marshwader
Veteran Member
I find it quite interesting that Brian, the original poster, has never reentered the discussion. Happy New Year to everyone.
-
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
gdanmitchell
Veteran Member
One cannot know for sure, but this increases the odds that this was some kind of troll...
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.
Charles Pfeil
Veteran Member
He is "left with a conundrum". This is obviously much worse than his apparent decline in IQ. 
mca290393
Well-known member
No, The same holds true on my 5D II
Bill Robinson189160
Veteran Member
This thread made me take a good look at issues I was having and has given me a much better perspective.
Troll or no troll (and I believe Brian is/was genuine), I've learnt a lot reading through the replies. The detail/resolution from my (new) 5Dmk2 + 16-35mk2 is impressive.
Better than the 1Dsmk2 + 16-35mk2 combo. Although for a 6+ year old camera, the 1Dsmk2 is impressive too!
cheers
Bill
http://www.billrobinson.potd.com.au
Gotta believe in something......believe I'll take another photo !
Troll or no troll (and I believe Brian is/was genuine), I've learnt a lot reading through the replies. The detail/resolution from my (new) 5Dmk2 + 16-35mk2 is impressive.
Better than the 1Dsmk2 + 16-35mk2 combo. Although for a 6+ year old camera, the 1Dsmk2 is impressive too!
cheers
Bill
http://www.billrobinson.potd.com.au
Gotta believe in something......believe I'll take another photo !
mca290393
Well-known member
bobn2
Veteran Member
I've been thinking about how one might compare equal size print quality on the web. This is what I did.
I composited together a number of cameras, including the 50D and 60D, so we can judge this point of IQ progress.
First base ISO
and 6400 ISO
Hope its helpful to at least somebody.
--
Bob
- Downloaded DPR's raw test images
- processed using dcraw -T -6 -w
- in Cinepaint I scaled the image to A3 at 300 ppi (4960x3508) For cameras with an aspect ratio of 3:2 this entailed scaling the height to 3508 and cropping to 1.414:1. For 5:4 the width was scaled to 4960 and cropped.
- I also used a levels adjustment to get the histograms as similar as I could.
- I wrote the result out as a tiff.
- In the Gimp, I wrote to an A3 PDF at 300 ppi (I know its a long winded way of doing it, but I haven't got PDF writing from Cinepaint)
- I read the PDF's into Adobe Reader 9 and displayed them 100%.
- I took a screen capture.
I composited together a number of cameras, including the 50D and 60D, so we can judge this point of IQ progress.
First base ISO
and 6400 ISO
Hope its helpful to at least somebody.
--
Bob
The image quality on the pro models (FF and 1.3x) has been getting only better, IMO - with the 5DII being the best.
In contrast, the image quality on the 1.6x models has been getting progressively worse after the 12mp 450D - arguably the best 1.6x sensor Canon has ever made, despite the slightly higher noise at high ISOs.
The 50D was super noisy. The 18mp sensor is not noisy but the overall softness and flatness of the images (unfixable even in post) definitely make it the worse sensor, IMO.
In contrast, the image quality on the 1.6x models has been getting progressively worse after the 12mp 450D - arguably the best 1.6x sensor Canon has ever made, despite the slightly higher noise at high ISOs.
The 50D was super noisy. The 18mp sensor is not noisy but the overall softness and flatness of the images (unfixable even in post) definitely make it the worse sensor, IMO.
Thanks for the effort. The K-5 looks the best on my monitor at both ISOs.
450 was nice crop sensor for still life at base iso's.
40d still nice action crop camera.
both still nice cameras today
glass means a lot. body glass match must be considered
40d still nice action crop camera.
both still nice cameras today
glass means a lot. body glass match must be considered
7ender -- I understand why you might feel that there is not a good argument against the older lenses, but there are a number of factors that make it so.
1) Digital sensors, unlike film, are direction sensitive, so the lateral spread of light rays to the edges and corners needs to be more perpendicular to the image plane than was needed with film. With film, it was simply light fall-off that was worried about. With digital it must reach the bottom of the pixel well, needing a straighter (less diagonal) course.
2) Lens design has changed to reduce or eliminate "bounce back" reflections off the sensor to the rear element, and repeating back to the sensor. Film and its anti-halation layers prevented this from being much problem.
3) Actual lens acuity has increased to meet the demands of sharp sensors having higher resolving power than film.
4) Lenses are better coated and internally baffled than they were a mere 20 years ago, reducing flare and "fogging" and increasing light transmission.
I'm sure I've missed some main points, but you get the gist.
None of this means that older lenses are unusable! Many are still very good, but most have been improved upon, at a financial cost. I recently tested my Canon 17-35/2.8 L lens from the early 90s against a 17-40/4 L lens from the mid 2000s, and saw amazing improvement over the older design. And I sold the 2.8 for $100 more than I paid for the used equivelent 17-40! Still, it was a 2.8, if a slightly less sharp and hazy 2.8! 
I hope this helps open your mind to some of the advantages of the newer lenses, while encouraging you to scoop up the bargain older lenses from the 70s-90s.
1) Digital sensors, unlike film, are direction sensitive, so the lateral spread of light rays to the edges and corners needs to be more perpendicular to the image plane than was needed with film. With film, it was simply light fall-off that was worried about. With digital it must reach the bottom of the pixel well, needing a straighter (less diagonal) course.
2) Lens design has changed to reduce or eliminate "bounce back" reflections off the sensor to the rear element, and repeating back to the sensor. Film and its anti-halation layers prevented this from being much problem.
3) Actual lens acuity has increased to meet the demands of sharp sensors having higher resolving power than film.
4) Lenses are better coated and internally baffled than they were a mere 20 years ago, reducing flare and "fogging" and increasing light transmission.
I'm sure I've missed some main points, but you get the gist.
None of this means that older lenses are unusable! Many are still very good, but most have been improved upon, at a financial cost.
I recently tested my Canon 17-35/2.8 L lens from the early 90s against a 17-40/4 L lens from the mid 2000s, and saw amazing improvement over the older design. And I sold the 2.8 for $100 more than I paid for the used equivelent 17-40! Still, it was a 2.8, if a slightly less sharp and hazy 2.8! I hope this helps open your mind to some of the advantages of the newer lenses, while encouraging you to scoop up the bargain older lenses from the 70s-90s.
mca290393
Well-known member
Canon Mark IV 85L @ 5.6 1/160 ISO 100 manual mode, Profoto B3 Airs with profoto 3' octa soft box
I see what you are saying. Here is my impression. I like natural light where I can't tell that artificial light is applied. Also, I like thinner dof. I like no flash if there is enough window lght.
You had f5.6. You had a 1.3 crop. So you had FF equivalent dof of 1.3 x 5.6 = 7.3 effective FF equivalent dof. This is really deep dof for such a shot and causes the lighting system to work harder. Then you compounded the issue of depth with artificial light.
BTW- I'm not a studio shooter, but I understand some of the concepts and my 5di does great in good light. I'm using new 100L and my 50 f1.4 on my 5di most of the time.
Here is just an example of 3d in natural light with f2.8 from my 50 mm on my 5di at iso 1600 with natural light. Suggest driving toward natural light and more shallow dof and you'll get the 3d nose you are looking for -- on your 5dii. I'm loving my 5di and 100L and 50 f1.4
You had f5.6. You had a 1.3 crop. So you had FF equivalent dof of 1.3 x 5.6 = 7.3 effective FF equivalent dof. This is really deep dof for such a shot and causes the lighting system to work harder. Then you compounded the issue of depth with artificial light.
BTW- I'm not a studio shooter, but I understand some of the concepts and my 5di does great in good light. I'm using new 100L and my 50 f1.4 on my 5di most of the time.
Here is just an example of 3d in natural light with f2.8 from my 50 mm on my 5di at iso 1600 with natural light. Suggest driving toward natural light and more shallow dof and you'll get the 3d nose you are looking for -- on your 5dii. I'm loving my 5di and 100L and 50 f1.4
Canon Mark IV 85L @ 5.6 1/160 ISO 100 manual mode, Profoto B3 Airs with profoto 3' octa soft box
mca290393
Well-known member
Studio work 5D II
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum