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

Started Mar 17, 2013 | Discussions
Steen Bay
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,265
Like?
Re: A few points
In reply to The Davinator, Mar 23, 2013

Dave Luttmann wrote:

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.

Peter has just been repeating what DxO says, and if DPR tested lenses on 5Dc and 7D, then the conclusion would also be that the 5Dc most often would resolve more lw/ph than 7D. It seems that the MTF-50 results can be kind of misleading, but don't think it's fair to blame Peter for that.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MAC
MAC
Forum ProPosts: 12,289Gear list
Like?
for me - for $600 - yep - it is my OMD
In reply to The Davinator, Mar 23, 2013

Dave Luttmann wrote:

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

For $600, yep, T4i is my OMD

gianp2k hasn’t understood that crop doesn’t have a crop penalty and ain’t as bad as the online sites show it to be – because these online sites have been moving the crop sensor backwards and haven’t been keeping the sensor the same distances and using the best lens for the sensor

I will say that Canon hasn’t developed the crop lenses that I want yet -- because they don't want to cannabalize their FF business  – like a 60 F2 with 4 stop IS.  I’d sell my 5dc and go all crop if they had that one lens

But Canon --watch out for sigma ART

Next Purchase for me is either new sigma 30 F1.4 Art – and if it doesn’t work out  the way I expect in the reviews and then in my next purchase, then I’ll go for the sigma 35 F1.4 art.

Here is my super duper LV, Touch Screen, ETTR, magnify technique that I am working to perfect the short timing --3-5 seconds -- for people not walking, running, but relatively stationary

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50619045

I have no problems using this technology iso3200 and even iso6400.  Yep, $600 is a value for sure and if the right focal length prime lenses for crop keep progressing, I sell my FF, and carry three, light weight crop cameras - and not change lenses much.

30 f1.4 ART on one; hopefully a new 60 f2 -  4stop IS on the second; and my 15-85 on the third with bounce flash

To have this quality with a sensor that is  2.56 times smaller – is amazing to me.  My thing is stay light and capable with multiple combos - versus gianp2k who will have so much weight, that his wife will be loaded down, and he'll fumble with the extra time to get the shot, and he'll have to worry about expensive gear being stolen - all over his obsession for this personal preference for creamy smooth and grains -- as you said -- too much is made of a small difference in noise that customers don't notice.

Watch the new sigma 30 f1.4 art -- perfect focal length for crop.  If F1.4 - F2 performs -- it gives crop the shallow dof and sharp at the perfect focal length I want.  A 4 stop IS at 60 -- would then be the key for me to move away from FF

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/51142032

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/51140011

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50731789

 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 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
The Davinator
Forum ProPosts: 13,098Gear list
Like?
Re: A few points
In reply to Steen Bay, Mar 23, 2013

Steen Bay wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

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.

Peter has just been repeating what DxO says, and if DPR tested lenses on 5Dc and 7D, then the conclusion would also be that the 5Dc most often would resolve more lw/ph than 7D. It seems that the MTF-50 results can be kind of misleading, but don't think it's fair to blame Peter for that.

The photos from Peter, Mac and the fellow from overseas clearly show the 60D outresolves the 5D.  This makes DxO wrong, and Peter.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RedFox88
Forum ProPosts: 21,950Gear list
Like?
focus issues
In reply to qianp2k, Mar 23, 2013

Something is off on your "test" with focus.  None of the 4 bill images look sharp, even though you added sharpness in your RAW conversion.  These images should look sharp and they do not.  So there's some issue with focusing, or depth of field.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RedFox88
Forum ProPosts: 21,950Gear list
Like?
Re: *** 5Dc vs 60D resolution test ***
In reply to qianp2k, Mar 23, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

schmegg wrote:

In the previous test, the OP very wisely provided the raw files with full EXIF attached. This makes his results verifiable by others.

So, where are the raw files qianp2k?

I said I don't have a site that can hold RAW files. But willing to upload my files to a site anyone can provide.

Without them I afraid that your copious outspoken posts leaning in only one direction on this topic pretty much negates anything the images may or may not show.

You can do similar tests provided you don't have agenda.

For a start - those images are too small. I do believe it was you that kept calling for 5000 pixel wide images for a decent comparison.

They are 100% cropped and I even upsampling 5D files to 60D size.

That's your error.  You are modifying one image and not the other unfairly compromising one image/camera.  Leave the images as they are.  DPR doesn't enlarge or reduced images in their reviews/studio comparison, so why are you?!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steen Bay
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,265
Like?
Re: A few points
In reply to The Davinator, Mar 23, 2013

Dave Luttmann wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

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.

Peter has just been repeating what DxO says, and if DPR tested lenses on 5Dc and 7D, then the conclusion would also be that the 5Dc most often would resolve more lw/ph than 7D. It seems that the MTF-50 results can be kind of misleading, but don't think it's fair to blame Peter for that.

The photos from Peter, Mac and the fellow from overseas clearly show the 60D outresolves the 5D. This makes DxO wrong, and Peter.

Don't think that DxO, DPR, Photozone, etc. are wrong, but it seems that their MTF-50 results don't tell the whole story. Maybe the 7D would have a higher resolution than the 5D if using MTF-5 instead of MTF-50, but that wouldn't tell the whole story either (so maybe it would be a good idea to use both).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Just another Canon shooter
Senior MemberPosts: 3,382Gear list
Like?
That's it!
In reply to Steen Bay, Mar 23, 2013

Steen Bay wrote:

Don't think that DxO, DPR, Photozone, etc. are wrong, but it seems that their MTF-50 results don't tell the whole story. Maybe the 7D would have a higher resolution than the 5D if using MTF-5 instead of MTF-50, but that wouldn't tell the whole story either (so maybe it would be a good idea to use both).

Exactly. In the old times, DXOmark had the whole MTF curves. In typical cases, the 5D would be better down to MTF-10 or so, and below that, the 7D would be better - just because it has a larger Nyquist frequency. They did not measaure anything below MTF-5, if I remember it correctly, because then the noise and all errors overtake.

In other words, the 5D would be better in the MTF 10-95 range, and the 7D: in the MTF 5-10 range, roughly speaking. There are lot of other variables though, lenses used, apertures, etc.

Here is a typical chart but there are no labels here. It is not clear what we are looking at.

 Just another Canon shooter's gear list:Just another Canon shooter's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
The Davinator
Forum ProPosts: 13,098Gear list
Like?
Re: That's it!
In reply to Just another Canon shooter, Mar 23, 2013

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

Don't think that DxO, DPR, Photozone, etc. are wrong, but it seems that their MTF-50 results don't tell the whole story. Maybe the 7D would have a higher resolution than the 5D if using MTF-5 instead of MTF-50, but that wouldn't tell the whole story either (so maybe it would be a good idea to use both).

Exactly. In the old times, DXOmark had the whole MTF curves. In typical cases, the 5D would be better down to MTF-10 or so, and below that, the 7D would be better - just because it has a larger Nyquist frequency. They did not measaure anything below MTF-5, if I remember it correctly, because then the noise and all errors overtake.

In other words, the 5D would be better in the MTF 10-95 range, and the 7D: in the MTF 5-10 range, roughly speaking. There are lot of other variables though, lenses used, apertures, etc.

Here is a typical chart but there are no labels here. It is not clear what we are looking at.

We can scan charts til the cows come homE.  In photographs, it is clear the 5D resolves less.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
schmegg
schmegg MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,144
Like?
Re: That's it!
In reply to The Davinator, Mar 23, 2013

Dave Luttmann wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

Don't think that DxO, DPR, Photozone, etc. are wrong, but it seems that their MTF-50 results don't tell the whole story. Maybe the 7D would have a higher resolution than the 5D if using MTF-5 instead of MTF-50, but that wouldn't tell the whole story either (so maybe it would be a good idea to use both).

Exactly. In the old times, DXOmark had the whole MTF curves. In typical cases, the 5D would be better down to MTF-10 or so, and below that, the 7D would be better - just because it has a larger Nyquist frequency. They did not measaure anything below MTF-5, if I remember it correctly, because then the noise and all errors overtake.

In other words, the 5D would be better in the MTF 10-95 range, and the 7D: in the MTF 5-10 range, roughly speaking. There are lot of other variables though, lenses used, apertures, etc.

Here is a typical chart but there are no labels here. It is not clear what we are looking at.

We can scan charts til the cows come homE. In photographs, it is clear the 5D resolves less.

Absolutely.

And it's quite simple - MTF using SFR (as DxO do) does not measure resolution. It measures sharpness.

That's why it's just simpler to look at good quality test images such as this ..

5D3 vs 7D Resolution. ISO100.

If you do the test carefully the difference is plain to see. I wish I had a 5D to do this with - the real difference would be quite staggering I suspect.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MAC
MAC
Forum ProPosts: 12,289Gear list
Like?
Re: That's it!
In reply to schmegg, Mar 23, 2013

schmegg wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

Don't think that DxO, DPR, Photozone, etc. are wrong, but it seems that their MTF-50 results don't tell the whole story. Maybe the 7D would have a higher resolution than the 5D if using MTF-5 instead of MTF-50, but that wouldn't tell the whole story either (so maybe it would be a good idea to use both).

Exactly. In the old times, DXOmark had the whole MTF curves. In typical cases, the 5D would be better down to MTF-10 or so, and below that, the 7D would be better - just because it has a larger Nyquist frequency. They did not measaure anything below MTF-5, if I remember it correctly, because then the noise and all errors overtake.

In other words, the 5D would be better in the MTF 10-95 range, and the 7D: in the MTF 5-10 range, roughly speaking. There are lot of other variables though, lenses used, apertures, etc.

Here is a typical chart but there are no labels here. It is not clear what we are looking at.

We can scan charts til the cows come homE. In photographs, it is clear the 5D resolves less.

Absolutely.

And it's quite simple - MTF using SFR (as DxO do) does not measure resolution. It measures sharpness.

That's why it's just simpler to look at good quality test images such as this ..

5D3 vs 7D Resolution. ISO100.

If you do the test carefully the difference is plain to see. I wish I had a 5D to do this with - the real difference would be quite staggering I suspect.

I know what you did

so much for "the crop penalty" 

 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 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Just another Canon shooter
Senior MemberPosts: 3,382Gear list
Like?
Re: That's it!
In reply to The Davinator, Mar 23, 2013

Dave Luttmann wrote:

We can scan charts til the cows come homE. In photographs, it is clear the 5D resolves less.

The posted photos, actually, confirm the charts and do not necessarily contradict, nor they confirm, what you say. The 60D has an advantage close to its extinct resolution, close to Nyquist; with very low contsrast. The 5D shows advantage in what is usually called local contrast but what most test sites call resolution as well - MTF-20 or MTF-50, etc. The 60D advantage at the extinct resolution can and has been measured, by DXOmark, for example, but the data is no longer on their site.

I guess, if I were into forensic photography, I would choose the 60D. For most photographic purposes, the posted images of the 5D look more attractive to me.

 Just another Canon shooter's gear list:Just another Canon shooter's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
schmegg
schmegg MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,144
Like?
Re: That's it!
In reply to MAC, Mar 23, 2013

MAC wrote:

schmegg wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

Don't think that DxO, DPR, Photozone, etc. are wrong, but it seems that their MTF-50 results don't tell the whole story. Maybe the 7D would have a higher resolution than the 5D if using MTF-5 instead of MTF-50, but that wouldn't tell the whole story either (so maybe it would be a good idea to use both).

Exactly. In the old times, DXOmark had the whole MTF curves. In typical cases, the 5D would be better down to MTF-10 or so, and below that, the 7D would be better - just because it has a larger Nyquist frequency. They did not measaure anything below MTF-5, if I remember it correctly, because then the noise and all errors overtake.

In other words, the 5D would be better in the MTF 10-95 range, and the 7D: in the MTF 5-10 range, roughly speaking. There are lot of other variables though, lenses used, apertures, etc.

Here is a typical chart but there are no labels here. It is not clear what we are looking at.

We can scan charts til the cows come homE. In photographs, it is clear the 5D resolves less.

Absolutely.

And it's quite simple - MTF using SFR (as DxO do) does not measure resolution. It measures sharpness.

That's why it's just simpler to look at good quality test images such as this ..

5D3 vs 7D Resolution. ISO100.

If you do the test carefully the difference is plain to see. I wish I had a 5D to do this with - the real difference would be quite staggering I suspect.

I know what you did

Hehe. And hopefully now, after this thread, you know why.

so much for "the crop penalty"

There are disadvantages, and advantages, for each sensor format (as I know you know). But resolving ability is not a "penalty" for crop. In fact, it's not necessarily a "penalty" for either format!

To state the bleeding obvious (well, to most people anyway), sensor size and sensor resolution are independent - just as you can have a 12MP FF sensor vs an 18MP APS-C sensor, you could have a 36MP FF sensor vs a 6.4MP APS-C sensor - and then the FF wouldresolve more.

The main thing to take away is that, the difference, in reality, is quite small and would only ever matter when resolving the most detail is paramount and some hefty cropping will be required. Think some macro work and reach limited photography such as BIF's and so on.

You, I and many others have been saying all along that the practical difference is moot - I think there remains only one here who still seems to not be convinced.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
schmegg
schmegg MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,144
Like?
Re: That's it!
In reply to Just another Canon shooter, Mar 24, 2013

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

We can scan charts til the cows come homE. In photographs, it is clear the 5D resolves less.

The posted photos, actually, confirm the charts and do not necessarily contradict, nor they confirm, what you say. The 60D has an advantage close to its extinct resolution, close to Nyquist; with very low contsrast. The 5D shows advantage in what is usually called local contrast but what most test sites call resolution as well - MTF-20 or MTF-50, etc. The 60D advantage at the extinct resolution can and has been measured, by DXOmark, for example, but the data is no longer on their site.

I guess, if I were into forensic photography, I would choose the 60D. For most photographic purposes, the posted images of the 5D look more attractive to me.

Ah, yes. But that's entirely a different topic. And very subjective - unlike resolving capabilities.

To be perfectly honest, I doubt you'd be able to correctly identify which images came from which camera in a blind test of well processed files. I know I couldn't.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MAC
MAC
Forum ProPosts: 12,289Gear list
Like?
Re: That's it!
In reply to schmegg, Mar 24, 2013

schmegg wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

We can scan charts til the cows come homE. In photographs, it is clear the 5D resolves less.

The posted photos, actually, confirm the charts and do not necessarily contradict, nor they confirm, what you say. The 60D has an advantage close to its extinct resolution, close to Nyquist; with very low contsrast. The 5D shows advantage in what is usually called local contrast but what most test sites call resolution as well - MTF-20 or MTF-50, etc. The 60D advantage at the extinct resolution can and has been measured, by DXOmark, for example, but the data is no longer on their site.

I guess, if I were into forensic photography, I would choose the 60D. For most photographic purposes, the posted images of the 5D look more attractive to me.

Ah, yes. But that's entirely a different topic. And very subjective - unlike resolving capabilities.

To be perfectly honest, I doubt you'd be able to correctly identify which images came from which camera in a blind test of well processed files. I know I couldn't.

yep, processing changes everything, and I own the technology that is the subject of this thread.

but what Canon did with the T4i Raw files right out of the camera -- is tune the T4i to 1dx sharpness levels -- and I see more like 5dc actuance right out of the camera than my 60d fles right out of camera. For high iso, with the T4i, when you have zero on the LR slider for sharpness and zero on the noise slider with the T4i - it is still closer to the 5dc actuance right out of the camera - and only 1/2 stop away from 5dc at iso 3200

T4i beats the 24 mpxl nikon too - imo

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/51142032

This is why I'm so interested in the new $500 sigma 30 f1.4 ART - which has much better MTF's than the old one and close to the MTF's of the new sigma 35.

This new 30 Art lens could just make me sell my 5dc. I need a 4stop IS 60 f2 though

 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 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MAC
MAC
Forum ProPosts: 12,289Gear list
Like?
Re: That's it!
In reply to schmegg, Mar 24, 2013

schmegg wrote:

MAC wrote:

schmegg wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

Don't think that DxO, DPR, Photozone, etc. are wrong, but it seems that their MTF-50 results don't tell the whole story. Maybe the 7D would have a higher resolution than the 5D if using MTF-5 instead of MTF-50, but that wouldn't tell the whole story either (so maybe it would be a good idea to use both).

Exactly. In the old times, DXOmark had the whole MTF curves. In typical cases, the 5D would be better down to MTF-10 or so, and below that, the 7D would be better - just because it has a larger Nyquist frequency. They did not measaure anything below MTF-5, if I remember it correctly, because then the noise and all errors overtake.

In other words, the 5D would be better in the MTF 10-95 range, and the 7D: in the MTF 5-10 range, roughly speaking. There are lot of other variables though, lenses used, apertures, etc.

Here is a typical chart but there are no labels here. It is not clear what we are looking at.

We can scan charts til the cows come homE. In photographs, it is clear the 5D resolves less.

Absolutely.

And it's quite simple - MTF using SFR (as DxO do) does not measure resolution. It measures sharpness.

That's why it's just simpler to look at good quality test images such as this ..

5D3 vs 7D Resolution. ISO100.

If you do the test carefully the difference is plain to see. I wish I had a 5D to do this with - the real difference would be quite staggering I suspect.

I know what you did

Hehe. And hopefully now, after this thread, you know why.

so much for "the crop penalty"

There are disadvantages, and advantages, for each sensor format (as I know you know). But resolving ability is not a "penalty" for crop. In fact, it's not necessarily a "penalty" for either format!

To state the bleeding obvious (well, to most people anyway), sensor size and sensor resolution are independent - just as you can have a 12MP FF sensor vs an 18MP APS-C sensor, you could have a 36MP FF sensor vs a 6.4MP APS-C sensor - and then the FF wouldresolve more.

The main thing to take away is that, the difference, in reality, is quite small and would only ever matter when resolving the most detail is paramount and some hefty cropping will be required. Think some macro work and reach limited photography such as BIF's and so on.

you've convinced me to use my T4i +100L at MFD for the ring shots! Thanks!

You, I and many others have been saying all along that the practical difference is moot - I think there remains only one here who still seems to not be convinced.

for over the last year, he sure created his own "definition of resolution" versus the real definition of resolution. Like he did with bokeh -- saying the definition was "bokeh + blur" and was more than the function of the lens

we need to all get together for a beer. I hope he'd laugh at himself for taking us through all this for the last year.

 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 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
schmegg
schmegg MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,144
Like?
Re: That's it!
In reply to MAC, Mar 24, 2013

MAC wrote:

schmegg wrote:

MAC wrote:

schmegg wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

Don't think that DxO, DPR, Photozone, etc. are wrong, but it seems that their MTF-50 results don't tell the whole story. Maybe the 7D would have a higher resolution than the 5D if using MTF-5 instead of MTF-50, but that wouldn't tell the whole story either (so maybe it would be a good idea to use both).

Exactly. In the old times, DXOmark had the whole MTF curves. In typical cases, the 5D would be better down to MTF-10 or so, and below that, the 7D would be better - just because it has a larger Nyquist frequency. They did not measaure anything below MTF-5, if I remember it correctly, because then the noise and all errors overtake.

In other words, the 5D would be better in the MTF 10-95 range, and the 7D: in the MTF 5-10 range, roughly speaking. There are lot of other variables though, lenses used, apertures, etc.

Here is a typical chart but there are no labels here. It is not clear what we are looking at.

We can scan charts til the cows come homE. In photographs, it is clear the 5D resolves less.

Absolutely.

And it's quite simple - MTF using SFR (as DxO do) does not measure resolution. It measures sharpness.

That's why it's just simpler to look at good quality test images such as this ..

5D3 vs 7D Resolution. ISO100.

If you do the test carefully the difference is plain to see. I wish I had a 5D to do this with - the real difference would be quite staggering I suspect.

I know what you did

Hehe. And hopefully now, after this thread, you know why.

so much for "the crop penalty"

There are disadvantages, and advantages, for each sensor format (as I know you know). But resolving ability is not a "penalty" for crop. In fact, it's not necessarily a "penalty" for either format!

To state the bleeding obvious (well, to most people anyway), sensor size and sensor resolution are independent - just as you can have a 12MP FF sensor vs an 18MP APS-C sensor, you could have a 36MP FF sensor vs a 6.4MP APS-C sensor - and then the FF wouldresolve more.

The main thing to take away is that, the difference, in reality, is quite small and would only ever matter when resolving the most detail is paramount and some hefty cropping will be required. Think some macro work and reach limited photography such as BIF's and so on.

you've convinced me to use my T4i +100L at MFD for the ring shots! Thanks!

I should think it would do an outstanding job, particularly given the lighting would be quite good I imagine.

You, I and many others have been saying all along that the practical difference is moot - I think there remains only one here who still seems to not be convinced.

for over the last year, he sure created his own "definition of resolution" versus the real definition of resolution. Like he did with bokeh -- saying the definition was "bokeh + blur" and was more than the function of the lens

we need to all get together for a beer. I hope he'd laugh at himself for taking us through all this for the last year.

You know - that's just the best idea I've read here for ages! If only it was practical! Hehe.

I'm sure a good social outing combining some shooting, and meal and a few bevies would sort out a lot of these things.

Now, if you'd all like to meet at a pub in The Rocks on Sydney Harbour over Easter - I'll buy the first round!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,350Gear list
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to schmegg, Mar 30, 2013

schmegg wrote:

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.

I said you twisted it because you did completely wrong by zooming in LR that is only for viewing purpose but not for photo enlargement. The right way is thru Photoshop Bicubic enlargement.  If you did that correct way you will see the result I showed that is truly untwisted.  I gave the steps that everyone can duplicate.

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

That is totally wrong way.  As I suggested, try bicubic enlargement in PS.  Again here is 100% cropped between two.  Look how different from yours.  This is the right way to show the real difference.

60D left vs 5D right

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)

That's true default from ACR.  I even gave 60D a favor by upsampling 5D photo to 60D's size so we can check at equal size.  Actually I should also downsampling 60D photo to match 5D size.

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.

try again thru Bicubic enlargement and show their size at 100% cropped.  Just want to correct your misleading way.

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.

If you check their OOC RAW files without any sharpening, 5D files are noticeable sharper, that is the natural sharpness I am talking about.  In reality as many said, you'd need to apply lots more sharpening from 7D/60D photos while much less from 5D photos.  However over-sharpening 60D/7D files will result more artifacts and noises/grains unless you want to leave your photos look soft by not sharpening them.

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.

These are factors but crop format or sensor size is still the dominating factor.  I know you don't want to face crop magnification or enlargement and penalties associated with that but it's a reality.  Pixels from 1.6x crop are enlarged 1.6x more time, that inevitably affect sharpness and ability to resolve fine details.

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.

LOL, from what I have seen 60D files have more artifacts such as obvious purple fringe.

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?

That's what I did by upsampling 5D files to the same size of 60D tht is 5184x3456 which is more than 5000-pixel wide, lol.

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.

At 100% cropped size thru Photoshop Bicubic enlargement.

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

You did complete wrong.

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%?

100% cropped is the original photo size, right?  DPR and IR etc all do 100% cropped.  Anyone in real world actually enlarged photos to 300% cropped in final JPEG and prints?

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!

It's very rocket science that 100% cropped size thru Photoshop Bicubic enlargement.

The following is the correct result thru untwisted method that everyone can duplicate.  It's hilarious that you want someone to believe 24-105L on 60D performs better than 24-70L II on 5D, 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.

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.

Who are minority, from a few who never own and experience 5D?  Many actually own and use both 5D and 7D/60D and don't have an agenda said differently such as,

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3400685?page=2

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?

LR zooming is only for viewing purpose not for processing.  Does anyone does in this way by zooming in LR and then take snapshot for final JPEG? LOL.  The correct way is thru PS thru Bicubic enlargement.

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

The steps I did are truly non-manipulative and untwisted way that everyone can duplicate.

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')

I picked up the best aperture for each crop format respectively.  In reality under good light I can stop down with either crop.  In low light (or high ISO) at the same aperture, 5D has less noise and therefore generates cleaner photo with more fine details at the same aperture.

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 ...

As I explained the right enlargement is thru Photoshop Bicubic enlargement.

Photoshop Bicubic enlargement setting to upsampling 5D file to 60D size

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.

My test samples show otherwise that 5D files are noticeable better especially in real world outdoor photos that have less artifacts (such as CA), naturally sharper, less noises/grains and resolve actually more fine details.

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.

My tests just confirm DXOMark tests are right.

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?

I know it's difficult for you to accept the fact that a 8-yr-old 5D does generate better IQ than latest Canon 18mp APS-C.  But those who don't have agenda who actually own and experience 5D tel this is true and I have read many said that.  No mention 24-70L II and 24-105L are designed for FF not for crop that at least not in ideal focus length range for APS-C crop.   APS-C shooters use EF-S 15-85 or 17-55 instead.  So don't forget this important fact in reality.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3400685?page=2

-- 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
The Davinator
Forum ProPosts: 13,098Gear list
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to qianp2k, Mar 31, 2013

For enlaregments, bicubic is NOT the one to use.....you use bicubic smoother.

Oh...and nobody twisted your photos.  Stop making false accusations against people.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
schmegg
schmegg MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,144
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to qianp2k, Mar 31, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

I said you twisted it because you did completely wrong by zooming in LR that is only for viewing purpose but not for photo enlargement. The right way is thru Photoshop Bicubic enlargement.  If you did that correct way you will see the result I showed that is truly untwisted.  I gave the steps that everyone can duplicate.

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

That is totally wrong way.  As I suggested, try bicubic enlargement in PS.  Again here is 100% cropped between two.  Look how different from yours.  This is the right way to show the real difference.

I'm sorry Peter, but this is just plain wrong.

If you use any type of enlargement algorithm such as "bicubic sharper" then you are interpolating, or 'inventing', detail that has simply not been recorded by the sensor! LOL!

What you are essentially saying here is that the difference will be in favour of the 5D if you use mathematics to estimate and insert information that does not exist in the raw file.

Sadly, mathematically inventing image detail does not equate to "more resolving abilities" - it is, in fact, a workaround one uses when they need more detail than the camera was capable of recording in the first place!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,350Gear list
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to schmegg, Apr 1, 2013

schmegg wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

I said you twisted it because you did completely wrong by zooming in LR that is only for viewing purpose but not for photo enlargement. The right way is thru Photoshop Bicubic enlargement.  If you did that correct way you will see the result I showed that is truly untwisted.  I gave the steps that everyone can duplicate.

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

That is totally wrong way.  As I suggested, try bicubic enlargement in PS.  Again here is 100% cropped between two.  Look how different from yours.  This is the right way to show the real difference.

I'm sorry Peter, but this is just plain wrong.

hehe.  bicubic enlargement in PS is well known the right way in photography world.  You can try bicubic sharper by downsampling 60D files to match to 5D size, lol.  I actually gave 60D a favor by upsampling 5D files.  As someone suggested the best way should be leave at their original size.  However I upsampling 5D files for easier comparison to prevent a delusion that bigger size resolves more details.

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/bicubic-smoother-vs-bicubic-sharper.html

If you use any type of enlargement algorithm such as "bicubic sharper" then you are interpolating, or 'inventing', detail that has simply not been recorded by the sensor! LOL!

Check the above link, Bicubic Smoother is for upsampling while Bicubic Sharper is for downsampling.  Anyway photoshop Bicubic enlargement is the best way to enlarge photo while still keep as much details as possible.

What you are essentially saying here is that the difference will be in favour of the 5D if you use mathematics to estimate and insert information that does not exist in the raw file.

I don't get how upsampling will increase fine details?  I actually sacrifice 5D files quality by upsampling 5D files to match to 60D size.  I actually should downsampling 60D files to 5D size and then 5D's advantage is bigger

Sadly, mathematically inventing image detail does not equate to "more resolving abilities" - it is, in fact, a workaround one uses when they need more detail than the camera was capable of recording in the first place!

Please don't find any excuses.  I know no matter how I processed (that all from default w/o any sharpening and any processing) directly out of ACR in steps that everyone can duplicate), you will not be satisfied and simply cannot accept 5D wins in IQ and in resolving fine details as tested by DXOMark.  The best way is that we processe respectively and then compare.

The bottom line is that 5D can generate those natural sharpness and fine details your 7D cannot match. Otherwise bring up please.

I am still waiting to see your 7D 100% face snapshot after two years!    Let's real world photos to speak themselves.

100% cropped

-- 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
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads