Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Aptus 22 vs 5DII  (Read 109507 times)

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10348
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #140 on: December 14, 2008, 03:36:24 am »

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
So here a 100% crop, both STRAIGHT out of the cam, no sharpening applied:

What F stop did you use with each lens, Frank? I see no mention of this on your blog.

I find it difficult to believe that the unsharpened resolution differences between these two crops is entirely due to the AA filter. I've seen comparison images from a standard 5D and a hot-rodded 5D with AA filter removed. The resolution increase is much more subtle than the differences between these 5D2 and Aptus 22 crops.

Did you use Live View to focus the 5D2 shot? Did you use a one-stop smaller aperture with the 5D2?
Logged

Henry Goh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 574
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #141 on: December 14, 2008, 04:01:16 am »

Quote from: Ray
Did you use Live View to focus the 5D2 shot? Did you use a one-stop smaller aperture with the 5D2?

Ray,

would you be so kind to educate me why you would use a smaller aperture with the 5DII?
Logged

Henry Goh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 574
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #142 on: December 14, 2008, 04:23:48 am »

Frank,

IMHO showing both images w/o sharpening means nothing. This is because there is a need to compensate the 5DII file for the effect of AA filter so sharpening is needed for that file, don't you think?
Logged

csp

  • Guest
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #143 on: December 14, 2008, 05:12:49 am »

Quote from: Henry Goh
Frank,

IMHO showing both images w/o sharpening means nothing. This is because there is a need to compensate the 5DII file for the effect of AA filter so sharpening is needed for that file, don't you think?


you are right but frank did not want to show how close they are all he wants is to proof that mf is so much superior. so everything what makes the canon looks less attractive is welcomed .

Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #144 on: December 14, 2008, 06:03:11 am »

If you would take the time to read what I post instead of trying to bash me everytime you would have read that I love the camera and also said that with sharpening the 5dmkii looks wonderful.

However some people only read what they want to read
I use both systems and love both for the rest this is my last comment for a while I don't have the time to defend myself everytime I love a good discussion but that is almost impossible this way.
Logged

benP

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #145 on: December 14, 2008, 06:07:27 am »

regarding the two eye pictures


there is miles miles miles more detail in the MF image
forget sharpening....  you will never recover that detail in the canon image. not even close
Logged

thsinar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2066
    • http://www.sinarcameras.com
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #146 on: December 14, 2008, 06:18:26 am »

Frank,

don't let yourself being pushed away. There will always be provocative comments in public, for you, for me and for others. One cannot please all but can help some, which is already fantastic. I think that people here can make their opinion and judge by themselves.

Best regards,
Thierry



Quote from: Frank Doorhof
this is my last comment for a while I don't have the time to defend myself everytime I love a good discussion but that is almost impossible this way.
Logged
Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com

Henry Goh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 574
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #147 on: December 14, 2008, 06:24:28 am »

Quote from: benP
regarding the two eye pictures


there is miles miles miles more detail in the MF image
forget sharpening....  you will never recover that detail in the canon image. not even close
Logged

csp

  • Guest
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #148 on: December 14, 2008, 06:33:26 am »

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
If you would take the time to read what I post instead of trying to bash me everytime you would have read that I love the camera and also said that with sharpening the 5dmkii looks wonderful.

However some people only read what they want to read
I use both systems and love both for the rest this is my last comment for a while I don't have the time to defend myself everytime I love a good discussion but that is almost impossible this way.


if you know better why do you publish this comparison ?  do you think you need do to leaf a favor ?  with some  sharpening applied for compensating  the aa filter and a slight different color setting in dpp the image would have been extrem  close right ?
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #149 on: December 14, 2008, 06:42:47 am »

A bit too much sharpness but the files improve indeed after sharpening as mentioned before.
Today I took the 5dmkii to sleddog runs and it excells in those situations.

For what I do however the leaf gives me a better start and again the only reason I posted the crops was not to compare but more to show that mr when used correctly can give much sharper results than what I saw untill now.

Comparing the two systems is comparing apples to oranges and I happen to love both  so it's bs that I want the canon to  look worse I also paid for the canon and I would hate to throw away money.
Logged

Henry Goh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 574
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #150 on: December 14, 2008, 06:48:10 am »

Frank,

Hope you know I'm not bashing you.  I simply asked a question that struck me about the effect of AA filter and that such files will need sharpening.  I did the sharpening illustration on your files because someone commented that the level of details is miles apart.  I don't think so when both files are about the same resolution the level of details captured will be about the same.  Of course I would normally not sharpen skin this way and if any sharpening is needed, I would do it selectively.


Logged

yaya

  • Guest
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #151 on: December 14, 2008, 06:48:59 am »

csp,

We very rarely see anything positive or meaningful posted by you let alone any of your work or identity to show that you are anything other than a sad bored person who finds joy in poking others' ideas and opinions. This is far beyond photography, art, technology or equipment.

Tomorrow morning try to wake up with a real smile, it doesn't hurt, honest!

Yair
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #152 on: December 14, 2008, 07:02:41 am »

henry don't worry I know
It's also exactly my opinion a liitle bit of sharpening goes a long way but also destroys some small detail but he there's a huge price difference that's why I'm very enthousiastic about the camera.

The problem is however with some people that it seems like you have to choose and otherwise are stupid/blind or biased.
I'm none as far as I know I just love both.
I know that when I work a bit wit a profile I can get closer but for me the leaf nails it straight out of the cam with very robust and dynamic files and I CLEARLY see more 3d in the of files but also according to some that does not excist.  

But again I see the both systems as a 28-75 and a 70-200 lens they complement each other and give you other options.
MF is not dead by a long haul untill the sensor sizes come close but hey than canon or nikon also make MF
Logged

csp

  • Guest
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #153 on: December 14, 2008, 08:19:13 am »

Quote from: yaya
csp,

We very rarely see anything positive or meaningful posted by you let alone any of your work or identity to show that you are anything other than a sad bored person who finds joy in poking others' ideas and opinions. This is far beyond photography, art, technology or equipment.

Tomorrow morning try to wake up with a real smile, it doesn't hurt, honest!

Yair



yes master - you only know what meaningful opinions are and i'm very sorry  that i can't praise mr.doorhof and leaf as you would like to.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10348
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #154 on: December 14, 2008, 09:00:10 am »

Quote from: Henry Goh
Ray,

would you be so kind to educate me why you would use a smaller aperture with the 5DII?

Glad you are alert. I meant of course a one stop smaller f stop number. If the 5D2 was shot at F2.8 and the Aptus 22 at F4, that would explain why the Aptus shot would be sharper. Most lenses are sharper at F4 than at F2.8 and smaller formats with similar pixel counts need a sharper lens, or a lens used at a sharper aperutre, in order to record equally sharp results.

The thread begins with a comparison at F11 (for the 5D2) and F16 for the DB, demonstrating that resolution is about the same, as one would expect. Most lenses are marginally sharper at F11 than at F16 and full frame 35mm needs that extra lens sharpness in any comparison.

It's doubtful that a Canon zoom lens at F2.8 would be as sharp as an MF prime at F4, hence the clear loss of resolution. However, the shots from Frank don't appear to have a particularly shallow DoF, which is why I am asking what F stops were used.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2008, 09:04:01 am by Ray »
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #155 on: December 14, 2008, 10:02:32 am »

f16 vs f11
Logged

benP

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #156 on: December 14, 2008, 10:12:22 am »

a very good example of how to completely ruin a picture


see how with the canon now EVERYTHING is sharpened
so whilst you have sharpened some of the details that perhaps needed to be sharpened
all the lovely softer areas are no longer soft
and you've actually sharpened the NOISE in the picture (loo top left)
the structure of the actual picture is now visible

the result ? A picture that has nothing to do with reality anymore. It has no subtely, no fathfullness and is a nasty digital abomination, a model who has leprosy


First rule of photoshop: Never use unsharp mask, you should sharpen using 'High Pass + degrain + transfer layer' or a specialist sharpen plugin

true detail isnt about just sharpening, its a subtle mixture of sharp and soft.. there is no magic filter or action to bring it back when its not there  
Logged

jing q

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 596
    • we are super
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #157 on: December 14, 2008, 12:19:39 pm »

Quote from: T-1000
LOL.  Annie Leibovitz doesn't know about what "look" she wants, or cares about the "look" that whatever camera, digital back, sensor size, or format may give her.

Someone hands her a camera... any camera... probably a camera that she barely knows how to use, or barely knows anything about, then she learns how to set the exposure, focus, and press the shutter button, and she takes her famous photographs without caring about the medium format look, or the next Canon or Nikon that will become a MF killer.  Whatever camera she's holding, she probably doesn't even know or care about how many megapixels it has, or how big the pixels are.

I'm almost positive this woman would have NO clue about anything we talk about in this forum...

actually in her recent book she points out that when a new,better camera comes out she's always interested in trying it out
I'm sure she's less clueless than you make her out to be
Logged

bcooter

  • Guest
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #158 on: December 14, 2008, 12:22:00 pm »

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
However some people only read what they want to read

Frank,

I'm not sure if that is exactly true, but be realistic, if you post two images like this your going to get blow back and no disrespect meant but if you also put a camera companies logo on all of your photos your motives will be questioned, that's just a natural assumption and to continue the discussion saying yes you should sharpen an image to match, well sharpen it then you'll know.

Your also comparing a camera you've owned for a few hours next to a system you've worked with for years, so as you and most of us who understand digital know, it takes a while to learn each system and get the best out of it.

Regardless all of these comparisons are flawed, because unless you have a cosmetic contract how many people are hired to just shoot an eyeball.  Something full length and cropped to a page size is a better real world comparison.

It is also comparing primes vs. zoom and if you process a lot of files in a lot of different converters you will see so many differences in the 645 format and 35mm format that depending on the time, day, hour, shot, processor, client, subject, light, iso one will always look better, sometimes fractionally sometimes miles apart.

These comparisons and conversations go all around the houses, until the conversation turns sour and finally gets blocked.  (maybe that's the goal   But this one kind of surprises me because rather than show a clear superiority of one format to the other, they are both very close.

These format discussions are interesting but rarely equate to logic or use in the real world.  I have a friend that has a gig with a luxury fashion merchandiser, that runs monthly in every major glossy magazine, usually a large insert.   This photographers portfolio is 65% Canon files, 30% film, though the client demands he shoot medium format because they have a contract with a studio and a tech firm that has medium format.  He always complains, saying mf always looks to sharp so he brings his Canons to the shoot and shoots a few images of each setup for himself and the art director usually runs most of the Canon images, so a lot of this is down to visual taste, not scientific sharpness comparisons.

I think there is a lot of fear in the camera world of the 5d2 and even the new Sony because no longer are we comparing 15, 20, or 30 thousand dollar cameras next to $8,000 cameras but we're comparing them to what is essentially a $3,000 consumer camera and the results are almost too close to measure once the ink hits the paper.  I also know from experience that now that the dslrs are in the 20+ mpx range, even photographers who have made the medium format investment find themselves going to the dslrs much more often than they ever thought for all the reasons you can imagine, but mostly because it is just easier to get the shot and in today's advertising world the expectations on how many setups how muchroi a client demands is very, very high.

Regardless, nobody needs any justification on what type of camera they use if it produces the results and their happy.

Still, this is like comparing a $100,000 farm tractor next to a $10,000 Toyota except in this case the Toyota pulls a plow very well and also takes the family to church on Sunday.


Logged

Carsten W

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 627
Aptus 22 vs 5DII
« Reply #159 on: December 14, 2008, 01:09:25 pm »

I think the relaxed sharpness in the MF shot is lost in that particular rendition of the 5D2 shot, which looks tense. It would surely look better with access to the original, but I do prefer the MF here, in all versions shown so far.
Logged
Carsten W - [url=http://500px.com/Carste
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 12   Go Up