Why Canon made 1Dx best specification ... II

Started May 24, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 31,489
Re: *Sigh*
In reply to qianp2k, May 24, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

There are too many sentences and I don't want to reply one on one basis as most of them are the same regarding below the key point.

Finally something we can both agree on! 

Great Bustard wrote:

...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).

Yeah a big ONLY if all else equal, that's the point.

Well, I mean, duh.  The point is, everything can be made equal except the lenses (although the lenses are often, if not usually, close enough).

But how to make everything else equals?

You can't.  You compare the systems on the basis of the photos you intend to take with the systems and the lenses you expect to use.

Do you have to use a better technique such as tripod and the best lens on D800?

No.  Do you think I use a tripod with my 20 MP 6D when I came from a 13 MP 5D?

Otherwise the difference is much smaller due to imperfect techniques and lens.

You know, it really isn't.  Indeed, you are quite the hypocrite, as I made this exact point:


and in your response to that point, you added more support to it.

To achieve all else equal such as similar per-pixel level IQ...

And again, Peter, per-pixel IQ is meaningless.  It's the photo we're talking about here.  I mean, if we're not talking photos, then there's no point to this "conversation".

But that directly affects cropping capability and print quality. Don't they?

What I'm saying, Peter, is that it's not the per-pixel IQ that matters, but the IQ of the resulting photo.  A 100% crop from the 5D3 will not necessarily look as good as a 100% crop from a 5D, but that doesn't mean that the 5D3 doesn't resolve significantly more.

...you' need better technique on D800 such as the best lens (such as Sigma 35/1.4) on tripod, otherwise the advantage is disappearing quickly.

Yes -- the *advantage* will disappear quickly with poor technique (or narrow apertures where diffraction is dominant), but the *advantage* will always remain.

Becomes much smaller or even noticeable.But I am glad you finally agreed up the value of a good technique

Peter, I acknowledged the value of good technique with my very first sentence of my very first post in this thread.  Please, stop mistrepresenting, whether it be of deliberate intent or ignorance of what I've said.

See, DXOMark shows with a better lens such as 24-70L II 5D3 actually has better perceptual sharpness that roughly based on MTF 30 resolution in beating D800 with 24-70G, whoops, no mention if D800 not take on a sturdy tripod.

24-70L II on 5D3 vs 24-70G on D800

So DxOMark shows, with the particular lenses they tested, that the Canon lens is significantly better than the Nikon lens.

No, DXOMark tested entire system not lens.  Sensor or lens doesn't take photos alone but must work together.

Yes.  But since the D800 sensor resolves signficantly more than the 5D3 sensor (36 MP vs 22 MP, and the AA filters are not that different), then for the 24-70 / 2.8L II to resolve more on the 5D3 than the 24-70 / 2.8G on the D800, the 24-70 / 2.8L II must be significantly sharper.

Did you read Hans' post?


I did.  Like I said, the D800 will resolve a maximum of 28% more linear detail than the 5D3, all else equal.  If it has a better lens, then more.  If it has a lesser lens, then it can even resolve less.

28% only on paper but in reality as Hans and others experienced, the difference is very small.

Again, a maximum of 28% -- let's say 14% on average.  I wonder how many could see a difference of 14% more linear detail.  More to the point, I wonder how many more would even care if they could notice.

However, this is neither here nor there.  If the 5D3 had the D800 sensor (and, by the way, the 5D3 with the D800 sensor in the 6D body is nearly my ideal camera) then the 5D3 would have produced better photos still.

In theory yes. In reality if you only print to 20x30" or view to 4000-pixel wide, then the difference is hardly noticeable. Personally I don't believe cropping but native length lens.

Again, I refer you to the FF photographers going mFT for the exact same reasons (with the added bonus of a significantly smaller kit).

Whether or not the photos would have been "enough better" to be worth the operational downsides is another matter entirely.

Agreed. So as DPR review said, you do need to use the best technique such as the best lenses and on tripod to fully leverage D800 resolution in order to print in excellent quality to billboard size 40x60", LOL.

But you can shoot handheld and still enjoy a substantial advantage.  I refer you again to my post that you not only agreed with, but added to:


P.S.:  I thought you were done with line-by-line replies.

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