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

Started Mar 17, 2013 | Discussions
qianp2k
Senior MemberPosts: 9,781Gear 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:

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

LOL, on equivalent DOF is rubbish.  Anyway next time I will also use AF on 60D that will prove I shoot at the same focus point but that only makes 60D lose a bit advantage.  Sigh, I actually tried to give 60D as much as advantages as possible as I also want to see if DXOMark test is true or not.

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.

I think it make sense as show the crop penalty from 1.6x crop sensors as all pixels are enlarged 1.6x time bigger, the reality you have to deal with.

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.

In such macro shoot mode I also agreed 60D has a hair advantage (that you have to see at pixel level) with the best lens 24-70L II.  5D photo is hammered by moire a bit.  However more meaningful test is from at least 50X focus-length distance as Canon suggested.  Outdoor tests are more meaningful to reflect in real world photos on my opinion.

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

LOL.  You said ACR is not default to zero so I used DPP as sample.  Anyway no matter how I show someone is not satisfied.  I also use LR/Photoshop

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

No way, printing are equivalent to apply huge amount of NR that effetely smear details.   BTW I do have a few photos printed to 30x20", 5D prints are noticeable better especially in portrait.  Portraiture is one of main reasons I dislike my 60D photos look, that is more obvious than landscape on my experiences.

-- hide signature --
-- 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
qianp2k
Senior MemberPosts: 9,781Gear list
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to schmegg, Apr 1, 2013

Let's move on as this back and forward endless exchanges doesn't make sense.  As I said I will find another chance to test again on the same school building by moving in much closer distance (that actually benefits 60D on my understanding) so we can see more textual details.

Trust me I don't have an agenda and will test as fair as possible and will report honestly.  In this round I agree 60D has a tiny edge on the dollar bill with 24-70L II (that is a very small center area) in close-up macro mode, but I have to pickup 5d files on outdoor school building photos that my eyes tell me.  As I said DXOMark may use AVERAGE MTF resolution in entire frame of the photo in their P-MPix calculation.  So maybe with 24-70L II, 6D wins slightly in center in close-up macro shot but 5D wins in edges/corners so ended in average 5D is as good as or still wins in one-point of P-MPix? 

Wait and see Round 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
MAC
MAC
Forum ProPosts: 12,268Gear 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:

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

LOL, on equivalent DOF is rubbish.

it is particularly important in 3d space.

Anyway next time I will also use AF on 60D that will prove I shoot at the same focus point but that only makes 60D lose a bit advantage.

actually, my T4i has not only better actuance than the 60d right out of the camera, but the reality is, my T4i has better autofocus-- lensrentals agrees.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51196518

Sigh, I actually tried to give 60D as much as advantages as possible as I also want to see if DXOMark test is true or not.

you used shallower dof and didn't control focus point on the scape shot  -- non-starters.

use 1.6 x Fstop for aperture.

use 1.6x1.6 = 2.56 for higher iso on FF

use same ss.

most of all -- use same distance - which likely dxo does not use

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.

I think it make sense as show the crop penalty from 1.6x crop sensors as all pixels are enlarged 1.6x time bigger, the reality you have to deal with.

crop doesn't have a penalty.  only those looking at websites that send the crop sensor backwards have the wrong impression that crop has a penalty

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.

In such macro shoot mode I also agreed 60D has a hair advantage (that you have to see at pixel level) with the best lens 24-70L II.  5D photo is hammered by moire a bit.

you're the one that lives at the pixel level

actually at the image level -- they are so close, it is a wash - i own both

However more meaningful test is from at least 50X focus-length distance as Canon suggested.

50x is Canon's recommended focus test distance -- not their recommended resolution test distance.  Actually I find their recommendation  cop out -- I am interested in how lenses focus just past the MFD and how they focus further away -- not just 50x -- that is the cop out and what will get you in trouble with an inconsistent lens focus issue at different distances

Outdoor tests are more meaningful to reflect in real world photos on my opinion.

depends.  you want it your way

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

LOL.  You said ACR is not default to zero so I used DPP as sample.  Anyway no matter how I show someone is not satisfied.  I also use LR/Photoshop

for all we know, DPP may not be true zero.

DPP is not the professional raw converter, so why even use it -- that was my point

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

No way, printing are equivalent to apply huge amount of NR that effetely smear details.

Large size Printing is reality where resolution matters

On all these web photos you post -- my T4i does just as well -- imo

BTW I do have a few photos printed to 30x20", 5D prints are noticeable better especially in portrait.

Then you need to learn to use light better and process your photos better.

Portraiture is one of main reasons I dislike my 60D photos look, that is more obvious than landscape on my experiences.

Then you need to learn to use light better and process your photos better.

On most of the shots you've posted on the web-- after proper processing -- my T4i does just as well.  You'd fail a blind test with these web images between my T4i and your 5dc -- side by side -- with just a few exceptions - the shallow dof situations

Amazing for a lighter camera with a 2.56 smaller sensor

-- hide signature --
-- 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 +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
qianp2k
Senior MemberPosts: 9,781Gear 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:

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

LOL, on equivalent DOF is rubbish.

it is particularly important in 3d space.

What that means? In good light, I can stop down with 5D and can stop down more such as on waterfall case that subject less to diffraction. Under low light, I can either stop down a bit more for deeper DOF to have similar level of noise, or I can shoot at the same aperture and have less noise than APS-C. It's just subjective a better or not for deeper or shallower DOF. For me under low light I'd shoot at wide open if necessary for less noise IQ to have my main subject get focus. Shallower DOF many times is not a disadvantage but actually makes your photos look more attractive as we have seen samples from Sigma 35/1.4 @F1.4. No mention for remote subject, even F2.8 has sufficient DOF.

Anyway next time I will also use AF on 60D that will prove I shoot at the same focus point but that only makes 60D lose a bit advantage.

actually, my T4i has not only better actuance than the 60d right out of the camera, but the reality is, my T4i has better autofocus-- lensrentals agrees.

No ideal what you're talking about? Your T4i has the same sensor as in 60D. 60D is in a higher level than your T4i, AF faster and faster in overall response with higher burst rate and deeper buffer. I have many 60D photos you have seen that seems has no AF issue

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51196518

Sigh, I actually tried to give 60D as much as advantages as possible as I also want to see if DXOMark test is true or not.

you used shallower dof and didn't control focus point on the scape shot  -- non-starters.

From that distance, the difference in DOF is really zero (get DOF calculator) to get an idea.  As I said I focused at the same port on the school building.  I know you just need to find an excuse.  So next time I will use AF in 60D that only will result a slight disadvantage of 60D actually as smaller sensor and higher pixel density actually require more precise focus.  10x MF thru LV is better than any AF.

use 1.6 x Fstop for aperture.

use 1.6x1.6 = 2.56 for higher iso on FF

Actually for 24-70L II, F4.0 on APS-C and F5.6 on FF have the respective best resolution.  But next time I'd shoot at all different apeture so you can pickup whatever you like that will prove you will not gain by stopping down as F4.0 and F5.6 already have the best resolution on respective crop format.

use same ss.

??? Same exposure that I only care as every sensor and camera has different exposure nature. DPR lab test for example using the same exposure but not the same shutter or aperture as that simply don't reflect how you use the cameras in real world. 5D sensor for example is well known has +1/3 EV over-sensitive than standard ISO. Not every sensor or even the same sensor in different cameras behave exactly in the same way. The same exposure only matters.

most of all -- use same distance - which likely dxo does not use

In real world usage of cameras, you achieve the same AOV by either a) using different focus length, b) by adjusting distance, c) both a) and b). That's how you use prime lenses such as 50L and 85L on different crop formats to take portrait photos for example.  Whatever the same AOV is the key.

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.

I think it make sense as show the crop penalty from 1.6x crop sensors as all pixels are enlarged 1.6x time bigger, the reality you have to deal with.

crop doesn't have a penalty.  only those looking at websites that send the crop sensor backwards have the wrong impression that crop has a penalty

That means you don't understand crop magnification or enlargement. The reason you can use 100mm lens to have the same AOV of 160mm lens on FF is thru 1.6x more crop magnification on Canon APS-C that inevitably will result to crop penalties. That explains why FF is sharper and resolve more fine details than crop when frame into the same AOV. For crop cameras to overcome crop penalty, they will need by using much better lenses (more often such perfect lenses don't exist) and have much more pixels. Otherwise as I repeatedly said nobody should buy 600mm lens, you could use 300mm on 2.0x crop or even 30mm on 20x crop if there is no such crop penalty, right?

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.

In such macro shoot mode I also agreed 60D has a hair advantage (that you have to see at pixel level) with the best lens 24-70L II.  5D photo is hammered by moire a bit.

you're the one that lives at the pixel level

actually at the image level -- they are so close, it is a wash - i own both

Your 5D takes better portrait and studio and landscape shots than your T4i/60D if you use properly.  I have seen a few your 60D photos before that looks obvious soft and mushy even at that small size.  Otherwise plese post some and compare my 5D samples in pure IQ.

However more meaningful test is from at least 50X focus-length distance as Canon suggested.

50x is Canon's recommended focus test distance -- not their recommended resolution test distance.  Actually I find their recommendation  cop out -- I am interested in how lenses focus just past the MFD and how they focus further away -- not just 50x -- that is the cop out and what will get you in trouble with an inconsistent lens focus issue at different distances

24-70L II is not a macro lens for example.  For meaningful test that reflect in real world photos from those lenses, you'd need to shoot from distance, that what I am going to do in next round from at least 50X indoor and outdoor.

Outdoor tests are more meaningful to reflect in real world photos on my opinion.

depends.  you want it your way

Even indoor shots in real usage of those lenses in the test. Do you shot portrait by touching the lens on the model's face? In real world usage of those lenses, you actually have to shoot from at least 50X focus-length distance.

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

LOL.  You said ACR is not default to zero so I used DPP as sample.  Anyway no matter how I show someone is not satisfied.  I also use LR/Photoshop

for all we know, DPP may not be true zero.

LOL, whatever.  My understanding is DPP is true zero but not LR/ACR.

DPP is not the professional raw converter, so why even use it -- that was my point

You seem cannot be satisfied no matter which one I use   So I will stay in ACR only and please don't complain not zero or even suggests it may favor a specific model, at least DPR reviews uses ACR.

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

No way, printing are equivalent to apply huge amount of NR that effetely smear details.

Large size Printing is reality where resolution matters

How large? 100% cropped view on a HD monitor shows the best details.  I heard you only print to something 18x13", lol.

On all these web photos you post -- my T4i does just as well -- imo

I am waiting to see. Please post your T4i photos to see if they can match my 5D samples from pur IQ perspective. Your T4i is nothing special but just another Canon 18mp APS-C in a small Rebel body.

BTW I do have a few photos printed to 30x20", 5D prints are noticeable better especially in portrait.

Then you need to learn to use light better and process your photos better.

LOL.  My photos from 5D and 60D prove I know how to use respective cameras.

Portraiture is one of main reasons I dislike my 60D photos look, that is more obvious than landscape on my experiences.

Then you need to learn to use light better and process your photos better.

I have to apply NR on photos from 60D that I don't need to do in 5D photos. The portrait photos from 60D do not look at the same level from 5D, not just noises/grains, but natural sharpness and smoothness rendition. 5D photos in general look better, more popup and more dynamic.  As I suggested, please post some 100% cropped your T4i/60D close-up face photos.

On most of the shots you've posted on the web-- after proper processing -- my T4i does just as well.  You'd fail a blind test with these web images between my T4i and your 5dc -- side by side -- with just a few exceptions - the shallow dof situations

You keep saying that but unless you can show some photos.  I know whatever gear you own is the best in the world from your perspective, so whatever, lol.

Amazing for a lighter camera with a 2.56 smaller sensor

100D/Rebel SL1 is even smaller/lighter, an excellent backup camera for my needs but my 5DIII is still my main camera

Your T4i just cannot have such IQ at 100% cropped level, LOL. AT 100% cropped, your T4i photos will look pretty soft and mushy. Otherwise I am waiting to see. You simply cannot ignore the penalties result from 1.6x more crop magnification.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3MrYp_nWjPGQ0FDRHJTMzYyTDA/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3MrYp_nWjPGV2UzaTVsbGFneVU/edit?usp=sharing

-- 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
Just another Canon shooter
Senior MemberPosts: 2,520Gear list
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to MAC, Apr 1, 2013

MAC wrote:

crop doesn't have a penalty.  only those looking at websites that send the crop sensor backwards have the wrong impression that crop has a penalty

All those sites usually have one big chart only. The move the crop camera backwards only if they use the same but not equivalent FL. And they do not, if they use equivalent FL. Since the discussion started by the OP is for equivalent FL, then they do not move anything, and their data is relevant. It all depends on the lenses used; and even if you use the same zoom, it may perform differently at different FL. So the sensible thing would be to look at a variety of comparisons at equivalent FL's and equivalent F-stops (here, MAC is right). There is no real need (but it would be interesting anyway)  to choose ISO 250 on FF since in many situations, you can afford the lower SS. When you cannot, the 5D will take some hit since its QE is considerably lower than the 60D, and there will be more apparent noise.

BTW, all those sites measure a fixed MTF, like MTF-20, MTF-50. It is just one of the many metrics for ... call it whatever you want.

This thread is getting very colorful, since nobody bothers to cleanup the previous replies!

 Just another Canon shooter's gear list:Just another Canon shooter's gear list
Samsung Galaxy S III
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
qianp2k
Senior MemberPosts: 9,781Gear list
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to Just another Canon shooter, Apr 1, 2013

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

MAC wrote:

crop doesn't have a penalty.

If no crop penality, why not 2.0x crop or 1" crop or 1/1.7" crop?  they are even smaller and lighter.  We all should give up FF, LOL.

only those looking at websites that send the crop sensor backwards have the wrong impression that crop has a penalty

How you use 85L to shoot a half body on your 60D/T4i, you have to move backward, right? Otherwise you will get a shoulder above photo. Bingo that answers your question.

All those sites usually have one big chart only. The move the crop camera backwards only if they use the same but not equivalent FL. And they do not, if they use equivalent FL. Since the discussion started by the OP is for equivalent FL, then they do not move anything, and their data is relevant. It all depends on the lenses used; and even if you use the same zoom, it may perform differently at different FL. So the sensible thing would be to look at a variety of comparisons at equivalent FL's and equivalent F-stops (here, MAC is right). There is no real need (but it would be interesting anyway)  to choose ISO 250 on FF since in many situations, you can afford the lower SS. When you cannot, the 5D will take some hit since its QE is considerably lower than the 60D, and there will be more apparent noise.

Shooting at eq DOF makes no sense as I explained in real world photos. Under good light, you can stop down and you can stop down more with FF body before showing up obvious diffraction. Under low light I can shoot at the same aperture but get shallower DOF with the main subject in focus that many times result more attractive look photos.  OOF areas in edges are not the same as softness and many times result attractive looking of background blur rendering.  It's simply subjective deeper or shallower DOF is better or not. For those prefer deeper DOF, they should choose mFT, 1" or 1/1.7" P&S that photos from those cameras look all in focus but nothing popup.   I am the one prefer shallower DOF. For remote subjects such as landscape even F2.8 on FF has sufficient DOF. Many new Canon lenses such as 24-70L II, 70-200L II and 40/2.8 pancake etc are still pretty sharp from edge to edge even at F2.8 wide open.

BTW, all those sites measure a fixed MTF, like MTF-20, MTF-50. It is just one of the many metrics for ... call it whatever you want.

This thread is getting very colorful, since nobody bothers to cleanup the previous replies!

-- 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
Senior MemberPosts: 5,002
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to Just another Canon shooter, Apr 1, 2013

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

MAC wrote:

crop doesn't have a penalty.  only those looking at websites that send the crop sensor backwards have the wrong impression that crop has a penalty

All those sites usually have one big chart only. The move the crop camera backwards only if they use the same but not equivalent FL. And they do not, if they use equivalent FL. Since the discussion started by the OP is for equivalent FL, then they do not move anything, and their data is relevant. It all depends on the lenses used; and even if you use the same zoom, it may perform differently at different FL. So the sensible thing would be to look at a variety of comparisons at equivalent FL's and equivalent F-stops (here, MAC is right). There is no real need (but it would be interesting anyway)  to choose ISO 250 on FF since in many situations, you can afford the lower SS. When you cannot, the 5D will take some hit since its QE is considerably lower than the 60D, and there will be more apparent noise.

BTW, all those sites measure a fixed MTF, like MTF-20, MTF-50. It is just one of the many metrics for ... call it whatever you want.

BTW, This thread is getting very colorful, since nobody bothers to cleanup the previous replies.

LOL! Yes - I was beginning to wonder just how many colours they have! Hehe!

Re the data. The MTF figures are derived - DxO don't actually measure resolution at all. They measure acutance and derive resolution from it mathematically.

Here  is the page showing the target they use. As you can see from this target, they are measuring edge sharpness. They aren't doing anything 'bogus' here, just using accepted methods.

Their graphs are called "sharpness" graphs and are, of course, designed to allow people to judge which lens will provide the sharpest image on their chosen camera (as they are lens tests after all, not resolution tests).

This whole thing has confused a few people - and it would be very good if DxO put it to bed by describing the suitability of their metrics for making comparisons. But, of course, it might not be exactly what they'd prefer to do, nor would it be easy to explain it in simple terms that everyone can understand.

It's really very simple to determine which of two sensors can resolve more detail. Peter will not meet this challenge though - he is instead interested in claiming a practical difference, rather than an actual one. And, because of this, it will be very difficult to come to any conclusions other than that the difference is not really very significant.

And, if we can even get to this point, it will be an achievement!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dave Luttmann
Forum ProPosts: 12,553Gear 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:

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.

what I find interesting is that Peter picks and chooses what information from them he wants.  If he misreads something that he thinks is DxO saying the 5D is better, he posts it as empirically correct data.  Yet, in the sensor ranking, because Canon doesn't even make it to the top 12, he proclaims their method to be incorrect and invalid, and makes excuses for it.  Very interesting scientific method....especially considering he doesn't understand how they do their testing.....despite being told by a couple of dozen forum members here around 50 times in the last year alone.

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

DPP is about the worst for bringing out detail....and for control over the raw image.

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

Peter has already said he doesn't make large prints.  That of course hasn't  stopped him from arguing about the best way to interpolate enlargements in PS.  Of course, he was wrong there as well.....didn't stop him from arguing it through a dozen posts telling everyone else they were all wrong.

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
 Dave Luttmann's gear list:Dave Luttmann's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +15 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dave Luttmann
Forum ProPosts: 12,553Gear list
Like?
As I said....
In reply to qianp2k, Apr 1, 2013

.....well done.  This test was pretty much a real world comparison.  It clearly shows the 60D outresolving the 5D.  Nothing like some photographs to shows what a DxO chart cannot.

 Dave Luttmann's gear list:Dave Luttmann's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +15 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
qianp2k
Senior MemberPosts: 9,781Gear list
Like?
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to schmegg, Apr 1, 2013

schmegg wrote:

It's really very simple to determine which of two sensors can resolve more detail. Peter will not meet this challenge though - he is instead interested in claiming a practical difference, rather than an actual one. And, because of this, it will be very difficult to come to any conclusions other than that the difference is not really very significant.

You're right that I am interesting in difference that reflects in real world usage of cameras that are the real one for me. I really don't know what theoretical difference making any sense to me such as shooting at so-called equivalence that simply doesn't reflect how we use the cameras in real world. In real usage for example in indoor, if you shoot EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS at F2.8 I also can shoot with EF 24-70L II at F2.8.   Or I can stop down to F4.0 that will have better edges/corners than EF-S 17-55/2.8 at F2.8 anyway (without 'IS' factor).  I don't have to shoot at so-called eq DOF, period. I will stop down if necessary otherwise I will leave it wide-open to generate a different look photo, and many time result to more attractive look photos from shallower DOF, a main advantage of FF actually.

And, if we can even get to this point, it will be an achievement!

However in my next round of test, I will test at all major aperture stop from wide-open to F8 or F11, so you pickup whatever you like. You will see with 24-70L II for example, it actually has the best resolution at F4.0 on APS-C and F5.6 on FF. Stopping down will not help.

-- 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