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

Started Mar 17, 2013 | Discussions
MAC
MAC
Forum ProPosts: 12,395Gear 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.

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!

don't upsize or downsize.  just leave them side by side in photoshop and choose split screen and magnify/scale them together - then take screen shots

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

MAC wrote:

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.

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!

don't upsize or downsize.  just leave them side by side in photoshop and choose split screen and magnify/scale them together - then take screen shots

Do you or anyone generate JPEG files by taking snapshots in ACR/LR?  At least you need to generate the final JPEGs before comparing.   I upsampling 5D files for easier comparing at the same output size otherwise someone may get delusion that a bigger size is resolving more details.  Or we should leave them at their original sizes and compare the default processed JPEGs as DPR and IR labs do.  They don't compare photos in ACR/LR screen but default processed JPEGs.

-- 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
schmegg
schmegg MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,257
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to qianp2k, Apr 1, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

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.

Please Peter - stop this rubbish.

If you want to compare which sensor resolves more detail, you can't use a method that interpolates and inserts detail into the image that was not recorded by the sensor.

Try to understand rather than simply arguing all the time!

You are wrong buddy - you need to man up and admit it.

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:

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.

Please Peter - stop this rubbish.

If you want to compare which sensor resolves more detail, you can't use a method that interpolates and inserts detail into the image that was not recorded by the sensor.

funny I never know how Bicubic enlargement will increase fine details.  Wow, then nobody should wait for Canon 39 or 46mp cameras, they only need to Bicubic enlarging photos from 22mp 5D3   hehe.

Try to understand rather than simply arguing all the time!

I think it's you need to understand better.

You are wrong buddy - you need to man up and admit it.

yeah, I am "wrong" everytime because you said I am wrong, funny.  I have posted enough 5D samples and I have not seen many of your 7D photos.  I did see one before from your 7D pelican shot under bright blue sunny sky at ISO 200.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3363514?page=2

Look in reality you have to apply lots of NR but that effectively smear details and I still can see noises under wings.  It's not much details under the pelican's wings   If 5D took the similar shot it will show lots more details and noticeable naturally sharper.  In reality you have to apply NR and CA correction on photos from 18mp Canon APS-C that effectively kill details on top of already 1.6x more crop penalty from 1.6x crop sensors.

BTW my 5DIII Pelican shots.  If 5D took similar shots, it will have similar IQ at base ISOs that will keep details especially in shadows much better.

I am sure you enjoy 5DIII much more than 7D these days

completely in shadow

details under wings and natural sharpness

-- 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: 13,360Gear list
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to schmegg, Apr 1, 2013

schmegg wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

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.

Please Peter - stop this rubbish.

If you want to compare which sensor resolves more detail, you can't use a method that interpolates and inserts detail into the image that was not recorded by the sensor.

Try to understand rather than simply arguing all the time!

You are wrong buddy - you need to man up and admit it.

It's becoming clear that he is out of his depth hereand is simply arguing for the sake of arguing.  He is wrong...plain and simple.  Pretty obvious here.

 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: 5,257
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to qianp2k, Apr 1, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

schmegg wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

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.

Please Peter - stop this rubbish.

If you want to compare which sensor resolves more detail, you can't use a method that interpolates and inserts detail into the image that was not recorded by the sensor.

funny I never know how Bicubic enlargement will increase fine details.

Seems there's quite a bit you don't know.

Wow, then nobody should wait for Canon 39 or 46mp cameras, they only need to Bicubic enlarging photos from 22mp 5D3   hehe.

That's right - so surely, based on this assertion, you can see how stupid your claims are! LOL!

Try to understand rather than simply arguing all the time!

I think it's you need to understand better.

Me and everyone else here it would appear.

You are wrong buddy - you need to man up and admit it.

yeah, I am "wrong" everytime because you said I am wrong, funny.

No, you are wrong simply because your assertions do not match reality and are based on an ignorant misunderstanding that sharpness equals resolution. Which it most definitely does not.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
The Davinator
Forum ProPosts: 13,360Gear list
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to schmegg, Apr 1, 2013

schmegg wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

schmegg wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

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.

Please Peter - stop this rubbish.

If you want to compare which sensor resolves more detail, you can't use a method that interpolates and inserts detail into the image that was not recorded by the sensor.

funny I never know how Bicubic enlargement will increase fine details.

Seems there's quite a bit you don't know.

Thatis becoming more obvious with every post.  This is actually becoming rather sad.

Wow, then nobody should wait for Canon 39 or 46mp cameras, they only need to Bicubic enlarging photos from 22mp 5D3   hehe.

That's right - so surely, based on this assertion, you can see how stupid your claims are! LOL!

Try to understand rather than simply arguing all the time!

I think it's you need to understand better.

Me and everyone else here it would appear.

As usual..everyone else is wrong and he is right.  He knows more than people in the business of printing large prints for gallery display...even though he has never made one.

You are wrong buddy - you need to man up and admit it.

yeah, I am "wrong" everytime because you said I am wrong, funny.

No, you are wrong simply because your assertions do not match reality and are based on an ignorant misunderstanding that sharpness equals resolution. Which it most definitely does not.

Yup

 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
MAC
MAC
Forum ProPosts: 12,395Gear list
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to qianp2k, Apr 1, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

MAC wrote:

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.

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!

don't upsize or downsize.  just leave them side by side in photoshop and choose split screen and magnify/scale them together - then take screen shots

Do you or anyone generate JPEG files by taking snapshots in ACR/LR?  At least you need to generate the final JPEGs before comparing.   I upsampling 5D files for easier comparing at the same output size otherwise someone may get delusion that a bigger size is resolving more details.  Or we should leave them at their original sizes and compare the default processed JPEGs as DPR and IR labs do.  They don't compare photos in ACR/LR screen but default processed JPEGs.

In Lightroom generate the full size 16 bit psd's or tiffs to photoshop CS

leave them alone. fov is the same.  view them at the image level.  split the screen, then magnify the same way/size.  then screen capture the magnified screen shots

-- hide signature --
 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
qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,350Gear list
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to schmegg, Apr 1, 2013

You ignore DXOMark test, ignore my creditable tests and samples there especially more meaningful outdoor samples,instead you just repeat over and over again and only can verbally convicted I am "wrong", lol.

As someone said earlier in this thread, only "blinds" will pickup 60D photos over 5D ones on outdoor school building that reflects the real world photos  5D photos even with 24-70L II clearly show better IQ and resolves a bit more fine details.  With other inferior lenses 5D leads more.

In reality bear in mind that you'd have to apply more NR and CA fix to make photos from Canon 18mp APS-C look better that effectively kills some details.  No mention in reality Canon APS-C shooters don't use 24-105L and 24-70L II as normal walk-around lenses for the same ideal range from 24mm or 27mm FF eq starting length, they will use EF-S 15-85 or 17-5X instead, then the gap is even bigger as we see in real world photos.

-- 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
qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,350Gear list
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to MAC, Apr 1, 2013

MAC wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

MAC wrote:

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.

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!

don't upsize or downsize.  just leave them side by side in photoshop and choose split screen and magnify/scale them together - then take screen shots

Do you or anyone generate JPEG files by taking snapshots in ACR/LR?  At least you need to generate the final JPEGs before comparing.   I upsampling 5D files for easier comparing at the same output size otherwise someone may get delusion that a bigger size is resolving more details.  Or we should leave them at their original sizes and compare the default processed JPEGs as DPR and IR labs do.  They don't compare photos in ACR/LR screen but default processed JPEGs.

In Lightroom generate the full size 16 bit psd's or tiffs to photoshop CS

leave them alone. fov is the same.  view them at the image level.  split the screen, then magnify the same way/size.  then screen capture the magnified screen shots

That sounds too complicated.  Why not generate JPEGs thru ACR/LR or DPP by default/zero setting and then compare them side by side with whatever photo viewer (such as Windows photo viewer)?  That's all creditable labs do such as DPR and IR.

-- hide signature --
-- 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
schmegg
schmegg MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,257
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to qianp2k, Apr 1, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

You ignore DXOMark test,

I've addressed the DxO tests over and over. You are simply not listening.

DxO don't test resolving capabilities of different cameras in a way that allows one to draw conclusions regarding relative resolving abilities of different sized sensors. In fact - they don't test resolution at all. They are testing lenses, not cameras, and they test sharpness, not resolution!

ignore my creditable tests and samples there especially more meaningful outdoor samples,instead you just repeat over and over again and verbally convicted I am "wrong", lol.

No - I didn't "ignore" your test images. In fact, I thanked you for posting  them and addressed them also.

As others have said, they clearly show the 60D has an advantage in resolving abilities.

I think you are the only person on these forums that thinks otherwise.

As someone said earlier in this thread, only "blinds" will pickup 60D photos over 5D ones on outdoor school building that reflects the real world photos  5D photos even with 24-70L II clearly show better IQ and resolves a bit more fine details.  With other inferior lenses 5D leads more.

You seem to misunderstand - I'm not saying the 5D is a bad camera!

I'm simply saying it does not out-resolve an 18MP crop - a claim you repeatedly make and spend inordinate amounts of time an effort defending. And a claim which is just plain wrong.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MAC
MAC
Forum ProPosts: 12,395Gear list
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to qianp2k, Apr 1, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

MAC wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

MAC wrote:

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.

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!

don't upsize or downsize.  just leave them side by side in photoshop and choose split screen and magnify/scale them together - then take screen shots

Do you or anyone generate JPEG files by taking snapshots in ACR/LR?  At least you need to generate the final JPEGs before comparing.   I upsampling 5D files for easier comparing at the same output size otherwise someone may get delusion that a bigger size is resolving more details.  Or we should leave them at their original sizes and compare the default processed JPEGs as DPR and IR labs do.  They don't compare photos in ACR/LR screen but default processed JPEGs.

In Lightroom generate the full size 16 bit psd's or tiffs to photoshop CS

leave them alone. fov is the same.  view them at the image level.  split the screen, then magnify the same way/size.  then screen capture the magnified screen shots

That sounds too complicated.  Why not generate JPEGs thru ACR/LR or DPP by default/zero setting and then compare them side by side with whatever photo viewer (such as Windows photo viewer)?  That's all creditable labs do such as DPR and IR.

jpg's are a quality reduction

keep the files whole 

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
 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
qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,350Gear list
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to MAC, Apr 1, 2013

MAC wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

MAC wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

MAC wrote:

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.

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!

don't upsize or downsize.  just leave them side by side in photoshop and choose split screen and magnify/scale them together - then take screen shots

Do you or anyone generate JPEG files by taking snapshots in ACR/LR?  At least you need to generate the final JPEGs before comparing.   I upsampling 5D files for easier comparing at the same output size otherwise someone may get delusion that a bigger size is resolving more details.  Or we should leave them at their original sizes and compare the default processed JPEGs as DPR and IR labs do.  They don't compare photos in ACR/LR screen but default processed JPEGs.

In Lightroom generate the full size 16 bit psd's or tiffs to photoshop CS

leave them alone. fov is the same.  view them at the image level.  split the screen, then magnify the same way/size.  then screen capture the magnified screen shots

That sounds too complicated.  Why not generate JPEGs thru ACR/LR or DPP by default/zero setting and then compare them side by side with whatever photo viewer (such as Windows photo viewer)?  That's all creditable labs do such as DPR and IR.

jpg's are a quality reduction

You didn't realize your eyes do see RAW files directly but thru software interpretation.  Whatever you see in RAW processing software such as ACR is not better than converted JPEG.  No labs use ACR screenshots to compare IQ, no mention that's not your final result you will get anyway.  Even we leave in ACR by default at their respective original sizes, I still don't see 60D files have better IQ and resolve more details on outdoor school building.

keep the files whole 

Yeah, thru default/zero processing and we process respectively.  Remember you don't see RAW data directly but thru a software anyway

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
-- 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: 12,395Gear list
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to qianp2k, Apr 1, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

MAC wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

MAC wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

MAC wrote:

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.

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!

don't upsize or downsize.  just leave them side by side in photoshop and choose split screen and magnify/scale them together - then take screen shots

Do you or anyone generate JPEG files by taking snapshots in ACR/LR?  At least you need to generate the final JPEGs before comparing.   I upsampling 5D files for easier comparing at the same output size otherwise someone may get delusion that a bigger size is resolving more details.  Or we should leave them at their original sizes and compare the default processed JPEGs as DPR and IR labs do.  They don't compare photos in ACR/LR screen but default processed JPEGs.

In Lightroom generate the full size 16 bit psd's or tiffs to photoshop CS

leave them alone. fov is the same.  view them at the image level.  split the screen, then magnify the same way/size.  then screen capture the magnified screen shots

That sounds too complicated.  Why not generate JPEGs thru ACR/LR or DPP by default/zero setting and then compare them side by side with whatever photo viewer (such as Windows photo viewer)?  That's all creditable labs do such as DPR and IR.

jpg's are a quality reduction

You didn't realize your eyes do see RAW files directly but thru software interpretation.  Whatever you see in RAW processing software such as ACR is not better than converted JPEG.  No labs use ACR screenshots to compare IQ, no mention that's not your final result you will get anyway.  Even we leave in ACR by default at their respective original sizes, I still don't see 60D files have better IQ and resolve more details on outdoor school building.

it was obvious to me, you didn't control focus pt and dof in the building shots

keep the files whole 

Yeah, thru default/zero processing and we process respectively.  Remember you don't see RAW data directly but thru a software anyway

even zero in LR might not be zero

psd and tiff are better than 8 bit jpg -  for prints also - keep in 16 bit

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
 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
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:

You ignore DXOMark test,

I've addressed the DxO tests over and over. You are simply not listening.

DxO don't test resolving capabilities of different cameras in a way that allows one to draw conclusions regarding relative resolving abilities of different sized sensors. In fact - they don't test resolution at all. They are testing lenses, not cameras, and they test sharpness, not resolution!

Not true.  You are trying to downplay DXO test to simple sharpness that on your definition is Acutance. You said Acutance always can be achieved thru processing.  But in reality with my own experiences, I have some 5D files show that sharpness that my 60D simply cannot match no matter how to process.  Oversharpening only shows artifacts badly.

DXOMark P-MPix DOES based on MTF resolution.  They used to show in MTF resolution with the same result between 5D and 7D with all lenses.  P-MPix doesn't change any result but merely using an easier understandable expressing unit.

I just happen to save a few old DXOMark test that expressing in MTF resolution and I just don't see they ever show any different comparison result.

ignore my creditable tests and samples there especially more meaningful outdoor samples,instead you just repeat over and over again and verbally convicted I am "wrong", lol.

No - I didn't "ignore" your test images. In fact, I thanked you for posting  them and addressed them also.

My tests result for outdoor school building clearly show 5D has better IQ and resolves more fine details even with 24-70L II if you leave in their default ways and check side by side.

As others have said, they clearly show the 60D has an advantage in resolving abilities.

Who are others from the same few who never own and experience 5D?  No mention your pure resolution is meaningless if you don't care the final IQ.  As I said in reality you'd have to apply more NR and CA correction that effectively will kill some details as vividly shown in your pelican photo.  5D will absolutely take better detail photo in the same scenario by framing into the same AOV.

I think you are the only person on these forums that thinks otherwise.

As the link I provided, I heard some who actually own and experience both said otherwise.  Yes it's true I am the only one still arguing the same small group of 7D xxxt. There are used to be a few others who argued with you in last two years but they don't bother anymore.

As someone said earlier in this thread, only "blinds" will pickup 60D photos over 5D ones on outdoor school building that reflects the real world photos  5D photos even with 24-70L II clearly show better IQ and resolves a bit more fine details.  With other inferior lenses 5D leads more.

You seem to misunderstand - I'm not saying the 5D is a bad camera!

It means lots a 8-yr-old FF camera still can take lots of thunders these days  It still can withstand today's DSLRs if you don't print/view in very large size.  Between my 5D and 60D, I'd still pickup former in landscape and portraiture in everyday.

I'm simply saying it does not out-resolve an 18MP crop - a claim you repeatedly make and spend inordinate amounts of time an effort defending. And a claim which is just plain wrong.

It depends, with most lenses it does outresolve Canon 18mp APS-C especially in comparable walk-around zoom such as EF 24-105L vs EF-S 15/85 or EF-S 17-55/2.8 or with most primes if you frame them into the same AOV - either by using longer focus l ength or by moving closer, that reflects how we use cameras in real world such as in landscape, in portrait and studio.  In those scenarios that you don't have longer enough lenses or unable to move closer, then 18mp pixel density in APS-C has advantage but they are not areas 5D owners shoot.  So I brought my 60D in zoo and safari instead in the past.

In my Africa safari trip, I'd use 500L with 1.4x TC III if necessary that will give me absolute IQ over 60D or 7D (provided I had) despite latter still have pixel density advantage because with 500L I don't need to crop severely then FF will win hands down.  I am sure you share the same experiences in your sport car photos as usually you have sufficient reach with your 100-400L.  Your 5D3 generates much better and cleaner photos than your 7D.  I know you just don't want to publicly admit as you evolved in crop vs FF debates too much in the past.  Old 5D is cripple in AF but provided it had beef-up AF as in D700 for example, 12mp FF still takes better photos than 18mp APS-C in that scenarios, that I am sure about, as in pelican case

-- 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
qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,350Gear list
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to MAC, Apr 1, 2013

MAC wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

MAC wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

MAC wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

MAC wrote:

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.

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!

don't upsize or downsize.  just leave them side by side in photoshop and choose split screen and magnify/scale them together - then take screen shots

Do you or anyone generate JPEG files by taking snapshots in ACR/LR?  At least you need to generate the final JPEGs before comparing.   I upsampling 5D files for easier comparing at the same output size otherwise someone may get delusion that a bigger size is resolving more details.  Or we should leave them at their original sizes and compare the default processed JPEGs as DPR and IR labs do.  They don't compare photos in ACR/LR screen but default processed JPEGs.

In Lightroom generate the full size 16 bit psd's or tiffs to photoshop CS

leave them alone. fov is the same.  view them at the image level.  split the screen, then magnify the same way/size.  then screen capture the magnified screen shots

That sounds too complicated.  Why not generate JPEGs thru ACR/LR or DPP by default/zero setting and then compare them side by side with whatever photo viewer (such as Windows photo viewer)?  That's all creditable labs do such as DPR and IR.

jpg's are a quality reduction

You didn't realize your eyes do see RAW files directly but thru software interpretation.  Whatever you see in RAW processing software such as ACR is not better than converted JPEG.  No labs use ACR screenshots to compare IQ, no mention that's not your final result you will get anyway.  Even we leave in ACR by default at their respective original sizes, I still don't see 60D files have better IQ and resolve more details on outdoor school building.

it was obvious to me, you didn't control focus pt and dof in the building shots

Yes I do.  Believe me or not, I tried to give 60D every advantage by using MF with 10x LV that's why it doesn't show focus point.  But 60D focus at the exact the same focus point as in 5D files.  Next time I will also use AF in 60D.  Sigh, I know no matter how I do, someone just cannot be satisfied but trying to find every excuse if the test result in not their way.  I can choose only post outdoor school building photos but I also post in close-up dollar bill shots despite it may give 60D an advantage in such scenarios.  I am truly unbiased without any agenda.  I own both camera and no reasons why I biased one against another one.  See my experience is all different from yours.  I own 5D first before any Canon cameras and I bought 60D several years later.  I also hope small and less can take more like everyone else wishes.  But in end, the Law of Physics still rules on the earth.

keep the files whole 

Yeah, thru default/zero processing and we process respectively.  Remember you don't see RAW data directly but thru a software anyway

even zero in LR might not be zero

right but that's what you saw in LR/ACR right?  Your eyes just don't see original RAW data.  Therefore I first used DPP as I still believe DPP is the only one faithfully convert Canon own CR2 without applying any enhanced processing.

psd and tiff are better than 8 bit jpg -  for prints also - keep in 16 bit

but not in viewing on computer screen  Whatever you see in ACR window is not better than viewing converted JPEG (even at the default/zero setting).

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
-- 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
schmegg
schmegg MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,257
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to qianp2k, Apr 1, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

schmegg wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

You ignore DXOMark test,

I've addressed the DxO tests over and over. You are simply not listening.

DxO don't test resolving capabilities of different cameras in a way that allows one to draw conclusions regarding relative resolving abilities of different sized sensors. In fact - they don't test resolution at all. They are testing lenses, not cameras, and they test sharpness, not resolution!

Not true.  You are trying to downplay DXO test to simple sharpness that on your definition is Acutance. You said Acutance always can be achieved thru processing.  But in reality with my own experiences, I have some 5D files show that sharpness that my 60D simply cannot match no matter how to process.  Oversharpening only shows artifacts badly.

DXOMark P-MPix DOES based on MTF resolution.  They used to show in MTF resolution with the same result between 5D and 7D with all lenses.  P-MPix doesn't change any result but merely using an easier understandable expressing unit.

DxO simply do not measure resolution that allows you to use the data the way you are doing it.

It's been explained to you so many times it would be impossible for anyone to have kept track of it.

Are you aware that they normalise the results? Have you looked at the target they use?

Obviously not.

ignore my creditable tests and samples there especially more meaningful outdoor samples,instead you just repeat over and over again and verbally convicted I am "wrong", lol.

No - I didn't "ignore" your test images. In fact, I thanked you for posting  them and addressed them also.

My tests result for outdoor school building clearly show 5D has better IQ and resolves more fine details even with 24-70L II if you leave in their default ways and check side by side.

You are the only person seeing that - almost everyone else sees the opposite. And, perhaps, as some of these other people don't actually own either of these cameras, they are less "emotionally invested" in the subject and are simply judging the images on their merits.

As others have said, they clearly show the 60D has an advantage in resolving abilities.

Who are others from the same few who never own and experience 5D?  No mention your pure resolution is meaningless if you don't care the final IQ.  As I said in reality you'd have to apply more NR and CA correction that effectively will kill some details as vividly shown in your pelican photo.  5D will absolutely take better detail photo in the same scenario by framing into the same AOV.

Why do you keep attempting to move away from the topic - which is resolution.

The 60D images you posted have resolved more detail than the 5D images you posted.

Makes sense because the 60D does actually resolve more detail.

I think you are the only person on these forums that thinks otherwise.

As the link I provided, I heard some who actually own and experience both said otherwise.  Yes it's true I am the only one still arguing the same small group of 7D xxxt. There are used to be a few others who argued with you in last two years but they don't bother anymore.

It's unnecessary to have "owned and experienced both" to see the truth of the matter. Your images allow that.

And once again, why do you keep mentioning the 7D? It has nothing to do with this discussion apart from the fact that it has an 18MP sensor.

The topic was a comparison between the 60D and the 5D.

Why have you not mention the Rebels - they outresolve a 5D too you know!

As someone said earlier in this thread, only "blinds" will pickup 60D photos over 5D ones on outdoor school building that reflects the real world photos  5D photos even with 24-70L II clearly show better IQ and resolves a bit more fine details.  With other inferior lenses 5D leads more.

You seem to misunderstand - I'm not saying the 5D is a bad camera!

It means lots a 8-yr-old FF camera still can take lots of thunders these days  It still can withstand today's DSLRs if you don't print/view in very large size.  Between my 5D and 60D, I'd still pickup former in landscape and portraiture in everyday.

Fine - but that has little to do with resolving abilities - which is the topic on discussion here.

Stop trying to switch the discussion to something else.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MAC
MAC
Forum ProPosts: 12,395Gear list
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to qianp2k, Apr 1, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

MAC wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

MAC wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

MAC wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

MAC wrote:

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.

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!

don't upsize or downsize.  just leave them side by side in photoshop and choose split screen and magnify/scale them together - then take screen shots

Do you or anyone generate JPEG files by taking snapshots in ACR/LR?  At least you need to generate the final JPEGs before comparing.   I upsampling 5D files for easier comparing at the same output size otherwise someone may get delusion that a bigger size is resolving more details.  Or we should leave them at their original sizes and compare the default processed JPEGs as DPR and IR labs do.  They don't compare photos in ACR/LR screen but default processed JPEGs.

In Lightroom generate the full size 16 bit psd's or tiffs to photoshop CS

leave them alone. fov is the same.  view them at the image level.  split the screen, then magnify the same way/size.  then screen capture the magnified screen shots

That sounds too complicated.  Why not generate JPEGs thru ACR/LR or DPP by default/zero setting and then compare them side by side with whatever photo viewer (such as Windows photo viewer)?  That's all creditable labs do such as DPR and IR.

jpg's are a quality reduction

You didn't realize your eyes do see RAW files directly but thru software interpretation.  Whatever you see in RAW processing software such as ACR is not better than converted JPEG.  No labs use ACR screenshots to compare IQ, no mention that's not your final result you will get anyway.  Even we leave in ACR by default at their respective original sizes, I still don't see 60D files have better IQ and resolve more details on outdoor school building.

it was obvious to me, you didn't control focus pt and dof in the building shots

Yes I do.  Believe me or not, I tried to give 60D every advantage by using MF with 10x LV that's why it doesn't show focus point.  But 60D focus at the exact the same focus point as in 5D files.  Next time I will also use AF in 60D.  Sigh, I know no matter how I do, someone just cannot be satisfied but trying to find every excuse if the test result in not their way.  I can choose only post outdoor school building photos but I also post in close-up dollar bill shots despite it may give 60D an advantage in such scenarios.  I am truly unbiased without any agenda.  I own both camera and no reasons why I biased one against another one.  See my experience is all different from yours.  I own 5D first before any Canon cameras and I bought 60D several years later.  I also hope small and less can take more like everyone else wishes.  But in end, the Law of Physics still rules on the earth.

You are not biased to FF.  Yeah, right.

you need to shoot a scape -- like a scape is shot -- deep dof.  use zero on the sharpness slider.  And multiply the crop dof by 1.6.  And raise the FF iso by 2.5.  And keep the ss the same.  And most important -- convince us that the focal point was identical -- not an easy task for the 5dc without live view

Quit reading dxo between formats.  You don't know how they did those tests.  Nothing from the 18 Mpxl sensor scores above 12.  I don't believe that.  There is bias in their testing.  I think they moved the crop sensor farther away.

Your only fair test was the dollar test and it clearly showed your 60d has more resolution than your 5dc.  And that doesn't agree with dxo -- so dxo must be wrong.

keep the files whole 

Yeah, thru default/zero processing and we process respectively.  Remember you don't see RAW data directly but thru a software anyway

even zero in LR might not be zero

right but that's what you saw in LR/ACR right?  Your eyes just don't see original RAW data.  Therefore I first used DPP as I still believe DPP is the only one faithfully convert Canon own CR2 without applying any enhanced processing.

DPP sucks.

Professionals use Adobe -- for good reason

psd and tiff are better than 8 bit jpg -  for prints also - keep in 16 bit

but not in viewing on computer screen  Whatever you see in ACR window is not better than viewing converted JPEG (even at the default/zero setting).

Prints are better test.  You don't need to haul around 10's of thousands of dollars of "heavy" gear, to display photos on computer screens.  Many less expensive set-ups can achieve the same results on computer screens

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
 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
qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,350Gear list
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to schmegg, Apr 1, 2013

schmegg wrote:

Why do you keep attempting to move away from the topic - which is resolution.

I said they are related to final IQ that in reality you'd have to process 18mp APS-C photos more to get cleaner photos for better look that inevitably will smear details more, unless you want to keep your so-called resolution with ugly noises/grains/CA.  So it's related.

The 60D images you posted have resolved more detail than the 5D images you posted.

Maybe your eyes are different.  Check again on my untwisted and original converted JPEGs from ACR with zero/default setting directly.  I heard some true independent unbiased third party viewers said otherwise in this thread .  Your "majority" are the same old group of few that arguing for years

5D + 24-70L II

60D + 24-70L II

Makes sense because the 60D does actually resolve more detail.

It could provided with very few best lenses such as 300L/2.8 IS but not with most lenses as DXOMark tested, again their tests are based on MTF resolution.  In reality if we frame into the same AOV (60D shoots at 1.6x distance) even with 300L/2.8 IS, unless under bright sunlight, you'd have to apply more NR and CA correction especially if under shadows to get reasonable IQ, then 5D will be at least as good and probably with better fine details and IQ overall after respective necessary processing.  After of all, 7D/60D only leads 5D with one P-MPix point even with the best lens 300L/2.8 IS.

-- 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
schmegg
schmegg MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,257
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to qianp2k, Apr 1, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

schmegg wrote:

Why do you keep attempting to move away from the topic - which is resolution.

I said they are related to final IQ that in reality you'd have to process 18mp APS-C photos more to get cleaner photos for better look that inevitably will smear details more, unless you want to keep your so-called resolution with ugly noises/grains/CA.  So it's related.

Yes - they certainly are related - IQ and resolution, that is.

I don't disagree. Never said otherwise.

The 60D images you posted have resolved more detail than the 5D images you posted.

Maybe your eyes are different.

Must be that then. LOL!

Check again on my untwisted and original converted JPEGs from ACR with zero/default setting directly.  I heard some true independent unbiased third party viewers said otherwise in this thread .  Your "majority" are the same old group of few that arguing for years

I've looked closely at your samples. They show the 60D resolving more detail than the 5D.

The difference is not significant and anyone who claims the 5D is resolving more detail in those images is simply lying or unable to make a subjective assessment for whatever reason (probably because they have dug a great big hole and now find themselves at the bottom of it!)

Makes sense because the 60D does actually resolve more detail.

It could provided with very few best lenses such as 300L/2.8 IS but not with most lenses as DXOMark tested, again their tests are based on MTF resolution.  In reality if we frame into the same AOV (60D shoots at 1.6x distance) even with 300L/2.8 IS, unless under bright sunlight, you'd have to apply more NR and CA correction especially if under shadows to get reasonable IQ, then 5D will be at least as good and probably with better fine details and IQ overall after respective necessary processing.  After of all, 7D/60D only leads 5D with one P-MPix point even with the best lens 300L/2.8 IS.

Once again - DxO are testing lenses for obtainable sharpness. The MTF resolution figures are derived - not directly measured. In fact, DxO don't even shoot a target that contains "line pairs"!

Your use of the data is flawed.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads