Hmm, pretty much the same, all the more if you take into account
we're looking at double resolution...
This is of course wrong, I meant double MP...
[snip due to too long message]
realistic in this approximation.
To achieve this size readjustment, I had to magnify your original
[snip due to too long message]
have a serious error in field of view.
In other words, you see only slight difference between the two camera
because you selected a test image that was strongly biased toward the
D40.
D80, if you please.
My take as to what's realistic (red line):
What is wrong? Do the tests properly.
[snip due to too long message]
the tests properly. Yes, the 1Ds-III IQ is quite satisfactory.
I realize the comparison is slightly biased towards the 10 MP camera, based on the fact that the 10 MP image has a slightly larger magnification and is not an out-of camera jpeg but derived from RAW.
not really, considering the double amount of MP the differences are
not that large
You need a better concept of what "not that large" means when
discussing images.
maybe
don't think that's very different
Actually, the working differences were probably quit different. I
[snip due to too long message]
Assuming the heads of both people are the same size, the eyes are the same size also. Therefore you can look at the size of the eyes to compare the images. to take a similar magnified shot the 50mm DX should be 88% closer than the 85mm FF, while you had to move 78% closer. Seems insignificant based on the rough way we work.
You mean the comparison :-? I don't agree, provided one would see a
[snip due to too long message]
such high resolution images.
Exactly! That's the conclusion I reached as well after reading your previous post.
If the difference is only small, completely against my expectations,
[snip due to too long message]
requirements, the difference is "considerable" or "not very much".
I'll work on my concepts of those
You should also realize that lens
choice, shooting aperture and DOF relationships between full frame
and 1.5 crop sensors is significantly different.
You should only laugh when you understand the joke. Possibly the DOF
characteristics is the most important thing that separates the
various formats. Do your own calculations at
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
Yes, Tony, I know that. I've been shooting 4x5" and 6x6cm for my job for two decades. Before that I've been on photography school for four years. I know that many people, including yourself, are more technical than I am, and I post here to learn about digital, but that doesn't mean I'm out of sync with the basics.
I just fail to see what DOF has to do with comparing the sharpness of an eye shot with 10 MP vs 20 MP. Care to explain?
A 5D full frame camera shooting an 85mm lens at f1.8 (like the Canon
test image) with a working distance of 2m to the subject has to total
DOF of 0.06m. This is significant and "thin".
6 cm seems enough to get the eye in focus?
I can easily illustrate that my images from my D2h are better and
sharper than my images from my D2x or my 5D.
So if you uprez an eye from a D2h shot to D2x size as I did above the
D2h eye would be sharper than the D2x one... I doubt that very much...
I can choose selected images in such a way as to show the D2h is
better and sharper than the D2x image. It is easy to cheat by
selectively picking image pairs to prove a point.
I didn't selectively pick an image to try to prove a point. I did selectively choose the most matching image from my HD and when I didn't understood the comparison I asked a question. Jeez!
The Canon image, a jpg out-of-camera, is very fine. As in the past,
Canon posted images for their cameras are fully unprocessed. Many
people often comment how bad they are.
If that is true, they should change their habits... Posting shots
like this will not make D80 owners buy their new camera!
Canon posts what ever images they wish. They assume you have
sufficient understanding to know what you are looking at.
I have no means to tell a bad direct-out-of-camera image from a properly PP'd image derived from Raw. All the less if I expect the Canon marketing machine to make their new flagship look as good as possible.
Thanks very much Tony. Your reply really did help me. It's a pity
though that you felt the need to put in that patronizing undertone.
I only echoed your tone wherever possible.
I don't agree at all with this statement. Thanks again for your help.
--
Philip
