PIX 2015

*** 5Dc vs 60D resolution test ***

Started Mar 17, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Forum ProPosts: 18,104
In reply to qianp2k, Mar 21, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

schmegg wrote:

I have not touched any sliders at all apart from the zoom slider.

I have no idea who you did that. But why you even tried to zoom 3x or 4x?

To examine detail of course. That should be obvious.

a) LOL, DPR reviews don't use 300 or 400% cropped, and nobody posts a 3x or 4x enlaged photo in internet; b) no mention I even don't know how he actually did that.

Again with the off topic...no one mentioned DPR comparisons.

But let's compare at 100% cropped size.

Why not just look at the detail in the converted raw files as schmegg did. No need to limit the comparison. Still true just easier to see when examined closer.

It is clear, even with these images (which were shot wide open with the 60D but stopped down one stop with the 5D) that the 60D resolves more detail.

Not true at all provided you don't twist my photos and processed default out of RAW.

They are the default processed files.

They are not. Anyone can follow my default steps to duplicate the result but not yours.

They are default. I followed your steps and got the same result as schmegg depicted here.

My steps have no 3x or 4x cropping, lol.

That does not make the actual close examination of the RAW files twisted in any way. You did up-sample before your cropping and display. That would be more of a "twisted" nature.

Some examples where this is easy to see - be sure to view these at full size to see the full effects ...

1. Look at the detail in the hair, look at the eyes, look at the lips, look at the curved 'frame' around him ...

This is thru your twist and I have no idea how you did that. No idea why you view at 3x or 4x sizes as simply not we view at 100% cropped, not on prints.

I view at that size so I can see the detail rendered. It's very simple.

LOL. Nobody post a 300% or 400% cropped or print from that enlargement. What's the point before I even question if you did correctly?

I thought we we're comparing resolution as the thread states. Why wouldn't you zoom in to do that?

Yes we are so I published 100% cropped.

Why did you limit your self to that...much easier to actually compare resolution at greater mag if it's there. That is obvious with the greater crop now. Unfortunately, it also make the 5D artifacts more noticeable as well. But, no when needs go that close with such old tech.  Mostly no need

At 100% the difference is visible, but less easy to see - and it's more easy to be fooled into thinking that artifacts due to higher acutance and lower resolution are actual detail - when they are not. It's a bit like the effect noise has on perceived sharpness really - it's an illusion - not real detail.

We can see different at 100% clearly. Natural sharpness (as I doesn’t even add any software sharpness) is not artifacts. As a matter of fact, 60D already display lots more artifacts. You're right by your twisting it's an illusion, lol.

"Natural sharpness" what kind of term is that...can you get back on the topic of resolution? The 5D pics are full of large pixel related artifacts. Clear in the RAW file.

Natural sharpness is default from sensor/lens without any software sharpening.

What? where was the derived from? You even stated you sharpened the different crops to different degrees and also up-sampled...which still showed the 60D out-resolved the 5D.

LOL, you're so biased that actually 60D are full of artifacts such as purple fringe. I used zero NR and zero sharpening in processing and 5D files obviously better.

What?  You said..."Only changes are adding a bit sharpness, +3 RAW in 5D files and +7 RAW in 60D files in DPP"  Resolution wise, even after that the 60D is still out reolving.

I'd say at average viewing sizes the difference is moot - certainly not the order of magnitude in favour of the 5D that you endlessly claim on these forums.

What's your definition of average viewing size?

MTF defines it depending on the measurement used. Also defined when referring to DOF

You didn't answer my question above correctly. I am talking what average viewing size from schemegg?

What has that to do with resolution?

That makes it harder to examine resolution if you limit yourself in that way.

pretty clear to me, and hope he and you don't cause a delusion that 24-105L is better than 24-70L II, LOL.

Nope...just talking about how in your example the 60D out resolves the 5D...given the variables as they are presented. Are you now changing the topic to a lens only comparison?

2. In this example it is clear that the 5D was completely unable to resolve the chain-wire mesh in the fence, whereas the 60D has managed to capture it reasonable well (considering how far away this was!) ...

Again this is your twisted result. No ideal how you did that.

Here is the real one at 100% cropped and I upsampling 5D to match to 60D size

Wow, what a big difference and the one below is the authentic one from two cameras.

3. In this example the DO NOT ENTER sign in the 60D image is readable or close to it whereas the 5D has just rendered a mess. Also, look at the edge on the sign between the red and white areas. Also look at the edges of the slanted timber support in the top left-hand corner - the 60D has done OK but the 5D has rendered a staircase ...

Again this is your twisted one.

Here is the real one at 100% cropped and I upsampling 5D to match to 60D size.

Those three examples are just a few of the many areas where it is obvious. The more you look, the more you see.

Please don't twist, then you will see exactly as above and everyone would see that.

Not twisted at all - just enlarged so the difference is easily visible.

LOL, at 100% cropped above and I even upsampling 5D to 6D file size, I already can see the difference, and I am not alone.

You do seem alone in this case...even up sampling the minor 60D resolution advantage is clear.

On brick wall where I focus upon. 5D resolves details noticebly better and sharper (default).

There you go again. Sharpness does not equal resolution. I'm surprised how that concept can be so elusive for you. You should start another thread comparing sharpness across formats...this thread was about resolution across formats.

Sorry you don't like it.

Sure if you twisted it.

Looking at your raw files (thanks for providing) no twisting going on.

if you look naturally without a twisting or just trying to make your way.

"Naturally without a twisting"?I did It was only possible with your full files though and schmegg showed that well. You did well to provide. That took a big leap and is appreciated.

You up-sampled...your then are a bit more "twisted" then the unaltered raw images schmegg depicted.

LOL, I only gave 60D a benefit. I should also do downsampling by reduce 60D files to 5D size, as not everyone needs to print and view that big (btw, 5D view and print better from my own experiences).

With the RAW files provided...no need to re-sample at all. Simple comparison easily shows the extra resolution of the 60D when simply opening the files in ACR. Presenting it on the web i the difficult part. No need now as we can all simply open the files and look.

Since I own both cameras and generated thousand and thousand photos from each of them, I know so clearly 5D takes better portrait and landscape photo while 60D has 'reach' (pixel density) advantage in zoo and safari. They complement each other well.

Explain to me how a 60D could have a reach advantage if it resolves less detail?

When you're unable to be closer or your lens is not long enough where 60D has 'reach' (actually pixel density) advantage. However when you are able to frame the subject into the same AOV, 5D does outresolve 60D with most lenses. DXOMark tests are right.

What? You just showed DXO to be off...why are you now saying they are back on? Are you mixing "resolution" with something else? Hard to understand what your comparing now.

My tests actually show DXOMark tests are correct.

Not really

My understanding of resolution is the fine details human eyes can see.

That my be the confusion.  Your understanding may not be an accurate one.

41mp Nokia 808 seems has lots of MP but its resolution is very bad. 12mp 5D vastly outresolves Nokia 808.

Now you are again off topic...Nokia?

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow