BNV
Well-known member
I have had 20D,30D, 40D, 5D, 5D II. Yes, IQ is getting worse with increasing MP.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Canon Image Quality--Is it getting worse?
- Thread starter BrianSullivanPhotography
- Start date
bobn2
Forum Pro
dieseldavey63
Member
As quoted by t.c.marino I also think the canon 5d mk2 shoots fantastic shots ( color sharpness and quality) and I shoot Nikon D700 and a lot of lenses and if I wasn't so involved with Nikon I would get the 5D mk2 in seconds. I think the mk2 is probably the best all round camera on the market now and that is saying something for a model nearly two years old. I used the 5d mk2 for a month and was thrilled with the images.
Yeah, and even more impressive for a model that's almost 2 1/2 years old
John Sheehy
Forum Pro
gdanmitchell
Veteran Member
This was the subject of my very short post back on page 1 of this thread:
"Are you comparing 100% crops? If so, when you compare higher MP sample you are looking at a much smaller portion of the overall image - equivalent to inspecting at a higher magnification."
It mystifies me that people ignore this when making comparisons between cameras (and formats!) at 100% on the screen. For example, I've heard people declare that (to pick one particular pair of cameras) the 5D is sharper than the 5D2 - "Here! I have 100% crops to prove it!"
No you don't. If we look at a 400 x 400 section of a test photograph from each of the two cameras the 400 x 400 section comprises a significantly larger section of the 5D photograph than it does when taken from the 5D2 photograph.
5D "pixel dimensions" - 4368 x 2912
5D2 "pixel dimensions" - 5616 x 3744
With the 400 pixel wide sample from the 5D2 you are looking at about 1/14 of the width of the total image. With the 400 pixel wide sample from the 5D you are looking at about 1/10 of the frame width. That is a significant difference.
The 5D will, indeed, appear sharper at 100% magnification even if you use the same lens, same aperture, same shutter speed, same subject, etc. But what you have just "discovered" is the equivalent of inspecting your film negative with a loupe, noting its sharpness, then inspecting the very same negative with a more powerful loupe, and announcing that your film became less sharp when you inspected it more closely.
The problems become even more complex when you start comparing crop to full frame systems.
Some will tell you that they can compensate by interpolating one or more of the samples to create an "equivalency" between the two images being considered. But a) this introduces a new variable to the comparison (the methods of interpolation) and b) you are not longer, by definition, comparing two 100% crop images... which was the whole reason for doing this in the first place.
Viewing 100% magnification crops has its value for certain things. But for comparing two different cameras it ranges from useless to misleading. It gets even worse when you try "micro-comparisons" between two different brands of camera. Here the number of variables becomes even larger and more difficult to make sense of.
A much more useful comparison is to look at actual photographs at some reference size made with the systems being compared. For example, while the comparison between the 5D and the 5D2 I posed above tells us nothing or misleads us about the relative resolution of the two cameras, printing photographs from the two cameras (using identical lenses, apertures and all the rest) can tell us a lot.
A very interesting comparison - let's say between a 12MP FF Nikon camera and a 12MP FF Canon camera would be to have 10 expert Nikon photographers and 10 expert Canon photographers offer up 10 excellent prints each. They would be hung in a gallery and not identified by name or equipment. Turn a bunch of observers loose in the gallery and ask them to identify which photographs were made with which camera. I'll bet they would have far better luck identifying the photographers than the equipment used, and that their ability with the latter would be close to random chance.
There is a lot of silliness tossed around in threads on this subject...
Dan
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
IM: gdanmitchell
Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.
"Are you comparing 100% crops? If so, when you compare higher MP sample you are looking at a much smaller portion of the overall image - equivalent to inspecting at a higher magnification."
It mystifies me that people ignore this when making comparisons between cameras (and formats!) at 100% on the screen. For example, I've heard people declare that (to pick one particular pair of cameras) the 5D is sharper than the 5D2 - "Here! I have 100% crops to prove it!"
No you don't. If we look at a 400 x 400 section of a test photograph from each of the two cameras the 400 x 400 section comprises a significantly larger section of the 5D photograph than it does when taken from the 5D2 photograph.
5D "pixel dimensions" - 4368 x 2912
5D2 "pixel dimensions" - 5616 x 3744
With the 400 pixel wide sample from the 5D2 you are looking at about 1/14 of the width of the total image. With the 400 pixel wide sample from the 5D you are looking at about 1/10 of the frame width. That is a significant difference.
The 5D will, indeed, appear sharper at 100% magnification even if you use the same lens, same aperture, same shutter speed, same subject, etc. But what you have just "discovered" is the equivalent of inspecting your film negative with a loupe, noting its sharpness, then inspecting the very same negative with a more powerful loupe, and announcing that your film became less sharp when you inspected it more closely.
The problems become even more complex when you start comparing crop to full frame systems.
Some will tell you that they can compensate by interpolating one or more of the samples to create an "equivalency" between the two images being considered. But a) this introduces a new variable to the comparison (the methods of interpolation) and b) you are not longer, by definition, comparing two 100% crop images... which was the whole reason for doing this in the first place.
Viewing 100% magnification crops has its value for certain things. But for comparing two different cameras it ranges from useless to misleading. It gets even worse when you try "micro-comparisons" between two different brands of camera. Here the number of variables becomes even larger and more difficult to make sense of.
A much more useful comparison is to look at actual photographs at some reference size made with the systems being compared. For example, while the comparison between the 5D and the 5D2 I posed above tells us nothing or misleads us about the relative resolution of the two cameras, printing photographs from the two cameras (using identical lenses, apertures and all the rest) can tell us a lot.
A very interesting comparison - let's say between a 12MP FF Nikon camera and a 12MP FF Canon camera would be to have 10 expert Nikon photographers and 10 expert Canon photographers offer up 10 excellent prints each. They would be hung in a gallery and not identified by name or equipment. Turn a bunch of observers loose in the gallery and ask them to identify which photographs were made with which camera. I'll bet they would have far better luck identifying the photographers than the equipment used, and that their ability with the latter would be close to random chance.
There is a lot of silliness tossed around in threads on this subject...
Dan
--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
IM: gdanmitchell
Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.
John, what are the sloppy examples(which models) where the next iteration was worse?
John Sheehy
Forum Pro
John,
I win! Yeah!
I own the 40d and 5di -- yeah!; but as you said -- I use them at higher iso's so it isn't such a big win after all. But hey, I'm happy with what I got -- particulalry the new 100L on my 5di
I can't agree. Not that I'm a crazed fanboy, or anything, but I started in film with the A-1 in 1979, and proceeded eventually to digital with the D60, then 20D, then 5D, then T2i, and recently an older 1Ds. I can only say it is better than ever and with more pixel info per image.
I'm looking hopefully to 2011 for new major improvements to the IQ of several models such as the 1Ds and 5D series so I can upgrade my FF bodies.
I'm looking hopefully to 2011 for new major improvements to the IQ of several models such as the 1Ds and 5D series so I can upgrade my FF bodies.
Hey, I'm still shooting a 5D original for most of my work, and that's almost six years old! 
The two best values in digital photography today are both Canon Full Frame: the 5D and the 1Ds Mark II (followed by the 1Ds original from 2003). If I didn't already have the 5D, I wouldn't have bought the D7000.
The two best values in digital photography today are both Canon Full Frame: the 5D and the 1Ds Mark II (followed by the 1Ds original from 2003). If I didn't already have the 5D, I wouldn't have bought the D7000.clager
Leading Member
Nikon is stuck in the 12MP brackett, with the exeption of the D3X, they have listened to the needs of low-light sensors and what-nots, hence the D700 and D3, etc, but still only 12MP, well that might be enough for that small nieche of high-ISO shooters but it certainly doesnt cut it in the gigantic commercial world of advertising, industry, products, etc.
I use both systems and like many of my collegues, when I go on assignment work I use my Canons, the MII, is IMO as good as the D3X and its got 21MP, to fool around with, the colors are terrific and I work mostly at base ISO of 100.
I favour no system above the other, they are differant horses for differant needs, although I do feel that Nikon has got quite a bit to learn from Canon, they do need to produce more powerful cams if theyre going to hang in this race.
I use both systems and like many of my collegues, when I go on assignment work I use my Canons, the MII, is IMO as good as the D3X and its got 21MP, to fool around with, the colors are terrific and I work mostly at base ISO of 100.
I favour no system above the other, they are differant horses for differant needs, although I do feel that Nikon has got quite a bit to learn from Canon, they do need to produce more powerful cams if theyre going to hang in this race.
rwbaron
Forum Pro
I believe that Nikon has so much as admitted that after the introduction of the D3S. There was a Nikon executive that was quoted as saying Nikon had focused too much on high ISO performance and not enough on higher pixel density and that would change in the future.
Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
gdanmitchell
Veteran Member
Not sure why you are having your issues, but as I have progressed through a reasonable series of Canon bodies (starting with crop and then a couple of FF bodies) the image quality has only improved.
And doesn't it strike you as just a bit odd that the majority of photographers who use this gear tend to feel the same way? What could explain that?
Dan
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
IM: gdanmitchell
Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.
And doesn't it strike you as just a bit odd that the majority of photographers who use this gear tend to feel the same way? What could explain that?
Dan
--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
IM: gdanmitchell
Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.
BNV
Well-known member
Low ISO shadows are absolutly unecceptable there, it is a mess. If C. brings out rumored 28 (!) MP 5D III, that is gonna be even bigger mess.
mca290393
Well-known member
I feel the same exact way I feel my old 1D IIn had better IQ I shoot both the Canon mark IV and the Nikon D3s Im way more invested in Canon then Nikon. But for acutance & resolutions (IQ) hands down the Nikon files are just that much sharper.My Nikon files almost look 3D like you can see depth in the print. The Canon files are also sharp but appear flat. Example: When taking a portrait with My Canon the model nose always seems flat in print, With my Nikon the nose has depth in print.
This is my experience from camera to LR3, CS5 to Print (epson 9900)
Mike
This is my experience from camera to LR3, CS5 to Print (epson 9900)
Mike
7enderbender
Leading Member
Excuse me, I'm not a technician, not a professional photographer but I think I have enough experience as critical/scientific thinker and non-pro photographer to see some issues with the arguments here.
First: I always have to laugh when I hear the thing about "old" lenses and that they can't "resolve" enough for modern sensors (vs film??). That's just silly. Optical glass and manufacturing methods have been around for decades that touch upon the limits of physics. I have a 30 year old microscope that resolves pretty well and the limitations there have more to do with the wave length of light and not with the optics. And I personally don't think that my Canon lenses from the 70s and 80s are any better or worse than what Canon produces now. There may have been some improvements every now and so often with coatings and such but in general all that stuff resolves really really well. Limitations I see more with A) sensor size and B) digital technology itself. It's getting there and the results over the last few years have been just stunning. But in the end, it appears a lot of compromises have to be made in order to increase pixel count, ISO expansion and all the other specs that seem to sell well. "Sharpness" on the other hand seems to be mostly a mathematical function now since real optical sharpness is still (and maybe always will) somewhat limited.
So if the old 1 series camera is "sharper" then perhaps it is because its pixel count makes things a little easier, especially when printed in a standard format. But maybe it appears sharper because the algorithms were different. Or a combination of that. I really don't know - and I'm not 100% sure too many people really know except maybe for a handful of technicians who develop that stuff and understand where the compromises are made and how things are being dealt with.
But I'm certain that we should not blame anything on how old lenses are. That is just a silly argument to sell more "new" lenses.
First: I always have to laugh when I hear the thing about "old" lenses and that they can't "resolve" enough for modern sensors (vs film??). That's just silly. Optical glass and manufacturing methods have been around for decades that touch upon the limits of physics. I have a 30 year old microscope that resolves pretty well and the limitations there have more to do with the wave length of light and not with the optics. And I personally don't think that my Canon lenses from the 70s and 80s are any better or worse than what Canon produces now. There may have been some improvements every now and so often with coatings and such but in general all that stuff resolves really really well. Limitations I see more with A) sensor size and B) digital technology itself. It's getting there and the results over the last few years have been just stunning. But in the end, it appears a lot of compromises have to be made in order to increase pixel count, ISO expansion and all the other specs that seem to sell well. "Sharpness" on the other hand seems to be mostly a mathematical function now since real optical sharpness is still (and maybe always will) somewhat limited.
So if the old 1 series camera is "sharper" then perhaps it is because its pixel count makes things a little easier, especially when printed in a standard format. But maybe it appears sharper because the algorithms were different. Or a combination of that. I really don't know - and I'm not 100% sure too many people really know except maybe for a handful of technicians who develop that stuff and understand where the compromises are made and how things are being dealt with.
But I'm certain that we should not blame anything on how old lenses are. That is just a silly argument to sell more "new" lenses.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum