Reading mode: Light Dark

5D2 and 7D go surfing...

Go to last post
Daniel Lee Taylor said:
andy792 said:
Daniel Lee Taylor said:
I just posted my own. JPEG, ISO 400, no sharpening other than the camera setting being just above neutral, and it's an easy match for any of his 5D2 crops.
Click to expand...
Again, Daniel, to have a credible comparison you need to post the whole uncropped shot with a valid EXIF.
Click to expand...
Since I chose a throw away for this one, I'll go ahead and upload the whole freaking thing. (See below.) Again, I do not like to post here for various reasons.
photog7320 said:
So far, it is not clear from your posted shot whether it is a real crop or a downsized full-frame image. To take such a shot with 300mm you need to be too close, about 20m. All my shots were taken from a distance 100-150m.
Click to expand...
No, I wasn't in the water. Standing on a pier. I was closer than you, which should be evident since I said the crop was 100% yet the surfer's head is larger then the heads in your 7D shots. None the less it shows similar sharpness and surface detail to your 5D2 shots.
photog7320 said:
Also, if your can prove that your crop is about 10-12% from the uncropped image yet taken by 300mm, I will state that you are a genius photographer, one of the best of our time :).
Click to expand...
I took a 1000x1000 pixel crop, or 1 MP out of 18 MP, just under 6%. You say your crops were 1880x1410 out of 21 MP? So roughly 12%?

No need to state that I'm a genius photographer, one of the best of our time. I'm not. Just don't run around claiming a "huge" difference in IQ between the 5D2 and 7D. And I'll be happy to back you up if anyone tells you there's a "huge" difference in reach between them.
Click to expand...
It is not a full image, its size is 1600 x 1067. A full size on 7D should be something like 5184 x 3456 px. Can you post an uncropped one?

What I am saying is that there is no big difference in IQ between the 7D and the 5D2 if you compare full uncropped pictures (this is what most people do), but quite a big difference when comparing 1:1 crops. If you don't have enough reach (ex surfing pics), you have to crop a lot, that is why the 5D2 additional resolution and IQ becomes substantial.
 
Daniel Lee Taylor said:
I just posted my own. JPEG, ISO 400, no sharpening other than the camera setting being just above neutral, and it's an easy match for any of his 5D2 crops.
Click to expand...
Daniel, don't you see the difference in full size uncropped images (if yours is really uncropped :)) below? Don't you see the difference in the focal distance? Do you still want to compare the IQ of your shots taken from 20m with the shots taken from 100-150 and make a conclusion about identical IQ and resolution of two cameras?















 
Daniel Lee Taylor said:
Peter 13 said:
Daniel Lee Taylor said:
photog7320 said:
The question stays, what are the "fair" units? You don't have an answer to that, do you?
Click to expand...
Just frame the test target to fill the viewfinder vertically, shoot, and calculate the results. Don't multiply anything by physical sensor height. Physical sensor height should not be relevant.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what they do.
Click to expand...
No, it's not exactly what they do!!! Go back and read the freaking quote.
Click to expand...
Here is the full quote:

Quite simply, at any given focal length and aperture, the lens will have a fixed MTF50 profile when expressed in terms of line pairs per millimeter. In order to convert to lp/ph, we have to multiply by the sensor height (in mm); as the full-frame sensor is 1.6x larger, MTF50 should therefore be 1.6x higher.

So the software first divides by the sensor height to express the data in lp/mm (on the sensor) because there is no other way it can compute lp/mm; and then DPR multiply by the same factor.

What part of this don't you understand - the resolution can and is computed without knowledge of the sensor size. The results then can be expressed in different units. One of them is (quote) in terms of line pairs per picture height (and thus independent of format size).

Is that your best line of defense? The whole world is cheating by misrepresenting the measurements? This makes you look pretty stupid. You'd better stick to Fuzzy's line - looks the same to me, because I am blind.
 
andy792 said:
It is not a full image, its size is 1600 x 1067. A full size on 7D should be something like 5184 x 3456 px. Can you post an uncropped one?
Click to expand...
It is the full image. DPR does not display the Original size in a message. Go to my gallery, find the image, and click "Original."

While we're posting bold messages to each other: I don't see full images for any of the crops you posted in your gallery. How do I know they are 1:1 crops? Please post full images with valid EXIFs ASAP. You do not have a valid comparison until you do.
andy792 said:
What I am saying is that there is no big difference in IQ between the 7D and the 5D2 if you compare full uncropped pictures (this is what most people do), but quite a big difference when comparing 1:1 crops.
Click to expand...
The crop I posted was 100%, 1:1, actual pixels, pixel peeping...whatever you want to call it. And it stands up to anything you posted.
andy792 said:
If you don't have enough reach (ex surfing pics), you have to crop a lot, that is why the 5D2 additional resolution and IQ becomes substantial.
Click to expand...
You have this backwards. The 7D puts more pixels on target, so if you're cropping even further than APS-C the 7D wins.

As I've said before, I have 20" surfing prints from 9-10 MP 7D crops. With a 5D2 I would have been at 2-3 MP. That's simply not sufficient for the given print size. It wouldn't have worked.
 
Considering Peter doesn't even understand how DOF works, I don't expect any breakthroughs with hin here either.

In case anyone here missed it, Peter13 thinks DOF begins to shrink as diffraction increases. If he were right, pinhole cameras would have a shallow DOF!
 
Faintandfuzzy said:
Considering Peter doesn't even understand how DOF works, I don't expect any breakthroughs with hin here either.

In case anyone here missed it, Peter13 thinks DOF begins to shrink as diffraction increases. If he were right, pinhole cameras would have a shallow DOF!
Click to expand...
 
andy792 said:
Daniel, don't you see the difference in full size uncropped images (if yours is really uncropped :)) below?
Click to expand...
Don't you mean if yours are really uncropped? My original is in my gallery. Where are your originals?
andy792 said:
Don't you see the difference in the focal distance?
Click to expand...
I was closer to the subject because I was standing on a pier. Duh. The fact that I was closer should have been obvious to you when I posted the crop. It's still quite possible to judge sharpness, fine detail, and noise.
andy792 said:
Do you still want to compare the IQ of your shots taken from 20m
Click to expand...
The vertical height of the image could not possibly be less than 10ft. That would put my distance at no less than 200ft or 61m ( http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm ).

Like the other FF zealots on this forum, you're a little weasel. You will happily post comparisons with bad exposure, motion blur, etc, and use them as a basis for proclaiming the absolute superiority of FF. But let someone post something that challenges your notions and it's nitpick, nitpick, nitpick. You don't honestly judge anything you see. You just want to win a fight. (People like you are also why I do not keep a real gallery here.)

You also make accusations and demand proof without providing it yourself. I think you've protested too much about wanting an original. Now I want your originals. For each shot. With EXIF. If you shot RAW, upload the RAWs to a file sharing site for me to examine. I want to see if all your crops are really 1:1. And I want to convert the RAWs myself. You claimed to shoot RAW in this thread, but if you did I'm almost certain I could do a better conversion in ACR. Post them.
 
Peter 13 said:
What part of this don't you understand - the resolution can and is computed without knowledge of the sensor size. The results then can be expressed in different units. One of them is (quote) in terms of line pairs per picture height (and thus independent of format size).
Click to expand...
LOL! lp/ph is not independent of format size when the h = format height ;-)

I'm sorry, you're either too stubborn or too stupid to get this. I'm done trying to explain it.
Peter 13 said:
Is that your best line of defense? The whole world is cheating by misrepresenting the measurements?
Click to expand...
It's not cheating, and they're not misrepresenting anything. It's you who is misrepresenting things.
 
Daniel Lee Taylor said:
andy792 said:
It is not a full image, its size is 1600 x 1067. A full size on 7D should be something like 5184 x 3456 px. Can you post an uncropped one?
Click to expand...
It is the full image. DPR does not display the Original size in a message. Go to my gallery, find the image, and click "Original."

While we're posting bold messages to each other: I don't see full images for any of the crops you posted in your gallery. How do I know they are 1:1 crops? Please post full images with valid EXIFs ASAP. You do not have a valid comparison until you do.
Click to expand...
Sorry to ask, do you have any problems of reading and viewing my previous message with three full-size shots with all EXIFs?

I think I will stop on this, because it is wasting my time to speak with someone who doesn't want to listen and keeps tossing simple facts and statements.

Again, before I stop this conversation, do you still want to compare your shots taken from a close distance of about 20m or less with the 300mm with my shots taken from a distance of 100-150m (400mm 5.6) yet make a conclusion about the identical IQ of two these cameras? Why not to go further and compare your shots with a mobile phone from a 4m distance? The same logic :) Have a good day.
 
Faintandfuzzy said:
Considering Peter doesn't even understand how DOF works, I don't expect any breakthroughs with hin here either.

In case anyone here missed it, Peter13 thinks DOF begins to shrink as diffraction increases. If he were right, pinhole cameras would have a shallow DOF!
Click to expand...
I wonder when Peter will post a comparison between a 50 f/1.2L and a pinhole camera? I want to see that gorgeous, diffused, pinhole background blur :-P
 
andy792 said:
Daniel Lee Taylor said:
It is the full image. DPR does not display the Original size in a message. Go to my gallery, find the image, and click "Original."

While we're posting bold messages to each other: I don't see full images for any of the crops you posted in your gallery. How do I know they are 1:1 crops? Please post full images with valid EXIFs ASAP. You do not have a valid comparison until you do.
Click to expand...
Sorry to ask, do you have any problems of reading and viewing my previous message with three full-size shots with all EXIFs?
Click to expand...
In Re: OT: framing if I click your shots twice I get 1600x1200 images. Same if I go to your gallery. You'll note that my image in the gallery has an Original link which yields the original 7D JPEG. There is no Original link for your images.

5D2 images should be 5616x3744, not 1600x1200. Where are the originals?
andy792 said:
I think I will stop on this, because it is wasting my time to speak with someone who doesn't want to listen and keeps tossing simple facts and statements.
Click to expand...
So you're going to run away without providing any original samples? I wondered why you were so quick to accuse me of not providing a true 1:1 sample. Now I know: you probably didn't do this yourself. Well, you probably did for the 7D shots, but not the 5D2 shots.

Am I right? Or can you post originals?
 
Daniel Lee Taylor said:
Peter 13 said:
What part of this don't you understand - the resolution can and is computed without knowledge of the sensor size. The results then can be expressed in different units. One of them is (quote) in terms of line pairs per picture height (and thus independent of format size).
Click to expand...
LOL! lp/ph is not independent of format size when the h = format height ;-)
Click to expand...
There is no independent h here, ph=picture height . There is no format height involved here. The metric is independent of the actual picture height which in turn depends on the enlargement. Like 50 mph measures speed, regardless of how far you travel. Come on, this is elementary school material.
photog7320 said:
I'm sorry, you're either too stubborn or too stupid to get this. I'm done trying to explain it.
Click to expand...
You come as #2 on my dumbest guys list, right after Fuzzy. He is smart enough not to engage in technical discussions so I should probably reconsider your ranking. Really, such ignorance is rare. BTW, that was DPR quote, not mine.
photog7320 said:
photog7320 said:
Is that your best line of defense? The whole world is cheating by misrepresenting the measurements?
Click to expand...
It's not cheating, and they're not misrepresenting anything. It's you who is misrepresenting things.
Click to expand...
For the fifth time: what is the "right" metric?
 
Daniel Lee Taylor said:
andy792 said:
It is not a full image, its size is 1600 x 1067. A full size on 7D should be something like 5184 x 3456 px. Can you post an uncropped one?
Click to expand...
It is the full image. DPR does not display the Original size in a message. Go to my gallery, find the image, and click "Original."
Click to expand...
There is no original there. The largest one is 1600 x 1067px
photog7320 said:
As I've said before, I have 20" surfing prints from 9-10 MP 7D crops. With a 5D2 I would have been at 2-3 MP. That's simply not sufficient for the given print size. It wouldn't have worked.
Click to expand...
How do you know? Do you have the 5D2 to compare? How did you come up with 5 times less crop sizes on the 5D2? It is really so funny how people make their theoretical conclusions even not owning a camera. My conclusions are purely based on a real-life experience of shooting the same scene by two cameras, which are clearly expressed in the images I posted and further explained by the Imatest results.

This is the bottom line: if I clearly see that my 5D2 shots for that type of photography (i.e. surfing) are substantially better than the same taken by the 7D, why should I blindly repeat the myth of identical IQ of the 7D and its huge superiority for sport shots?
 
We need to enable the Allow download of originals option. I just enabled it - you can see the full size originals. Pls enable yours.
 
Daniel Lee Taylor said:
Now I know: you probably didn't do this yourself. Well, you probably did for the 7D shots, but not the 5D2 shots.
Click to expand...
Daniel, may I ask you - are you a college boy still suffering from an unbalanced state of mind? it looks as I am talking with a kid, but not an adult. If it is the case, it is quite excusable, if not - you are having some serious issues here.
 
andy792 said:
Daniel Lee Taylor said:
andy792 said:
It is not a full image, its size is 1600 x 1067. A full size on 7D should be something like 5184 x 3456 px. Can you post an uncropped one?
Click to expand...
It is the full image. DPR does not display the Original size in a message. Go to my gallery, find the image, and click "Original."
Click to expand...
There is no original there. The largest one is 1600 x 1067px
Click to expand...
Well there's nothing larger than 1600x1200 visible in your gallery either. I uploaded the original and can see it in my gallery. Maybe it's DRP that's screwed up.

Here: http://i.minus.com/iuyCrrlwUmVm6.jpg
andy792 said:
andy792 said:
As I've said before, I have 20" surfing prints from 9-10 MP 7D crops. With a 5D2 I would have been at 2-3 MP. That's simply not sufficient for the given print size. It wouldn't have worked.
Click to expand...
How do you know?
Click to expand...
Because 3 MP = around 100 ppi on a 20" print. Not good enough.
andy792 said:
My conclusions are purely based on a real-life experience of shooting the same scene by two cameras, which are clearly expressed in the images I posted and further explained by the Imatest results.
Click to expand...
You didn't shoot the same scene. There are a dozen variables other than sensor in each shot. And I know from personal experience that there is a wide variance in IQ in surfing shots when viewing at 100%, even on the same day. I dare you to shoot a still subject, identical lighting, from a tripod.
andy792 said:
This is the bottom line: if I clearly see that my 5D2 shots for that type of photography (i.e. surfing) are substantially better than the same taken by the 7D, why should I blindly repeat the myth of identical IQ of the 7D and its huge superiority for sport shots?
Click to expand...
You should try to do an honest test and not repeat any myths, including your own.

I would say there's a "huge" advantage to the 7D for sports. The AF is better and 8 fps is useful. It's there, not huge. Much like there's no "huge" advantage to 5D2 IQ.
 
andy792 said:
Daniel Lee Taylor said:
Now I know: you probably didn't do this yourself. Well, you probably did for the 7D shots, but not the 5D2 shots.
Click to expand...
Daniel, may I ask you - are you a college boy still suffering from an unbalanced state of mind?
Click to expand...
Are you? Because you were the one to start demanding a "full size image." We both missed a stupid setting in DPR and I'm willing to laugh and let that lay. But if you're going to use it as an excuse to make personal attacks for behavior which was no different from your own...then buzz off.
 
I have downloaded your picture, full size. You can go to my gallery and try Original since I enabled the d/l original option.

What I can see is that you compare apples and rabbits (not even oranges). Your shot is taken from a close distance, that's why the face details are quite good. Try to shoot the same scene from 150m and then compare the 5D2 and 7D. Perhaps then you will see the difference.

I don't know what else to say. If you want to keep repeating that the black is white, it is fine to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top