Why Canon made 1Dx best specification ... II

Started May 24, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 31,453
Re: *Sigh*
In reply to qianp2k, May 25, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

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.

That's the point that you cannot.  I'd agree with you if truly everything equals.  But in reality they don't.  Canon 24-70L II is better than Nikon counterpart...

According to DxOMark, not according to PZ.  The problem with these tests, among other things, is that they test only a single copy of the lens:


...Canon 70-200L II is better than Nikon counterpart, Canon 24mm TS-E II is better, Canon 17mm TS-E is unique and better than 14-24 at 17mm in edges/corners clearly.

Talk about cherry-picking examples.  The 17 TSE vs the 14-24 / 2.8?  Really?

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?

So you can see difference at 2000-pixel wide or at 13x19" print? I cannot between my 5D3 and 5D1 except former is slightly better in DR.  I don't think you can tell difference between 5D3 and D800 at 3000-4000 pixel wide or at 18x26" or even 20x30" prints.  I read several due system owners said so.  In order to print really well at 60" wide, you do need to put D800 on tripod while you have a good chance to print hand-held photos from 5D3 at 30" wide.  To see clear difference at 40" wide, I do believe you'd need put D800 on tripod or still very small if both shoot hand-held.  5D3 files can upsampling thru special software and be pretty comparable to D800 to print at 40" wide.

What makes you think the 5D3 files will look nicer by upsampling but the D800 files will not?

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:

Please don't get excited and take personal.


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

That is your post.  I am not sure what you talking about.  But 5D2 that OP talking about is not a high density camera compared to D800.  it affected much less by shooting in hand-held.

I actually read you're hypocrite a few weeks' ago in Open Forum that you boated your 6D shallower DOF and you can shoot wide open in low light not to worry about DOF much, that contradicts to your posts in mFT forum that you keep emphasizing to shoot on eq. DOF, that I disagreed.  So it seems you talked differently in different forums.

What you read is entirely different from what you wrote.  You can find the link and quote, but if I said anything about it, it would have been "Since I love shallow DOF photography, the added bonus of getting less noise at the wider apertures on FF works well for me".

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.

It's matter absolutely.  Actually 5D2 and 5D3 per-pixel quality is pretty close to 5D1 while D800 is obvious less.  Better per-pixel quality, better cropping capability and better print quality.

Peter, if System A has better per-pixel quality than System B, that information, by itself, tells us nothing about the IQ of the photo.

...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.

So you agreed your own acknowledgement.  What's the problem?  My point is that higher pixel amounts, better technique you needed not to export to the same size of lower MP camera, but to its own designed potential.  D800 is not designed to print to 20x30" or 4000-pixel on screen, but 40x60" print and 7000-pixel on screen.  Otherwise you wasting 36mp and better to buy a 24mp D600.

Peter, many people are better off with a good compact than a DSLR.  What's your point?

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.

Exactly.  D800 sensor advantage quickly reduced by imperfect lens, so-called diminishing return.  Even Canon releases a 46mp camera, it will NOT have double resolution with the same 24-70L II.  DXOMark perceptual sharpness tests that roughly based on MTF-30 resolution explain these very well.  It's only matter form sensor-lens resolution/sharpness not sensor's paper resolution.

DxOMark's PMP measure is no more meaningful than DPR's overall rating for a camera.

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.

system resolution.  Lens is the bottleneck.  You can squeeze 100mp into, but the resolution that human eyes can see are greatly reduce by imperfect lenses.

And you think Canon lenses are oh so much better than Nikon lenses, right?

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).

That is another topic.  Crop format has much bigger impact on IQ than amount of pixels difference.  The difference between 5D2/5D3 and mFT is much bigger than between 5d3/5D2 and D800.




Loved your BS posts in that second thread.

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.

Yes but just on different degree.  As I said, with hand-held you can get pretty sharp full size 5D3 files and excellent print quality to 20x30".  With D800, you don't get the same level of full size D800 files and similar print quality at 40x60".

So what it boils down to is that you're saying the 36 MP of the D800 is a waste since photos at 40x60 inches don't have the same IQ as photos from the 5D3 at 20x30 inches?

My, my.  It's not education that you need, but...

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