Would you still by the 5D Mrk III?

Started Aug 20, 2013 | Discussions thread
bhollis
Senior MemberPosts: 2,608Gear list
Like?
Re: Parallel
In reply to Muresan Bogdan, Aug 22, 2013

Muresan Bogdan wrote:

RicksAstro wrote:

Muresan Bogdan wrote:

Well you got it all wrong here. As somebody said, all pixels are not equal. So if the pixel density is very high ( crop body with 24mp for example) you have a very big drop in shapness ( it's plain physics - difraction phenomenon mostly). So you might and up with that 300 pixels bird that looks mushy while on a FF body you get a 200 pixel bird that is very sharp and so it might take a resize to 300 pixels and still look better than your APS-C. Add noise into the equation and a crop from a FF sensor upscaled might look better than the APS-C equivalent without upscaling.

Given similar technologies, you will never get a drop in sharpness with a higher pixel density when the subject is viewed at the same magnification. The larger pixel density will always yield the same or more likely more real subject detail, which means it will always have the same or more "reach". This includes diffraction...at the same subject magnification, a denser sensor will always give you the same or more detail even when you're in the diffraction "zone".

Well APS-C and FF are not similar technologies. The pixel pitch does matter in diffraction. So for the 7D for example ( 18mp only) difraction kicks in at f5.6. For the 5d mk iii only at f8. So shooting at f5.6 for example the APS-C will loose some detail : one pixel image will spread through diffraction and contaminate the pixels near. So a denser sensor will only give more information, not more detail. If you are under the diffraction limit that is true. The denser sensor will give more detail. But for a 24mp APS-C the diffraction limit drops at about f4.5. Here is a very nice simulator that might help people understand how diffraction works. What you will find as the "limit" of diffraction ( f16 or f13) is actually the point where diffraction is very visible and you have a significant drop in resolution. But it actually starts much lower than that. But from f5.6 to f13 it affects only pixesl size details and most of the time you don't see it.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

I agree you can't really separate "portrait" cameras from "sports" these days. I regularly used a D800 for sports and found it fantastic. The ability to crop when I needed gave me far more flexibility and "reach" with the 70-200 without the frame crop restrictions of the D7000. The lens was effectively "wider" than with the D7000 and had better "reach" than a with D700...the best of both.

-- hide signature --

This is an old debate. Personally, I prefer test results to theoretical suppositions--particularly since the theoretical suppositions go in both directions.

For example, here's a test done by Liquidstone, a well respected bird photographer. Tests like this, together with my own experience with my 7D and 5D3, have convinced me that the reach advantage offered by higher density sensors is real.

http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/7dvs5d2

 bhollis's gear list:bhollis's gear list
Sony RX1R Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Canon Extender EF 1.4x II +5 more
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