A
Apewithacamera
Guest
Excellent work! I didn't even consider the 1D III thx
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Full Frame the proof is in the details:
- Thread starter Ershotz -
- Start date
-
- Tags
- canon eos-1ds
It is a fact that the difference is smaller with sharper lenses. Is it trivial? Not a fact but an opinion. It is about 15-20% in that case, MTF-10, RAW (DXOmark), which measures resolution but basically ignores contrast.
Also, when a crop body can match the thin DOF, the resolution is dramatically lower. I can be about 1/2.
This is not a fact, it is wrong. APS-C has no greater DOF advantage. You have to stop down more, and at some point, the DOF starts to shrink on both systems, due to diffraction.
No. Only when you need more magnification. If you stop too much, everything is so soft that your DOF might be zero.
FF sensors deliver better IQ at any ISO. They do that at the expense of DOF (more light).
ARShutterbug
Veteran Member
Why don't you learn how to trim your quoted text, or are you one of those silly people who insists on repeating every embedded image link while adding only one line of text to the message?
I wonder what the correct passcode image is that you're looking for, because obviously a "squirrle" is no good, regardless of exposure settings. I actually wasn't participating in your argument, which is why I didn't reply to you. I don't disagree that bigger sensors are often the better choice, and I stopped reading your message at "and more!!!" I only said that someone on here told me that the 7D was useless, despite the suggestions from myself and others who have been using it without much complaint in dim lighting conditions.
I would disagree with several of your assumptions, including the shallow depth-of-field, better viewfinder brightness, and whatever "no lens factors" is. There certainly are lens factors to consider when using a big recording sensor, because bigger sensors demand better glass, and the bigger photosites tend to improve the perceptible depth-of-field. That's the "3D" effect that some people claim to see when moving from an old APS-C camera to a new APS-H and full-frame camera. The performance of the 7D, however, is still pretty good; the differences between the 7D's APS-C sensor and the bigger sensors on other cameras are not too apparent when the prints are viewed at a regular distance. Only when the 7D's APS-C sensor is pushed to its maximum sensitivity does the difference in image noise between APS-C and bigger sensors become more noticeable, as the noise begins to decrease the image detail and perceptible depth-of-field. Also noticeable is the ability of a larger sensor to accept smaller lens apertures while avoiding the earlier diffraction limit of APS-C sensors, which can be important for landscape photography.
--
http://www.alexanderrogge.net/arshutterbug
I wonder what the correct passcode image is that you're looking for, because obviously a "squirrle" is no good, regardless of exposure settings. I actually wasn't participating in your argument, which is why I didn't reply to you. I don't disagree that bigger sensors are often the better choice, and I stopped reading your message at "and more!!!" I only said that someone on here told me that the 7D was useless, despite the suggestions from myself and others who have been using it without much complaint in dim lighting conditions.
I would disagree with several of your assumptions, including the shallow depth-of-field, better viewfinder brightness, and whatever "no lens factors" is. There certainly are lens factors to consider when using a big recording sensor, because bigger sensors demand better glass, and the bigger photosites tend to improve the perceptible depth-of-field. That's the "3D" effect that some people claim to see when moving from an old APS-C camera to a new APS-H and full-frame camera. The performance of the 7D, however, is still pretty good; the differences between the 7D's APS-C sensor and the bigger sensors on other cameras are not too apparent when the prints are viewed at a regular distance. Only when the 7D's APS-C sensor is pushed to its maximum sensitivity does the difference in image noise between APS-C and bigger sensors become more noticeable, as the noise begins to decrease the image detail and perceptible depth-of-field. Also noticeable is the ability of a larger sensor to accept smaller lens apertures while avoiding the earlier diffraction limit of APS-C sensors, which can be important for landscape photography.
--
http://www.alexanderrogge.net/arshutterbug
Yeah, but you're really splitting hairs here. Pixel peeping is passe. Unless you're printing extremely large, you'd be hard pressed to see these minute differences in the real world. Are these hair-splitting differences enough to warrant spending a few thousand dollars more for a 1Ds MKIII over a 7D? I think you end up spending quite a lot of money that isn't really proportional to the difference in quality that you're getting. It's not exactly a night-and-day difference, even under very controlled test conditions and viewing at very high magnification. Also keep in mind that the 1Ds MKIII still has more megapixels than the 7D (21mp vs 18mp), which accounts for any difference in detail more than simply the fact that it has a larger
sensor.
A better test of whether FF really does "capture more detail" than APS-C will be to compare an 18mp 1DX's image versus an 18mp 7D's image. Same megapixel count, different sensor size. We're not talking about high ISO comparisons, because we already know that FF will have the edge there. We're just talking about detail at the normal (eg, lower) ISO speeds. I think it's doubtful that there will be much difference in the amount of detail captured between the 18mp FF 1DX vs the 18mp APS-C 7D.
sensor.
A better test of whether FF really does "capture more detail" than APS-C will be to compare an 18mp 1DX's image versus an 18mp 7D's image. Same megapixel count, different sensor size. We're not talking about high ISO comparisons, because we already know that FF will have the edge there. We're just talking about detail at the normal (eg, lower) ISO speeds. I think it's doubtful that there will be much difference in the amount of detail captured between the 18mp FF 1DX vs the 18mp APS-C 7D.
Funny enough, your own links prove you wrong, look at the numbers:
1Ds MKIII:
7D:
We see the opposite. Look at the contrast, as well, near the 24 marking, for example.
Actually, your link proves that wrong. The 5D/7D comparison is a more complex question that you think. With wide open primes, the 5D will win. With very sharp lenses stopped down, the 7D will win.
Only if there is more detail . There are several factors: the enlargement 1.6x, the lens resolution, and the pixel density. You are forgetting two out of three.
{.....}
You might not see that clearly between APS-C and FF on trees, bricks or lines, but very clearly on human's faces.
Seriously show me 7D/60D portraits shown at 100% size that is the real field to show 18mp "resolution" or 18mp grains/noises?
Here are two outdoor portrait snapshots from my 12.8mp 5D1 that I have posted in many threads to challenge 7D zealots, click 'original' size to view at 100% size.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7843305573/photos/1573239/canon-eos-5d_img_0119?inalbum=5dvsothers
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7843305573/photos/1573238/canon-eos-5d_img_3308?inalbum=5dvsothers
So far only one 7D owner showed his 7D 100% portrait and he admitted not at the level of 5D1 but contributed to 5D1 larger pixel (or less pixel density). Another one pointed me to Canon 7D official sample that show the same thing that facial textual details washed out, nothing can compare to 5D1 per-pixel level. I am still waiting to see someone else to answer this challenge. If 18mp APS-C cannot deliver decent 18mp IQ what's point of 18mp? Therefore I never crop my 60D photos more than 50% while I have no problem to show 5D1 and 1D3 photos at 100% size.
My understanding is that resolution is not the same as fine detail which is ratio of details vs noises. Canon 18mp APS-C sensor has lots more noise/grain than 12.8mp 5D1 or 10mp 1D3 sensors.
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
This thread is not about printing, please. There is another one about that. The differences, measured, are anywhere from 15% to 100% (yes!), for equivalent shots. There are differences in contrast which can be seen in lower resolution images, as well.
You are absolutely wrong about this. The difference in pixel count can only account to about 8% with a perfect lens. The measured differences (not equivalent shots) is from 15% to about 30-40%. It depends what you measure, of course. Here is a more technical description:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&message=39087561
Well, there are cases when the 5D captures more detail (wide open primes). You do not need to wait for the 1DX.
I think a better test will be to compare identical images from an 18mp APS-C 7D vs an 18mp FF 1DX. Not at high ISO speeds, because we obviously know that the 1DX will win out. We're talking at more standard ISO speeds. "Fine detail", or "resolution" or whatever you want to call it, I think that will be a fairer comparison. Same pixel count, different sensor size. If there is a difference, I don't think it'll be night and day. I think we'd have to look very, very closely...but in the real world, that's just not how normal people view images. Some of the things that people get so worked up over on these forums don't really translate to the real world, to the practical world...or at least not to the degree that anyone really cares. It's almost like audiophiles arguing over which speaker cables has the cleaner sound.
{.....}
T3, in one specific area that I am keep talking in many posts and so far no 7D zealots (not you) dare to answer the challenge, is close-up portraiture. 12.8mp 5D1 beats 18mp APS-C clearly in this area. Even you downsampling 7D/60D to the same 12.8mp, still no match. I have tons of 60D and 5D1 portrait photos and I know so clearly.
I am still waiting 7D/60D close-up portraits in 100% size. I have posted my two 5D1 samples and let me present again, over and over again until I can see a match.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7843305573/photos/1573239/canon-eos-5d_img_0119?inalbum=5dvsothers
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7843305573/photos/1573238/canon-eos-5d_img_3308?inalbum=5dvsothers
Also why keep narrowing to it's only matter in prints? Why I must print? I view not print 99% of my photos on monitor. How many times you view other people's photos on prints instead of on monitors?
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
I am still waiting 7D/60D close-up portraits in 100% size. I have posted my two 5D1 samples and let me present again, over and over again until I can see a match.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7843305573/photos/1573239/canon-eos-5d_img_0119?inalbum=5dvsothers
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7843305573/photos/1573238/canon-eos-5d_img_3308?inalbum=5dvsothers
Also why keep narrowing to it's only matter in prints? Why I must print? I view not print 99% of my photos on monitor. How many times you view other people's photos on prints instead of on monitors?
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
gipper51
Veteran Member
Peter,
Hey, you don't have to try and convince me. I'm shooting only FF these days, been there, done that with APS-C cameras. I'm loving FF and for what I do the advantage is there. I totally agree they produce better images within my scope of use.
That said, I find a lot of posts in these threads bordering on dillusional. Almost arguing for argument's sake.
And if you think FF is always going to produce more detail just because it's a bigger sensor, I suggest you go check DPR's studio RAW comparisions between the NEX 7 and the 5D2. If you try telling me there is more detail in the 5D2 image at ISO 100 I will know you are crazy
--
Check out the new site:
http://www.gipperich-photography.com
Or the portrait gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits
Hey, you don't have to try and convince me. I'm shooting only FF these days, been there, done that with APS-C cameras. I'm loving FF and for what I do the advantage is there. I totally agree they produce better images within my scope of use.
That said, I find a lot of posts in these threads bordering on dillusional. Almost arguing for argument's sake.
And if you think FF is always going to produce more detail just because it's a bigger sensor, I suggest you go check DPR's studio RAW comparisions between the NEX 7 and the 5D2. If you try telling me there is more detail in the 5D2 image at ISO 100 I will know you are crazy
--
Check out the new site:
http://www.gipperich-photography.com
Or the portrait gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits
I think the real problem is that people spend to much time in front of their monitors pixel peeping! LOL. That's not what real photography is about. And if we're not talking about the differences we see in print, then what is the point? If the differences are only visible at high magnification on a computer screen, then what practical difference does that make?
I shoot with a 5D and 60D. As far as I'm concerned, the images are interchangeable. Generally, the content of the image will make a much bigger difference than any differences that can be seen at the pixel level. I've made enlargements from the 5D, and I've made enlargements from the 60D. Both look great and produce excellent results. I've never had a print that just screams out at me: 5D produces so much better quality!
I think we have to get back to the practical world of photography, rather than getting so obsessive about the minute, pixel-level differences. If you go back and look at some of the best digital images taken over the last few years, I'm sure many of these stunning images look like crud at the pixel level. http://bop.nppa.org/archive.html
I shoot with a 5D and 60D. As far as I'm concerned, the images are interchangeable. Generally, the content of the image will make a much bigger difference than any differences that can be seen at the pixel level. I've made enlargements from the 5D, and I've made enlargements from the 60D. Both look great and produce excellent results. I've never had a print that just screams out at me: 5D produces so much better quality!
I think we have to get back to the practical world of photography, rather than getting so obsessive about the minute, pixel-level differences. If you go back and look at some of the best digital images taken over the last few years, I'm sure many of these stunning images look like crud at the pixel level. http://bop.nppa.org/archive.html
I don't get this logic, what 1DX matters to my portrait photos? In one specific area, portraiture I know 60D is not good as I can see clear grains on faces in close-up shots even at base ISO 100. 5D1 and 1D3 are noticeable better and cleaner. I use my 60D in many other areas that I appreciate its small/light body and 1.6x effective extra reach that is much needed in zoo for example. But I don't use it in studio portraits because of that. Like most I just pickup whatever the best camera in my possession for respective work and 60D is not for serious portraits, period despite I used it most these days.
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
{.....}
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
I think that's the problem. People spend too much time pixel peeping images on their monitor. I guess it serves a purpose: to prove a point that there is a difference, if you view them under those conditions. But is that what photography is really about? Is anyone ever going to see the difference outside of those conditions?
you keep mentioning 7d...
get an 18 mpxl $500 T2i instead -- no IQ difference with the 7d
Sony for years has done well at this - and the zeiss lenses are really nice for this
but what some are missing is that great shots are not 2 dimensional with equal iso100 light. The great shots many times have 3 diminsional look and shadows in the scene. This is where the 1dx with TS L glass will be better with these shots than anything you could put on a T2i when the size gets large enough to see these shadows in the scenes that have these shadows
get an 18 mpxl $500 T2i instead -- no IQ difference with the 7d
Sony for years has done well at this - and the zeiss lenses are really nice for this
but what some are missing is that great shots are not 2 dimensional with equal iso100 light. The great shots many times have 3 diminsional look and shadows in the scene. This is where the 1dx with TS L glass will be better with these shots than anything you could put on a T2i when the size gets large enough to see these shadows in the scenes that have these shadows
A
Apewithacamera
Guest
That's a good point.
Ershotz -
Well-known member
I'm not sure if you know what your looking at it is clear on the images below that the 1ds mark iii out resolves the 7d hands down are you blind? look at the chroma noise in the 7D!!!!!!! there is even more chroma noise in the 7D vs the 5D and as for the image smudge on the 5D test there is something wrong here?
larger photosites gather more light, more tonality in an image more shades of grey, wide-angle work best for landscape photography , shallow depth of field, better viewfinder brightness, higher dynamic range better blacks and better whites, no lens factors, higher resolution, less iso noise, ability to crop, ability to use smaller apertures, larger sensors =less enlargement = better print detail, and more!!!
ershotz
larger photosites gather more light, more tonality in an image more shades of grey, wide-angle work best for landscape photography , shallow depth of field, better viewfinder brightness, higher dynamic range better blacks and better whites, no lens factors, higher resolution, less iso noise, ability to crop, ability to use smaller apertures, larger sensors =less enlargement = better print detail, and more!!!
--A larger sensor, in and of itself, does not produce more detail. And the only real proof is controlled lab tests.
1Ds MKIII:
5D:
7D:
1Ds MKIII:
5D:
7D:
As you can see, the level of detail has more to do with megapixels than the size of the sensor. The 5D, which has only 12mp, doesn't resolve as much detail as the 7D which has 18mp, even though the 5D has a larger sensor. Therefore, just having a larger sensor does not produce more detail. And the APS-C 7D is neck and neck with the FF 1Ds MKIII. In real world viewing, you'd never be able to discern any difference in how much detail is produced.
I shoot with a 5D and a 60D, and the 60D wins for detail simply because its 18mp sensor out-muscles the 5D's 12mp sensor. You have more pixels per unit of space, therefore you can record more detail for that given space. There's no hocus-pocus here.
ershotz
If you're seeing "clear grains on faces..even at base ISO 100" from a 60D, there's probably something wrong with your camera. Between a 5D, 60D, 7D, or 1D MKIII, there shouldn't be any difference at base ISO 100, let alone "noticeably better and cleaner." I think you may be blowing any differences way out of proportion.
Why you get 18mp APS-C? 10mp 40D can print very well. On that logic, 18mp (or 16mp) M43 make no much difference when print to certain size and that size is only matters to you. Then why not Nikon 1 or even G12 as either one can print and satisfy someone to a certain size? Do you know how many or even if any top magazines and studios use APS-C in their work? Do they waste money if you cannot tell difference in that print size?
I actually can see noticeable difference between my 60D and 5D1 photos when view more than 2000 pixel wide on my 24" monitor. Everyone has different expectation and satisfaction level.
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
I actually can see noticeable difference between my 60D and 5D1 photos when view more than 2000 pixel wide on my 24" monitor. Everyone has different expectation and satisfaction level.
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
Do you mind to show us your 60D 100% close-up portrait photos? My 60D and lens have no problems and I have posted many 60D photos in other areas that you much have seen.
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
I think people spend a little too much time sweating the minutiae and getting worked up about things. Both APS-C and FF each have their pros and cons. Yes, there are differences, but not all these differences make as big of a difference in real world, practical photography is people like to think. In the real world, none of these differences are likely to ever make you lose a sale or lose a client. It's just something that forum fans love to obsess about...as we are clearly doing here! LOL.
Ershotz -
Well-known member
if they never sold any half frame or aps-c format sensors in cameras, then all the millions of the cameras that sold as crop sensors would have all been full frame sensors, and they would now be selling at the same price for the smaller sensors but we always give them a chance to build cheaper versions of things and we always buy them and advancements are slow as the case for beta vs vhs!
--
ershotz
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum