Return of Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800...

Started Apr 10, 2013 | Discussions
Dave Luttmann
Forum ProPosts: 12,741Gear list
Like?
Re: true and 14-24 on d800 only scores 17
In reply to MAC, Apr 14, 2013

MAC wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

BTW, the real test should be at equivalent FL and equivalent f-stops with common lenses.

When comparing resolution across formats you have to keep the subject distance constant. DxO apparently doesn't do that. Might be a source of some of their inconsistencies

true !

I find it interesting that: 14-24 on d800 only scores 17 MPix

they haven't tested the 17 T/S on 5d3 yet.  My guess is that it scores 19 like the siggy 35

DxO is such a load of garbage.  Put the tse17on the 5D3 and the 14-24 on the D800 and the D800 will outresolve the 5D3.  People need to stop reading the DxO BS.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

 Dave Luttmann's gear list:Dave Luttmann's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS 10D Canon EOS D30 Nikon D2X +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
aftab
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,704Gear list
Like?
Re: Return of Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800...
In reply to aftab, Apr 14, 2013

I need to correct myself.

If we have alternating black and white lines, each 0.08mm wide, human eye with best resolving power in optimum condition (light, angle etc) won't be able to separate them. Let's say 0.1mm wide be the maximum our eyes can resolve. How many lp/mm that comes down to? 10, isn't it. 36 lp/mm, I mentioned before, is way too small for us to discern.

-- hide signature --

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
schmegg
schmegg MOD
Senior MemberPosts: 5,014
Like?
Re: Return of Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800...
In reply to qianp2k, Apr 14, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

schmegg wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

The result is clear as we have seen from tons of real world photos from respective cameras.

In terms of resolution, I've not seen that.

Which resolution, MTF 50 or 30 or below 20?  I doubt your eyes can see MTF 20% or below in real world photos where 60D/7D suffers higher grains/noises (that is also measured on SNR ratio that even 8-yr-old 5D is still noticeable higher cross entire range of ISO 100-3200).  MTF 50 or at least MTF 30 resolution ultimately matters to normal human eyes

Really? Why's that Peter?

And you've been unable to show this yourself with your 5D and 60D.

Actually shown well in my test samples between 5D and 60D even with one of the best lenses I used in test, 24-70L II.

No - you didn't. The overwhelming consensus is that the 60D out-resolved the 5D in your examples - even after you added false detail to it's recorded image by upscaling it.

I gave 60D an advantage by upsampling 5D file to the same size of 60D for easier comparison (without a wrong perception that bigger size has more resolution).

As above - and this was pointed out to you by a few others in that thread too - upscaling adds false detail to the image. It's simply not a valid compariosn.

Despite this though - the 60D still out-resolved the 5D.

Please not to repeat words over and over again as we have debated enough in that thread.  The ones shown 60D with 24-70L II has very slightly higher resolution on the dollar bill (in very small center area) exactly shown in that very close distance (macro mode) under perfect light condition, grainless/noiseless, so around MTF 20% I guess.

Yes - higher resolution from the crop.

But I have not shown edges/corners yet where it would show with even 24-70L II, 5D haa higher resolution.  So should we consider AVERAGE frame resolution rather very small center resolution.  With inferior lenses and in real world photos, then 5D leads larger while 7D will be hammered more in higher noises/grains.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3447852?page=7

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3447852

5D + 24-70L II upsampling to the same size of 60D

60D + 24070L II

Though I can easily show an 18MP crop image will resolve more of the detail projected onto it than a 22MP FF.

LOL.  Please put a disclaimer next time when you show your "currency bill" shots side by side with 7D and 5D3 that you shoot from the same distance with the same focus length, then you crop out 5D3 photo to match to 7D AOV in very small center area (currency bill).  In such senario, then I have no dispute as that kind of test is meaningless.

Nope - why do I have to keep repeating this for you?

The only way to determine which of two sensors is capable of resolving more detail is to present each with exactly the same projected detail and then see which resultant image has resolved more of it!

That's precisely what my test does. Not meaningless at all - it's in fact the only way to determine which sensor can resolve more.

All creditable lab tests are tested under the same AOV for the same scene.  With different AOV from same distance/same length  you ended with two different photos, two different scenes.

And, when you did this in your 5D/60D test, it still showed the 60D resolving slightly more.

If you believe your 18mp 7D resolves more than your 22mp 5D3, you should use 7D in your landscape, studio and portraiture photography.  That's only your choice.  I know I will pickup my 5D cameras over my 60D anytime (except from operation consideration when I want to carry smaller/lighter 60D) in those areas of photography 

Fine.

Why do you think this is? Could it possibly be that you don't know how to read those lines properly I wonder? For instance, did you realise that both those graphs show that the crop resolves more than the FF but with less acutance? I guess not.

Please understand these articles to understand MTF resolution.  BTW, your 22mp 5D3 has higher MTF resolution than 18mp 7D in any MTF percentage from 1-100% as long as frame the scene in the same AOV.

No dispute there.

Once again it goes to show the folly of using lens tests to draw conclusions regarding the resolving capabilities of different sensors. All those MTF curves will tell you, when it comes to comparing different sensors, is that lower resolving sensors will give you sharper images from lenses of lesser quality than higher resolving sensors - and that's what you can see with the 85/1.8 - and why the MTF lines are much closer with the 100/2.8.

The tests are measuring acutance and it stands to reason that larger pixels will give increasingly sharper images at pixel level than smaller ones as the lens quality drops. It actually says very little about the relative resolving capabilities of the sensor and a whole lot more about the quality of the lens (surprise, surprise! Who'd have thought that a lens test would be measuring the performance of a lens! LOL!)

Please read and understand.  Both acutance and MTF resolution are related in what human eyes can resolve, the term Perceptual Sharpness DXOMark uses.

And please try to understand that acutance, sharpness and resolution are different things! (why is this so hard?)

BTW - I can now see why DxO don't publish them any more! This is a good example of why they tried to come up with something a little easier for people to understand!

I believe DXOMark P-MPix makes senses to help most people (especially beginners) to understand easier.  Most (think about members in DPR are still minority among all photographers in the world) don't understand MTF data well no mention which MTF resolution, 50, 30, 20, 10?  In real world photos MTF 50 or at least MTF 30 ultimately matter to human eyes.  Under overwhelming most real world scenarios your eyes just cannot see MTF 20% or below or at least not easily.

I think that depends a lot on what you are doing with your images. Remember that these MTF figures are for 'unprocessed' images. That's not a good guide as to how the final image may be presented. It doesn't matter because these are LENS TESTS! Sheesh!

Remember, if you will, that acutance can be adjusted during post processing. So, as long as the detail has been resolved, there are ways to recover it. However, if the detail has not been resolved in the first place, then all you can do is 'invent' false detail (like you did in your 5D/60D test). And, in this very real respect, a higher resolution image with lower acutance is more useful than a lower resolution image with high acutance.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,000Gear list
Like?
Re: true and 14-24 on d800 only scores 17
In reply to MAC, Apr 14, 2013

MAC wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

BTW, the real test should be at equivalent FL and equivalent f-stops with common lenses.

When comparing resolution across formats you have to keep the subject distance constant. DxO apparently doesn't do that. Might be a source of some of their inconsistencies

true !

I find it interesting that: 14-24 on d800 only scores 17 MPix

I'm not surprised.  14-24 is not really that fantastic as someone claimed.  It's excellent at 14mm side in center but not that sharp in edges/corners.  It's not that good at 24mm side (if I remember correctly that I can double check).

they haven't tested the 17 T/S on 5d3 yet.  My guess is that it scores 19 like the siggy 35

'joger' has several threads that show 17 TS-E on 5D2 (no mention 5D3) is sharper than 14-24 on D800 in edges/corners.  He acknowledges 14-24 on D800 in center does outresolve 17 TS-E on 5D2 clearly.  Then he stitched two photos from 17 TS-E on 5D2 then the stitched photos will outresolve D800 with 14-24 in entire frame especially in edges/corners.  Anyway 14-24 is not in the same league of 24-70L II or 70-200L II, just my opinion

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

-- hide signature --
 qianp2k's gear list:qianp2k's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,000Gear list
Like?
Re: Return of Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800...
In reply to Steen Bay, Apr 14, 2013

Steen Bay wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:/

We can also see that the 7D actually has a higher resolution. The 5D's MTF curve stops at app. 61 lp/mm because it runs out of vertical pixels (app. 61 lp/mm represents the 5D's Nyquist frequency), while the 7D's MTF curve continues to app. 72 lp/mm (on 24 x36mm). The contrast is rather low, but the 7D's resolution is nevertheless higher.

I'd suggest everyone reads these articles to understand these concepts first and understand what that means in real world photos.

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html

http://www.imatest.com/docs/sharpness/

From above two DXOMark MTF tests, we can see 7D only extends at MTF 15% or below that virtually invisible by eyes in real world photos even at base ISO when 7D photos buried by higher noises/grains. So that 7D higher resolution (18mp vs 12.8mp from 5D) is only on paper or reflected in larger CR2 file size but unless you have an eagle eye, you just cannot see it

A bit of sharpening makes it easier to see. It's clearly visible if comparing the resolution test chart shots in DPR's 5D and 7D reviews.

a) that depends from shooting distance.  A meaningful test should be done from at least 50x focus-length distance; b) depends on which lens. 7D needs a really good prime such as 100L (85/1.8 is also very nice lens) under perfect neutral gray and grainless/noiseless light condition at base ISO 100; c) doesn't reflect in real-world photos in outdoor harsh light or indoor poor light.

Not 100% sure, but think that DPR uses EF 85/1.8 on Canon FF and EF 50/1.4 on Canon APS-C. Agree that the 5D has better sharpness/contrast/acutance, but the 7D's higher MP count will most often also give it a higher 'resolution' (at least at low ISOs).

As shown in the two snapshots of old MTF charts between 5D and 7D, even with two excellent prime lenses, 100L and 85/1.8, 7D still only outresolves 5D around MTF 15% and below that virtually invisible by normal human eyes, and likely only in center not in edges/corners (on average MTF resolution).  You need to realize DXOMark tested in "perfect" ideal environment at base ISO on neutral gray resolution card virtually noiseless/grainless). I am sure with inferior lenses especially with zoom (such as 14-105L vs EF-S 15-85 or 17-55), then 7D will not be extended much more (that means at even lower MTF such as 5-10%).  Then in real world photos (outside "clean" lab), 7D/60D will be further impacted by higher noises/grains at pixel level (DXOMark SNR test confirms that), so that further will push 7D/60D advantage into lower MTF percentage that will be completely invisible by human eyes as above two articles said.

Therefore DXOMark tests likely use at least 20% MTF as someone suggested to test lenses on respective sensors (systems) to represent what human eyes can resolve (or perceive), and they changed to Perceptual Sharpness for easier understanding.  Ultimately what we can see in eyes only matters.  That should also answer your earlier scenario regarding smaller-sensor sport/wildlife cameras.  That's the reason Olympus FT DSLRs never succeeded in sport venues because Canon and Nikon have 300-600mm super-tele lenses. Then 2.0x crop has no chance, that's the reason why top wildlife photog are willing to lug around big super-tele lenses to achieve the best possible photos not only in IQ but in resolving fine details.  Sure 2.0x crop or even smaller sensor cameras do have "reach" (or pixel density) advantage in small birding that sometime even 600mm is not long enough.  However FF/APS-H owners could add 1.4x, 1.7x and 2.0x TCs, and can bring out 800mm and with 1.4x TC that still can AF at F8.0, that effectively overcome "reach" shortage and will result better IQ photos.

Anyway in theory I don't disagree with you but that has not been reflected in reality, not yet.  The main reason is lens not sensor.  I'm sure smaller sensors can involve better and better, so do larger sensors.  But the point is glass-based lenses.  It's either impossible or actually no longer smaller/lighter for 2.0x crop manufacturers for example to manufacture 300mm/F2.0 prime, or 400mm/F2.8 or 150mm/F1.4 lenses, in order to overcome 2.0x more crop penalties.

As another person said, crop penalty is real and amount of pixels is also real.  But crop format has much larger impact than amount of pixels that vividly confirmed by DXOMark tests.  We all remember in camcorder optical zoom vs digital zoom, that actually is very similar between crop format (digital zoom) vs longer lens (optical zoom).

-- hide signature --
 qianp2k's gear list:qianp2k's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
schmegg
schmegg MOD
Senior MemberPosts: 5,014
Like?
Re: Return of Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800...
In reply to qianp2k, Apr 14, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:/

We can also see that the 7D actually has a higher resolution. The 5D's MTF curve stops at app. 61 lp/mm because it runs out of vertical pixels (app. 61 lp/mm represents the 5D's Nyquist frequency), while the 7D's MTF curve continues to app. 72 lp/mm (on 24 x36mm). The contrast is rather low, but the 7D's resolution is nevertheless higher.

I'd suggest everyone reads these articles to understand these concepts first and understand what that means in real world photos.

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html

http://www.imatest.com/docs/sharpness/

From above two DXOMark MTF tests, we can see 7D only extends at MTF 15% or below that virtually invisible by eyes in real world photos even at base ISO when 7D photos buried by higher noises/grains. So that 7D higher resolution (18mp vs 12.8mp from 5D) is only on paper or reflected in larger CR2 file size but unless you have an eagle eye, you just cannot see it

A bit of sharpening makes it easier to see. It's clearly visible if comparing the resolution test chart shots in DPR's 5D and 7D reviews.

a) that depends from shooting distance.  A meaningful test should be done from at least 50x focus-length distance; b) depends on which lens. 7D needs a really good prime such as 100L (85/1.8 is also very nice lens) under perfect neutral gray and grainless/noiseless light condition at base ISO 100; c) doesn't reflect in real-world photos in outdoor harsh light or indoor poor light.

Not 100% sure, but think that DPR uses EF 85/1.8 on Canon FF and EF 50/1.4 on Canon APS-C. Agree that the 5D has better sharpness/contrast/acutance, but the 7D's higher MP count will most often also give it a higher 'resolution' (at least at low ISOs).

As shown in the two snapshots of old MTF charts between 5D and 7D, even with two excellent prime lenses, 100L and 85/1.8, 7D still only outresolves 5D around MTF 15% and below ....

Fail.

It doesn't show that at all. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what these graphs represent it seems.

It simply shows that the 5D has higher acutance down to around MTF 15% (where it runs out of resolving ability all together and the 7D keeps going) - not that it resolves more! And this is from a raw image that has not been adjusted in post processing at all - it has only a passing bearing on the obtainable final image detail and the test is simply designed to compare lenses on a given camera.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steen Bay
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,188
Like?
Re: Return of Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800...
In reply to aftab, Apr 14, 2013

aftab wrote:

I need to correct myself.

If we have alternating black and white lines, each 0.08mm wide, human eye with best resolving power in optimum condition (light, angle etc) won't be able to separate them. Let's say 0.1mm wide be the maximum our eyes can resolve. How many lp/mm that comes down to? 10, isn't it. 36 lp/mm, I mentioned before, is way too small for us to discern.

-- hide signature --

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

Well, we're usually not looking at 24x36mm prints from a FF camera. If e.g. viewing at 100% on our monitor, then the image is magnified quite a bit.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steen Bay
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,188
Like?
Re: Return of Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800...
In reply to John Sheehy, Apr 14, 2013

John Sheehy wrote:

You're regressing to a different paradigm.  We're talking about when one is focal-length-limited, and in that context, only resolution and noise per unit of sensor area are relevant.   The Q's sensor trashes any FF sensor in that context (and there's nothing special about the Q's sensor; it is just a run-of-the-mill 1/2.3" sensor that happens to have RAW output and can be adapted to a plethora of lenses).  DR is about the same as the D800, and high-ISO noise is only about 1/2 stop behind the best DSLRs, and better than the worst.  Resolution potential is high, and some good DSLR lenses actually are under-sampled by the Q's pixel density (like my 70-200/4L IS at 200mm and f/4).

Wondering, how does for example your 70-200/4L IS perform on the Q, compared to e.g. the kit lens (if you have it) that's designed for the smaller format (if the framing of the subject is the same)?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jayrandomer
Contributing MemberPosts: 626
Like?
Re: Return of Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800...
In reply to schmegg, Apr 14, 2013

schmegg wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:/

We can also see that the 7D actually has a higher resolution. The 5D's MTF curve stops at app. 61 lp/mm because it runs out of vertical pixels (app. 61 lp/mm represents the 5D's Nyquist frequency), while the 7D's MTF curve continues to app. 72 lp/mm (on 24 x36mm). The contrast is rather low, but the 7D's resolution is nevertheless higher.

I'd suggest everyone reads these articles to understand these concepts first and understand what that means in real world photos.

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html

http://www.imatest.com/docs/sharpness/

From above two DXOMark MTF tests, we can see 7D only extends at MTF 15% or below that virtually invisible by eyes in real world photos even at base ISO when 7D photos buried by higher noises/grains. So that 7D higher resolution (18mp vs 12.8mp from 5D) is only on paper or reflected in larger CR2 file size but unless you have an eagle eye, you just cannot see it

A bit of sharpening makes it easier to see. It's clearly visible if comparing the resolution test chart shots in DPR's 5D and 7D reviews.

a) that depends from shooting distance.  A meaningful test should be done from at least 50x focus-length distance; b) depends on which lens. 7D needs a really good prime such as 100L (85/1.8 is also very nice lens) under perfect neutral gray and grainless/noiseless light condition at base ISO 100; c) doesn't reflect in real-world photos in outdoor harsh light or indoor poor light.

Not 100% sure, but think that DPR uses EF 85/1.8 on Canon FF and EF 50/1.4 on Canon APS-C. Agree that the 5D has better sharpness/contrast/acutance, but the 7D's higher MP count will most often also give it a higher 'resolution' (at least at low ISOs).

As shown in the two snapshots of old MTF charts between 5D and 7D, even with two excellent prime lenses, 100L and 85/1.8, 7D still only outresolves 5D around MTF 15% and below ....

Fail.

It doesn't show that at all. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what these graphs represent it seems.

It simply shows that the 5D has higher acutance down to around MTF 15% (where it runs out of resolving ability all together and the 7D keeps going) - not that it resolves more! And this is from a raw image that has not been adjusted in post processing at all - it has only a passing bearing on the obtainable final image detail and the test is simply designed to compare lenses on a given camera.

What's unacceptable about comparing two curves at fixed ordinate value?  That is certainly a standard way of using graphical information.  It may not be the way the data were generated, which is typically by measuring (or calculating) the acutance at a given resolution, but the ability to compare curves at fixed ordinate values is one of the reasons scientists and engineers employ graphs in the first place.

In other words, if one asks the question, "what is the maximum resolution which has a minimum MTF of 15%?" the value assigned for the 5d would indeed be larger than the value assigned for the 7d.  What he says is correct given his caveat of 15% MTF.  If he had said, "the 5D has higher resolution than the 5D" without such a caveat he would have failed, but we already know that the absolute resolution of the 7D is higher than the 5D simply from the number of pixels.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steen Bay
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,188
Like?
Re: Return of Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800...
In reply to qianp2k, Apr 14, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:/

We can also see that the 7D actually has a higher resolution. The 5D's MTF curve stops at app. 61 lp/mm because it runs out of vertical pixels (app. 61 lp/mm represents the 5D's Nyquist frequency), while the 7D's MTF curve continues to app. 72 lp/mm (on 24 x36mm). The contrast is rather low, but the 7D's resolution is nevertheless higher.

I'd suggest everyone reads these articles to understand these concepts first and understand what that means in real world photos.

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html

http://www.imatest.com/docs/sharpness/

From above two DXOMark MTF tests, we can see 7D only extends at MTF 15% or below that virtually invisible by eyes in real world photos even at base ISO when 7D photos buried by higher noises/grains. So that 7D higher resolution (18mp vs 12.8mp from 5D) is only on paper or reflected in larger CR2 file size but unless you have an eagle eye, you just cannot see it

A bit of sharpening makes it easier to see. It's clearly visible if comparing the resolution test chart shots in DPR's 5D and 7D reviews.

a) that depends from shooting distance.  A meaningful test should be done from at least 50x focus-length distance; b) depends on which lens. 7D needs a really good prime such as 100L (85/1.8 is also very nice lens) under perfect neutral gray and grainless/noiseless light condition at base ISO 100; c) doesn't reflect in real-world photos in outdoor harsh light or indoor poor light.

Not 100% sure, but think that DPR uses EF 85/1.8 on Canon FF and EF 50/1.4 on Canon APS-C. Agree that the 5D has better sharpness/contrast/acutance, but the 7D's higher MP count will most often also give it a higher 'resolution' (at least at low ISOs).

As shown in the two snapshots of old MTF charts between 5D and 7D, even with two excellent prime lenses, 100L and 85/1.8, 7D still only outresolves 5D around MTF 15% and below that virtually invisible by normal human eyes, and likely only in center not in edges/corners (on average MTF resolution).  You need to realize DXOMark tested in "perfect" ideal environment at base ISO on neutral gray resolution card virtually noiseless/grainless). I am sure with inferior lenses especially with zoom (such as 14-105L vs EF-S 15-85 or 17-55), then 7D will not be extended much more (that means at even lower MTF such as 5-10%).  Then in real world photos (outside "clean" lab), 7D/60D will be further impacted by higher noises/grains at pixel level (DXOMark SNR test confirms that), so that further will push 7D/60D advantage into lower MTF percentage that will be completely invisible by human eyes as above two articles said.

Therefore DXOMark tests likely use at least 20% MTF as someone suggested to test lenses on respective sensors (systems) to represent what human eyes can resolve (or perceive), and they changed to Perceptual Sharpness for easier understanding.  Ultimately what we can see in eyes only matters.  That should also answer your earlier scenario regarding smaller-sensor sport/wildlife cameras.  That's the reason Olympus FT DSLRs never succeeded in sport venues because Canon and Nikon have 300-600mm super-tele lenses. Then 2.0x crop has no chance, that's the reason why top wildlife photog are willing to lug around big super-tele lenses to achieve the best possible photos not only in IQ but in resolving fine details.  Sure 2.0x crop or even smaller sensor cameras do have "reach" (or pixel density) advantage in small birding that sometime even 600mm is not long enough.  However FF/APS-H owners could add 1.4x, 1.7x and 2.0x TCs, and can bring out 800mm and with 1.4x TC that still can AF at F8.0, that effectively overcome "reach" shortage and will result better IQ photos.

Anyway in theory I don't disagree with you but that has not been reflected in reality, not yet.  The main reason is lens not sensor.  I'm sure smaller sensors can involve better and better, so do larger sensors.  But the point is glass-based lenses.  It's either impossible or actually no longer smaller/lighter for 2.0x crop manufacturers for example to manufacture 300mm/F2.0 prime, or 400mm/F2.8 or 150mm/F1.4 lenses, in order to overcome 2.0x more crop penalties.

As another person said, crop penalty is real and amount of pixels is also real.  But crop format has much larger impact than amount of pixels that vividly confirmed by DXOMark tests.  We all remember in camcorder optical zoom vs digital zoom, that actually is very similar between crop format (digital zoom) vs longer lens (optical zoom).

-- hide signature --

From DPR's 5D and 7D reviews - horisontal/vertical resolution (extinction resolution) :

5D - 2300/2000 (2500/2500) LPH

7D - 2500/2450 (3100/3050) LPH

That's the problem here.. according to DxO's P-Mpix scxore the 5D beats the 7D, but if looking at DPR's resolution test chart shots, then it's rather clear that the 7D has a higher resolution.

5D vs. 7D is just an example. Think that we'll have a similar 'problem' (acutance/sharpness vs. resolution) if comparing for example 5D3 vs. D800, or if looking at the effect of diffraction when stopping down.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MAC
MAC
Forum ProPosts: 12,276Gear list
Like?
Re: true and 14-24 on d800 only scores 17
In reply to Dave Luttmann, Apr 14, 2013

Dave Luttmann wrote:

MAC wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

BTW, the real test should be at equivalent FL and equivalent f-stops with common lenses.

When comparing resolution across formats you have to keep the subject distance constant. DxO apparently doesn't do that. Might be a source of some of their inconsistencies

true !

I find it interesting that: 14-24 on d800 only scores 17 MPix

they haven't tested the 17 T/S on 5d3 yet.  My guess is that it scores 19 like the siggy 35

DxO is such a load of garbage.

agree, and dxo MPix is not a test of resolution.

sharpness ain't everything

look closely at the 5dc lips below - jaggies and artifacts - 5dc is sharper yes, but clearly the 60d has more resolution and avoids the jaggies

I much prefer the 60d image in the comparison below - artifacts and jaggies ain't resolution as the lips show

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51121511?image=0

Put the tse17on the 5D3 and the 14-24 on the D800 and the D800 will outresolve the 5D3.  People need to stop reading the DxO BS.

agree, but gianp2k will claim crop penalty over and over when there is not a crop penalty, one just needs to put a different lens on the crop camera

the dxo stuff is indeed more dxo nonsense

dxo rated my T4i overall lower than my 40d - what absolute nonsense

now with their new MPix tool - their sharpness claims may only be relevant within the same camera - not across cameras for measuring resolution and certainly not across formats

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

 MAC's gear list:MAC's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 650D Canon EOS 100D Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Shaun_Nyc
Senior MemberPosts: 2,267Gear list
Like?
Re: true and 14-24 on d800 only scores 17
In reply to qianp2k, Apr 14, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

MAC wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

BTW, the real test should be at equivalent FL and equivalent f-stops with common lenses.

When comparing resolution across formats you have to keep the subject distance constant. DxO apparently doesn't do that. Might be a source of some of their inconsistencies

true !

I find it interesting that: 14-24 on d800 only scores 17 MPix

I'm not surprised.  14-24 is not really that fantastic as someone claimed.  It's excellent at 14mm side in center but not that sharp in edges/corners.  It's not that good at 24mm side (if I remember correctly that I can double check).

they haven't tested the 17 T/S on 5d3 yet.  My guess is that it scores 19 like the siggy 35

'joger' has several threads that show 17 TS-E on 5D2 (no mention 5D3) is sharper than 14-24 on D800 in edges/corners.

The 17tse is simply better in the corners compared to 14-24. It's an architectural specialty lens, no big news here. Doesnt take a single thing away from the 14-24 which is still by far the best wide zoom around. Hope Canon can at least match it

He acknowledges 14-24 on D800 in center does outresolve 17 TS-E on 5D2 clearly.  Then he stitched two photos from 17 TS-E on 5D2 then the stitched photos will outresolve D800 with 14-24 in entire frame especially in edges/corners.

This was kind of silly as anytime you stitch you increase resolution. I can easily (and already have) stitched w the 5Dc with better results than a D800

Anyway 14-24 is not in the same league of 24-70L II or 70-200L II, just my opinion

Both those lens probably dont do 14mm too well either 

5D 100L  3 stitched

 Shaun_Nyc's gear list:Shaun_Nyc's gear list
Nikon D3 Nikon D800 Nikon D50 Canon EOS 5D Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
schmegg
schmegg MOD
Senior MemberPosts: 5,014
Like?
Re: Return of Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800...
In reply to jayrandomer, Apr 14, 2013

jayrandomer wrote:

schmegg wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:/

We can also see that the 7D actually has a higher resolution. The 5D's MTF curve stops at app. 61 lp/mm because it runs out of vertical pixels (app. 61 lp/mm represents the 5D's Nyquist frequency), while the 7D's MTF curve continues to app. 72 lp/mm (on 24 x36mm). The contrast is rather low, but the 7D's resolution is nevertheless higher.

I'd suggest everyone reads these articles to understand these concepts first and understand what that means in real world photos.

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html

http://www.imatest.com/docs/sharpness/

From above two DXOMark MTF tests, we can see 7D only extends at MTF 15% or below that virtually invisible by eyes in real world photos even at base ISO when 7D photos buried by higher noises/grains. So that 7D higher resolution (18mp vs 12.8mp from 5D) is only on paper or reflected in larger CR2 file size but unless you have an eagle eye, you just cannot see it

A bit of sharpening makes it easier to see. It's clearly visible if comparing the resolution test chart shots in DPR's 5D and 7D reviews.

a) that depends from shooting distance.  A meaningful test should be done from at least 50x focus-length distance; b) depends on which lens. 7D needs a really good prime such as 100L (85/1.8 is also very nice lens) under perfect neutral gray and grainless/noiseless light condition at base ISO 100; c) doesn't reflect in real-world photos in outdoor harsh light or indoor poor light.

Not 100% sure, but think that DPR uses EF 85/1.8 on Canon FF and EF 50/1.4 on Canon APS-C. Agree that the 5D has better sharpness/contrast/acutance, but the 7D's higher MP count will most often also give it a higher 'resolution' (at least at low ISOs).

As shown in the two snapshots of old MTF charts between 5D and 7D, even with two excellent prime lenses, 100L and 85/1.8, 7D still only outresolves 5D around MTF 15% and below ....

Fail.

It doesn't show that at all. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what these graphs represent it seems.

It simply shows that the 5D has higher acutance down to around MTF 15% (where it runs out of resolving ability all together and the 7D keeps going) - not that it resolves more! And this is from a raw image that has not been adjusted in post processing at all - it has only a passing bearing on the obtainable final image detail and the test is simply designed to compare lenses on a given camera.

What's unacceptable about comparing two curves at fixed ordinate value?  That is certainly a standard way of using graphical information.  It may not be the way the data were generated, which is typically by measuring (or calculating) the acutance at a given resolution, but the ability to compare curves at fixed ordinate values is one of the reasons scientists and engineers employ graphs in the first place.

In other words, if one asks the question, "what is the maximum resolution which has a minimum MTF of 15%?" the value assigned for the 5d would indeed be larger than the value assigned for the 7d.  What he says is correct given his caveat of 15% MTF.  If he had said, "the 5D has higher resolution than the 5D" without such a caveat he would have failed, but we already know that the absolute resolution of the 7D is higher than the 5D simply from the number of pixels.

Nothing at all wrong with graphing data and comparing it.

When he said .. "7D still only outresolves 5D around MTF 15% and below", I take that to ipso-facto imply that he believes the graphs show that the 5D out-resolves the 7D above MTF15.

So, what is wrong though is that those graphs don't show what he claims. What they show is that the 5D, at almost all levels of detail it is capable of resolving, will have higher acutance than a 7D at the same level of detail. They do not, however, show that the 5D out-resolves the 7D - as he claimed.

From those graphs it can be seen that the 5D runs out of resolving capability at just above 60 lp/mm, whereas the 7D continues to record detail up to and beyond 70 lp/mm. The acutance is lower, but the detail is still recorded on the 7D whereas it isn't on the 5D. So, in fact, the graphs show the opposite to his claims - that the 7D out-resolves the 5D, albeit with lower acutance as lens quality drops. (It'd be interesting to see the 300/2.8L II, for instance, as even the 100 macro is very close in terms of acutance).

However, acutance is not fixed at capture time like resolution is. It can be, and usually is, modified in post processing. And this is not considered at all in the MTF data because it is concerned with showing the relative sharpness of different lenses on a given camera - and changing acuity in post processing is of no relevance for the purpose of comparing lens sharpness. So not only do the graphs not tell the whole story, but they also show the opposite of what he claimed they show.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John Sheehy
Forum ProPosts: 16,055
Like?
Re: Return of Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800...
In reply to Steen Bay, Apr 14, 2013

Steen Bay wrote:

aftab wrote:

I need to correct myself.

If we have alternating black and white lines, each 0.08mm wide, human eye with best resolving power in optimum condition (light, angle etc) won't be able to separate them. Let's say 0.1mm wide be the maximum our eyes can resolve. How many lp/mm that comes down to? 10, isn't it. 36 lp/mm, I mentioned before, is way too small for us to discern.

-- hide signature --

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

Well, we're usually not looking at 24x36mm prints from a FF camera. If e.g. viewing at 100% on our monitor, then the image is magnified quite a bit.

Even if we were viewing at 100% magnification of the sensor, these tidbits about human perception are usually meaningless when taken to a broader context.  Sure, a certain B/W line density may blur into a solid gray as far as you can perceive, but that does not mean that you can not appreciate items staggered at that resolution or higher.  The former is a blur effect; the latter has to do with the ability of the brain to perceive relative mean analog placement of objects.  IOW, blur does not affect the apparent mean location of dots, edges, etc; it only obscures details repeating at that frequency.  Beware of tidbits and anecdotes about human perception; they are almost always irrelevant in a larger context.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John Sheehy
Forum ProPosts: 16,055
Like?
Re: Return of Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800...
In reply to schmegg, Apr 14, 2013

schmegg wrote:

However, acutance is not fixed at capture time like resolution is. It can be, and usually is, modified in post processing. And this is not considered at all in the MTF data because it is concerned with showing the relative sharpness of different lenses on a given camera - and changing acuity in post processing is of no relevance for the purpose of comparing lens sharpness. So not only do the graphs not tell the whole story, but they also show the opposite of what he claimed they show.

Hey, if RAW converters didn't heavily sharpen at the pixel level even when set to zero sharpening, everyone who pixel peeps for acuity would be very unhappy, even with an original 5D, or D30 or 1D.  It just isn't there, unless you omit the AA filter and have a very sharp lens, and then you get the gift of serious aliasing.  All RAWs from cameras with AA filters have low acuity at 100% pixel view.  IIRC, the typical range of maximum MTF at the nyquist for AA filters is 15-25, and for real lenses it is often well below that.  There is no problem raising the MTF of the conversion at the nyquist, except for noise.  A 32bit image could have its contrast decimated to 0.01%, and brought back to normal with no change at all in visible detail; you can do this in a program like ImageJ where you can blur a 32-bit image with a rectangular kernel the size of the entire image so that all you see is a solid gray, and then using the same rectangle to unblur it, you get an image indistinguishable from the original.  Throw a little too much noise in, however, before you reconstruct the original, and that little bit of noise becomes a noise-fest.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dave Luttmann
Forum ProPosts: 12,741Gear list
Like?
Re: Return of Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800...
In reply to schmegg, Apr 14, 2013

schmegg wrote:

jayrandomer wrote:

schmegg wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:/

We can also see that the 7D actually has a higher resolution. The 5D's MTF curve stops at app. 61 lp/mm because it runs out of vertical pixels (app. 61 lp/mm represents the 5D's Nyquist frequency), while the 7D's MTF curve continues to app. 72 lp/mm (on 24 x36mm). The contrast is rather low, but the 7D's resolution is nevertheless higher.

I'd suggest everyone reads these articles to understand these concepts first and understand what that means in real world photos.

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html

http://www.imatest.com/docs/sharpness/

From above two DXOMark MTF tests, we can see 7D only extends at MTF 15% or below that virtually invisible by eyes in real world photos even at base ISO when 7D photos buried by higher noises/grains. So that 7D higher resolution (18mp vs 12.8mp from 5D) is only on paper or reflected in larger CR2 file size but unless you have an eagle eye, you just cannot see it

A bit of sharpening makes it easier to see. It's clearly visible if comparing the resolution test chart shots in DPR's 5D and 7D reviews.

a) that depends from shooting distance.  A meaningful test should be done from at least 50x focus-length distance; b) depends on which lens. 7D needs a really good prime such as 100L (85/1.8 is also very nice lens) under perfect neutral gray and grainless/noiseless light condition at base ISO 100; c) doesn't reflect in real-world photos in outdoor harsh light or indoor poor light.

Not 100% sure, but think that DPR uses EF 85/1.8 on Canon FF and EF 50/1.4 on Canon APS-C. Agree that the 5D has better sharpness/contrast/acutance, but the 7D's higher MP count will most often also give it a higher 'resolution' (at least at low ISOs).

As shown in the two snapshots of old MTF charts between 5D and 7D, even with two excellent prime lenses, 100L and 85/1.8, 7D still only outresolves 5D around MTF 15% and below ....

Fail.

It doesn't show that at all. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what these graphs represent it seems.

It simply shows that the 5D has higher acutance down to around MTF 15% (where it runs out of resolving ability all together and the 7D keeps going) - not that it resolves more! And this is from a raw image that has not been adjusted in post processing at all - it has only a passing bearing on the obtainable final image detail and the test is simply designed to compare lenses on a given camera.

What's unacceptable about comparing two curves at fixed ordinate value?  That is certainly a standard way of using graphical information.  It may not be the way the data were generated, which is typically by measuring (or calculating) the acutance at a given resolution, but the ability to compare curves at fixed ordinate values is one of the reasons scientists and engineers employ graphs in the first place.

In other words, if one asks the question, "what is the maximum resolution which has a minimum MTF of 15%?" the value assigned for the 5d would indeed be larger than the value assigned for the 7d.  What he says is correct given his caveat of 15% MTF.  If he had said, "the 5D has higher resolution than the 5D" without such a caveat he would have failed, but we already know that the absolute resolution of the 7D is higher than the 5D simply from the number of pixels.

Nothing at all wrong with graphing data and comparing it.

When he said .. "7D still only outresolves 5D around MTF 15% and below", I take that to ipso-facto imply that he believes the graphs show that the 5D out-resolves the 7D above MTF15.

So, what is wrong though is that those graphs don't show what he claims. What they show is that the 5D, at almost all levels of detail it is capable of resolving, will have higher acutance than a 7D at the same level of detail. They do not, however, show that the 5D out-resolves the 7D - as he claimed.

From those graphs it can be seen that the 5D runs out of resolving capability at just above 60 lp/mm, whereas the 7D continues to record detail up to and beyond 70 lp/mm. The acutance is lower, but the detail is still recorded on the 7D whereas it isn't on the 5D. So, in fact, the graphs show the opposite to his claims - that the 7D out-resolves the 5D, albeit with lower acutance as lens quality drops. (It'd be interesting to see the 300/2.8L II, for instance, as even the 100 macro is very close in terms of acutance).

However, acutance is not fixed at capture time like resolution is. It can be, and usually is, modified in post processing. And this is not considered at all in the MTF data because it is concerned with showing the relative sharpness of different lenses on a given camera - and changing acuity in post processing is of no relevance for the purpose of comparing lens sharpness. So not only do the graphs not tell the whole story, but they also show the opposite of what he claimed they show.

It's mainly because one person on these forums will argue this to death even when he has been proven wrong.

 Dave Luttmann's gear list:Dave Luttmann's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS 10D Canon EOS D30 Nikon D2X +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
schmegg
schmegg MOD
Senior MemberPosts: 5,014
Like?
Re: Return of Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800...
In reply to John Sheehy, Apr 14, 2013

John Sheehy wrote:

schmegg wrote:

However, acutance is not fixed at capture time like resolution is. It can be, and usually is, modified in post processing. And this is not considered at all in the MTF data because it is concerned with showing the relative sharpness of different lenses on a given camera - and changing acuity in post processing is of no relevance for the purpose of comparing lens sharpness. So not only do the graphs not tell the whole story, but they also show the opposite of what he claimed they show.

Hey, if RAW converters didn't heavily sharpen at the pixel level even when set to zero sharpening, everyone who pixel peeps for acuity would be very unhappy, even with an original 5D, or D30 or 1D.

Yeah.

I guess that DxO use their own converter for their analysis. But there's no guarantee that they don't apply different 'amounts' of conversion sharpening for the different cameras to start with.

That's why I personally prefer to keep comparisons from their data constrained to sensible bounds. Use their lens sharpness data to compare different lenses on a given camera for instance, but not use it to draw concrete conclusions about how different sensors will resolve detail in a final image.

It just isn't there, unless you omit the AA filter and have a very sharp lens, and then you get the gift of serious aliasing.  All RAWs from cameras with AA filters have low acuity at 100% pixel view.  IIRC, the typical range of maximum MTF at the nyquist for AA filters is 15-25, and for real lenses it is often well below that.  There is no problem raising the MTF of the conversion at the nyquist, except for noise.  A 32bit image could have its contrast decimated to 0.01%, and brought back to normal with no change at all in visible detail; you can do this in a program like ImageJ where you can blur a 32-bit image with a rectangular kernel the size of the entire image so that all you see is a solid gray, and then using the same rectangle to unblur it, you get an image indistinguishable from the original.  Throw a little too much noise in, however, before you reconstruct the original, and that little bit of noise becomes a noise-fest.

Cool stuff that.

Re noise - my assumption is that the sharpness tests are run at ISO100 and that no NR is used for them (I'd hope so anyway). So, in that respect, any noise present is included in the results.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,000Gear list
Like?
Re: true and 14-24 on d800 only scores 17
In reply to Shaun_Nyc, Apr 14, 2013

Shaun_Nyc wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

MAC wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

BTW, the real test should be at equivalent FL and equivalent f-stops with common lenses.

When comparing resolution across formats you have to keep the subject distance constant. DxO apparently doesn't do that. Might be a source of some of their inconsistencies

true !

I find it interesting that: 14-24 on d800 only scores 17 MPix

I'm not surprised.  14-24 is not really that fantastic as someone claimed.  It's excellent at 14mm side in center but not that sharp in edges/corners.  It's not that good at 24mm side (if I remember correctly that I can double check).

they haven't tested the 17 T/S on 5d3 yet.  My guess is that it scores 19 like the siggy 35

'joger' has several threads that show 17 TS-E on 5D2 (no mention 5D3) is sharper than 14-24 on D800 in edges/corners.

The 17tse is simply better in the corners compared to 14-24. It's an architectural specialty lens, no big news here. Doesnt take a single thing away from the 14-24 which is still by far the best wide zoom around. Hope Canon can at least match it

Agreed.  I know many Canon shooters are waiting 14-24L.  Personally I am not a fan of UWA zoom or prime.  Recently I sold 17-40L.  Now my travelling bag just contains 17 TS-E, 24-70L II, and one of 70-200L IS (I think I am selling 70-200L/4.0 IS as at least in this year I will only carry 70-200L/2.8 IS II in trips) and 15 FE.  I can live in the gap between 17 and 24mm.  Moreover now I always fix vertical perspective in my photos, one of reasons I don't prefer UWA zoom or prime as I hate those ugly-looking vertical converging lines at sides.  Once you fix vertical perspective, you will lose certain areas of edges and also will impact resolution after stretching edges.  So likely 14mm will not be actual 14mm wide after fixing vertical perspective.

He acknowledges 14-24 on D800 in center does outresolve 17 TS-E on 5D2 clearly.  Then he stitched two photos from 17 TS-E on 5D2 then the stitched photos will outresolve D800 with 14-24 in entire frame especially in edges/corners.

This was kind of silly as anytime you stitch you increase resolution. I can easily (and already have) stitched w the 5Dc with better results than a D800

Joger just shows he can leverage 17 TS-E better n his style of photography.  But I agree everyone has different needs.

Anyway 14-24 is not in the same league of 24-70L II or 70-200L II, just my opinion

Both those lens probably dont do 14mm too well either 

5D 100L  3 stitched

Nice shot!  I prefer photo stitching than UWA if I could as stitching photos look more naturally, less distortion and higher resolution.  All hand-held.  First one from 70-200L/4.0 IS and second one from 24-105L.  They are only about 1/6 of original sizes.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7843305573/photos/1906713/_img_5663-panorama?inalbum=landscape

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7843305573/photos/1906938/_img_6686-panorama?inalbum=landscape

-- hide signature --
 qianp2k's gear list:qianp2k's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,000Gear list
Like?
Re: true and 14-24 on d800 only scores 17
In reply to MAC, Apr 14, 2013

MAC wrote:

look closely at the 5dc lips below - jaggies and artifacts - 5dc is sharper yes, but clearly the 60d has more resolution and avoids the jaggies

I much prefer the 60d image in the comparison below - artifacts and jaggies ain't resolution as the lips show

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51121511?image=0

Just one clarification that above is NOT my original photos.  You know that in that thread if anyone ever checked.  That's why I said don't repeat old words over and over as we have discussed/debated enough in that thread.  No mention in your own test in that thread that shows 5D actually holds well against your T4i in center but showing a bit more details (at least sharper) in edges.  DXOMark may use average frame MTF data in its p-mpix calculation.

This is from my original photos at 100% sizes (and I upsampling 5D file to 60D size for easier comparison at the same size).  If upsampling can increase resolution as someone suggested, it's great and wonderful as Canon shooters would only need to upsampling 5D3 photos to 36mp to match from D800/D800E

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7843305573/photos/2477554/60d_24-105lvs5d_24-70lii?inalbum=5dvs60d-resolution

In real world outside photos that ultimately matter, my eyes (and I am not alone if you read that thread) see 5D actually resolves more fine details than 60D in my test photos.

World 'Resolution' seems highly controversial and misused.  It's only matter if your eyes can actually resolve (see) the fine details (the word I prefer) in real world photos.  That's why DXOMark Perceptual Sharpness makes sense which on my understanding based on MTF resolution (20% and above) + acutance out of cameras by default.  In reality you'd need much less sharpening in 5D files than in 60D/7D while 5D still can withstand sharpening (much) better before showing obvious artifacts.

-- hide signature --
 qianp2k's gear list:qianp2k's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dave Luttmann
Forum ProPosts: 12,741Gear list
Like?
Re: true and 14-24 on d800 only scores 17
In reply to qianp2k, Apr 14, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

MAC wrote:

look closely at the 5dc lips below - jaggies and artifacts - 5dc is sharper yes, but clearly the 60d has more resolution and avoids the jaggies

I much prefer the 60d image in the comparison below - artifacts and jaggies ain't resolution as the lips show

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51121511?image=0

Just one clarification that above is NOT my original photos.  You know that in that thread if anyone ever checked.  That's why I said don't repeat old words over and over as we have discussed/debated enough in that thread.  No mention in your own test in that thread that shows 5D actually holds well against your T4i in center but showing a bit more details (at least sharper) in edges.  DXOMark may use average frame MTF data in its p-mpix calculation.

This is from my original photos at 100% sizes (and I upsampling 5D file to 60D size for easier comparison at the same size).  If upsampling can increase resolution as somoen suggested, it's great and wonderful as Canon shooters would only need to upsampling 5D3 photos to 36mp to match from D800/D800E

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7843305573/photos/2477554/60d_24-105lvs5d_24-70lii?inalbum=5dvs60d-resolution

In real world outside photos, my eyes (and I am not alone if you read that thread) see 5D actually resolves more fine details than 60D in my tested photos.

that's funny because most people see the opposite.  As do the resolution chart from DxO and the resolution figures from DPReview.  It's pretty obvious even in your samples as the text is readable on the sign in the 60D, and it is not in the 5D.  The truth is that you want the 5D to win so badly, that you are imaging things in photos and mistintrepting test charts in order to support your bias.

Sorry Peter...the 5D lost, and your claims to the otherwise are becoming rather pathetic

-- hide signature --
 Dave Luttmann's gear list:Dave Luttmann's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS 10D Canon EOS D30 Nikon D2X +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads