minor.)
4) I can see color and DR advantages in the 1Ds2 over the 20D, and am still debating with myself as to whether or not these are significant enough to justify the weight/cost when traveling with zooms.
4a) Even I think a 5D and 20/30D combo with a few L zooms would be an ideal travel pair of cameras.
5) In the studio on a tripod or in the field on a tripod, I can see enough of a detail difference for me to justify the cost/weight of the 1Ds2 to use it over other DSLR options. The added benefit of slightly broader DR and better color fidelity add to this justification.
6) If money were no object, I would own a 30D, 5D, 1Ds2 and would add the 1D2 for fast-action.
7) Unfortunately money is an object for me, hence I needed to make a decision regarding which cameras I was going to keep.
8) If I owned a Hassy H2 and P45 or other 30-plus MP digital back, I would NOT need the 1Ds2 detail/DR/color, would sell it and get a 5D as my casual or back-up full-frame DSLR replacement.
9) Believe it or not, I have in fact considered #8 since I do own the Betterlight scanning back. It serves my studio needs superbly, but it suffers from the weaknesses in the field that only direct single-capture can overcome -- hence my reservations.
10) I suspect that #8 and #2 are precisely why Michael Reichmann has gone to the route he has with the 5D and H2...
Cheers,
-
That's a very reasonable and well-balanced assessment of the options, Jack.
We should not lose sight of the fact that a lot of photography is about catching the moment. My interest in such hair-splitting differences is mainly so I can make an informed choice whether or not to ignore them. All my digital camera purchases have been made on the basis of substantial improvements over what I previously used.
-
We should not lose sight of the fact that a lot of photography is about catching the moment. My interest in such hair-splitting differences is mainly so I can make an informed choice whether or not to ignore them. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70115\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I totally agree on both points!
-
When doing comparisons, I like to keep the variables to a minimum. However, sharpening will help make the image look better (cosmetics) and I always do some sharpening for a finished print.
I took some test shots today of my neighbour's fence with my 100-400 plus 1.4x extender, with 20D and 5D. There's no sharpening and no interpolation, yet it's quite clear the 20D/560mm at f22 is the sharpest and the 5D at f11 the least sharp. There might be some doubt comparing the 20D at f11 and the 5D at f22. They look so close they are as good as equal as far as I'm concerned, but I give the edge to the 5D at f22.
[attachment=804:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70073\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The results of the cameras at the same aperture are not surprising.
I measured the distance from one picket to another on the two images and found that the distance was 325 pixels on the D20 and 321 pixels on the 5D image. Since the D20 image is being viewed at 100%, the above dimension is also 325 pixels on the sensor. Since the 5D image is being veiwed at 127%, the corresponding dimension on the sensor is 253 pixels. The image is in effect upresed for display. The pixel pitch of the D20 is 6.42 microns, so this dimension on the sensor is 2087 microns (325 * 6.42). The image on the 5D is 2072 microns.
The above calculations show that the picture was taken from the same position. Since the same lens was used, the images on the sensor are the same. Since the D20 sensor has higher resolution in lp/mm, it shows greater detail. If Ray moved back with the D20 so that the field of view with both cameras was the same, the results would be different.
-
If Ray moved back with the D20 so that the field of view with both cameras was the same, the results would be different.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70184\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bjanes,
That's an interesting mathematical analysis, so you see, my images do not lie.
If you change perspective, then of course the results will be different. As far as I'm concerned my 20D is a 22mp full frame 35mm sensor that is regrettably cropped.
-
Bjanes,
That's an interesting mathematical analysis, so you see, my images do not lie.
If you change perspective, then of course the results will be different.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70218\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
Yes, the persepective would changed if you move back with the D20, but that would make no significant difference, since the image has little depth. What I implied (and perhaps should have said explicitly) is that if the field of view were the same with both cameras, the 5D image would be sharper.
As far as I'm concerned my 20D is a 22mp full frame 35mm sensor that is regrettably cropped.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70218\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is a good way to look at it.
-
Hi, Gang,
Really interesting thread. Thanks to all who contributed.
-
When doing comparisons, I like to keep the variables to a minimum. However, sharpening will help make the image look better (cosmetics) and I always do some sharpening for a finished print.
I took some test shots today of my neighbour's fence with my 100-400 plus 1.4x extender, with 20D and 5D. There's no sharpening and no interpolation, yet it's quite clear the 20D/560mm at f22 is the sharpest and the 5D at f11 the least sharp. There might be some doubt comparing the 20D at f11 and the 5D at f22. They look so close they are as good as equal as far as I'm concerned, but I give the edge to the 5D at f22.
[attachment=804:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70073\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's a bad test. Lenses are best around f8-f11--Canon lenses.
-
That's a bad test. Lenses are best around f8-f11--Canon lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70300\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I suppose your next statement will be, "All lenses are equal."
-
That's a bad test. Lenses are best around f8-f11--Canon lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70300\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think the test is fine for what it was intended to demonstrate. Under the test conditions, the 20D gives better results than the 5D, because the 20D resolves more lp/mm even though the 5D has better resolution in terms of lp/picture height. I don't think Ray was trying to find the optimum aperture.
In any case, a perfect lens gives maximum resolution wide open. The best Canon lenses are not perfect, but for many I suspect that the optimum aperture is above f/8-f/11. Even my lowly 50 mm f/1.8 Nikkor gives optimum resolution at f/5.6. Beyond that, diffraction takes its toll.
-
I don't think Ray was trying to find the optimum aperture.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70318\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, Bill, that was part of the test. I tested all apertures down to the minimum of f57 with 1.4x extender. The testing is not yet complete. The next stage will be Norman Koren line charts and fine newspaper print from a distance of around 10 metres.
I'm getting the impression that the reason why many people who try using this combination of 100-400 with extender, and who find results are often of dubious value, is because they are clinging to the assumption that all 35mm lenses are best at f8 and f11. There's no doubt that the 100-400 at 400mm is best at f8 and f11, but even with a perfect teleconverter that introduces no aberrations of its own, that would translate to optimum performance at f11 and f16 with the 560mm lens.
Since a teleconverter is far from being a perfect lens and must unavoidably introduce further aberrations to the system, the sweet spot appears to be f22 for this combination, with both the 5D and 20D.
-
It's not going to mean very much to you if a complete stranger on this site tells you that he regularly makes 20x30 prints from 20D images and that they are perfectly satisfactory, is it? Peoples' standards vary. Jack Flesher probably wouln't have a bar of such a print .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70007\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're right Ray, but I'm not asking what a 20x30 looks like with a 20D. I'm asking what a 20D 20x30 looks like compared to a 5D 20x30. If the majority of people say there is a pretty good difference, then that is going to mean a lot to me.
-
I suppose your next statement will be, "All lenses are equal."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70311\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
haha, no, but all lenses perform differently at different aperture settings and from what I read, differnt bodies as well. But if you your methodology takes all of that into consideration, then you must be correct.
-
I think the test is fine for what it was intended to demonstrate. Under the test conditions, the 20D gives better results than the 5D, because the 20D resolves more lp/mm even though the 5D has better resolution in terms of lp/picture height. I don't think Ray was trying to find the optimum aperture.
In any case, a perfect lens gives maximum resolution wide open. The best Canon lenses are not perfect, but for many I suspect that the optimum aperture is above f/8-f/11. Even my lowly 50 mm f/1.8 Nikkor gives optimum resolution at f/5.6. Beyond that, diffraction takes its toll.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=70318\")
Here is a defraction calculator and essay using the 20D. You can input the camera and all the other aspects that affect apeture to get the read out. Let us know what you think:
[a href=\"http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm]http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials...photography.htm[/url]
Of course I have to say I don't understand how this relates to the lens, unless this applies to ALL lenses on a 20D (Or 5D) etc. It seems that the 5D has a much greater range of apertures before it becomes defracted than does the 20D, which is around F8 to F13. But anyway, use the calculator and see what you get.
-
Since a teleconverter is far from being a perfect lens and must unavoidably introduce further aberrations to the system, the sweet spot appears to be f22 for this combination, with both the 5D and 20D.
For what it's worth; this matches my experience exactly, too. I tested* a friend's 100-400 mm last fall, both with his 5D and with my 20D, and my 1.4x converter. I was briefly stunned.
But, interestingly enough, the 100-400 in question without the converter also seemed to be better at f/16 than at f/13 and f/11.
* I won't claim that these tests were the epitome of scientific studies ...
-
Actually, Bill, that was part of the test. I tested all apertures down to the minimum of f57 with 1.4x extender. The testing is not yet complete. The next stage will be Norman Koren line charts and fine newspaper print from a distance of around 10 metres.
I'm getting the impression that the reason why many people who try using this combination of 100-400 with extender, and who find results are often of dubious value, is because they are clinging to the assumption that all 35mm lenses are best at f8 and f11. There's no doubt that the 100-400 at 400mm is best at f8 and f11, but even with a perfect teleconverter that introduces no aberrations of its own, that would translate to optimum performance at f11 and f16 with the 560mm lens.
Since a teleconverter is far from being a perfect lens and must unavoidably introduce further aberrations to the system, the sweet spot appears to be f22 for this combination, with both the 5D and 20D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70321\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
That raises another question. A 1.4x extender loses 1 f/stop. In the old days before lenses had electronic linkages, you had to make the translation yourself manually. If the lens was set at f/8, the effective aperture with the teleconverter was f/11 and you exposed for f/11. With my Nikon teleconverter, the translation is done electronically. The camera shows the aperture as f/11, but the diaphragm blades in the lens are at f/8 position and the image presented to the teleconverter has f/8 resolution characteristics, which are then degraded to a certain extent by the teleconverter.
How does your camera operate? When you say f/22 is that the effective aperture of lens+teleconverter or is it the actual setting of the lens only?
Bill
-
Back from lunch I just stumbled upon this thread and couldn't stop reading. A lot of interesting information and opinions. Thank you all!
Since I own both bodies I decided to do a (very) quick test. I don't know if you feel it helps the discussion, but here it is...
I took a studio shot of a winebottle, with a dull design but with small print dots visible. (Probably one of the dullest photos I've taken!
I used a tripod and mirror lockup. I shot in manual mode 1/200 s, but using flash meaning the effective speed was 1/2030 s (approx. burn time of the flashhead I used). All light in the image comes from the flash.
For once I used auto focus and aligned the cameras vertically and horizontally so that they spot measured focus from the same place (the right "7" in the "BIN 707").
I used the EF100/2.8 macro at f5.6 since it's suposed to be sharpest in center at that aperture. (Ref: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/ca...00_28/index.htm (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_100_28/index.htm) )
I shot in RAW and developed with RAW Developer, since that is the software I prefer when I want to extract details. Still I turned sharpening AND anti-noise off. Developed to AdobeRGB and converted to sRGB later.
I measured the white balance from the white paper in the background. RAW Developer reported a difference of 50 Kelvin. (Sensor differences?)
Here are tumbnails of the 5D (left) and 1DsII image I took:
)
Cheers,
Petter
-
me personally I've made up my mind... I wouldn't reinvest in the 1DsII *purely* on resolution basis. (But I would reinvest in it, for other reasons )
Cheers,
Petter
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70345\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's an intiuging test, thanks.
Anotehr concern of mine is that it is not necessarily sharpening that deliniates which camera is producing details, but if the information is there in the first place, which has also to do with a lens. I've read that, for example, landscape shots, the 5D outperforms teh 20D in distant detail, such as fiolage--and no amount of processing is going to make it match the 5D. On the other hand, for close ups, like you show here, the difference, while still evident, is not as large as detail in distant foilage.
It would be nice to see what the difference is between the 1DsII and the 5D at distance shooting landscape and foilage.
-
Petter,
Very interesting crops. It looks like there's alot of lens aberation in the 5D shot, though.
Could you optimize that in ACR's lens tab?
Thanks!
-
But, interestingly enough, the 100-400 in question without the converter also seemed to be better at f/16 than at f/13 and f/11.
* I won't claim that these tests were the epitome of scientific studies ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70339\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sounds like there might be some misfocussing going on. It's surprising how critical focussing can be with a long lens. When comparing camera bodies with the lens fixed to the tripod, I always remove the body from the lens, leaving the focussing the same. However, comparing 400mm with 560mm might require refocussing. I'm not sure about this, but that's what I've been doing, and occasionally I find that focussing is then perceptibly different.
-
With my Nikon teleconverter, the translation is done electronically. The camera shows the aperture as f/11, but the diaphragm blades in the lens are at f/8 position and the image presented to the teleconverter has f/8 resolution characteristics, which are then degraded to a certain extent by the teleconverter.
How does your camera operate? When you say f/22 is that the effective aperture of lens+teleconverter or is it the actual setting of the lens only?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70342\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bill,
That's how my camera operates also. With 1.4x extender attached, the maximum aperture is f8 and there's no way of setting it to f5.6. I'm assuming that the main lens is physically at f5.6 and the presense of the extender effectively closes the aperture to f8. Likewise, when I set the aperture to f22 electronically, I assume the aperture blades on the main lens are at f16.
-
I also realize I should have looked up an even more detailed object to shoot, but for me personally I've made up my mind... I wouldn't reinvest in the 1DsII *purely* on resolution basis. (But I would reinvest in it, for other reasons )
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70345\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Petter,
These results seem very consistent with other reports I've seen on the net. A more detailed target, especially a line test chart, would probably have revealed a slightly greater difference (in favour of the 1Ds2), but for most folks it's real world images that count and there's hardly any difference worth bothering about, between these 2 cameras.
-
Here is a 100% pixel crop, with the 5D image (left) slightly interpolated (PS2&Bicubic sharper) to match the 1DsII:
Cheers,
Petter
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70345\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Petter,
A nice test. I preferred the 100% view of the 5D, since the contrast of the letters appeared to be better, but the difference is quite small. Your choice of bicubic sharper interpolation is interesting. The official Adobe recommendation for upresing is bicubic smoother, but for poster sized prints Scott Kelby in his Professional Photoshop for Photographers recommends bicubic sharper. Confusing
Bill
-
Sounds like there might be some misfocussing going on. It's surprising how critical focussing can be with a long lens.
Not really, considering how critical it is at f/1.4 with a 50mm lens.
When comparing camera bodies with the lens fixed to the tripod, I always remove the body from the lens, leaving the focussing the same.
Yes, the same here.
However, comparing 400mm with 560mm might require refocussing. I'm not sure about this, but that's what I've been doing, and occasionally I find that focussing is then perceptibly different.
We took several shots with and without refocusing, so it appeared to be very consistent, although the differences were rather small.
-
Since I own both bodies I decided to do a (very) quick test. I don't know if you feel it helps the discussion, but here it is...
SNIP
Cheers,
Petter
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70345\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nice example Petter. However your image (like the crop of the dollar bill used at the beginning of this thread) is one of significant contrast, medium-frequency detail. I suspect even the 20D would hold its own compared to the 1Ds2 in this example and have all of us claiming that we really don't need any more detail than the 20D offers
I suggest you repeat the experiment with a subject that has more subtle tonal transitions in it (lower contrast) and even higher-frequency detail. Maybe try a shaded bush with smallish (2 - 3 cm) leaves at about 20 meters distance using a good prime lens at f8.
Cheers,
-
In response to various posters...
Dwdallam, Ray and Jack... thanks a lot for the feedback. Here comes a new shot which I hope is what you're looking for.
Skid00skid00... the color error from the 5D (and 1DsII) hasn't to do with lens aberation it seems. But if I activate just a little anti-noise (as I would normally) it all disappears.
Bill... I normally prefer Bicubic smoother for large interpolations. Bicubic sharper tends to show the pixels quite fast, but I wanted to interpolate the 5D just a little (to match 1DsII) and that meant (to my taste) I could use the Bicubic sharper method (which is more visually appealing if not used to the extreme). (By the way, Scott Kelbys book is full of errors!)
I went out to shoot a city scene here in Stockholm this evening. I used the same cameras but with my 85/1.2 lens. One of you suggested using a small aperture but that lens is at it's sharpest at f4. (Read more at http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/ca...85_12/index.htm (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_85_12/index.htm) )
And since it was a little bit windy I wanted a fast shutter speed to reduce risk of camera shake or leaves being blurred. (I also shot using f5.6 + f9 but couldn't see any difference after spending half an hour pixel peeping so for this post it's the f4-images I use.)
I used a tripod, mirror lockup, cable release and auto focus set on one of the buildings some 150 meters away (meaning I had DOF approximately from 40-50 meters to infinity with f4).
I used auto white balance and didn't touch it in RAW Developer (so the small differences in color is mostly due to this I believe). ISO 100 and Av-program (I got 1/800 for 5D and 1/640 for 1DsII, both using evaluative metering).
This is the scene I shot:
And to my eyes I wouldn't say the 5D has better dynamic range... rather the opposite! But maybe 5D can be measured to have better DR!? For me personally I would say they are equal!
Moiré is present in various parts of both images. It just occurs on different areas due to the native resolution differences.
// Petter
-
Nice test Petter:
I think the leaves in #2 and #3 (the closest to the center of the lens, and likely the sharpest area for the image) begin to tell the story -- especially in the high-frequency detail like the leaves, brickwork and fence grating. I believe you will see even more difference at f5.6 or 8 with that particular lens.
However, as we all are aware, applying NR kills off high-frequency (micro) detail in a hurry! If you have the time, I would like to see each of these same crops side-by-side again without any NR run during conversion... I supect we will see a larger difference in detail if you do so -- along with the color errors and a more accurate comparison of noise in the 6 crop.
To DR I saw about 1/2 stop advantage to the 1Ds2 when I did my comparison and never agreed with the 5D has more DR crowd -- your highlight example shows maybe 1/3 stop and it's hard for me to tell what's going on in the shadows as they look very close -- maybe also due to the NR you ran. Though slightly more fine detail is visible in the 1Ds2 image (bricks).
Are these significant differences? Probably not for many, but certainly for some. I would run them both through a second competitive converter like RawShooter -- and certainly compare them with NR off -- before I made any concrete conclusions.
Now to the color errors on the 5D -- ringing any bells of recognition with you Ray? As you recall, I commented on this very subject (5D color-cast problem) in the lengthy RG thread about 6 months ago... Fact is, the 5D shows a color cast across the sensor in certain situations. I did not keep mine long enough to determine exactly what conditions cause it, but for sure it is real. FWIW I have never seen it on my 1Ds2.
Petter, thanks again for your efforts on this!
-
...snip...
I believe you will see even more difference at f5.6 or 8 with that particular lens.
However, as we all are aware, applying NR kills off high-frequency (micro) detail in a hurry!
...snip...
I would run them both through a second competitive converter like RawShooter -- and certainly compare them with NR off -- before I made any concrete conclusions.
Thanks for the feedback.
About the aperture. No, as I wrote I also spent some time evaluating f5.6 and f9 but they gave me no more details (even if there are very, very subtle differences between the images).
Here is an example (1DsII f4 vs f9, no NR and no USM):
(http://www.matbilder.se/test/1DsII-vs-5D_20.jpg)
About NR... same thing here. Here's an example (no NR vs NR, but with USM):
(http://www.matbilder.se/test/1DsII-vs-5D_21.jpg)
And here's a comparision between RAW Developer and ACR (no NR but USM):
(http://www.matbilder.se/test/1DsII-vs-5D_22.jpg)
Cheers,
Petter
PS. I also ran tests both before my previous post and now, using no NR for the DR-test... no difference of interest to report.
-
SNIP
PS. I also ran tests both before my previous post and now, using no NR for the DR-test... no difference of interest to report.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70550\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But it would be interesting to see the #3 (center) crop form the 5D and 1Ds2 side by side WITHOUT NR on...
,
-
Thanks for the clarification, and additional test shots, Petter.
-
Now to the color errors on the 5D -- ringing any bells of recognition with you Ray? As you recall, I commented on this very subject (5D color-cast problem) in the lengthy RG thread about 6 months ago... Fact is, the 5D shows a color cast across the sensor in certain situations. I did not keep mine long enough to determine exactly what conditions cause it, but for sure it is real. FWIW I have never seen it on my 1Ds2.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70527\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't see any color cast issues with these test shots from Petter, Jack. The only differences in color I see in these shots is in the shadows crop of area 6. There's more magenta in the 1Ds2 shot (on the right), which I would say should not be there. However, I recognise that the 1Ds2 shot seems to have effectively slightly less exposure, as indicated by the greater detail in the bow of the boat with a -3 EC adjustment. Because the highlights are better, in the 1Ds2 shot in the crop of the boat, but the shadows better in the 5D image, in area 6, it's difficult to say which camera has the better dynamic range.
It is clear, however, in the area 2 shots that the 1Ds2 has the resolution edge. It's not just the leaves that look better in the 1Ds2 shot, but acrros the middle of the frame, above the foliage, there's some design pattern that looks a bit like Chinese script. This is clearly better defined in the 1Ds2 shot.
So for me, the matter is resolved. The 1Ds2 clearly does have a slight resolution edge, as indeed one would expect it to have with 30% more pixels.
The message for me, here, is that 30% more pixels is not substantial. If the 1Ds3 has another 30-40% more pixels, making it around 22mp, I suppose the danger for sales will be new owners of the MK lll will compare resolution with the MK ll and find the same sorts of differences that we are now seeing between the MK ll and the 5D.
However, then we shall be in a position where there will be no contest between the new 1Ds3 and the old 5D. Two small differences make a big difference .
-
I don't see any color cast issues with these test shots from Petter, Jack.
SNIP
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70622\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's because as he said, he ran NR to remove them... As I said above *twice*, I would like to see the comparison crops so we can all see what he mentioned in his first post, but has not shown.
,
-
And here's a comparision between RAW Developer and ACR (no NR but USM):
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70550\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
FWIW, I don't feel ACR is a competitive raw converter for extracting detail from 1Ds2 files
-
That's because as he said, he ran NR to remove them... As I said above *twice*, I would like to see the comparison crops so we can all see what he mentioned in his first post, but has not shown.
,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70628\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A problem that can be solved or removed is no longer a problem.
-
A problem that can be solved or removed is no longer a problem.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70636\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is if it creates other problems -- and NR kills detail, plain and simple.
But I certainly respect that you may not care about giving up detail to eliminate a color problem.
-
It is if it creates other problems -- and NR kills detail, plain and simple.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70640\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
True! But noise reduction is not necessarily the best method of fixing a color shift, is it? Surely there's a whole range of options available in PS for changing color without affecting resolution. Let's not ceate problems where none exist .
-
True! But noise reduction is not necessarily the best method of fixing a color shift, is it? Surely there's a whole range of options available in PS for changing color without affecting resolution. Let's not ceate problems where none exist .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70650\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, clearly you do not understand the nature of the problem I (and others) have seen with their 5D sensors.
It is not a set color shift but a color shift across the sensor, usually from cyan-green to magenta, originating in one corner with the cyan cast and ending in the opposite corner with a magenta cast. This particualr issue is NOT easily corrected in post-processing.
-
It is not a set color shift but a color shift across the sensor, usually from cyan-green to magenta, originating in one corner with the cyan cast and ending in the opposite corner with a magenta cast. This particualr issue is NOT easily corrected in post-processing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70666\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Haven't noticed it, Jack. But now I'm going to start looking for it. If I find it, I'll let you know .
-
Haven't noticed it, Jack. But now I'm going to start looking for it. If I find it, I'll let you know .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70669\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Frankly, it's a non-issue for me (Plus when and if you do find it, I'm sure it won't matter to you!)
Cheers,
-
That's because as he said, he ran NR to remove them... As I said above *twice*, I would like to see the comparison crops so we can all see what he mentioned in his first post, but has not shown.
You don't trust strangers, do you?
Seriously, I understand your request since with these kind of tests it's easy to make small errors. And there is also a certain amount of subjectivity involved when viewing the results. So here it is...
First, to underline why I used NR, here is the 1DsII without NR (left) and with NR. No USM in either image:
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Petter
-
You don't trust strangers, do you?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70703\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Has nothing to do with trust -- I think different sets of eyes see things differently, that's all.
For example, even in the new jpeg web crops you posted immediately above without NR but with USM, to my eyes the 1Ds2/5D comps show a greater difference in detail than those you posted ealrlier with NR applied; I see essentially no difference to the 5D file with NR applied compared to without, but the 1Ds2 file without NR looks to have a more detail than the NR version.
My .02 to be sure and I'm equally sure others will disagree
Thanks again for all of your work on this -- I think these are fine examples.
Oh, and I do agree there is no serious color issue visible with either camera
-
Has nothing to do with trust -- I think different sets of eyes see things differently, that's all.
I agree.
However I saw I've made a mistake... about the first image comparision in my last post (1DsII "NR vs no NR")... the image without NR is the one to the left. In my original posting i mentioned the opposite but has now edited it.
-
Petter,
well performed test! Or as we say in Sweden - snyggt jobbat!
I've always been amused by all the 5D people (I belong to them myself) trying to convince everyone that their camera is as good as the 1DsII. To me it has been very clear since day one that even though differences are small, they are there. You also show that in your test.
Mvh/Lars
-
I've always been amused by all the 5D people (I belong to them myself) trying to convince everyone that their camera is as good as the 1DsII. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't see much of that in this thread. I see it more as an assessment of what the differences actually are (purely in terms of absolute image quality, ie. excluding such factors as superior build quality and more accurate autofocussing etc).
It would be interesting to find out what the Canon marketing people now think of the introduction of the 5D. What impact it has had on the bottom profit line. There can be no doubt that some people, both professionals and amateurs, will have chosen the cheaper option and as a result, Canon will have missed out on a sale of their much more expensive FF model.
On the other hand, there are people like me who have upgraded from a cropped format DSLR, who would not have done so if the 5D had not been on offer. Canon will have lost sales of the 1Ds2 in exchange for sales of the 5D. I wonder what the net effect has been on profit. Are the gains greater than the losses? This factor will clearly have an impact on future developments.
-
Hello to every one as a new comer to this site.
Perhaps this could be a new topic on its own, but it seemed I was approaching the right group of people.
I thorougly enjoyed reading your comments comparing the 5D and 1Ds Mark II. I am about to make a decision on buying one of the two. Although in many ways I am convinced about 5D, it does not appear to accept SD card, which I have been told is a lot faster, bigger and less battery comsuming media for storing data. There are many questions in my mind:
1 Is the battery a problem for 5D?
2 Is it warraned to make a decision based on that factor only?
I'd be greatfull if anyone could shed some light on these questions.
Saeed
-
Hello to every one as a new comer to this site.
Perhaps this could be a new topic on its own, but it seemed I was approaching the right group of people.
I thorougly enjoyed reading your comments comparing the 5D and 1Ds Mark II. I am about to make a decision on buying one of the two. Although in many ways I am convinced about 5D, it does not appear to accept SD card, which I have been told is a lot faster, bigger and less battery comsuming media for storing data. There are many questions in my mind:
1 Is the battery a problem for 5D?
2 Is it warraned to make a decision based on that factor only?
I'd be greatfull if anyone could shed some light on these questions.
Saeed
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70983\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The battery life on the 5D is excellent, especially considering its relatively small size. As for speed differences between CF and SD cards, don't worry about it. All of the newer cards are quite fast.
-
Friend of mine has carried out a search on the CF vs SD cards and found out that CF actually does 8mb/s faster than SD. And also that theoretically there is no difference in power usage, however, he beleives 5 pins in SD card vs 20 pin in CF card uses less power. There is also big difference in price of CF cards being more expensive than SD cards. SD cards are smllaer too. He beleives the SD card is the future, as more computers have SD slot allocated but not for CF. I am wondering though why 5D would have only CF option.
PS Thank you Jack for your comments.
-
Friend of mine has carried out a search on the CF vs SD cards and found out that CF actually does 8mb/s faster than SD. And also that theoretically there is no difference in power usage, however, he beleives 5 pins in SD card vs 20 pin in CF card uses less power. There is also big difference in price of CF cards being more expensive than SD cards. SD cards are smllaer too. He beleives the SD card is the future, as more computers have SD slot allocated but not for CF. I am wondering though why 5D would have only CF option.
Seriously, you shouldn't choose between those cameras based on what card is being used. Card readers that can handle either card type will be around at least until your tenth shutter replacement!
Speed or power consumption is not a practical issue either. Start using the 5D and if you feel like it get a vertical grip with an extra battery (which you will come to enjoy anyhow!).
Here's an interesting field report:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=19194770 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=19194770)
Seems he had big troubles with the SD cards. He doesn't mention CF but since he's a 1D-series user I suspect he used CF+SD. (Just a guess!)
Could be just that brand of SD cards. Or not?
// Petter
PS. Thank you Lars!
-
To me these test only show how good the 5D is vs the 1DsII.
To my eye they are so close that resolution has to be the minor factor in deciding whether one pays $2800 or $6800. Like the weather resistance and nail driving capabilities of the 1 series body. It's hard to see how purely in terms of resolution the 1DsII is worth an extra $4K.
-
There is another issue that should be considered. I think the focusing mechanism is much better on the 1Dsmk2 than the 5D. The 5D does not have the 45pt sensor resulting in more misfocused images. If you add that into the financial equation it would be personal choice if it is worth the difference or not.
To me these test only show how good the 5D is vs the 1DsII.
To my eye they are so close that resolution has to be the minor factor in deciding whether one pays $2800 or $6800. Like the weather resistance and nail driving capabilities of the 1 series body. It's hard to see how purely in terms of resolution the 1DsII is worth an extra $4K.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71302\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Mark, I've used both and even using single-point focusing the 1-series seems better. I think they use a more accurate AF system. The extra points don't make it more accurate, per se, just give you greater coverage.
I'd pay another $1K for the 1Ds2 but not $4K! Each to his own.
Ray, thanks for posting the test. Interesting to compare.
-
I don't think so. The d2s was never bought by those of use who can barely afford the upgrade from the 20D to the 5D, and still at it's new street price of around 2875.00 US.
Case in point is that the only reason I moved to the 5D is that of it's much lower street price of 2875.00 from B&H and a 300.00 US mail in rebate from Canon. This put the camera in my target at 2575.00US.
Which brings me to my conclusion. The people who can afford the ds2 and need it's advanced features, such as pixel density and autofocus points, not to mention its bullet proof and sealed body, will continue to buy that model.
I always thought that Canon was making a mistake trying to sell the camera for 3300US. It was too much of a jump and was like, to me, creating a new market that wasn't there. However, there is a market if they get the camera down to 2500 - 2800.00US and I think that was what the rebate was about--to test the viability of a market at that price line. Beforehand, they had the 5D priced way out of reach of the prosumer market and even the semi-pro and low end pro market. (Semi-pro" and "low-end pro" mean those doing or wanting to do professional level photography and those already doing it, such as small portrait studios, and small contract or freelance photographers who have cracked the pro market.)
Thus, if I am right, expect Canon to have effectively covered the entire market sucessfully--except for the very high end 30MP large format digital cameras. They have the Rebel at around 600.00; the 30D around 1400.00; the 5D at around 2900; and the ds2 at around 7, 000US. As you can see, the step up from the 30D to the 5D is going to be for serious photographers, or those who simply have the money and want to pretend they are doing professional photography. (I actually have a friend who knew two people who bought the 1ds2s when they first came out and used them as point and shoot cameras. They only used them several times because they were too bulky. So these types do exist.)
On the other hand, there are people like me who have upgraded from a cropped format DSLR, who would not have done so if the 5D had not been on offer. Canon will have lost sales of the 1Ds2 in exchange for sales of the 5D. I wonder what the net effect has been on profit. Are the gains greater than the losses? This factor will clearly have an impact on future developments.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70729\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I don't think so. The d2s was never bought by those of use who can barely afford the upgrade from the 20D to the 5D, and still at it's new street price of around 2875.00 US.
Case in point is that the only reason I moved to the 5D is that of it's much lower street price of 2875.00 from B&H and a 300.00 US mail in rebate from Canon. This put the camera in my target at 2575.00US.
Which brings me to my conclusion. The people who can afford the ds2 and need it's advanced features, such as pixel density and autofocus points, not to mention its bullet proof and sealed body, will continue to buy that model.
I always thought that Canon was making a mistake trying to sell the camera for 3300US. It was too much of a jump and was like, to me, creating a new market that wasn't there. However, there is a market if they get the camera down to 2500 - 2800.00US and I think that was what the rebate was about--to test the viability of a market at that price line. Beforehand, they had the 5D priced way out of reach of the prosumer market and even the semi-pro and low end pro market. (Semi-pro" and "low-end pro" mean those doing or wanting to do professional level photography and those already doing it, such as small portrait studios, and small contract or freelance photographers who have cracked the pro market.)
Thus, if I am right, expect Canon to have effectively covered the entire market sucessfully--except for the very high end 30MP large format digital cameras. They have the Rebel at around 600.00; the 30D around 1400.00; the 5D at around 2900; and the ds2 at around 7, 000US. As you can see, the step up from the 30D to the 5D is going to be for serious photographers, or those who simply have the money and want to pretend they are doing professional photography. (I actually have a friend who knew two people who bought the 1ds2s when they first came out and used them as point and shoot cameras. They only used them several times because they were too bulky. So these types do exist.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71590\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm with you. I just got my 5D from B&H with the $300 rebate for just the reasons you describe. I wouldn't want the weight of a 1D-series box, nor do I need the extra goodies or weather-proofing (I take reasonable care of my equipment.)
Eric
-
I don't think so. The d2s was never bought by those of use who can barely afford the upgrade from the 20D to the 5D, and still at it's new street price of around 2875.00 US.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71590\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You didn't read my post properly, did you? Having already stated that I'm one such person who would not have upgraded to a full frame format had the 5D not been available, then Canon have clearly not lost a sale of a 1Ds2 to me and others like me.
But I'm sure they have lost sales to both amateurs and professionals who were thinking of upgrading from, say, a 1Ds to a 1Ds2, but who were heistating because of the price and that never-ending upgrade expense, perhaps because their business was not as profitable as they'd like it to be, or because they were just struggling to justify the additional expense but would have eventually relented and bought the camera anyway, as many of us do.
There are also others making a switch from film to digital, or from another digital system to Canon, who will opt for a 5D in preference to a 30D, so I would say the 5D is robbing sales from both the 1Ds2 and 30D.
In other words, the 5D provides an attractive upgrade path for existing owners of 1.6 crop cameras and an attractive downgrade for some professionals. The net increase in profit for the entire range of Canon DSLRs might therefore not be as great as predicted. On the other hand it might be greater than predicted. These marketing guys can be pretty savvy. It would be interesting to get some statistics.
-
What I just noticed after rereading my own post and reading yours is that Canon bodies are coming into the x2 pricing: 600 for the RebelXT, 1400 for the 30D, 2800 for the 5D, and 6800 for the ds2. I think this is intellegent marketing. It offers pricepoints all the way up from the amatuer family photographer wanting to feel like a professional and have a "good" camera (Rebel) to the person who is a serious enthusiast (30D), to those who want to be or are pro or semi pro (5D), and then those that are all pro or just have money to burn (ds2).
You didn't read my post properly, did you? Having already stated that I'm one such person who would not have upgraded to a full frame format had the 5D not been available, then Canon have clearly not lost a sale of a 1Ds2 to me and others like me.
But I'm sure they have lost sales to both amateurs and professionals who were thinking of upgrading from, say, a 1Ds to a 1Ds2, but who were heistating because of the price and that never-ending upgrade expense, perhaps because their business was not as profitable as they'd like it to be, or because they were just struggling to justify the additional expense but would have eventually relented and bought the camera anyway, as many of us do.
There are also others making a switch from film to digital, or from another digital system to Canon, who will opt for a 5D in preference to a 30D, so I would say the 5D is robbing sales from both the 1Ds2 and 30D.
In other words, the 5D provides an attractive upgrade path for existing owners of 1.6 crop cameras and an attractive downgrade for some professionals. The net increase in profit for the entire range of Canon DSLRs might therefore not be as great as predicted. On the other hand it might be greater than predicted. These marketing guys can be pretty savvy. It would be interesting to get some statistics.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71667\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I have made up my mind to go for a 5D and managed to put a kit together. However, since I have not had direct experience with the equipment, I would like to get some opinion on the combination I have chosen. I would be very grateful to recive some replies. Here it is:
1 Canon EOS 5D Body
2 EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
3 EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
4 Extension Tubes EF 12 II and EF 25 II
5 EF f/2.8 Compact Macro 60mm
6 Filter PLC
7 Battery + One Extra
8 2X Higher End CF cards 2Gb Pro series
9 Speedlite 580EX
10 Macro Twin Lite MT-24 &/or MR-14 EX
11 AC Adaptor
Cheers
Saeed
-
I have made up my mind to go for a 5D and managed to put a kit together. However, since I have not had direct experience with the equipment, I would like to get some opinion on the combination I have chosen. I would be very grateful to recive some replies. Here it is:
1 Canon EOS 5D Body
2 EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73608\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When I got my 5D I had to choose between the 24-70 2.8L and the 24-105 4L IS, and i choose the 24-105, as I figured I would get more sharp pictures handheld with the IS lens. I would have bought the 24-70 if the lens most of the time would be used with a tripod, or if the 24-70 also had IS. But this is of course my judgement of my needs and what gives me best quality.
I have to say that my 24-105 seems to be very good and sharp, but there are people on this board that have had problems with the 24-105.
-
When I got my 5D I had to choose between the 24-70 2.8L and the 24-105 4L IS, and i choose the 24-105, as I figured I would get more sharp pictures handheld with the IS lens. I would have bought the 24-70 if the lens most of the time would be used with a tripod, or if the 24-70 also had IS. But this is of course my judgement of my needs and what gives me best quality.
This obviously means that we need to meet up and juggle lenses , although my 24-70 isn't a top rate sample optically.
But congrats on the purchase!
-
Hi, here is what I think.
The area where both the 5d and the 1ds II - as far as the samples I have seen show me - are not very strong is smooth highlight detail and DR. I personally would not consider to spend so much more for so little improvement as Petters test show.
Yes in the foliage there are visible differences, but they are still quite small. and we are in heavy pixel peeping mode here. On the screen, 100% view. If the 5d should be not good enough for something, I'd look for more than the 1ds II, a medium format back would probably make a real difference. Not fine detail alone (where tests showed that the difference is only moderate) the general "photographyness", dynamic range, color depth (those Canon all have their cmos look) and creaminess of the tonality transitions.
This would, in my opinion, make more sense than spending 3-4k on some megapixels more.
BTW; if the photograph is really great, noone will care about the fine detail in distant foliage.
regards, Bernie
-
the 60mm macro is an S lens for APS size sensor only - the full frame 50mm macro is a fairly old design and requires an extension tube to get to 1:1
in any case, i think the 100 macro is a more generally useful lens because of greater working distance - and if you need even more working distance you can add a 1.4x or 2x extender (although i'd suggest Kenko as the Canon extenders require an extension tube between lens and extender which is a bit of a nuisance and of course doesn't let you focus to infinity)
the ex24 twinlight is much better for bugs, flowers, etc. than the ringlight which is really intended for flat subjects - and really works great with the 100 macro - you can get good handhelds of flowers in a light breeze
the 70-300DO compared to the 70-300 is not economically justified by image quality, but the difference in length makes a surprising difference for travel photogography and "walking around"
i'm a big fan of the IS lenses and think the 24-105 is a better general purpose choice unless you have a specific need for f2.8, e.g. stopping action
-
This obviously means that we need to meet up and juggle lenses , although my 24-70 isn't a top rate sample optically.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73675\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lets do that, I would be very interested to test the 24-70 and the 24-105 side by side.
-
Thank you very much every one. That is giving me a very good insight about the different combination of lenses on 5D. Since I have been rubbing my eyes for mannnny years to own a decent system, I am opting for the best quality. I am going to use them soon enough and perhaps be able to give you a feed back and post a copule of samples.
Regards
Saeed
-
In my tests when the 5D first came out, I found little difference in resolution between these two cameras: (5D on the right in all cases)
http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/54400642 (http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/54400642)
http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/54400645 (http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/54400645)
http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/54400647 (http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/54400647)
http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/54400649 (http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/54400649)
http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/54442820 (http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/54442820)
http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/54442821 (http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/54442821)
http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/54442822 (http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/54442822)
http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/54442823 (http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/54442823)
The original (which contains more test details) thread can be found here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat...thread=16584842 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&thread=16584842)