Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: MarkSe on December 17, 2012, 01:41:13 pm
-
I`m looking for a new Canon Dslr to replace my trusty old 5d. I´m shooting mostly architecture and landscape with ts-e lenses. (exclusively iso 100 and tripod). I`m not sure if i should get a 5dII or a 6d. I have to say that i don`t really care about all the new bells and whistles the 6d offers like wifi or gps. I`m only interested in image quality
So my question is: Is the 6d better than the 5dII in terms of image quality when shooting at iso 100? (sharpness, colors, tonal range, dynamic range, noise & banding noise- also when recovering shadows in acr etc.)
-
I was looking at both myself and went with the 5D Mark III. I do mostly landscapes but wanted the speed to do some wildlife photography. It's a big step up from my Rebel XTi.
-
Mark* the 5D II will very adequately suit your needs.
If your photographic needs are a bit more omnivorous then the 5D III has a great combination of image quality, excellent autofocus, and shoots 6 fps.
Tony Jay
-
Mark, it seems to me that you'd be better served with the 6D. If your main activities involve shooting in dusty environments or under the rain, then get the 5D3. The 6D is cheaper, lighter, smaller and sees better in the dark. The Wi-fi would be great to look at pictures in a tablet. According to some latest reviews, the 6D seems to have a slight (very) edge in noise over the 5D3. Probably nothing to show on a print but it's there. With the price difference you can get a new Sigma A 35mm f1.4. A superb wide-angle lens, better than Canon's or Zeiss'.
I have a 5D2 and waiting for Canon's first FF dslr with a swivel screen.
Eduardo
-
I`m looking for a new Canon Dslr to replace my trusty old 5d. I´m shooting mostly architecture and landscape with ts-e lenses. (exclusively iso 100 and tripod). I`m not sure if i should get a 5dII or a 6d. I have to say that i don`t really care about all the new bells and whistles the 6d offers like wifi or gps. I`m only interested in image quality
So my question is: Is the 6d better than the 5dII in terms of image quality when shooting at iso 100? (sharpness, colors, tonal range, dynamic range, noise & banding noise- also when recovering shadows in acr etc.)
By most accounts "some." Those trying to quantify say a half stop my dynamic range. I haven't heard anything about a thicker/thinner AA filter so focus I don't know.
-
The mk3 has a built in level and if you're shooting architecture you'll like this feature.
-
I'm expecting my new 6D to arrive today (to replace my original 5D). I, too, mainly just shoot landscapes and architecture. While I was hoping the 6D would have a swivel screen, the reviews I've heard thus far about the in-camera wifi hotspot and smartphone app make this a compelling alternative. If I can't have a swivel screen to aid my ultra-low-angle focusing, being able to use my iPhone screen will be the next-best thing and certainly better than an angle finder.
The 5D was the perfect size and fit for my hands. Never went to the Mk II or III due to their increased size and weight, so I'm looking forward to the lighter weight 6D-- especially on long hikes!
-
While it is a good alternative, wi-fi is 10 times less convenient than having a swivel for odd places. I won't upgrade my trusted 5D2 till Canon comes with a Sony Exmor type sensor or releases a FF body with swivel screen. Whichever comes first.
Eduardo
I'm expecting my new 6D to arrive today (to replace my original 5D). I, too, mainly just shoot landscapes and architecture. While I was hoping the 6D would have a swivel screen, the reviews I've heard thus far about the in-camera wifi hotspot and smartphone app make this a compelling alternative. If I can't have a swivel screen to aid my ultra-low-angle focusing, being able to use my iPhone screen will be the next-best thing and certainly better than an angle finder.
The 5D was the perfect size and fit for my hands. Never went to the Mk II or III due to their increased size and weight, so I'm looking forward to the lighter weight 6D-- especially on long hikes!
-
The mk3 has a built in level and if you're shooting architecture you'll like this feature.
So does the 6D.
-
For your needs, the 6D will be more thn enough. As others have said, unless you ned the specs of the 5DMKIII, the 6D is a hell of a camera. I bought one for travel, landscape, and documentary photography that I normally do. Very happy with it.
-
Did you get your camera yet?
I went with 6d over 5d ii. Even if you don't care about wifi and GPS which I agree is less important than good image quality, the 6d has better low light performance and better autofocusing capabilities in low light. You are trading off 5% megapixel and the 1/8000 shutter speed. 5% mega pixel less is just over 2% line resolution, negligible in my opinion, and will you ever use 1/8000 shutter speed? The only time I ever used that was when I was shooting the Transit of Venus. The wifi capability is a nifty feature, one that I've used many times however.
-
I have all the canon full-frame cameras and as of December 2012, I use the 6D the most frequently. Ignore megapixel count and the other numbers, it's all marketing. Prints up to 40x60 on all the canon FF bodies are nearly identical (even the original 5D).
-
I have all the canon full-frame cameras and as of December 2012, I use the 6D the most frequently. Ignore megapixel count and the other numbers, it's all marketing. Prints up to 40x60 on all the canon FF bodies are nearly identical (even the original 5D).
What do you think about Canon EOS-1D C and 1DX? How do those to compare to the other full-frame Canon bodies?
-
What do you think about Canon EOS-1D C and 1DX?
The 1 D X is excellent. I love mine.
if you are primarily going to shooting video the 1D C is a better choice as that is what it is primarily designed for.
-
What do you think about Canon EOS-1D C and 1DX? How do those to compare to the other full-frame Canon bodies?
I have had most of Canon's Ds series, the X is a stunningly good camera. Nothing out there 35mm I would swop it for.
Video on all Canons I find disappointing. I think in many ways my Sony RX100 video is just as good as the X.
The C would be a different ball game altogether, but at that stupid price if I was shooting enough video to spend that amount, I would get a video camera. The C is niche to the extreme.
I couldn't see where a 5DIII offered anything that mattered over a 5DII or I might of jumped on a 5DIII and not the X.
When I tried to micro adjust my lenses on the X, out of the box was spot on, the 1DsIII they were all over the place.
-
The 5d2 can be had for $1200 used. Between the 5d2, 6d and 5d3 image quality is identical for landscapes. The 6d and 5d3 add features that are not required for landscape photography. Save the bucks, go with a lightly used 5d2.
-
The 5d2 can be had for $1200 used. Between the 5d2, 6d and 5d3 image quality is identical for landscapes. The 6d and 5d3 add features that are not required for landscape photography. Save the bucks, go with a lightly used 5d2.
agreed
-
Obviously, for anyone who already has a shedload of Canon lenses, the choice is limited.
But, from serious printed magazine reviews (as opposed to the nonsense you find on the internut), the Nikon D600 is grinding the Canon 6D into the ground and there never has been any competition between the Nikon D800 and the Canon 5D3. However, these things are cyclical. It is only a matter of time (possible just a few months) before Canon leapfrogs Nikon again and, thus, the cycle continues.
-
Obviously, for anyone who already has a shedload of Canon lenses, the choice is limited.
But, from serious printed magazine reviews (as opposed to the nonsense you find on the internut), the Nikon D600 is grinding the Canon 6D into the ground and there never has been any competition between the Nikon D800 and the Canon 5D3. However, these things are cyclical. It is only a matter of time (possible just a few months) before Canon leapfrogs Nikon again and, thus, the cycle continues.
I don't think the competition is real - it's fake. The original 5D and the 800e produce nearly the same quality with regards to prints, even up to 40x60.
Graham
-
I don't think the competition is real - it's fake. The original 5D and the 800e produce nearly the same quality with regards to prints, even up to 40x60.
Graham
I think this is mostly true. At print sizes up to 20x30" I see no significant difference between a D800e and 5D2. In a print. On screen, cropping, file depth for working in post, DR, yes, but not in the end print. I will also say I don't see much between teh D800 and Aptus 75s not attributable to the look and format of the lenses and sensor size.
-
Hi,
Interesting, can you tell more?
Best regards
Erik
I don't think the competition is real - it's fake. The original 5D and the 800e produce nearly the same quality with regards to prints, even up to 40x60.
Graham
-
Hi,
Interesting, can you tell more?
Best regards
Erik
when comparing two large format prints (40x60+) from high quality exposures/glass the differences between the two is in terms of quality is identical. when comparing hundreds of large format prints against eachother the same holds true.
Graham
-
Thanks,
I did compare 12MP to 24MP at one time in A2 and could see some difference in 2 out of three. On screen there was a lot of difference. I also made a 70x100 cm print from 10 MP APS-C and it was OK, if viewed at 80 cm or longer away.
But I had never the opportunity to compare 12 MP full frame with 36 MP full frame.
Best regards
Erik
when comparing two large format prints (40x60+) from high quality exposures/glass the differences between the two is in terms of quality is identical. when comparing hundreds of large format prints against eachother the same holds true.
Graham
-
Thanks,
I did compare 12MP to 24MP at one time in A2 and could see some difference in 2 out of three. On screen there was a lot of difference. I also made a 70x100 cm print from 10 MP APS-C and it was OK, if viewed at 80 cm or longer away.
But I had never the opportunity to compare 12 MP full frame with 36 MP full frame.
Best regards
Erik
there's quite a bit that goes into testing these things, but from my experience, with exposure quality and optical quality equal, i have yet to see a major, discernible difference in image quality due to MP
Graham
-
when comparing two large format prints (40x60+) from high quality exposures/glass the differences between the two is in terms of quality is identical. when comparing hundreds of large format prints against eachother the same holds true.
Are you saying that you did shoot "hundreds" of scenes with the same lens on the 2 cameras and did print all of them at 40x60 inch?
You are a rich man with a lot of time to waste Graham. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
At print sizes up to 20x30" I see no significant difference between a D800e and 5D2. In a print.
That would depends a great deal on how the prints were made - processing and print technology, how the interpolation was done and on what surface the photos were printed on.
Were the exposures made of the identical subjects in identical lighting with (as near as possible identical lenses and camera settings? were they processed the same way? Clearly the 36mp images will not have to interpolated as much as the ones from the 5D Mark II to print at 20 x 30 inches.
-
Hi,
I would also suggest it depends on the amount of detail. If the image lacks fine detail, the difference may not be visible. Also, if we stop down to far diffraction will limit resolution and reduce contrast.
I just made a small experiment I took an 24MP image, sized down to 12MP (using nearest neighbor) and scaled back to 24 MP using bicubic and printed at approximately A2, there was not a lot of difference. But that image did not contain a lot of fine high contrast detail.
Than I took an image with a lot of hard edges made the same operations and printed at approximately 54 x 78 cm (halfway between A2 and A1) and the difference was quite obvious.
Normally, processing parameters may affect judgement, but in this case the only difference was the downsize upsize cycle.
So what I saw was that the contents of the image matter a lot.
Best regards
Erik
At print sizes up to 20x30" I see no significant difference between a D800e and 5D2. In a print.
That would depends a great deal on how the prints were made - processing and print technology, how the interpolation was done and on what surface the photos were printed on.
Were the exposures made of the identical subjects in identical lighting with (as near as possible identical lenses and camera settings? were they processed the same way? Clearly the 36mp images will not have to interpolated as much as the ones from the 5D Mark II to print at 20 x 30 inches.
-
Are you saying that you did shoot "hundreds" of scenes with the same lens on the 2 cameras and did print all of them at 40x60 inch?
You are a rich man with a lot of time to waste Graham. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
no
Graham
-
no
Graham
Ok, now that we know one thing you are not saying, can you elaborate on what you are then saying?
All the 1Ds3/5D2/5DIII/6D users I know seemed pretty thrilled about their improved ability to print large when they moved up from the 12mp 5D to the 20-22mp more recent Canon bodies. Did they all imagine the improvement they were reporting?
Are the MFDB users printing large also imagining the improvement they see?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
when comparing two large format prints (40x60+) from high quality exposures/glass the differences between the two is in terms of quality is identical. when comparing hundreds of large format prints against eachother the same holds true.
At what viewing distance? The difference is about 123ppi vs 73ppi, which should be readily distinguishable from even 20" away, unless the lenses used on the D800e are not up to the job.
But I would certainly expect this to be true when those big prints are viewed the way such prints most often are -- from a distance no closer than the short dimension of the print or greater. At that ratio of print size to viewing distance, about 20MP reaches the resolution limits of most human eyes.
But if the indistinguishability holds up with close viewing, as close as one might typically view a 12x8" print, then what you say is equivalent to seeing no difference between 12"x8" prints from 1.44MP and 0.88MP sensors, which sounds strange. If that is true, the lenses used with the D800e are not making use of the extra sensor resolution.
-
I just made a small experiment I took an 24MP image, sized down to 12MP (using nearest neighbor) and scaled back to 24 MP using bicubic and printed at approximately A2, there was not a lot of difference. But that image did not contain a lot of fine high contrast detail.
... Then I took an image with a lot of hard edges made the same operations and printed at approximately 54 x 78 cm (halfway between A2 and A1) and the difference was quite obvious.
Going from 24MP Bayer CFA (12MP G, 6MP R, 6MP B) to a 12MP format like TIFF or JPEG (12MP G, 12MP R, 12MP B) might lose almost no resolution on some subjects, like ones where the G captures most of the needed luminosity information. So that is not an ideal way to simulate the difference between 24MP Bayer CFA and 12MP Bayer CFA images. It is interesting that some images do show a substantial advantage for the 24MP file: this supports the claim in some recent Bayer CFA vs X3 discussions that with good demosaicing algorithms, the R and B channels can contribute usefully to resolution, contrary to the doctrine that "only green pixels count for resolution".
-
Ellis,
Prints were made on an Epson 7880 using PS3 and later 6.
Different subjects, different lighting, but same lens (Hass. V 150 CF). Lighting was strobe, hard key. Both cropped to 20x30. Say F11, maybe 8.
This was not a test, just an observation. I couldn't remember which camera was used on each print until I went to the file. Subject matter was portraits, which is of course less demanding on fine detail than say landscapes. Lots of flat areas that are essentially volume.
Another observation: Leica M8 files hold up well to enlargement, say to 16x24. Mostly. That sensor could have some rough aliasing artifacts that look like detail until you try to uprez, which can result in odd shapes in grass and other fine detail.
The D800e can go larger, of course, and I'm not making prints for sale.
At print sizes up to 20x30" I see no significant difference between a D800e and 5D2. In a print.
That would depends a great deal on how the prints were made - processing and print technology, how the interpolation was done and on what surface the photos were printed on.
Were the exposures made of the identical subjects in identical lighting with (as near as possible identical lenses and camera settings? were they processed the same way? Clearly the 36mp images will not have to interpolated as much as the ones from the 5D Mark II to print at 20 x 30 inches.
-
Hello all,
For what it's worth I have reviewed the Canon EOS 6D recently, which summarizes my 3-month experience with it You can find the review here! (http://grahamclarkphoto.com/review-canon-eos-6d/#jp-carousel-2879)
(http://www.grahamclarkphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Canon-EOS-6D-Body-.jpg)
-
For what it's worth I have reviewed the Canon EOS 6D recently, which summarizes my 3-month experience with it You can find the review here! (http://grahamclarkphoto.com/review-canon-eos-6d/#jp-carousel-2879)
Thanks. Just out of curiosity, do you find your 6D to enable larger prints compared to the 5D?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanks. Just out of curiosity, do you find your 6D to enable larger prints compared to the 5D?
Did you not compare the 2?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Did you not compare the 2?
Strange... you spend weeks comparing hundreds of 5D vs D800 prints, reach the conclusion that the 36mp of the D800 bring nothing in terms of print quality... But don't seem to be interested at all in the value brought by the 20mp of the 6D... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
daioumex (sic) wishes for a full frame dSLR with swivel screen. You aren't alone - I find the screen on the 60D incredibly useful at times. Yes, you could run a separate screen on a tablet or iPhone, but I like the simplicity of the swivel screen. I keep mine folded back (screen not visible) most of the time, only deploy screen when needed for live view or the adjustments that can't be made through conventional controls.
-
Yes Nancy, The swivel screen is big time convenient. I own a 4Ti and a 6D. When it is needed, using the swivel screen (4Ti) is light years ahead from using my iPhone as a substitute when using the 6D.
I can't hardly wait for Canon to come with my FF dslr with a swivel screen. :)
Eduardo
daioumex (sic) wishes for a full frame dSLR with swivel screen. You aren't alone - I find the screen on the 60D incredibly useful at times. Yes, you could run a separate screen on a tablet or iPhone, but I like the simplicity of the swivel screen. I keep mine folded back (screen not visible) most of the time, only deploy screen when needed for live view or the adjustments that can't be made through conventional controls.
-
I currently have a 6D and 5D Mark III, I recently sold my 5D Mark II to get the 6D.
Surprisingly, the 6D has a slightly better low light performance compared to 5D Mark III. Everything else is better on the Mark III.
I am happy with the upgrade, I do not regret selling my 5D Mark II.
-
I see the point Grahm is making. When it comes down to looking at a print (or screen) the difference, as founder of this site has said, is peanuts. Yes we still buy into the marketing hype - myself included. Is there a difference? Sure there is but at what level can you detect it? I recently made a 14x21 in mistake print from a panasonic lx3 (a compact camera) that held up more than I expected. With that said, last year I upgraded from a Nikon d300 to a d800 and I must say that I see a significant improvement at 14x21. But resolution never has really been a concern of my customers. It is more important to me. The question you must ask yourself is at what point is it worth spending more for an upgrade?