Why Canon made 1Dx best specification ... II

Started May 24, 2013 | Discussions
Mako2011
Mako2011 MOD
Forum ProPosts: 15,449
Like?
no bandage required
In reply to qianp2k, May 26, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

blah, blah, blah, you seem very busy to speak for many and keep changing subject title.  I know your standard of noises and sharpness well

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51021107

Mako2011 photo in Venice

qianp2k photo at the same scene of Venice, Italy

No blood being spilled here (not sharp enough for that). Very nice composition though. Big applause it that regard.

-- 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
Mako2011
Mako2011 MOD
Forum ProPosts: 15,449
Like?
Are you?
In reply to qianp2k, May 26, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Can you please let him to speak for himself?  Are you his spoken man?

Are you asking that discussion be limited?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jjnik
Senior MemberPosts: 1,283Gear list
Like?
Re: Well in the past
In reply to qianp2k, May 26, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

Can you do a simple test as I suggested to shoot 20 shots each between D4 and D800 at 1/10 from the same lens such as from that 70-200G at 200mm, and see which camera is sharper in average at 100% cropped level?

Ummm...No, I have better things to do than waste my time with silly measurebating like that.  I don't doubt that I would see somewhat more apparent sharpness in a 100% crop from the D4.  However, that doesn't mean anything as I would be looking at a MUCH smaller part of the image in the D4 crop.  At the image level, the D800 will still look as sharp or sharper even if I crop into it to provide a D4 size image... AND I could print much bigger with better shatpness from the D800 file.  I don't know why this seems to remain beyond your comprehension.

I think you're the one cannot grasp the relativity but talk in absolute.  I never said you cannot take individual sharp photos from D800 but just said you do need a better technique such as a bit faster shutter if you want to fully leverage 36mp.  If we ever had a chance shoot side by side at such 1/10 sec from respective 70-200 zoom at 200mm, I have no doubt my 5D3 (provided we both have same hands' sturdy level) will get more sharper photos when they are viewed at respective 100% cropped sizes

Maybe - because, as I've tried unsuccessfully to educate you, we would not be looking at the same thing!!!  As with the D4 example above, at the image level the D800 will still look as sharp or sharper even if I crop into it to provide a 5D3 size image and, if I downsize to the 5D3 image size, I can get better apparent sharpness and detail... AND I could still print bigger with better sharpness than the 5D3 file.

I actually never said "NEVER" but just said not at this moment until I have a 8K or at least 4K monitor.

But you've said the high MP camera will not be as sharp at the pixel level, so what difference does your monitor resolution make - you can look at your 100% crops to your heart's content on pretty much any monitor?  A 4K monitor (that's only 3840 pixels × 2160 pixels = 8.3 MB) still can't come anywhere close to displaying the full resolution image for your 5D3, so why would you need this before you moved to an even higher resolution camera?  Besides, the 5D3 will still always be better in your world as it's per pixel sharpness won't be beat by a higher resolution camera unless you take extraordinary measures - so why would you ever go to higher rez - you'd be contradicting your entire "argument".  You don't make sense.

Otherwise 46 or 36mp is wasted for me or at least not in my priority and I am going to pay lots more just for extra MP when I only need to print to 20x30" and view at my 1080p monitor.

Your 1080p monitor is only 2MP so, given your fixation on 100% /1:1 pixel level view, why would you want more than a 2 MP camera - all those other pixels are wasted according to your logic... but the truth is that they are NOT wasted because downsampling a higher rez image to a lower rez output (monitor or print) will increase apparent sharpness and reduce visible noise.

Look, if your gear does what you need it to, then I agree that you should not pay more for something that doesn't fit your needs.  My concern with you is that you continue to insist on spreading your lack of understanding of the benefits of high MP sensors.

Since unlikely Canon or Nikon will give a camera both can take 46mp and shoot at 10fps, my priority will pickup a 22/24mp camera that can shoot 10fps over a 46mp that only can shoot at 5fps. Even I start from scratch today, I'd still pickup 5D3 over D800E on my needs and better lens options Canon provides.  My upgrading path will be (as I said in other threads) to get a used 1DX (likely in 2015), get a 24 or 25mp 6D2 when it comes out (hope it has a high DR sensor then) and will sell 5D3 then.  High MP camera just not in my priority.  I know you might have a different priority that is OK.

I don't think about an upgrade path with imaginary cameras - I wait until new cameras are actually announced and evaluate benefits versus needs at that point.  Right now, I'm content with what I have in the D800E/D4 combo and lenses - I have speed an resolution options well covered and if I don't get good results, it's my fault and not my gear's.

 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
qianp2k
Senior MemberPosts: 9,794Gear list
Like?
Re: As you pointed out
In reply to Mako2011, May 26, 2013

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

P.S:  How embarrassing is this post of yours?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51524821

Top from D800E and bottom from 5DIII that is slightly sharper and should be

Puts things in perspective. Interesting to see someone "realize" the Canon 40D is sharper than the  Canon 5d mark III.  A lot of money can be saved

Look a bit further up in that thread to see why.  That said, the "reveal" also presents a conundrum for me as well.

Need the original files. May be some serious down sampling going on.

Here we are:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51528951

Ahh...entertainment all around

Yes indeed that's why I called game.

What, after the fact...nice backtrack.

Which bird really has more feather details and is sharper?

In this specific case, yes the D800 both our resoles (shows more detail) and is sharper. Under the circumstances presented, it's too be expected. Just as you pointed out...the 40D did indeed appear sharper than the 5dmkIII in that case. Your only mistake was assuming the 40D shot was actually the 5DmkIII. That was simply bias and we understand were it comes from. To be expected.

Obviously you purposely ignored what I said in earlier post that compared a best well-lit small areas of feather of his bird vs a shadow-lit wing from my bird.  But if we compare for the same-lit bird bodies (main subject after of all), the difference is pretty clear.

I know you eyes just pretend you don't see something you don't want to see.

100% crop (a 400 pixel x 500 pixel portion of the full size image):

Still no much details on his bird's best-lit feather.  If he ever show that wing (lower one or left wing of the bird that in shadow) that result is far far worse.  There are more textual details on the shadow-wing from my bird that have lots more feathers, not only you see feathers but you see hairs on the feather not just something look like a feather but no hair details, LOL.

Any my bird is obviously sharper despite shooting at almost double higher ISO with an inferior lens.

I will not call it tack sharp and he admitted not tack sharp .  See that is the issue that even at reduced size, look average sharp on all parts (including the focus spot) but nothing really tack sharp on any parts.  Not sure because of 1/10 and TC or similar issue from the observation from this Toronto-based wedding photog on his opinion of Nikon AF system.

http://xerodigital.ca/canon-1dx-nikon-d4-compare-wedding-photographers/

-- 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: 9,794Gear list
Like?
Re: Well in the past
In reply to jjnik, May 26, 2013

Gee, I read you said wasting time to discuss/debate with me, and you will give up.  As I predicted, you are coming back ...but I have to go to sleep, so later...

-- 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: 9,794Gear list
Like?
Re: Are you?
In reply to Mako2011, May 26, 2013

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Can you please let him to speak for himself?  Are you his spoken man?

Are you asking that discussion be limited?

No but I guess he knows his own photos better than you.  Let him to response (as he just did) on my suggestions for example.  Are you his spoken man? Or you just over spoke, 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
qianp2k
Senior MemberPosts: 9,794Gear list
Like?
Re: Well in the past
In reply to jjnik, May 26, 2013

jjnik wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Can you do a simple test as I suggested to shoot 20 shots each between D4 and D800 at 1/10 from the same lens such as from that 70-200G at 200mm, and see which camera is sharper in average at 100% cropped level?

Ummm...No, I have better things to do than waste my time with silly measurebating like that.  I don't doubt that I would see somewhat more apparent sharpness in a 100% crop from the D4.  However, that doesn't mean anything as I would be looking at a MUCH smaller part of the image in the D4 crop.  At the image level, the D800 will still look as sharp or sharper even if I crop into it to provide a D4 size image... AND I could print much bigger with better shatpness from the D800 file.  I don't know why this seems to remain beyond your comprehension.

I think you're the one cannot grasp the relativity but talk in absolute.  I never said you cannot take individual sharp photos from D800 but just said you do need a better technique such as a bit faster shutter if you want to fully leverage 36mp.  If we ever had a chance shoot side by side at such 1/10 sec from respective 70-200 zoom at 200mm, I have no doubt my 5D3 (provided we both have same hands' sturdy level) will get more sharper photos when they are viewed at respective 100% cropped sizes

Maybe - because, as I've tried unsuccessfully to educate you, we would not be looking at the same thing!!!  As with the D4 example above, at the image level the D800 will still look as sharp or sharper even if I crop into it to provide a 5D3 size image and, if I downsize to the 5D3 image size, I can get better apparent sharpness and detail... AND I could still print bigger with better sharpness than the 5D3 file.

Before I have a chance to address your other sentences, this is exactly what I tried to educate you on the common consensus of photography world.  Now you shifted topic to per-picture level not per-pixel level   That's exactly what I said and DPR review said that in order to fully leverage 36mp to print to 40x60" or view at full size, you do need to use better technique such as faster shutter, that explains why your car photo is not that sharp.  Now you're talking downsampling to 5D3 size, hehe.  Did you read what I said otherwise you're wasting 36mp if you have to downsampling or only can print nicely to 20x30", that's exactly my point!  So what you're arguing about? Gee.

I actually never said "NEVER" but just said not at this moment until I have a 8K or at least 4K monitor.

But you've said the high MP camera will not be as sharp at the pixel level, so what difference does your monitor resolution make - you can look at your 100% crops to your heart's content on pretty much any monitor?  A 4K monitor (that's only 3840 pixels × 2160 pixels = 8.3 MB) still can't come anywhere close to displaying the full resolution image for your 5D3, so why would you need this before you moved to an even higher resolution camera?  Besides, the 5D3 will still always be better in your world as it's per pixel sharpness won't be beat by a higher resolution camera unless you take extraordinary measures - so why would you ever go to higher rez - you'd be contradicting your entire "argument".  You don't make sense.

Otherwise 46 or 36mp is wasted for me or at least not in my priority and I am going to pay lots more just for extra MP when I only need to print to 20x30" and view at my 1080p monitor.

Your 1080p monitor is only 2MP so, given your fixation on 100% /1:1 pixel level view, why would you want more than a 2 MP camera - all those other pixels are wasted according to your logic... but the truth is that they are NOT wasted because downsampling a higher rez image to a lower rez output (monitor or print) will increase apparent sharpness and reduce visible noise.

Look, if your gear does what you need it to, then I agree that you should not pay more for something that doesn't fit your needs.  My concern with you is that you continue to insist on spreading your lack of understanding of the benefits of high MP sensors.

Since unlikely Canon or Nikon will give a camera both can take 46mp and shoot at 10fps, my priority will pickup a 22/24mp camera that can shoot 10fps over a 46mp that only can shoot at 5fps. Even I start from scratch today, I'd still pickup 5D3 over D800E on my needs and better lens options Canon provides.  My upgrading path will be (as I said in other threads) to get a used 1DX (likely in 2015), get a 24 or 25mp 6D2 when it comes out (hope it has a high DR sensor then) and will sell 5D3 then.  High MP camera just not in my priority.  I know you might have a different priority that is OK.

I don't think about an upgrade path with imaginary cameras - I wait until new cameras are actually announced and evaluate benefits versus needs at that point.  Right now, I'm content with what I have in the D800E/D4 combo and lenses - I have speed an resolution options well covered and if I don't get good results, it's my fault and not my gear's.

-- 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: 23,240
Like?
Weird...
In reply to qianp2k, May 26, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

Now you shifted topic to per-picture level not per-pixel level

...that someone would be concerned with the appearance of the photo, not the appearance of individual pixels from photos captured on sensors with different pixel counts.

What was he thinking?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
qianp2k
Senior MemberPosts: 9,794Gear list
Like?
Re: Weird...
In reply to Great Bustard, May 26, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Now you shifted topic to per-picture level not per-pixel level

...that someone would be concerned with the appearance of the photo, not the appearance of individual pixels from photos captured on sensors with different pixel counts.

On their respective designed sizes not have to reduce sizes.  per-pixel = 100% cropped that I use interchangeably, that's what DPR reviews also used.

What was he thinking?

Now he is talking downsampling to 5D3 size   See you tomorrow.

-- 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
jjnik
Senior MemberPosts: 1,283Gear list
Like?
Re: no need
In reply to qianp2k, May 26, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

That one is the sharpest one among all you posted in this thread.  I didn't suggest you cannot get sharp photo but just said you'd need a better technique to fully leverage 36mp potential.

That image didn't take any special technique at all - aperture priority to give me the DOF I wanted, hit the shutter and that was it...

And what's your new diversion? So now we can't use VR?   Geez, do you realize how ridiculous you come accross in your posts?

Just to get precisely accurate tests.  You cannot count on VR/IS to push to its limit everytime and hope to get lucky sharp photos everytime.

But since you seem fixated on your quest to make everyone align with your belief that high resolution DSLR's need high shutter speeds and the best glass, let's try this:

Gee, most people know that if you don't use VR/IS, a proper shutter will be = 1 / <focus_length> * pixel density (including crop factor)

What's your point, exactly?  That's a well known rule of thumb for a minimum shutter speed to offset IQ degradation due to camera shake, but it's not an absolute and there are many factors - not the least of which is how steady one cand hold their rig!

As in general. It's you to speak in absolute.  Unless you want people to believe you have a super sturdy hand or Nikon VR is so good, you will get sharp 1/10 photos everytime with 70-200 at 150mm by just P&S in one second. Good luck whatever.

I never said I could - I simply said that's what VR is designed to help you do sometimes - I never said it was foolproof - it's a tool like many others

Just one lucky shot?  How about you fire 20 shots and everytime you can get sharp photo at 1/10?  Or maybe Nikon VR is too good or maybe you have a super sturdy hands

I wouldn't expect to get 20 sharp photos with these settings, but I got it on the 1st shot, so why would I keep shooting??

maybe just 1st luck

I didn't say it wasn't - bottom line is it worked on the first shot, so why would I worry whether it would work 20 times in row

I was there to capture images, not measurebate.... and I suspect the decent results were more related to the excellent Nikon VR2 as it was windy and about 38 degrees, so I spent much of the day outside shivering as I was unfortunately not really appropriately insulated for the unforecast conditions that day.

VR2 is 4-stop right?  The new 70-200G/4.0 VR claims 5-stop VR and actually is sharper than your F2.8 VR version according to a few reviews including DXOMark.

It's not sharper at f2.8!!!  And my VR2 is sharper at f4 than it is at f2.8 and is likely sharper at f4 than the new f4 lens is, so what is your point?  Stop reading so many reviews and just enjoy your gear!

That sharpness is OK at 100% cropped level.  However just look your reduced (50%) entire photo, I don't see tack sharp either, not affected by 1/10?  I believe if you increase shutter you likely get sharper photo.

Again, you miss the point of the post whihc was to show that you coul still get good pixel level sharpness without your claimed need for extraordinary technique!

Did you ever stop to think (somehow, I suspect not) that the TC use does not make sense to you because you were not there that day and you did not bother to ask why I had it mounted?

For that particular photo, using TC doesn't make sense for 150mm FL as your 70-200 natively covers that FL w/o TC and will get sharper photo.  TC affects sharpness and other IQ more or less.

commenting before you read further - nice!

Well, I had both cameras with me and was primarliy shooting cars on the track from a distance (and was using the D800E more for video).  I had had the 300/2.8 VR2 on the D4 and the 70-200/2.8 VR2 /w1.4 TC mounted due to the distance I had just been shooting from - My bag was in my car and I walked by the garage, saw the Lotus and wanted to take a shot.  The 300mm/D4 was too long, so I used the D800E.  I was not going to stop and take a TC off, esp. since I had no place to put it and it was windy with dust flying around.  Simple as that - Now, does that make sense to you???

OK.

Also, 4 stop VR2 is the max possible - not the typical result on every shot.  1/10th at 150 mm would be 4 stops under the rule of thumb you yourself cited, so not realistic to expect VR to work perfectly.  IMHO, the result is pretty sharp for a 100% crop under these conditions - I think most reasonable people would agree with that assessment.... but there's always 1 in a crowd...

Reasonable people will not believe you will get that lucky everytime to push 4-stop VR2 to limit.  The bottom line is that you actually will get sharper photo by using faster shutter or not using TC or by both.

That's not the point - you need to learn how to comprehend what you read!

The definition of good enough is subjective.  To me for that photo I believe you could get sharper photo by using better technique - faster shutter and w/o TC as your 70-200 covers the FL and nothing prevent you stop down a bit to get sharper and better contrast photo (contrast in that photo is also not at the top).

Again, you totally ignore the point of the posted image

Like any camera (including 22/24 MP FF, or 18/24 MP APSC), getting the maximum IQ requires good technique and good glass, but that is not unique to the D800.

True, agreed.  The difference is for higher pixel density camera such as D800 it requires higher technique to fully leverage at respective potential.  That's what my point.

And my point is that in many cases (not all), the normal technique you should be using anyhow and the shutter speeds you likely are using with fast glass will mean that no extraordinary effort is requiredto get the most out of the camera - AND it will be always parity or better to a lower resolution camera when viewing/printing images at the same size as a lower resolution camera shot with the same technique (or lack thereof).  So there is only upside in that context - the downsides are around speed and file size (and slightly lower high ISO performance at the higher ISO's - somewhere above 6400.)

The real difference is that a high MP camera provides one with the potential to capture details a lower res camera can't - but, under the same conditions, the results will never be less when the final images are compared at the same size ( whether large or small)

Not disagreed but depends on my export size.  Since I only print to 20x30" or view at 1080p monitor, the difference between 22mp nd 36mp is negligible.  And I don't believe over cropping that is not replacement for longer FL lens.

Once you go north of the 300mm (and even that one is big $), longer focal length lenses are out of the reach of most (especially the new Canon super tele's) - so cropping is a viable alternative for many - basically you have an APSC crop camera built in when you need it.

But now I give up

Hope so this time but I guess you will come back again.

Nope - this is my last reply as I'd have more success having this conversation with my dog or the wall

- I've clearly shown that your mantra that you can't get good pixel level sharpness with a high MP camera without extraordinary measures is simply not true.

It's you to speak in absolute.  I said in general.  That's why I suggested you to do a scientific test by shooting each group of 20 shots between D4 and D800 at 1/10 from 70-200 at 1/200 with VR off to see which camera has average sharper per-pixel photos   Is that simple?

It's a waste of my time as I'vre already explained in another post.

You just won't accept that so I won't waste any more time trying to discuss this with someone like you - Continue with your beliefs, as you are entitled to them.  I just wanted to provide an image-based counterpoint for others to consider in forming their own opinions.

I believe you're wasting time.  No mention the samples you provided such as bird or car are not that tack sharp anyway to support your claim.  Thx to jump into this Canon forum to boast your D800. I am not impressed nevertheless

Again you miss my point - I'm not boasting about a D800 - I'm providing info to correct your misinformation on high resolution sensors.  Canon may not have one now, but I'm sure will have one in the not-so-distant future, so this info is hopefully helpful to the more rationale Canon forum readers.

Have a nice life!

 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: 23,240
Like?
Re: Weird...
In reply to qianp2k, May 26, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Now you shifted topic to per-picture level not per-pixel level

...that someone would be concerned with the appearance of the photo, not the appearance of individual pixels from photos captured on sensors with different pixel counts.

On their respective designed sizes not have to reduce sizes.  per-pixel = 100% cropped that I use interchangeably, that's what DPR reviews also used.

What I'm saying, Peter, is that we don't compare 1 pixel on a 5D3 to 1 pixel on a D800, but rather 22 pixels on a 5D3 to 36 pixels on a D800, if we want to compare in a photographically meaningful manner at the pixel level.

What was he thinking?

Now he is talking downsampling to 5D3 size

This, of course, eats away most of the resolution advantage of the D800, so I'm not sure why we would compare in this manner if we are talking about which system resolves more detail.

See you tomorrow.

Later.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mako2011
Mako2011 MOD
Forum ProPosts: 15,449
Like?
Born from example
In reply to qianp2k, May 26, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

Obviously you purposely ignored what I said in earlier post that compared a best well-lit small areas of feather of his bird vs a shadow-lit wing from my bird.  But if we compare for the same-lit bird bodies (main subject after of all), the difference is pretty clear.

It is indeed. In this case...comparing 100% crops (though that concepts seems to still be a bit illusive for you) ...the D800 did indeed resolve more detail


Any my bird is obviously sharper despite shooting at almost double higher ISO with an inferior lens.

Inferior is indeed the correct word but not the right context. You didn't crop the same 1 to 1, it appears...try the 100% crop and compare.

I will not call it tack sharp and he admitted not tack sharp .

And f4 ISO 100

Full Size No PP

And

100% crop

Interesting stuff

I will not call it tack sharp and he admitted not tack sharp

No one said it was....only that it obviously resolves more detail than the 5D example, as we can see here. Not a mystery...simple math born out in example. Is it relevant? Conceptually regards resolution...perhaps. Web only pics...not so much.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jjnik
Senior MemberPosts: 1,283Gear list
Like?
Re: Weird...
In reply to qianp2k, May 26, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

Now he is talking downsampling to 5D3 size   See you tomorrow.

-- hide signature --

I meant that last post to be my last response to you - but I can't let you use your typical spin to mischaracterize what I actually said - which was

"Maybe - because, as I've tried unsuccessfully to educate you, we would not be looking at the same thing!!!  As with the D4 example above, at the image level the D800 will still look as sharp or sharper even if I crop into it to provide a 5D3 size image and, if I downsize to the 5D3 image size, I can get better apparent sharpness and detail... AND I could still print bigger with better sharpness than the 5D3 file."

...meaning that looking at a 100% crop from a D800 and a 5D3 is looking at two different things.  The D800E 100% crop is capturing a more magnified view/smaller section of the target.  However, as I've demonstrated to everyone except you, it is possible to get sharp per pixel detail (100% crop) with a D800 without taking any extraordinary methods (as you insist must be done).

So as long as you used the same technique and shot conditions as the 5D3, then even if the D800 results at100% view were not quite as sharp (though I demonstrated to most that they can be) as then 5D3 (which, remember, is a different, less magnified view of a larger part of the target), then the image level view (which is the real end goal for non-measurebators) of the D800 will still look as sharp or sharper than the 5D3.   This would also be true if I downsized the D800 image to the 5D3 image size as the downsizing/oversampling will provide better apparent sharpness and detail in the resultant smaller image (I'M NOT SAYING YOU SHOULD DO THIS - just stating the reality if you did!!)

 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
Schwany
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,280Gear list
Like?
Re: Why Canon made 1Dx best specification ... II
In reply to John Sheehy, May 26, 2013

Adding to the reply count.

 Schwany's gear list:Schwany's gear list
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Canon EOS-1D X +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
qianp2k
Senior MemberPosts: 9,794Gear list
Like?
Re: Born from example
In reply to Mako2011, May 28, 2013

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Obviously you purposely ignored what I said in earlier post that compared a best well-lit small areas of feather of his bird vs a shadow-lit wing from my bird.  But if we compare for the same-lit bird bodies (main subject after of all), the difference is pretty clear.

It is indeed. In this case...comparing 100% crops (though that concepts seems to still be a bit illusive for you) ...the D800 did indeed resolve more detail

You need you eyes checked or you just unable to see from your biased eyes, LOL.


Any my bird is obviously sharper despite shooting at almost double higher ISO with an inferior lens.

Inferior is indeed the correct word but not the right context. You didn't crop the same 1 to 1, it appears...try the 100% crop and compare.

the above bird from my shot is 100% cropped, or your word 1:1.

I will not call it tack sharp and he admitted not tack sharp .

And f4 ISO 100

Subject is matter.  Sure this guy has lots of hairs, lots of them.  Oh yes D800 does have lots of resolution at ISO 100, F4 and 1/640 sec, why not shoot at 1/10 hand-held BTW?

Full Size No PP

And

100% crop

Interesting stuff

That doesn't mean Canon cannot do that either.  This one was taken from 100-400L on 5D3, an inferior lens compared to your 70-200G/4.0 VR or 70-200G/2.8 VR II.  Since it's too big to be added into DPR gallery, so I provide this 100% cropped photo, oh, yeah on 1:1 full size   Better to download to view it clearly, or need to wait several seconds until the photo is fully rendered.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3MrYp_nWjPGaktYX19PT3BtNmc/edit?usp=sharing

I will not call it tack sharp and he admitted not tack sharp

No one said it was....only that it obviously resolves more detail than the 5D example, as we can see here.

Gee, where I was trying to compare to 5D sample?  I was talking that car shot.  do I ever present my car sample?  If you talking birds, my bird sample absolutely resolve more details.  It seems to you biased eyes, you cannot accept 5D3 has a chance to beat D800?

Not a mystery...simple math born out in example. Is it relevant? Conceptually regards resolution...perhaps. Web only pics...not so much.

Yeah a well known math.  higher pixel density, you need a higher shutter to deliver similar per-pixel or 100% cropped sharpness.  I am not even trying to dispute resolution but just on better technique.

Or can your D800 thru heave cropping from a 200mm or 300mm lens deliver such photos belows?  

All taken from the yesterday Junes Beach airshow.  It's very windy and therefore bunch of programs cancelled due to 30mph gusty wind.  Saturday show was cancelled all together due lingering rain and heavy wind.  this time I didn't walk to sands but stay on boardwalk.  It's pretty far away cross a very wide beach and airplanes are very small flying above the ocean.  All these are heavily cropped.  Your 36mp will not help thru extreme cropping.  Otherwise show to us please, lol.

500L+1.4x TC III = 700mm

-- 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: 15,449
Like?
Nice colors
In reply to qianp2k, May 28, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Obviously you purposely ignored what I said in earlier post that compared a best well-lit small areas of feather of his bird vs a shadow-lit wing from my bird.  But if we compare for the same-lit bird bodies (main subject after of all), the difference is pretty clear.

It is indeed. In this case...comparing 100% crops (though that concepts seems to still be a bit illusive for you) ...the D800 did indeed resolve more detail

You need you eyes checked or you just unable to see from your biased eyes, LOL.

Pot calling the kettle black?


Any my bird is obviously sharper despite shooting at almost double higher ISO with an inferior lens.

Inferior is indeed the correct word but not the right context. You didn't crop the same 1 to 1, it appears...try the 100% crop and compare.

the above bird from my shot is 100% cropped, or your word 1:1.

Measure again and or see the explanation in the above link on how to produce 100% crop

I will not call it tack sharp and he admitted not tack sharp .

And f4 ISO 100

Subject is matter.  Sure this guy has lots of hairs, lots of them.  Oh yes D800 does have lots of resolution at ISO 100, F4 and 1/640 sec, why not shoot at 1/10 hand-held BTW?

Because you might then cry foul, jump up and down a demand "then fire 20 shots from the same lens on 16mp D4".  We don't want poor history repeating.

Full Size No PP

And

100% crop

Interesting stuff

That doesn't mean Canon cannot do that either.  This one was taken from 100-400L on 5D3, an inferior lens compared to your 70-200G/4.0 VR or 70-200G/2.8 VR II.  Since it's too big to be added into DPR gallery, so I provide this 100% cropped photo, oh, yeah on 1:1 full size   Better to download to view it clearly, or need to wait several seconds until the photo is fully rendered.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3MrYp_nWjPGaktYX19PT3BtNmc/edit?usp=sharing

The image dimensions are not 5760 x 3840 but instead 5241x3432. Perhaps you down sampled or cropped? Quite a bit of grain as well, strange. You cut off the horns, but left lots of space behind. Not a good example I think.

Or can your D800 thru heave cropping from a 200mm or 300mm lens deliver such photos belows?

Certainly no worse regards sharpness, but more detail could have been captured. That's natural.

All taken from the yesterday Junes Beach airshow.

F10 and 1/250? ....you are correct and better technique can make a difference. No need for f10 here. Still, all very nice colors,  though a bit to aggressive with the sharpening slider in LR for my taste.  Thanks for sharing...I do enjoy aviation.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,240
Like?
What we're saying, Peter...
In reply to qianp2k, May 28, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

Yeah a well known math.  higher pixel density, you need a higher shutter to deliver similar per-pixel or 100% cropped sharpness.  I am not even trying to dispute resolution but just on better technique.

Or can your D800 thru heave cropping from a 200mm or 300mm lens deliver such photos belows?  

...is that if the Nikon 500 / 4 VR II were at least as sharp as your 500 / 4L IS II (and even if it weren't quite as sharp, but close), that the 36 MP of the D800 would have resolved better than the 22 MP of your 5D3.

Just not a hard concept to understand, really -- unless one is *actively* trying to be obtuse.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Turbo Hampster
Contributing MemberPosts: 526Gear list
Like?
Re: What we're saying, Peter...
In reply to Great Bustard, May 28, 2013

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I see Qianp2k is back on top form again!

You guys deserve a medal for your patience 

 Turbo Hampster's gear list:Turbo Hampster's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS-1D X Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
qianp2k
Senior MemberPosts: 9,794Gear list
Like?
Re: What we're saying, Peter...
In reply to Great Bustard, May 28, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Yeah a well known math.  higher pixel density, you need a higher shutter to deliver similar per-pixel or 100% cropped sharpness.  I am not even trying to dispute resolution but just on better technique.

Or can your D800 thru heave cropping from a 200mm or 300mm lens deliver such photos belows?  

...is that if the Nikon 500 / 4 VR II were at least as sharp as your 500 / 4L IS II (and even if it weren't quite as sharp, but close), that the 36 MP of the D800 would have resolved better than the 22 MP of your 5D3.

But you know that's not what I am talking about, right? I hope I have 500L II but I only have 500L I that is already good enough. My points are a) overcropping is not a substitute for longer FL lenses. The reasons I said that I have seen some D800 airshow photos from 300mm and 200mm lenses not impressive at all after overcropping; b) what you said is only true if else equals. 5D3 is noticeable better in AF speed and overall response speed and deeper buffer. After this shooting, now I can say although 5D3 is only 6fps compared to 10fps 1D3, but with 1000X CF card, it cleaned buffer (much) quicker than 1D3 (that only supports upto 266x CF) so it effectively compensate shallower buffer. I still ended with 5000 photos. I tried D800 in pdn PhotoPlus Expo, it's noticeable slower. After initial burst, it slows down quite a bit and takes (much) longer to clean buffer. I have no doubt if we shoot side by side, my 5D3 will capture lots more precise moments with its superior AF performance and overall speed.  My 10mp 1D3 airshows photos proved amount of pixels are far less important than native FL lenses, shooting skills and most importantly AF performance and overall speed.

Just not a hard concept to understand, really -- unless one is *actively* trying to be obtuse.

Now return to OP. 18mp or 22mp is sufficient to most people especially someone like me only print to 20x30" or view on 1080p monitor at this moment. D800 will not help in this matter. For my needs I'd pickup 5D3 over D800 if I start from scratch. 5D3 is just a better all-round camera. It's hypocrisy that you're so envious D800 but you chose 6D instead. You keep emphasizing to shoot on eq DOF which is rubbish, but yourself prefer shooting in shallower DOF. So what you said is not what you did.

-- 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: 9,794Gear list
Like?
Re: Nice colors
In reply to Mako2011, May 28, 2013

Mako2011 wrote:


 

That doesn't mean Canon cannot do that either.  This one was taken from 100-400L on 5D3, an inferior lens compared to your 70-200G/4.0 VR or 70-200G/2.8 VR II.  Since it's too big to be added into DPR gallery, so I provide this 100% cropped photo, oh, yeah on 1:1 full size   Better to download to view it clearly, or need to wait several seconds until the photo is fully rendered.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3MrYp_nWjPGaktYX19PT3BtNmc/edit?usp=sharing

The image dimensions are not 5760 x 3840 but instead 5241x3432. Perhaps you down sampled or cropped? Quite a bit of grain as well, strange. You cut off the horns, but left lots of space behind. Not a good example I think.

There are no grains.  You really need your eyes checked. I just showed 5D3 also can deliver very high resolution even with an inferior lens.

r can your D800 thru heave cropping from a 200mm or 300mm lens deliver such photos belows?

Certainly no worse regards sharpness, but more detail could have been captured. That's natural.

Seriously you think D800 + 300mm lens can outresolve 5D3 + 500mm lens? You don't know what you are talking about. I actually have seen some D800 airshow photos with 300mm lens that IQ is not good after overcropping. If you don't believe, give a try and show photos to us.

All taken from the yesterday Junes Beach airshow.

F10 and 1/250? ....you are correct and better technique can make a difference. No need for f10 here. Still, all very nice colors,  though a bit to aggressive with the sharpening slider in LR for my taste.  Thanks for sharing...I do enjoy aviation.

It's clear you don't have much experience in plane photos. The key here is 1/250 not F10 to slow down the propellers' capturing for necessary motion blur rather having a surreal frozen propellers as the planes going to drop You should also notice I shoot at ISO 50 (because I don't have 500L drop-in ND filter holder that I ordered but in back-order) otherwise it'd be F20 that diffraction will kick-in. It's not oversharpening but 5D3 is sharp! Your tastes are questionable from many examples we encountered before

BTW, this helicopter pilot is the only one in US or in world that is certified to do acrobatic helicopter performance. Yes the chopper is in upside down flying.

-- hide signature --
 qianp2k's gear list:qianp2k's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads