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

Started Mar 17, 2013 | Discussions
qianp2k
Senior MemberPosts: 9,560Gear list
Like?
Wishful thinking
In reply to Dave Luttmann, Mar 21, 2013

LOL,

Here are steps that everyone can duplicate:

  • load CR2 files into Photoshop CS6 or CS7
  • Use default setting, move sharpening bars all the way to left (zero sharpening).
  • Move NR bars all the way to left (zero NR);
  • Now in PS window, upsampling 5D files to 60D size (5184x3456) by using Bicubic enlargement (best for enlargement).
  • Generate JPEG by using +12 max quality

-- hide signature --
 qianp2k's gear list:qianp2k's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MAC
MAC
Forum ProPosts: 12,268Gear list
Like?
Re: The 5D lost....
In reply to Dave Luttmann, Mar 21, 2013

This discussion is truly over. It's painfully obvious that after over a year of hearing how the 5D was more detailed....even when reduced to a 2000 pixel wide screen view.....we can clearly see from these samples, yours, and the fellow overseas that it was never the case....the 5D lost.

I'd agree with "lost" and I'm fine with that because my files go 13x19 and below

now hopefully we dont need to hear any more exagerations about the magic, classic, 5D. We can bury it like the original Canon D30 and argue about the 5D3 or something else.

I'm happy with my 5dc, T4i and 60d.  right combos of Glass is what I'm working on.

What we've further found, is that dxo MPix across formats is nonsense.  Crop factor has no such penalty that has been portrayed.

 MAC's gear list:MAC's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 650D Canon EOS 100D Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dave Luttmann
Forum ProPosts: 12,350Gear list
Like?
Re: Wishful thinking
In reply to qianp2k, Mar 21, 2013

LOL,

Here are steps that everyone can duplicate:

  • load CR2 files into Photoshop CS6 or CS7
  • Use default setting, move sharpening bars all the way to left (zero sharpening).
  • Move NR bars all the way to left (zero NR);
  • Now in PS window, upsampling 5D files to 60D size (5184x3456) by using Bicubic enlargement (best for enlargement).
  • Generate JPEG by using +12 max quality

-- hide signature --

Show us the loops under the signature on the left of the bill Peter.  Nice try.  You claimed a huge resolution advantage....everyone cane see that simply isnt the case.  You've been wrong on this for years....and you own samples confirm it....as do MACs and the fellow overseas.

You can kick and scream all you like....I've already been showing the print samples to a few friends...local photographers like myself.  They agree completely with me...as do most everyone in this thread.

Sorry...believe what you like.....everyone can try for themselves and can see clearly that the 60D outresolves the 5D...using your own samples.  You lost this one Peter...just like I've been telling you for over a year....because I've worked with the files from these cameras and produced thousands of enlargements for myself and other photographers.  You seem to think that just because you buy a camera, you are an instant expert.  Welcome to the real world....many of us know far more about it than you.  Your samples prove clearly that 2000 pixel wide screen views could never show a huge 5D advantage like you claimed....that was never a truthful assessment....just like many of us maintained.

I was wrong about you....you cant even gracefully accept you were wrong even when results...your own in fact, prove it.  There is no point in debating with you as you will maintain you're right when that clearly isn't the case.

Here's your gold star.  You can pretend you are the expert if it makes you feel special....the truth is obvious to therest of  us.

 Dave Luttmann's gear list:Dave Luttmann's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +15 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dave Luttmann
Forum ProPosts: 12,350Gear list
Like?
Re: The 5D lost....
In reply to MAC, Mar 21, 2013

This discussion is truly over. It's painfully obvious that after over a year of hearing how the 5D was more detailed....even when reduced to a 2000 pixel wide screen view.....we can clearly see from these samples, yours, and the fellow overseas that it was never the case....the 5D lost.

I'd agree with "lost" and I'm fine with that because my files go 13x19 and below

now hopefully we dont need to hear any more exagerations about the magic, classic, 5D. We can bury it like the original Canon D30 and argue about the 5D3 or something else.

I'm happy with my 5dc, T4i and 60d. right combos of Glass is what I'm working on.

What we've further found, is that dxo MPix across formats is nonsense. Crop factor has no such penalty that has been portrayed.

Exactly.  Peter has been wrong all along....like many of us have said.  He is now back to try to claim otherwise.  This is starting to be like debating with a spoiled child....completely pointless.  Any debate with him is a waste of energy.

 Dave Luttmann's gear list:Dave Luttmann's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +15 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mako2011
Forum ProPosts: 15,154
Like?
this step
In reply to qianp2k, Mar 21, 2013

Now - to the subject at hand ...

Unbelievable to see you twisted my photos.

Look the same as my download. I don't see any manipulation.

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.

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.

60D on left, 5D on right.

Here is the real one at 100% cropped and I upsampling 5D to match to 60D size at 5184x3456 thru CS6 Bicubic enlargement, default from ACR7, 0 sharpening and 0 NR.

Here are steps that everyone can duplicate:

  • load CR2 files into Photoshop CS6 or CS7
  • Use default setting, move sharpening bars all the way to left (zero sharpening).
  • Move NR bars all the way to left (zero NR);
  • Now in PS window, upsampling 5D files to 60D size (5184x3456) by using Bicubic enlargement (best for enlargement).

That would be the step you should not have taken (I think). In schmegg's example he simply cropped and posted the original conversion while you re-sampled before cropping and posting. That's perhaps why the difference is more obvious in the straight RAW conversion schmegg showed. Looking at both files in ACR...that seems the case.

  • Generate JPEG by using +12 max quality

After resampling.

Anyone can download my original RAW and duplicate the default processing that I used. 60D photo left and 5D photo right

You made the same mistake here. Did you also adjust WB? Thank you again for being so helpful. Much appreciated.

-- 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
schmegg
schmegg MOD
Senior MemberPosts: 4,980
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to qianp2k, Mar 21, 2013

Here are CR2 RAW Files

Added two with 70-200L/4.0 IS. They are 100% cropped and processed by ACR with zero sharpening and zero NR (all other default) but cut most parts of sky and lawn to save my DPR gallery space.

There is a glitch at the moment to directly insert gallery photos.

ACR 5D + 70-200L/4.0 IS 100% cropped (upsampling 5D2 file to the same size of 60D file 5184x3456 before cropping to 100%)

ACR 60D + 70-200L/4.0 IS 100% cropped

To my eyes, 5D sample not only is sharper but also resolves more details (such as on bricks) at least with this lens. 5D photo also has better default contrast and color.

As I said this time I shoot from too far away under not very good light condition. I will do again in much closer distance under better light condition that will benefits 60D more.

Thank you - most helpful and I do appreciate you making them available.

I am very busy these days in work and preparing the Cancun trip starts this weekend. So finally have a chance to check these.

Now - to the subject at hand ...

Unbelievable to see you twisted my photos.

Peter - please!

Those crops are not processed in any way apart from being imported in LR4 with default settings and the enlarged for comparison.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

60D on left, 5D on right.

Here is the real one at 100% cropped and I upsampling 5D to match to 60D size at 5184x3456 thru CS6 Bicubic enlargement, default from ACR7, 0 sharpening and 0 NR.

Here are steps that everyone can duplicate:

  • load CR2 files into Photoshop CS6 or CS7
  • Use default setting, move sharpening bars all the way to left (zero sharpening).
  • Move NR bars all the way to left (zero NR);
  • Now in PS window, upsampling 5D files to 60D size (5184x3456) by using Bicubic enlargement (best for enlargement).
  • Generate JPEG by using +12 max quality

Anyone can download my original RAW and duplicate the default processing that I used. 60D photo left and 5D photo right

Yes, and anyone can also simply zoom in using the zoom slider to see the actual amount of detail recorded - rather than relying on these very small and post processed new samples you have provided here.

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.

60D on left, 5D on right.

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.

60D on left, 5D on right.

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.

Sorry you don't like it.

It's a shame the 60D didn't have the benefit of the one-stop closed aperture that the 5D enjoyed for this test, but, in any case, it made no difference.

Actually F4.0 on 60D = F6.4 on 5D.If I shoot F6.4 on 5D, 5D will lead more

Ah - so now you believe in equivalence? At least we have made some progress then!

The 60D has clearly resolved more detail.

LOL, check above again if you don't twist. 5D not only is sharper but resolves more fine details (such as the bricks), cleaner with much less fringe.

No - it's sharper but resolves less detail - as your files clearly demonstrate - if you are prepared to 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?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MAC
MAC
Forum ProPosts: 12,268Gear list
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to schmegg, Mar 21, 2013

Peter - please!

He'll regret posting these LOL!

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.

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.

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.

This summarizes it.  Acutance and artifacts - before processing.   I'm confident that after processing, gianp2k has a good likelihood of failing a blind test on up to 13x19 prints and no loop to pixel peep 

Summary -- the difference is Moot -- that is a big reason -  I use BOTH

So go figure...spend $15,000 ... when he says he rarely prints.

Actually F4.0 on 60D = F6.4 on 5D.If I shoot F6.4 on 5D, 5D will lead more

Ah - so now you believe in equivalence? At least we have made some progress then!

Maybe he'll read GB's white paper now 

The 60D has clearly resolved more detail.

LOL, check above again if you don't twist. 5D not only is sharper but resolves more fine details (such as the bricks), cleaner with much less fringe.

No - it's sharper but resolves less detail - as your files clearly demonstrate - if you are prepared to look.

Try the comparison with my blazing sharp T4i 

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?

Good one!

 MAC's gear list:MAC's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 650D Canon EOS 100D Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
qianp2k
Senior MemberPosts: 9,560Gear list
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to schmegg, Mar 21, 2013

schmegg wrote:

Here are CR2 RAW Files

Added two with 70-200L/4.0 IS. They are 100% cropped and processed by ACR with zero sharpening and zero NR (all other default) but cut most parts of sky and lawn to save my DPR gallery space.

There is a glitch at the moment to directly insert gallery photos.

ACR 5D + 70-200L/4.0 IS 100% cropped (upsampling 5D2 file to the same size of 60D file 5184x3456 before cropping to 100%)

ACR 60D + 70-200L/4.0 IS 100% cropped

To my eyes, 5D sample not only is sharper but also resolves more details (such as on bricks) at least with this lens. 5D photo also has better default contrast and color.

As I said this time I shoot from too far away under not very good light condition. I will do again in much closer distance under better light condition that will benefits 60D more.

Thank you - most helpful and I do appreciate you making them available.

I am very busy these days in work and preparing the Cancun trip starts this weekend. So finally have a chance to check these.

Now - to the subject at hand ...

Unbelievable to see you twisted my photos.

Peter - please!

Those crops are not processed in any way apart from being imported in LR4 with default settings and the enlarged for comparison.

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

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

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 standard steps to duplicate the result but not yours.

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?

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 difference 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.

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? My one is at 2000-pixel wide. I can see the difference at this size. It's pretty big difference at 100% size.

60D on left, 5D on right.

Here is the real one at 100% cropped and I upsampling 5D to match to 60D size at 5184x3456 thru CS6 Bicubic enlargement, default from ACR7, 0 sharpening and 0 NR.

Here are steps that everyone can duplicate:

  • load CR2 files into Photoshop CS6 or CS7
  • Use default setting, move sharpening bars all the way to left (zero sharpening).
  • Move NR bars all the way to left (zero NR);
  • Now in PS window, upsampling 5D files to 60D size (5184x3456) by using Bicubic enlargement (best for enlargement).
  • Generate JPEG by using +12 max quality

Anyone can download my original RAW and duplicate the default processing that I used. 60D photo left and 5D photo right

Yes, and anyone can also simply zoom in using the zoom slider to see the actual amount of detail recorded - rather than relying on these very small and post processed new samples you have provided here.

No idea how you do it. But I only view or print at 100% cropped size.

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.

60D on left, 5D on right.

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.

60D on left, 5D on right.

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.

Sorry you don't like it.

Sure if you twisted it.

It's a shame the 60D didn't have the benefit of the one-stop closed aperture that the 5D enjoyed for this test, but, in any case, it made no difference.

Actually F4.0 on 60D = F6.4 on 5D.If I shoot F6.4 on 5D, 5D will lead more

Ah - so now you believe in equivalence? At least we have made some progress then!

Since you raised first, and also reflect in real world photos before subject to respective diffraction.

The 60D has clearly resolved more detail.

LOL, check above again if you don't twist. 5D not only is sharper but resolves more fine details (such as the bricks), cleaner with much less fringe.

No - it's sharper but resolves less detail - as your files clearly demonstrate - if you are prepared to look.

My untwisted processed photos show 5D in outdoor photos, not only are sharper but actually resolve more fine details. Anyone without an agenda would see the same.

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.

-- hide signature --
 qianp2k's gear list:qianp2k's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mako2011
Forum ProPosts: 15,154
Like?
What
In reply to qianp2k, Mar 21, 2013

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

60D on left, 5D on right.

Here is the real one at 100% cropped and I upsampling 5D to match to 60D size at 5184x3456 thru CS6 Bicubic enlargement, default from ACR7, 0 sharpening and 0 NR.

Here are steps that everyone can duplicate:

  • load CR2 files into Photoshop CS6 or CS7
  • Use default setting, move sharpening bars all the way to left (zero sharpening).
  • Move NR bars all the way to left (zero NR);
  • Now in PS window, upsampling 5D files to 60D size (5184x3456) by using Bicubic enlargement (best for enlargement).
  • Generate JPEG by using +12 max quality

Anyone can download my original RAW and duplicate the default processing that I used. 60D photo left and 5D photo right

Yes, and anyone can also simply zoom in using the zoom slider to see the actual amount of detail recorded - rather than relying on these very small and post processed new samples you have provided here.

No idea how you do it. But I only view or print at 100% cropped size.

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

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.

60D on left, 5D on right.

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.

60D on left, 5D on right.

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.

Sorry you don't like it.

Sure if you twisted it.

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

It's a shame the 60D didn't have the benefit of the one-stop closed aperture that the 5D enjoyed for this test, but, in any case, it made no difference.

Actually F4.0 on 60D = F6.4 on 5D.If I shoot F6.4 on 5D, 5D will lead more

Ah - so now you believe in equivalence? At least we have made some progress then!

Since you raised first, and also reflect in real world photos before subject to respective diffraction.

What?

The 60D has clearly resolved more detail.

LOL, check above again if you don't twist. 5D not only is sharper but resolves more fine details (such as the bricks), cleaner with much less fringe.

No - it's sharper but resolves less detail - as your files clearly demonstrate - if you are prepared to look.

My untwisted processed photos show 5D in outdoor photos, not only are sharper but actually resolve more fine details. Anyone without an agenda would see the same.

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

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.

-- hide signature --
-- 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
qianp2k
Senior MemberPosts: 9,560Gear list
Like?
Re: What
In reply to Mako2011, Mar 21, 2013

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.

But let's compare at 100% cropped size.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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?

Here is the real one at 100% cropped and I upsampling 5D to match to 60D size at 5184x3456 thru CS6 Bicubic enlargement, default from ACR7, 0 sharpening and 0 NR.

Here are steps that everyone can duplicate:

  • load CR2 files into Photoshop CS6 or CS7
  • Use default setting, move sharpening bars all the way to left (zero sharpening).
  • Move NR bars all the way to left (zero NR);
  • Now in PS window, upsampling 5D files to 60D size (5184x3456) by using Bicubic enlargement (best for enlargement).
  • Generate JPEG by using +12 max quality

Anyone can download my original RAW and duplicate the default processing that I used. 60D photo left and 5D photo right

Yes, and anyone can also simply zoom in using the zoom slider to see the actual amount of detail recorded - rather than relying on these very small and post processed new samples you have provided here.

No idea how you do it. But I only view or print at 100% cropped size.

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.

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).

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.

It's a shame the 60D didn't have the benefit of the one-stop closed aperture that the 5D enjoyed for this test, but, in any case, it made no difference.

Actually F4.0 on 60D = F6.4 on 5D.If I shoot F6.4 on 5D, 5D will lead more

Ah - so now you believe in equivalence? At least we have made some progress then!

Since you raised first, and also reflect in real world photos before subject to respective diffraction.

What?

what?

The 60D has clearly resolved more detail.

LOL, check above again if you don't twist. 5D not only is sharper but resolves more fine details (such as the bricks), cleaner with much less fringe.

No - it's sharper but resolves less detail - as your files clearly demonstrate - if you are prepared to look.

My untwisted processed photos show 5D in outdoor photos, not only are sharper but actually resolve more fine details. Anyone without an agenda would see the same.

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).

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. My understanding of resolution is the fine details human eyes can see. 41mp Nokia 808 seems has lots of MP but its resolution is very bad. 12mp 5D vastly outresolves Nokia 808.

-- hide signature --
-- 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)

-- hide signature --
 qianp2k's gear list:qianp2k's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mako2011
Forum ProPosts: 15,154
Like?
Nokia
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
qianp2k
Senior MemberPosts: 9,560Gear list
Like?
Re: Nokia
In reply to Mako2011, Mar 21, 2013

Only if you like that. On your logic 41mp is 41mp no matter if your eyes can resolve.

Obviously we have very different standard of resolution or fine details as I use. Certainly your definition of resolution is not what I even remotely dream about, nothing can be furhter clearer between our photos

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/51021107

Anyway you're obviously biased, so no merits continue to exchange. Be happy with your camera.

-- hide signature --
 qianp2k's gear list:qianp2k's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mako2011
Forum ProPosts: 15,154
Like?
I see
In reply to qianp2k, Mar 21, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

Only if you like that. On your logic 41mp is 41mp no matter if your eyes can resolve.

Your mixing concepts...again

Obviously we have very different standard of resolution or fine details as I use. Certainly your definition of resolution is not what I even remotely dream about, nothing can be furhter clearer between our photos

That makes some sense. Because your defining things arbitrarily, you often appear unrelated in your explanation. I'll try to take that into account regards figuring out what you might be referring to in the future. Mixing up resolution and sharpness in your discussion for example. Thanks for clarifying.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
schmegg
schmegg MOD
Senior MemberPosts: 4,980
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to qianp2k, Mar 22, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

schmegg wrote:

Here are CR2 RAW Files

Added two with 70-200L/4.0 IS. They are 100% cropped and processed by ACR with zero sharpening and zero NR (all other default) but cut most parts of sky and lawn to save my DPR gallery space.

There is a glitch at the moment to directly insert gallery photos.

ACR 5D + 70-200L/4.0 IS 100% cropped (upsampling 5D2 file to the same size of 60D file 5184x3456 before cropping to 100%)

ACR 60D + 70-200L/4.0 IS 100% cropped

To my eyes, 5D sample not only is sharper but also resolves more details (such as on bricks) at least with this lens. 5D photo also has better default contrast and color.

As I said this time I shoot from too far away under not very good light condition. I will do again in much closer distance under better light condition that will benefits 60D more.

Thank you - most helpful and I do appreciate you making them available.

I am very busy these days in work and preparing the Cancun trip starts this weekend. So finally have a chance to check these.

Now - to the subject at hand ...

Unbelievable to see you twisted my photos.

Peter - please!

Those crops are not processed in any way apart from being imported in LR4 with default settings and the enlarged for comparison.

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

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

I did that Peter because it show more clearly the difference between the resolving capabilities of these cameras.

It's not 'dark magic', it's simply zooming in on the raw data to see what has been recorded.

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 standard steps to duplicate the result but not yours.

It's not necessary to "follow" your "default standard steps". It's actually more valid to not touch the file at all. Simply zoom in on them and see what scene detail they have resolved. (which is what I did)

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?

The point is simple. It's to show the difference in resolving abilities of these cameras.

Nothing more, nothing less.

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 difference 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.

There is no such thing as "natural sharpness" - it's yet another term you have invented.

Sharpness is a factor of the lens, the sensor, the AA filter, your (or the cameras) ability to focus, your ability to hold the camera steady, the lighting conditions ... and more.

All those images you posted contain artifacts. The higher the resolution, the less significant those artifacts are. And the 60D exhibits less artifacts at the same viewing size when compared to the 5D.

Your images clearly show that.

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? My one is at 2000-pixel wide. I can see the difference at this size. It's pretty big difference at 100% size.

Should I link back to the post where you were insisting on 5000-pixel wide images as the point at which a comparison becomes valid?

Honestly, if you wish to determine which camera is capable of resolving more detail, you simply need to zoom in on the raw images and assess it.

That's what I did with the images I posted.

60D on left, 5D on right.

Here is the real one at 100% cropped and I upsampling 5D to match to 60D size at 5184x3456 thru CS6 Bicubic enlargement, default from ACR7, 0 sharpening and 0 NR.

Here are steps that everyone can duplicate:

  • load CR2 files into Photoshop CS6 or CS7
  • Use default setting, move sharpening bars all the way to left (zero sharpening).
  • Move NR bars all the way to left (zero NR);
  • Now in PS window, upsampling 5D files to 60D size (5184x3456) by using Bicubic enlargement (best for enlargement).
  • Generate JPEG by using +12 max quality

Anyone can download my original RAW and duplicate the default processing that I used. 60D photo left and 5D photo right

Yes, and anyone can also simply zoom in using the zoom slider to see the actual amount of detail recorded - rather than relying on these very small and post processed new samples you have provided here.

No idea how you do it. But I only view or print at 100% cropped size.

Why?

100% is arbitrary. Why not 50%? Or 200%? Why not 1% or even 1000%?

If you wish to see the difference in the abilities of these camera to resolve detail, then you zoom in on the image until you start to see a difference. It's not rocket science Peter!

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.

60D on left, 5D on right.

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.

60D on left, 5D on right.

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.

Really? No offence, but I think you are definitely in the minority here.

Sorry you don't like it.

Sure if you twisted it.

How is simply loading the files in Lightroom and then zooming on them twisting things?

It's a lot less manipulation than the list of things you gave us as the way to not twist things!

It's a shame the 60D didn't have the benefit of the one-stop closed aperture that the 5D enjoyed for this test, but, in any case, it made no difference.

Actually F4.0 on 60D = F6.4 on 5D.If I shoot F6.4 on 5D, 5D will lead more

Ah - so now you believe in equivalence? At least we have made some progress then!

Since you raised first, and also reflect in real world photos before subject to respective diffraction.

So you are converted? It's hard to tell from that statement.

But, I guess, if you are claiming that the principles of equivalence are required for this comparison, then I guess you are!

I will mark this down (and use it in our future 'discussions')

The 60D has clearly resolved more detail.

LOL, check above again if you don't twist. 5D not only is sharper but resolves more fine details (such as the bricks), cleaner with much less fringe.

No - it's sharper but resolves less detail - as your files clearly demonstrate - if you are prepared to look.

My untwisted processed photos show 5D in outdoor photos, not only are sharper but actually resolve more fine details. Anyone without an agenda would see the same.

So you go through a process to alter the raw data and then claim that your images are "untwisted" - whilst I simply load them into Lightroom and move the zoom slider - and my process is somehow 'twisting' the situation?

O ... K ...

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.

When compared to the 5D, the 60D has this advantage regardless. It doesn't 'magically happen' at some point related to subject distance.

However when you are able to frame the subject into the same AOV, 5D does outresolve 60D with most lenses. DXOMark tests are right.

No, it clearly does not. As your images show. And DxO does not back you up either.

Why do you keep saying this? Do you not understand any of what is being explained to you? Are you really unable to grasp the reality of your own images? Or would you prefer to transfer your faith to DxO when your own images don't agree with what you, mistakenly, think the DxO data is indicating?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dave Luttmann
Forum ProPosts: 12,350Gear list
Like?
A few points
In reply to schmegg, Mar 22, 2013

This discussion has been beaten to death over a couple of years by Peter.  Many of us who have worked with these camera files for many years have maintained that the latest aps-c cameras outresolve the 5D.  Claims have been made by Peter that this resolution advantage is obvious even with the 5000 pixel wide file is reduced to 2000 pixels wide.  So, based upon his samples, and a few others recently, we know the following:

- The 5D has less resolution than the 60D

- The claimed resolution advantage at 2000 pixels wide is not true

- It is obvious that these claims have been made for years when in fact he never actually compared...because if he had, he would have known the truth

This is the problem with a lot of people like Peter.  They make assumptions.  They think because they went out and bought a camera, they are now an expert on every topic about it.  They extrapolate data across different cameras.  They misuse data from various sources because they dont understand the principles behind what the data represents.  They exclude data that doesnt support their long held biases.  They argue down people involved in this at a professional level.  They dont seem to understand or acknowledge that these "huge" differences rarely if ever show up in a print of any size.  They claim it will on a monitor at 100%....while neglecting to understand photographers dont sell full rez digital files of their work normally to the public.

In the end, we see that all  of us who were labelled notorious trolls, fanboys, zealots, emptytalkers, liars, etc, when we said he was wrong....were actually in the right all along.

Peter is simply to stubborn to admit he made a mistake.  This also should indicate that he isn't worth the time to listen to as conclusions he reaches are rarely supportable by fact. His burning desire to be perceived as an expert above everyone else has clouded his capability to make judgements based upon real data.

 Dave Luttmann's gear list:Dave Luttmann's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +15 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keith Z Leonard
Senior MemberPosts: 4,022Gear list
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to qianp2k, Mar 23, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

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

He did that so that they would be roughly the same size on screen would be my guess.  It's the analog to your resampling.  The problem is that both his and your approach changes the comparison.  The algorithm used to resize the image visually can make a large difference in the end result.

Here's my take on the images.  I have only compared the dollar bill images, pulled the CR2 files into LR 4.3.

@100% - difficult to see any meaningful difference between the 2 images here.  You can see the pattern behind the president is more detailed on the 60D, generally all of the high frequency patterns are better represented on the 60D, but this comparison lacks on screen equivalence.

I pulled the files into photoshop and resized each to match the others.  I've discussed this with qianp2k before and his attitude was that resizing the images was somehow cheating, interesting to see a change of attitude.  I used 2 methods to try and be fair.

1.  bicubic sharper (best for reduction) - reduce 60D to match 5D resolution.  The result is very close but has better detail and transitions in the signature from the 60D.  This method is probably the closest between the 2 files, but the 60D still wins, most certainly not enough difference between the two to matter.

2.  bicubic smoother (best for enlargement) - enlarge 5D file to match 60D resolution.  Here I don't think it's as close, it's pretty obvious that the 60D is showing more detail to me.

Anyway, my conclusion would be that the 60D resolved more detail in this test case, but I am rather surprised how close the 2 are.  To qianp2k's credit the 5D does much better than one would expect for the sensor resolution differences.  Different tests with different lenses and different lighting situations might reveal different results too, of course.  Even different RAW converters could make a difference, it's all a part of why it's so tough to compare different formats when the results are so close.  I wonder too how the t4i or 7d would compare, it would be similar, but I suspect the AA filter differences could be enough to sway it one way or the other.

btw, I compared these files...

5d - 7282

60d - 7344

 Keith Z Leonard's gear list:Keith Z Leonard's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
aftab
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,538Gear list
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to Keith Z Leonard, Mar 23, 2013

Keith Z Leonard wrote:

Anyway, my conclusion would be that the 60D resolved more detail in this test case, but I am rather surprised how close the 2 are. To qianp2k's credit the 5D does much better than one would expect for the sensor resolution differences. Different tests with different lenses and different lighting situations might reveal different results too, of course. Even different RAW converters could make a difference, it's all a part of why it's so tough to compare different formats when the results are so close. I wonder too how the t4i or 7d would compare, it would be similar, but I suspect the AA filter differences could be enough to sway it one way or the other.

btw, I compared these files...

5d - 7282

60d - 7344

It is surprising, isn't it? You will be more surprised if you compare pictures taken outside with different lenses.

Anyways, I would love to know where in the scene Peter focused so that we can have a better understanding.

-- hide signature --

Life is short.
Travel with passion.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/catch45/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MAC
MAC
Forum ProPosts: 12,268Gear list
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to Keith Z Leonard, Mar 23, 2013

Keith Z Leonard wrote:

Anyway, my conclusion would be that the 60D resolved more detail in this test case, but I am rather surprised how close the 2 are. To qianp2k's credit the 5D does much better than one would expect for the sensor resolution differences.

This is true.

They are close but 60d wins by a tad in resolution.

60d is only 1/2 stop behind 5dc at iso 3200.

My T4i actually keeps up with the 5dc in sharpness from raw.

The only benefit of my 5dc over my 60d and T4i is the shallow dof -- f1.2- f2.8

otherwise, the T4i and 60d keep up and are lighter and light years ahead in feature sets

my T4i only cost $600 

 MAC's gear list:MAC's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 650D Canon EOS 100D Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dave Luttmann
Forum ProPosts: 12,350Gear list
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to MAC, Mar 23, 2013

MAC wrote:

Keith Z Leonard wrote:

Anyway, my conclusion would be that the 60D resolved more detail in this test case, but I am rather surprised how close the 2 are. To qianp2k's credit the 5D does much better than one would expect for the sensor resolution differences.

This is true.

They are close but 60d wins by a tad in resolution.

60d is only 1/2 stop behind 5dc at iso 3200.

My T4i actually keeps up with the 5dc in sharpness from raw.

The only benefit of my 5dc over my 60d and T4i is the shallow dof -- f1.2- f2.8

otherwise, the T4i and 60d keep up and are lighter and light years ahead in feature sets

my T4i only cost $600

Makes it the perfect landscape camera

 Dave Luttmann's gear list:Dave Luttmann's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +15 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dave Luttmann
Forum ProPosts: 12,350Gear list
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to aftab, Mar 23, 2013

aftab wrote:

Keith Z Leonard wrote:

Anyway, my conclusion would be that the 60D resolved more detail in this test case, but I am rather surprised how close the 2 are. To qianp2k's credit the 5D does much better than one would expect for the sensor resolution differences. Different tests with different lenses and different lighting situations might reveal different results too, of course. Even different RAW converters could make a difference, it's all a part of why it's so tough to compare different formats when the results are so close. I wonder too how the t4i or 7d would compare, it would be similar, but I suspect the AA filter differences could be enough to sway it one way or the other.

btw, I compared these files...

5d - 7282

60d - 7344

It is surprising, isn't it? You will be more surprised if you compare pictures taken outside with different lenses.

Anyways, I would love to know where in the scene Peter focused so that we can have a better understanding.

Doesnt really matter.  As we find the resolution advantage to the 60D, where the focus point is, is moot.

-- hide signature --

Life is short.
Travel with passion.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/catch45/

 Dave Luttmann's gear list:Dave Luttmann's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +15 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads