Why Canon made 1Dx best specification ... II

Started May 24, 2013 | Discussions
qianp2k
Senior MemberPosts: 9,968Gear list
Like?
I am correct - again :-)
In reply to Great Bustard, May 24, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

High pixel density cameras such as D800 does need to use better technique such as on tripod and use best lenses in order to fully leverage high pixel density potential.  Sure it doesn't have more blurs than a 22mp camera at the same export size but then you'd waste its 36mp potential.

...that's true of any camera with any pixel count.

Except higher pixel density cameras such as D800 has higher demand for better technique to fully leverage potential.

That's true of any camera with any pixel count.

Obviously you didn't read what I described. Hand-held 5D3 vs hand-held D800 when view at 100% cropped size, or print to their supposed sizes such as 20x30" vs 40x60". If you have to reduce size on D800 photo to match on 5D3 sharpness on monitor or on print, then you waste extra 14mp potential or the D800 resolution advantage is largely disappered.  No mention according to DXOMark test, their actual perceptual sharpness (resolution) is not as big as difference of sensor resolution with respective lenses such as wit 24-70L II vs 24-70G on respective cameras.  5D3 combo beats D800 combo, hehe.

24-70L II on 5D3 vs 24-70G on D800

For example you can hand-held 6D/5D3 and likey still can get sharp photos at 100% cropped or print to 20x30".

If you print the same size with the D800, the photos will have at least as much detail, usually more (all else equal, of course).

What's the definition of the same or standard size, at 3000-pixe wide or at 20x30" print?

With D800 you have lower chance to get sharp 100% cropped hand-held photos or print to 40x60".

This is absolutely false.  For example, if we take a handheld pic of the same scene a Sigma 35 / 1.4 and the same settings, and print the photo at any given size, the D800 photo will be resolve more detail.  If we crop each photo to the same portion of the scene, the D800 photo will resolve more detail.

You didn't read what I said precisely - "With D800 you have lower chance to get sharp 100% cropped hand-held photos or print to 40x60".  Is that wrong?  That means you waste its 36mp potential so you'd have to print only to 20x30" or view at 5000-pixel wide to get similar sharpness from 6D/5D3 for example.

How much more detail, of course, depends on a great number of factors, but the fact of the matter is that the D800 will resolve more detail (anywhere between 0% and 28% more linear detail).

Not quite true according to DXOMark test and according to those creditable photographers such as Hans (few will doubt his credibility) who actually own both cameras and actually print. DPR said correctly that you do need to use better technique in order to fully leverage 36mp potential. 22mp 5D3 is more tolerable than 36mp D800.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51219749

If you have to reduce sizes to get similar sharpness level then you wasted 36mp potential.  Instead why you don't buy a 22mp or 24mp camera?  That's reason why many Nikon shooters prefer 24mp over 36mp as not everyone needs to print to billboard size.  Just ask yourself why you don't buy D800 but a low pixel 6D???

I bought the 6D 'cause I had all Canon lenses and was too lazy to sell them to switch systems.  Furthermore, I liked the smaller size of the 6D.  Lastly, I like the operation of Canon, have never used Nikon, and am not sure how I would like Nikon in that regard.

OK a nice excuse you could sacrifice the potential or don't need to print to billboard size. So do I and most of people as you'd not see much difference when only print to 20x30" or view at 4000-pixel wide.

However, if there were two versions of the 6D, one with the sensor that's in mine, one with the sensor that's in the D800, guess which I'd choose?  Guess which pretty much everyone would choose?

Well, more likely Canon will give us choices of 24mp or 46mp. I'd pickup 24mp anyday until 30" 8K monitor becomes affordable, otherwise 46mp simply wasted on my 1080p monitor or in 20x30" prints.

Meanwhile my larger-pixel 1DIII (10mp) and 5D Classic (12.8mp) are fully capable of generating very sharp photos when view at 100% cropped or per-pixel level or to print to 19x13" or even 26x18" sizes.

Except it's not the 100% view that matters -- it's how sharp the final photo appears at the size it's displayed and the distance from which it's viewed, assuming detail even matters.

It matters. A good quality 100% cropped photo = better cropping = print quality at size that camera designed for.  My experiences tell me.

Then your experiences count for ++++.  If you cropped out the middle 10% of a photo from your 5D3 (2.2 MP), then the D800 photographer would crop out the middle 10% of their photo (3.6 MP) and get a more detailed photo.

That's only true if pixel-level quality is the same or very close.  A tack sharp per-pixel level 5D3 will beat a mushy/soft per-pixel level D800 photo at the same-size output eitehr on screen or on monitor.

-- 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
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,517
Like?
*Sigh*
In reply to qianp2k, May 24, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

High pixel density cameras such as D800 does need to use better technique such as on tripod and use best lenses in order to fully leverage high pixel density potential.  Sure it doesn't have more blurs than a 22mp camera at the same export size but then you'd waste its 36mp potential.

...that's true of any camera with any pixel count.

Except higher pixel density cameras such as D800 has higher demand for better technique to fully leverage potential.

That's true of any camera with any pixel count.

Obviously you didn't read what I described.

In fact, I did read what you described.

Hand-held 5D3 vs hand-held D800 when view at 100% cropped size...

Seriously -- just WTF does "100% cropped size" have to do with comparing photos made from different pixel counts?  A 100% crop from a D800 results in a much smaller portion of the scene than a 100% crop from a 5D3.  Why are you comparing a tight crop from a D800 to a wider crop from a 5D3?  I mean, this is about photography, isn't it?

...or print to their supposed sizes such as 20x30" vs 40x60".

When printed at the same size (and why would we be comparing systems in any other matter), more pixels will yield more detail every time (all else equal).

If you have to reduce size on D800 photo to match on 5D3 sharpness on monitor...

First of all, duh, you have to reduce the size of the photo to display on a monitor.  It takes no more effort to downsample 36 MP to 1 MP (e.g. 1200 x 800) than it does to downsample 22 MP to 1 MP.

...or on print...

You downsample before printing?  Do tell.

...then you waste extra 14mp potential.

Well, duh.  You don't realize the full potential of 36 MP (or 22 MP) for a 1 MP downsampled photo on a computer monitor or an 8x12 inch print.

No mention according to DXOMark test, their actual perceptual sharpness (resolution) is not as big as difference of sensor resolution with respective lenses such as wit 24-70L II vs 24-70G.

First of all, DxOMark's PMP measure is more than suspect.  Secondly, as I said, at best, 36 MP will yield 28% more linear detail than 22 MP (all else equal).

For example you can hand-held 6D/5D3 and likey still can get sharp photos at 100% cropped or print to 20x30".

If you print the same size with the D800, the photos will have at least as much detail, usually more (all else equal, of course).

What's the definition of the same or standard size, at 3000-pixe wide or at 20x30" print?

Neither here nor there, Peter.  A 20x30 inch print from a D800 will *always* resolve at least as much detail as a 20x30 inch print (or any other size print) from a 5D3, all else equal.

With D800 you have lower chance to get sharp 100% cropped hand-held photos or print to 40x60".

This is absolutely false.  For example, if we take a handheld pic of the same scene a Sigma 35 / 1.4 and the same settings, and print the photo at any given size, the D800 photo will be resolve more detail.  If we crop each photo to the same portion of the scene, the D800 photo will resolve more detail.

You didn't read what I said precisely - "With D800 you have lower chance to get sharp 100% cropped hand-held photos or print to 40x60".  Is that wrong?

Yes, it is wrong, since whatever loss of sharpness there is in the D800 photo, it will still be sharper than the 5D3 photo.

That means you waste its 36mp potential so you'd have to print only to 20x30" or view at 5000-pixel wide to get similar sharpness from 6D/5D3.

The D800 photo will resolve more detail at *any* print size than the 5D3 photo.  If the D800 photo does not look good at 40x60 inches, then the 5D3 photo sure as hell won't look good.  If the 5D3 photo looks good at 20x30 inches, then the D800 photo will look at least as good (as always, all else equal -- that is, not some POS lens on the D800 and Canon's best on the 5D3).

How much more detail, of course, depends on a great number of factors, but the fact of the matter is that the D800 will resolve more detail (anywhere between 0% and 28% more linear detail).

Not quite true according to DXOMark test and according to those creditable photographers such as Hans (few will doubt his credibility) who actually own both cameras and actually print. DPR said correctly that you do need to use better technique in order to fully leverage 36mp potential. 22mp 5D3 is more tolerable than 36mp D800.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51219749

Peter, are you OK?  How many times have I said that you need "better technique" to maximize the potential of *any* system?  I mean, c'mon man!  Eat more fish (brain food)!

If you have to reduce sizes to get similar sharpness level then you wasted 36mp potential.  Instead why you don't buy a 22mp or 24mp camera?  That's reason why many Nikon shooters prefer 24mp over 36mp as not everyone needs to print to billboard size.  Just ask yourself why you don't buy D800 but a low pixel 6D???

I bought the 6D 'cause I had all Canon lenses and was too lazy to sell them to switch systems.  Furthermore, I liked the smaller size of the 6D.  Lastly, I like the operation of Canon, have never used Nikon, and am not sure how I would like Nikon in that regard.

OK a nice excuse you could sacrifice the potential or don't need to print to billboard size. So do I and most of people as you'd not see much difference when only print to 20x30" or view at 4000-pixel wide.

You know, there are plenty of mFT photographers who say the same about 16 MP mFT vs 22 MP FF, and many FF photographers moving to mFT on that very basis.

And you know what?  Yeah, I agree -- the differences are not that big, and certainly don't have an impact on the success of a photo unless it is displayed very large and viewed closely.

However, if there were two versions of the 6D, one with the sensor that's in mine, one with the sensor that's in the D800, guess which I'd choose?  Guess which pretty much everyone would choose?

Well, more likely Canon will give us choices of 24mp or 46mp. I'd pickup 24mp any day until 30" 8K monitor becomes affordable, otherwise 46mp simply wasted on my 1080p monitor or in 20x30" prints.

We'll see what Canon does.  In the meantime, what was wrong with the 16 MP 1DX?  Too expensive?  That's not to say, of course, that I feel the difference between 16 MP and 22 MP to be significant.

Meanwhile my larger-pixel 1DIII (10mp) and 5D Classic (12.8mp) are fully capable of generating very sharp photos when view at 100% cropped or per-pixel level or to print to 19x13" or even 26x18" sizes.

Except it's not the 100% view that matters -- it's how sharp the final photo appears at the size it's displayed and the distance from which it's viewed, assuming detail even matters.

It matters. A good quality 100% cropped photo = better cropping = print quality at size that camera designed for.  My experiences tell me.

Then your experiences count for ++++.  If you cropped out the middle 10% of a photo from your 5D3 (2.2 MP), then the D800 photographer would crop out the middle 10% of their photo (3.6 MP) and get a more detailed photo.

That's only true if pixel-level quality is the same or very close.

No.  All else equal (i.e. same lens sharpness, same aperture, same shutter speed, same scene), the 3.6 MP crop from the D800 will be more detailed than the 2.2 MP crop from the 5D3.

A tack sharp per-pixel level 5D3 will beat a mushy/soft per-pixel level D800 photo at the same-size output eitehr on screen or on monitor.

That's a strawman argument, however.  All else equal, the D800 photo will *never* resolve less detail than the 5D3 photo (but will resolve a maximum of 28% more linear detail).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
qianp2k
Senior MemberPosts: 9,968Gear list
Like?
Re: *Sigh*
In reply to Great Bustard, May 24, 2013

There are too many sentences and I don't want to reply one on one basis as most of them are the same regarding below the key point.

Great Bustard wrote:

...or print to their supposed sizes such as 20x30" vs 40x60".

When printed at the same size (and why would we be comparing systems in any other matter), more pixels will yield more detail every time (all else equal).

Yeah a big ONLY if all else equal, that's the point. To achieve all else equal such as similar per-pixel level IQ, you'd need better technique on D800 such as using the best lens (such as Sigma 35/1.4) on tripod, otherwise the advantage is disappearing quickly. See, DXOMark shows with a better lens such as 24-70L II,  5D3 actually has better perceptual sharpness that roughly based on MTF 30 resolution in beating D800 with 24-70G, whoops, no mention if D800 not take on a sturdy tripod.

24-70L II on 5D3 vs 24-70G on D800

Did you read Hans' post? We don't have to believe each other's words, but no doubt on his words. He is one of the most respected photographers in DPR forums.  He owns both and he prints from both cameras on large-format printer.  I have read from several others who own both and claimed the same.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51219749

-- hide signature --
 qianp2k's gear list:qianp2k's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mako2011
Mako2011 MOD
Forum ProPosts: 15,590
Like?
100
In reply to qianp2k, May 24, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

jjnik wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

jjnik wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

How ironic that you are displaying your 100% cropped photos at 6.7 MP and 6 MP.

I just cut some edges but the above are 100% cropped. I can print above two to 19x13" or even 26x18" and still look very nice.

What you posted are not 100% crops - they are larger images.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/slrs/canon_eos1dmkiii

They are. 1DIII max resolution is 3888 x 2592. As I said I just cut some edges but above two are indeed 100% cropped.

You're confusing the difference between a 100% crop and a full size (100% un-scaled) image.  You posted slightly cropped, full size images which could be viewed at 100% as I indicated below- but what you posted were not what most people call 100% crops.

From my understanding a full-size image = 100% cropped as many use the term interchangeably similar to AOV = FOV as many use alternatively in DPR forums.

A 100% crop is a small portion of the full size image that one would not have to click on and then click to see at 1:1 View/full size (100%) magnification.

That depends on the resolution of your monitor to fit or not, right? But anyway what's difference to post a portion of a full size photo for that convenience from you click '1:1 View/full size (100%) magnification'?

For example, one might post a 500 x 500 pixel portion of the full size image that would show 1:1 pixel quality right in the original post

100% crop = 1 to 1 pixel mapping on your screen. I.e. one pixel from the image maps to one pixel on the screen. And by the nature of doing that, you must crop the image. Some will then say "pixel-level detail" or "crop of a 1:1 view"

Said another way... The image magnification was at 100% when the crop was made, and the actual pixels from the image are being displayed, without having been manipulated by resizing. Simply cropping a portion of the image to present the FOV of a 100% crop section doesn't always result in a 100% crop as many programs don't always provide a 1 to 1 accurate representation when doing that.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,517
Like?
Re: *Sigh*
In reply to qianp2k, May 24, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

There are too many sentences and I don't want to reply one on one basis as most of them are the same regarding below the key point.

Finally something we can both agree on! 

Great Bustard wrote:

...or print to their supposed sizes such as 20x30" vs 40x60".

When printed at the same size (and why would we be comparing systems in any other matter), more pixels will yield more detail every time (all else equal).

Yeah a bigONLYif all else equal, that's the point.

Well, I mean, duh.  The point is, everything can be made equal except the lenses (although the lenses are often, if not usually, close enough).

To achieve all else equal such as similar per-pixel level IQ...

And again, Peter, per-pixel IQ is meaningless.  It's the photo we're talking about here.  I mean, if we're not talking photos, then there's no point to this "conversation".

...you' need better technique on D800 such as the best lens (such as Sigma 35/1.4) on tripod, otherwise the advantage is disappearing quickly.

Yes -- the *advantage* will disappear quickly with poor technique (or narrow apertures where diffraction is dominant), but the *advantage* will always remain.

See, DXOMark shows with a better lens such as 24-70L II 5D3 actually has better perceptual sharpness that roughly based on MTF 30 resolution in beating D800 with 24-70G, whoops, no mention if D800 not take on a sturdy tripod.

24-70L II on 5D3 vs 24-70G on D800

So DxOMark shows, with the particular lenses they tested, that the Canon lens is significantly better than the Nikon lens.

Did you read Hans' post?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51219749

I did.  Like I said, the D800 will resolve a maximum of 28% more linear detail than the 5D3, all else equal.  If it has a better lens, then more.  If it has a lesser lens, then it can even resolve less.

However, this is neither here nor there.  If the 5D3 had the D800 sensor (and, by the way, the 5D3 with the D800 sensor in the 6D body is nearly my ideal camera) then the 5D3 would have produced better photos still.

Whether or not the photos would have been "enough better" to be worth the operational downsides is another matter entirely.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
qianp2k
Senior MemberPosts: 9,968Gear list
Like?
Re: 100
In reply to Mako2011, May 24, 2013

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

jjnik wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

jjnik wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

How ironic that you are displaying your 100% cropped photos at 6.7 MP and 6 MP.

I just cut some edges but the above are 100% cropped. I can print above two to 19x13" or even 26x18" and still look very nice.

What you posted are not 100% crops - they are larger images.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/slrs/canon_eos1dmkiii

They are. 1DIII max resolution is 3888 x 2592. As I said I just cut some edges but above two are indeed 100% cropped.

You're confusing the difference between a 100% crop and a full size (100% un-scaled) image.  You posted slightly cropped, full size images which could be viewed at 100% as I indicated below- but what you posted were not what most people call 100% crops.

From my understanding a full-size image = 100% cropped as many use the term interchangeably similar to AOV = FOV as many use alternatively in DPR forums.

A 100% crop is a small portion of the full size image that one would not have to click on and then click to see at 1:1 View/full size (100%) magnification.

That depends on the resolution of your monitor to fit or not, right? But anyway what's difference to post a portion of a full size photo for that convenience from you click '1:1 View/full size (100%) magnification'?

For example, one might post a 500 x 500 pixel portion of the full size image that would show 1:1 pixel quality right in the original post

100% crop = 1 to 1 pixel mapping on your screen. I.e. one pixel from the image maps to one pixel on the screen. And by the nature of doing that, you must crop the image. Some will then say "pixel-level detail" or "crop of a 1:1 view"

Said another way... The image magnification was at 100% when the crop was made, and the actual pixels from the image are being displayed, without having been manipulated by resizing. Simply cropping a portion of the image to present the FOV of a 100% crop section doesn't always result in a 100% crop as many programs don't always provide a 1 to 1 accurate representation when doing that.

I understand what you said.  But actually there is no difference as it determines by your screen resolution.  If you screen is only 1080p (1920x1080), then a 8K photo besides its huge size is wasted as it unable to resolve to 8K fineness your eyes can see on that screen.

-- 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: 9,968Gear list
Like?
Re: *Sigh*
In reply to Great Bustard, May 24, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

There are too many sentences and I don't want to reply one on one basis as most of them are the same regarding below the key point.

Finally something we can both agree on! 

Great Bustard wrote:

...or print to their supposed sizes such as 20x30" vs 40x60".

When printed at the same size (and why would we be comparing systems in any other matter), more pixels will yield more detail every time (all else equal).

Yeah a big ONLY if all else equal, that's the point.

Well, I mean, duh.  The point is, everything can be made equal except the lenses (although the lenses are often, if not usually, close enough).

But how to make everything else equals? Do you have to use a better technique such as tripod and the best lens on D800? Otherwise the difference is much smaller due to imperfect techniques and lens.

To achieve all else equal such as similar per-pixel level IQ...

And again, Peter, per-pixel IQ is meaningless.  It's the photo we're talking about here.  I mean, if we're not talking photos, then there's no point to this "conversation".


But that directly affects cropping capability and print quality. Don't they?

...you' need better technique on D800 such as the best lens (such as Sigma 35/1.4) on tripod, otherwise the advantage is disappearing quickly.

Yes -- the *advantage* will disappear quickly with poor technique (or narrow apertures where diffraction is dominant), but the *advantage* will always remain.

Becomes much smaller or even noticeable.But I am glad you finally agreed up the value of a good technique

See, DXOMark shows with a better lens such as 24-70L II 5D3 actually has better perceptual sharpness that roughly based on MTF 30 resolution in beating D800 with 24-70G, whoops, no mention if D800 not take on a sturdy tripod.

24-70L II on 5D3 vs 24-70G on D800

So DxOMark shows, with the particular lenses they tested, that the Canon lens is significantly better than the Nikon lens.

No, DXOMark tested entire system not lens.  Sensor or lens doesn't take photos alone but must work together.

Did you read Hans' post?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51219749

I did.  Like I said, the D800 will resolve a maximum of 28% more linear detail than the 5D3, all else equal.  If it has a better lens, then more.  If it has a lesser lens, then it can even resolve less.

28% only on paper but in reality as Hans and others experienced, the difference is very small.

However, this is neither here nor there.  If the 5D3 had the D800 sensor (and, by the way, the 5D3 with the D800 sensor in the 6D body is nearly my ideal camera) then the 5D3 would have produced better photos still.

In theory yes. In reality if you only print to 20x30" or view to 4000-pixel wide, then the difference is hardly noticeable. Personally I don't believe cropping but native length lens.

Whether or not the photos would have been "enough better" to be worth the operational downsides is another matter entirely.

Agreed. So as DPR review said, you do need to use the best technique such as the best lenses and on tripod to fully leverage D800 resolution in order to print in excellent quality to billboard size 40x60", LOL.

-- 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
John Sheehy
Forum ProPosts: 16,054
Like?
Re: Why Canon made 1Dx best specification ... II
In reply to Telhma, May 24, 2013

Telhma wrote:

I do not try to prove annything,

I just show where i found the information, I told in the post before i had no clue if it was right, but yea... I wonder why thay guy would tell jokes about his sensor.

Well, it looked like the link was something you've found in your quest to find out if the hypothesis is correct, after you stated it.

This myth is so easily disproven, and can not be proven.  The fact is, no matter what shape your motion blur is, the bigger the pixels, the more of the sensor area that the blur is spread across.

People assume that since it is easier to see that motion blur occurred when there is higher pixel density, that this means that it has a worse effect, without actually looking at it to see if it is true.  The fact is, a bigger pixel acts as a blur itself, confusing everything in a large area.

Soon we will be seeing motion-blur correcting software (deconvolution along a path) becoming more common, and a higher pixel density will make this easier to do with accuracy, and with less noise created in the deconvolution (as less area has to be deconvolved)

I am not pointing this out to put the 1Dx down, at all. It definitely has its major strong points, but its pixel density is not a plus at all in any issue concerning resolution, diffraction, or motion blur.  Its lower pixel density only indirectly helps other aspects, like shooting speed, or maybe slightly lower high-ISO noise than if the pixel density were much higher.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Apewithacamera
Senior MemberPosts: 2,161Gear list
Like?
You seem to have a problem with comprehension.
In reply to Dave Luttmann, May 24, 2013

The large print on my wall is highly detailed, I can not resolve with my eyes the mush you are talking about. In order for me to see my image fall apart detail wise, I had to use a lot more magnification. In my case a camera with a macro lens then further magnification of that image on my computer screen. At that magnification I see printer lines and the aliasing. If that is the mush you are talking about, it can't be seen by my own eyes in that print hanging on my wall.

So therefore your claim that a 20 mp camera is not sufficient for producing prints the size discussed is total BS!!!!

Your 4x5 image will eventually shine in the resolution department going much larger than the print sizes we discussed.

I've no desire to print billboard sized photos for my wall as I don't have the room. I will however print up to 40X60 and I'm sure they will look....

 Apewithacamera's gear list:Apewithacamera's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 Sports Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 Contemporary
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mako2011
Mako2011 MOD
Forum ProPosts: 15,590
Like?
Unrelated
In reply to qianp2k, May 24, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

jjnik wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

jjnik wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

How ironic that you are displaying your 100% cropped photos at 6.7 MP and 6 MP.

I just cut some edges but the above are 100% cropped. I can print above two to 19x13" or even 26x18" and still look very nice.

What you posted are not 100% crops - they are larger images.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/slrs/canon_eos1dmkiii

They are. 1DIII max resolution is 3888 x 2592. As I said I just cut some edges but above two are indeed 100% cropped.

You're confusing the difference between a 100% crop and a full size (100% un-scaled) image.  You posted slightly cropped, full size images which could be viewed at 100% as I indicated below- but what you posted were not what most people call 100% crops.

From my understanding a full-size image = 100% cropped as many use the term interchangeably similar to AOV = FOV as many use alternatively in DPR forums.

A 100% crop is a small portion of the full size image that one would not have to click on and then click to see at 1:1 View/full size (100%) magnification.

That depends on the resolution of your monitor to fit or not, right? But anyway what's difference to post a portion of a full size photo for that convenience from you click '1:1 View/full size (100%) magnification'?

For example, one might post a 500 x 500 pixel portion of the full size image that would show 1:1 pixel quality right in the original post

100% crop = 1 to 1 pixel mapping on your screen. I.e. one pixel from the image maps to one pixel on the screen. And by the nature of doing that, you must crop the image. Some will then say "pixel-level detail" or "crop of a 1:1 view"

Said another way... The image magnification was at 100% when the crop was made, and the actual pixels from the image are being displayed, without having been manipulated by resizing. Simply cropping a portion of the image to present the FOV of a 100% crop section doesn't always result in a 100% crop as many programs don't always provide a 1 to 1 accurate representation when doing that.

I understand what you said.  But actually there is no difference as it determines by your screen resolution.

Not really related.  If the crop was made while viewing at 100% (1to1) the resulting file will be a 100% crop. And I can adjust the viewing size on my screen to meet 1 to 1 given the file. If the crop was made at other than 1 to 1...the resulting file may not be a 100% crop. Depends on the software.

If you screen is only 1080p (1920x1080), then a 8K photo besides its huge size is wasted as it unable to resolve to 8K fineness your eyes can see on that screen.

Unrelated. 1 to 1 viewing is all that's required to see all the detail

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,517
Like?
Re: *Sigh*
In reply to qianp2k, May 24, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

There are too many sentences and I don't want to reply one on one basis as most of them are the same regarding below the key point.

Finally something we can both agree on! 

Great Bustard wrote:

...or print to their supposed sizes such as 20x30" vs 40x60".

When printed at the same size (and why would we be comparing systems in any other matter), more pixels will yield more detail every time (all else equal).

Yeah a big ONLY if all else equal, that's the point.

Well, I mean, duh.  The point is, everything can be made equal except the lenses (although the lenses are often, if not usually, close enough).

But how to make everything else equals?

You can't.  You compare the systems on the basis of the photos you intend to take with the systems and the lenses you expect to use.

Do you have to use a better technique such as tripod and the best lens on D800?

No.  Do you think I use a tripod with my 20 MP 6D when I came from a 13 MP 5D?

Otherwise the difference is much smaller due to imperfect techniques and lens.

You know, it really isn't.  Indeed, you are quite the hypocrite, as I made this exact point:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51518848

and in your response to that point, you added more support to it.

To achieve all else equal such as similar per-pixel level IQ...

And again, Peter, per-pixel IQ is meaningless.  It's the photo we're talking about here.  I mean, if we're not talking photos, then there's no point to this "conversation".


But that directly affects cropping capability and print quality. Don't they?

What I'm saying, Peter, is that it's not the per-pixel IQ that matters, but the IQ of the resulting photo.  A 100% crop from the 5D3 will not necessarily look as good as a 100% crop from a 5D, but that doesn't mean that the 5D3 doesn't resolve significantly more.

...you' need better technique on D800 such as the best lens (such as Sigma 35/1.4) on tripod, otherwise the advantage is disappearing quickly.

Yes -- the *advantage* will disappear quickly with poor technique (or narrow apertures where diffraction is dominant), but the *advantage* will always remain.

Becomes much smaller or even noticeable.But I am glad you finally agreed up the value of a good technique

Peter, I acknowledged the value of good technique with my very first sentence of my very first post in this thread.  Please, stop mistrepresenting, whether it be of deliberate intent or ignorance of what I've said.

See, DXOMark shows with a better lens such as 24-70L II 5D3 actually has better perceptual sharpness that roughly based on MTF 30 resolution in beating D800 with 24-70G, whoops, no mention if D800 not take on a sturdy tripod.

24-70L II on 5D3 vs 24-70G on D800

So DxOMark shows, with the particular lenses they tested, that the Canon lens is significantly better than the Nikon lens.

No, DXOMark tested entire system not lens.  Sensor or lens doesn't take photos alone but must work together.

Yes.  But since the D800 sensor resolves signficantly more than the 5D3 sensor (36 MP vs 22 MP, and the AA filters are not that different), then for the 24-70 / 2.8L II to resolve more on the 5D3 than the 24-70 / 2.8G on the D800, the 24-70 / 2.8L II must be significantly sharper.

Did you read Hans' post?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51219749

I did.  Like I said, the D800 will resolve a maximum of 28% more linear detail than the 5D3, all else equal.  If it has a better lens, then more.  If it has a lesser lens, then it can even resolve less.

28% only on paper but in reality as Hans and others experienced, the difference is very small.

Again, a maximum of 28% -- let's say 14% on average.  I wonder how many could see a difference of 14% more linear detail.  More to the point, I wonder how many more would even care if they could notice.

However, this is neither here nor there.  If the 5D3 had the D800 sensor (and, by the way, the 5D3 with the D800 sensor in the 6D body is nearly my ideal camera) then the 5D3 would have produced better photos still.

In theory yes. In reality if you only print to 20x30" or view to 4000-pixel wide, then the difference is hardly noticeable. Personally I don't believe cropping but native length lens.

Again, I refer you to the FF photographers going mFT for the exact same reasons (with the added bonus of a significantly smaller kit).

Whether or not the photos would have been "enough better" to be worth the operational downsides is another matter entirely.

Agreed. So as DPR review said, you do need to use the best technique such as the best lenses and on tripod to fully leverage D800 resolution in order to print in excellent quality to billboard size 40x60", LOL.

But you can shoot handheld and still enjoy a substantial advantage.  I refer you again to my post that you not only agreed with, but added to:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51518848

P.S.:  I thought you were done with line-by-line replies.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dave Luttmann
Forum ProPosts: 12,716Gear list
Like?
Re: You seem to have a problem with comprehension.
In reply to Apewithacamera, May 24, 2013

Apewithacamera wrote:

The large print on my wall is highly detailed, I can not resolve with my eyes the mush you are talking about. In order for me to see my image fall apart detail wise, I had to use a lot more magnification. In my case a camera with a macro lens then further magnification of that image on my computer screen. At that magnification I see printer lines and the aliasing. If that is the mush you are talking about, it can't be seen by my own eyes in that print hanging on my wall.

So therefore your claim that a 20 mp camera is not sufficient for producing prints the size discussed is total BS!!!!

Your 4x5 image will eventually shine in the resolution department going much larger than the print sizes we discussed.

I've no desire to print billboard sized photos for my wall as I don't have the room. I will however print up to 40X60 and I'm sure they will look....

Your photo is not highly detailed....mine is.  Under no circumstances would anyone with the most basic understanding of producing prints think that 96ppi is detailed.  96 ppi is not detailed....end of discussion. No, the 4x5 shines even at 16x20...with far greater resolving power and realism.

look, you are out of your area of expertise.  It has nothing to do with billboard sized prints.  The fact that you even talk that way shows the lack of comprehension is yours.

I know Exactly what prints from 20 to 80mp look like....I print them all the time.  20mp at 40 or 50 inches wide is soft, lacking in detail, acutance and tonality?  Your sample vs mine proves it.  Sorry this offends you.

i wont bother relying to your nonsense.  It's obvious you don't have the knowledge level to discuss this.  It is obvious from the samples both of us have posted which one provides higher resolving power, and which one is mush....your excuses aside.

 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 +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dave Luttmann
Forum ProPosts: 12,716Gear list
Like?
Re: *Sigh*
In reply to Great Bustard, May 24, 2013

GB, many of us have found that arguing with someone who refuses to understand their mistakes is futile.  He is best ignored.

 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 +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jjnik
Senior MemberPosts: 1,286Gear list
Like?
Re: Except...
In reply to qianp2k, May 24, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

From my understanding a full-size image = 100% cropped as many use the term interchangeably similar to AOV = FOV as many use alternatively in DPR forums.

Your understanding is incorrect...

A 100% crop is a small portion of the full size image that one would not have to click on and then click to see at 1:1 View/full size (100%) magnification.

That depends on the resolution of your monitor to fit or not, right? But anyway what's difference to post a portion of a full size photo for that convenience from you click '1:1 View/full size (100%) magnification'?

It has nothing to do with the resolution of your monitor - unless you want to view a 100% magnification image - but no monitor today for any recent camera.  That's why a 100% crop is an actual cropped portion of an image that can be displayed on anyone's monitor (as you make the crop something like 500 x 500 pixels that will display at 1:1 pixel mapping on any monitor.  It's totally different than posting an image at full size.

For example, one might post a 500 x 500 pixel portion of the full size image that would show 1:1 pixel quality right in the original post

I gave entire photos rather a small portion of photos such as just head of planes.

To see the 100% you would have needed to just post a section of these images that woudl fit on typical native screen resolutions.  However, If I click on you images then I can use the "1:1 View 100%" option to see a 1:1 pixel mapped view (effectively a 100% crop view).

If can afford one of below 4K monitor, they will be fit nicely.  8K OLED monitors will be affordable in 5-10 yrs that will change graphic and photography world in a huge way.  Large and affodrable OLED display will make print dinosaur extinct.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/07/sony-unveils-professional-4k-oled-monitor-prototypes/

Those screens will make viewing high rez images better, but what does this have to do with viewing at 100% (1:1 pixel level)?

See you're confused now. With such 4K resolution monitor, my two above full-size photos in your words (or 100% cropped in my words) will nicely fit into entire frame without having to click '1:1 View/full size (100%) magnification' button   Give a try on your current resolution monitor against resolution of your test photo, you will know.

I'm not confused at all - you are not talking about a 100% crop here - you are talking about being able to display your entire image at full size (no downsampling/scaling) on your monitor - apples and oranges!

Better 100% cropped or per-pixel quality = better cropping capability = better print quality.

Only likely noticeable if you print big and have a printer capable of printing at higher dpi - not that it's not nice to have, but in many cases, not a big deal.

That's my experience that better pixel quality directly translate better print quality. Let's put into this way. If you have a tack sharp photo at pixel-level from 22mp 5D3 that you shoot with best technique such as with 24-70L II on tripod, and you have a 36mp D800 photo from 24-85G that looks pretty mushy and soft taken from hand-held, then I am pretty sure 5D3 photo will beat D800 photo clearly not only view at their respective full sizes on monitor, but also view at 3000 or even 2000-pixel wide on HD monitor, but also better when print to 26x40" or even 20x30" size.

And you can get very sharp images at the pixel level handheld with the D800 as well (I know - I have a D800E).  And, all else being equal, it would still never be worse than a lower rez camera if one downsamples to match that camera's 100% magnification image size.

Oh yeah, 41mp Nokia 808 has 41mp but does it print better than 21mp 5D2?  It even doesn't print better than 5Dc at 20x30".

Can't comment as I have no direct experience with the Nokia 808

Nobody could as nobody can show us a 2000-pixel wide photo from 41mp Nokia 808 can match to 12.8mp 5Dc IQ at the same size, then will also no match to print quality, period.

Many times it's the quality of pixels not quantity of pixels matters.--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

-- hide signature --
 jjnik's gear list:jjnik's gear list
Nikon D4s Nikon D700 Nikon D800E Nikon 1 AW1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,517
Like?
Re: *Sigh*
In reply to Dave Luttmann, May 24, 2013

Dave Luttmann wrote:

GB, many of us have found that arguing with someone who refuses to understand their mistakes is futile.  He is best ignored.

I'm a firm believer in free speech.  Peter is absolutely free to speak his mind, as tiring as it can be, on occasion.  That said, I don't have to read, or respond, so it's only tiring because I choose to read and respond.

If he can let go of his blind Canon loyalty, and his uneducated fascination with 100% crops as a measure of the IQ of the displayed photo, then there is hope for him, as he seems otherwise cognitively capable.

That said, the purpose of my posts is not to educate him, but rather in hopes that others reading who might be enlightened by the resulting exchange.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mako2011
Mako2011 MOD
Forum ProPosts: 15,590
Like?
Well said
In reply to Great Bustard, May 24, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

GB, many of us have found that arguing with someone who refuses to understand their mistakes is futile.  He is best ignored.

I'm a firm believer in free speech.  Peter is absolutely free to speak his mind, as tiring as it can be, on occasion.  That said, I don't have to read, or respond, so it's only tiring because I choose to read and respond.

If he can let go of his blind Canon loyalty, and his uneducated fascination with 100% crops as a measure of the IQ of the displayed photo, then there is hope for him, as he seems otherwise cognitively capable.

That said, the purpose of my posts is not to educate him, but rather in hopes that others reading who might be enlightened by the resulting exchange.

That's very well said. many could learn from reading closely and considering.

-- hide signature --

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
qianp2k
Senior MemberPosts: 9,968Gear list
Like?
Re: *Sigh*
In reply to Dave Luttmann, May 24, 2013

Dave Luttmann wrote:

GB, many of us have found that arguing with someone who refuses to understand their mistakes is futile.  He is best ignored.

I hope you can truly ignore me rather keep mentioning my name everytime.  You obviously chose not to ignore me.  You should also ignore this forum all together as you don't own any cameras this forum is dedicated for.

I have many 5D3 photos shown in full sizes so far in this forum.  Can you show us your D800 photos to prove would outresolve my 5D3 files badly?  Nobody can see your 60x40" or whatever print sizes you claimed hanging on your walls.

-- 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: 9,968Gear list
Like?
Re: *Sigh*
In reply to Great Bustard, May 24, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

I'm a firm believer in free speech.  Peter is absolutely free to speak his mind, as tiring as it can be, on occasion.  That said, I don't have to read, or respond, so it's only tiring because I choose to read and respond.

Me too.  I strongly believe debates even heated should be allowed as long as nobody violates DPR rules.

If he can let go of his blind Canon loyalty,

Not true, that is ONLY your speculation.  I never deny Nikon DR advantage and D800 resolution advantage.  I only dispute that you do need better technique to fully leverage higher pixel density camera such as D800, not just I said but DPR review said as well.

and his uneducated fascination with 100% crops as a measure of the IQ of the displayed photo, then there is hope for him, as he seems otherwise cognitively capable.

Well, don't assume you're a photography authority.  There are too many self-claimed "experts" in DPR forums.  That's why we need discussions and debates.  Don't jump on conclusions.

That said, the purpose of my posts is not to educate him, but rather in hopes that others reading who might be enlightened by the resulting exchange.

Educate me?  What a joke!  Who are you, Ansel Adams II? So let's the debates continue...

-- hide signature --
 qianp2k's gear list:qianp2k's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mako2011
Mako2011 MOD
Forum ProPosts: 15,590
Like?
Always
In reply to qianp2k, May 25, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

Educate me?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51523741

Always an opportunity for everyone to learn something new.

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,517
Like?
Re: *Sigh*
In reply to qianp2k, May 25, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

I'm a firm believer in free speech.  Peter is absolutely free to speak his mind, as tiring as it can be, on occasion.  That said, I don't have to read, or respond, so it's only tiring because I choose to read and respond.

Me too.  I strongly believe debates even heated should be allowed as long as nobody violates DPR rules.

Indeed.

If he can let go of his blind Canon loyalty,

Not true, that is ONLY your speculation.  I never deny Nikon DR advantage and D800 resolution advantage.  I only dispute that you do need better technique to fully leverage higher pixel density camera such as D800, not just I said but DPR review said as well.

I concede that it is my speculation, but it is not only my speculation.  Furthermore, I never denied that better technique is sometimes required to take full advantage of the greater pixel count of the D800, but this is not always so.

For example, if I took a photo at 24mm f/5.6 1/200, which would not be that uncommon of a situation, I would not need better technique with the D800 than I would with the 5D3 for a handheld shot.

and his uneducated fascination with 100% crops as a measure of the IQ of the displayed photo, then there is hope for him, as he seems otherwise cognitively capable.

Well, don't assume you're a photography authority.

I'm more an authority than some, less an authority than others.  Guess which camp you fall in? 

There are too many self-claimed "experts" in DPR forums.  That's why we need discussions and debates.  Don't jump on conclusions.

I can tell you for a fact, that if you take a photo of a scene with the D800 and the Sigma 35, that it will resolve more detail than if you took a photo of the same scene with the same settings and the same lens with a 5D3, regardless of what those settings are and regardless of the scene.

How much more detail the D800 would record, however, will depend tremendously on the scene and settings.  Furthermore, if the greater detail of the D800 would even matter, depends tremendously on not only on the scene and settings, but on how large the photo is displayed and how closely it is viewed, not to mention the QT (quality threshold) of the viewer.

That said, the purpose of my posts is not to educate him, but rather in hopes that others reading who might be enlightened by the resulting exchange.

Educate me?  What a joke!  Who are you, Ansel Adams II? So let's the debates continue...

This is a technical discussion, and, quite frankly, you are not up to speed if you think that 22 MP has any IQ advantage, whatsoever, over 36 MP -- all else equal.

Whether or not that IQ advantage matters to you, or is worth the operational disadvantages that come with it, is another matter all together.

However, given how you are lording FF over APS-C and mFT all the time, even in cases where the differences are beyond trivial, don't you find it the least bit ironic that you pooh-pooh 36 MP vs 22 MP?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads