Why Canon made 1Dx best specification ... II

Started May 24, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 27,561
In reply to qianp2k, May 24, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

High pixel density cameras such as D800 does need to use better technique such as on tripod and use best lenses in order to fully leverage high pixel density potential.  Sure it doesn't have more blurs than a 22mp camera at the same export size but then you'd waste its 36mp potential.

...that's true of any camera with any pixel count.

Except higher pixel density cameras such as D800 has higher demand for better technique to fully leverage potential.

That's true of any camera with any pixel count.

Obviously you didn't read what I described.

In fact, I did read what you described.

Hand-held 5D3 vs hand-held D800 when view at 100% cropped size...

Seriously -- just WTF does "100% cropped size" have to do with comparing photos made from different pixel counts?  A 100% crop from a D800 results in a much smaller portion of the scene than a 100% crop from a 5D3.  Why are you comparing a tight crop from a D800 to a wider crop from a 5D3?  I mean, this is about photography, isn't it?

...or print to their supposed sizes such as 20x30" vs 40x60".

When printed at the same size (and why would we be comparing systems in any other matter), more pixels will yield more detail every time (all else equal).

If you have to reduce size on D800 photo to match on 5D3 sharpness on monitor...

First of all, duh, you have to reduce the size of the photo to display on a monitor.  It takes no more effort to downsample 36 MP to 1 MP (e.g. 1200 x 800) than it does to downsample 22 MP to 1 MP.

...or on print...

You downsample before printing?  Do tell.

...then you waste extra 14mp potential.

Well, duh.  You don't realize the full potential of 36 MP (or 22 MP) for a 1 MP downsampled photo on a computer monitor or an 8x12 inch print.

No mention according to DXOMark test, their actual perceptual sharpness (resolution) is not as big as difference of sensor resolution with respective lenses such as wit 24-70L II vs 24-70G.

First of all, DxOMark's PMP measure is more than suspect.  Secondly, as I said, at best, 36 MP will yield 28% more linear detail than 22 MP (all else equal).

For example you can hand-held 6D/5D3 and likey still can get sharp photos at 100% cropped or print to 20x30".

If you print the same size with the D800, the photos will have at least as much detail, usually more (all else equal, of course).

What's the definition of the same or standard size, at 3000-pixe wide or at 20x30" print?

Neither here nor there, Peter.  A 20x30 inch print from a D800 will *always* resolve at least as much detail as a 20x30 inch print (or any other size print) from a 5D3, all else equal.

With D800 you have lower chance to get sharp 100% cropped hand-held photos or print to 40x60".

This is absolutely false.  For example, if we take a handheld pic of the same scene a Sigma 35 / 1.4 and the same settings, and print the photo at any given size, the D800 photo will be resolve more detail.  If we crop each photo to the same portion of the scene, the D800 photo will resolve more detail.

You didn't read what I said precisely - "With D800 you have lower chance to get sharp 100% cropped hand-held photos or print to 40x60".  Is that wrong?

Yes, it is wrong, since whatever loss of sharpness there is in the D800 photo, it will still be sharper than the 5D3 photo.

That means you waste its 36mp potential so you'd have to print only to 20x30" or view at 5000-pixel wide to get similar sharpness from 6D/5D3.

The D800 photo will resolve more detail at *any* print size than the 5D3 photo.  If the D800 photo does not look good at 40x60 inches, then the 5D3 photo sure as hell won't look good.  If the 5D3 photo looks good at 20x30 inches, then the D800 photo will look at least as good (as always, all else equal -- that is, not some POS lens on the D800 and Canon's best on the 5D3).

How much more detail, of course, depends on a great number of factors, but the fact of the matter is that the D800 will resolve more detail (anywhere between 0% and 28% more linear detail).

Not quite true according to DXOMark test and according to those creditable photographers such as Hans (few will doubt his credibility) who actually own both cameras and actually print. DPR said correctly that you do need to use better technique in order to fully leverage 36mp potential. 22mp 5D3 is more tolerable than 36mp D800.


Peter, are you OK?  How many times have I said that you need "better technique" to maximize the potential of *any* system?  I mean, c'mon man!  Eat more fish (brain food)!

If you have to reduce sizes to get similar sharpness level then you wasted 36mp potential.  Instead why you don't buy a 22mp or 24mp camera?  That's reason why many Nikon shooters prefer 24mp over 36mp as not everyone needs to print to billboard size.  Just ask yourself why you don't buy D800 but a low pixel 6D???

I bought the 6D 'cause I had all Canon lenses and was too lazy to sell them to switch systems.  Furthermore, I liked the smaller size of the 6D.  Lastly, I like the operation of Canon, have never used Nikon, and am not sure how I would like Nikon in that regard.

OK a nice excuse you could sacrifice the potential or don't need to print to billboard size. So do I and most of people as you'd not see much difference when only print to 20x30" or view at 4000-pixel wide.

You know, there are plenty of mFT photographers who say the same about 16 MP mFT vs 22 MP FF, and many FF photographers moving to mFT on that very basis.

And you know what?  Yeah, I agree -- the differences are not that big, and certainly don't have an impact on the success of a photo unless it is displayed very large and viewed closely.

However, if there were two versions of the 6D, one with the sensor that's in mine, one with the sensor that's in the D800, guess which I'd choose?  Guess which pretty much everyone would choose?

Well, more likely Canon will give us choices of 24mp or 46mp. I'd pickup 24mp any day until 30" 8K monitor becomes affordable, otherwise 46mp simply wasted on my 1080p monitor or in 20x30" prints.

We'll see what Canon does.  In the meantime, what was wrong with the 16 MP 1DX?  Too expensive?  That's not to say, of course, that I feel the difference between 16 MP and 22 MP to be significant.

Meanwhile my larger-pixel 1DIII (10mp) and 5D Classic (12.8mp) are fully capable of generating very sharp photos when view at 100% cropped or per-pixel level or to print to 19x13" or even 26x18" sizes.

Except it's not the 100% view that matters -- it's how sharp the final photo appears at the size it's displayed and the distance from which it's viewed, assuming detail even matters.

It matters. A good quality 100% cropped photo = better cropping = print quality at size that camera designed for.  My experiences tell me.

Then your experiences count for ++++.  If you cropped out the middle 10% of a photo from your 5D3 (2.2 MP), then the D800 photographer would crop out the middle 10% of their photo (3.6 MP) and get a more detailed photo.

That's only true if pixel-level quality is the same or very close.

No.  All else equal (i.e. same lens sharpness, same aperture, same shutter speed, same scene), the 3.6 MP crop from the D800 will be more detailed than the 2.2 MP crop from the 5D3.

A tack sharp per-pixel level 5D3 will beat a mushy/soft per-pixel level D800 photo at the same-size output eitehr on screen or on monitor.

That's a strawman argument, however.  All else equal, the D800 photo will *never* resolve less detail than the 5D3 photo (but will resolve a maximum of 28% more linear detail).

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