Reading mode: Light Dark

Poll: 5D3 vs 5DX vs D800

Go to last post
thanks for the explanation.
no, it was not mchugh.

diffraction seems to be something that is discussed anyway and something depending on differnt factors, one of them the sensor size.

concerning high resolution cameras, maybe i'll change my mind when i print ultra-large. from all i have seen until now on my screen and printing only up to A4, i dont need 36mp or 45mp at all.

dont want to zoom endlessly into a photo to see all the resolution, just want pleasing IQ watching the photo itself, lets say up to A3.

well, with high res panels (merging TV and photo monitor) things might change, like the common way of presenting photos. and i might change my mind, too.
bobn2 said:
bobn2 wrote:

At a guess, your research comes from a man called McHugh, who is usually the name in the frame for spreading this twaddle.
Click to expand...
bobn2 said:
This 'diffraction limited' idea is pure tosh.
--
Bob
Click to expand...
--
e.aland
 
I don't believe Canon will release a 40MP+ 5DX camera anytime soon. I don't believe the 22MP (which is fine imo) 5D3 will have the pro features the D800 has. It's the pro features that sold me. That said, I'm sure the 5D3 will be a fine camera.
 
It seems pretty clear that X means 18 MP. So the 5D Mark III should be the high MP model.
--

 
GB, why you keep whining Canon and already prejudge 5D3 before even it get announced and tested. Why you don't jump ship and get D800 and be happy? Canon will not release a 40mp 5DX anytime soon and might still not "efficient" on your definition. Why still waiting to move to the dark side? ;)

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
Its what these forums have always been about, its just been awhile since there were any imminent Canon releases to speculate on.

Once its released the several month long parade of fault whining and user error blaming will begin its latest cycle.

Same old, same old, year after year, only the model numbers change.
Vibrio said:
but thats what this forum now seems to be about either that or the G1X point and click lol
DotCom Editor said:
I'm just a dumb guy, but I don't really see the point of comparing two highly speculative† and imaginary sets of specifications against a camera that has been announced but no one has seen or used.

†That means it's a total and spurious guess having no basis in fact whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
As a Nikon user, I cannot fathom why anyone would want to switch between Canon and Nikon or visa versa unless you're a professional photographer working for a newspaper who is paying for it. If you're a professional photographer, I have no doubt that your current camera isn't holding back your profession and I don't believe a new camera will miraculously make you better.

I don't believe the investment in a whole new set of glass would justify any switches between systems and unless you currently had a bottom of the range Canon with no investment in professional glass, any switch would be ludicrous.

Like it or not, Canon will come up with something better, and then nikon will come up with something better, and then Canon, and then Nikon. If you spend your life chasing the better camera, you're in for a roller coaster ride.
 
But for me it's an easy choice as I don't have a full frame yet, just use of a 5dII when needed. Except, I agree with a previous poster, the names are all wrong. The 5D3 sounds more like my dream of a 3D, great build, high ISO, great AF, but not excessive MP, and the 5DX rumour becomes the 5D3 - a 5D2 with high MP. If my dream becomes a reality I will be very happy!

So this begs the question, is the 5D3 rumour actually a 3D. What else would a 3D have?
 
bobn2 said:
Anyway, in the real world, the pixel size does not affect where the 'diffraction effect' starts or where the 'diffraction limit' is. 'Diffraction limited' is a term used of an optical system to mean its effect is limited by diffraction, rather than any aberrations. The characteristics of the electronic system that you put behind that optical system does not change the diffraction limit. Not convinced? Here is some evidence.

Lets look at the lens test results from the same lens, the 24-70/2.8 at 50mm, DxOmark.com on the 5D (12.8MP) and the 1DsIII (21MP). I've plotted the MTF50 scores for the two.





So, somewhere on here is supposed to be a 'diffraction limit' where the 1DsIII falls off a cliff but the 5D doesn't. There isn't, is there? In fact the point where diffraction starts to dominate aberrations (the curve starts falling) is the same on both (f/5.6) and al all f-numbers the 1DsIII resolves better.
Click to expand...
When people claim to see diffraction limitations on smaller pixel pitch cameras, the only thing they can see is a somewhat steeper slope of the resolution from the optimum aperture down to small apertures. On this example, the slope from f/5.6 down to f/11 is about three for the 1DsIII and about two for the 5D. Thus, if your 'criterion' for 'diffraction-limit' is when the resolution drops by x% from the maximum peak, you will reach this limit earlier with smaller pixels.

In short, higher-resolution sensors measure the performance difference between optimal aperture (and optimal point in the image, or 'optimal', ie, best, lens) and 'lesser' apertures (and lesser lenses) more accurately and that more of information seems upsetting to some people.
 
Great Bustard said:
Assuming you have a burning need/desire to upgrade, what would you do?
  • Buy the 5D3
  • Switch systems and buy the D800
  • Wait until November to see what happens, then decide between the 5D3, 5DX (if such a camera is made), and D800 at that time.
Please write "5D3", "D800", or "Wait and see" in the subject line, with explanation in the body.
Click to expand...
I have a D800E on pre-order with B&H. My 5DmkII went from gathering dust, superseded by my Fuji X100 and Leica M9, to being my primary camera again.

The reason why? A freshly minted baby daughter. I need fast AF, and the 5DmkII's is not fast or reliable enough.

I don't care for the higher resolution in the D800E (although the option for no AA filter is great to have), but the chief draw is the D4's AF engine. I'd rather not switch to Nikon as the new 24-70 f/2.8L looks like an amazing optic, but the 1DX is just too heavy and I have grown skeptical about Canon's ability to deliver non-buggy AF anytime soon.
--
Fazal Majid ( http://www.majid.info )
 
noirdesir said:
bobn2 said:
Anyway, in the real world, the pixel size does not affect where the 'diffraction effect' starts or where the 'diffraction limit' is. 'Diffraction limited' is a term used of an optical system to mean its effect is limited by diffraction, rather than any aberrations. The characteristics of the electronic system that you put behind that optical system does not change the diffraction limit. Not convinced? Here is some evidence.

Lets look at the lens test results from the same lens, the 24-70/2.8 at 50mm, DxOmark.com on the 5D (12.8MP) and the 1DsIII (21MP). I've plotted the MTF50 scores for the two.





So, somewhere on here is supposed to be a 'diffraction limit' where the 1DsIII falls off a cliff but the 5D doesn't. There isn't, is there? In fact the point where diffraction starts to dominate aberrations (the curve starts falling) is the same on both (f/5.6) and al all f-numbers the 1DsIII resolves better.
Click to expand...
When people claim to see diffraction limitations on smaller pixel pitch cameras, the only thing they can see is a somewhat steeper slope of the resolution from the optimum aperture down to small apertures. On this example, the slope from f/5.6 down to f/11 is about three for the 1DsIII and about two for the 5D. Thus, if your 'criterion' for 'diffraction-limit' is when the resolution drops by x% from the maximum peak, you will reach this limit earlier with smaller pixels.

In short, higher-resolution sensors measure the performance difference between optimal aperture (and optimal point in the image, or 'optimal', ie, best, lens) and 'lesser' apertures (and lesser lenses) more accurately and that more of information seems upsetting to some people.
Click to expand...
...people feel that what happens with a single pixel is representative for what happens for the entire photo, and are blissfully unaware that it is not one 1x1 pixel vs 1 2x2 pixel, but four 1x1 pixels vs one 2x2 pixel.
 
I'd likely go for a high MP body(D800E or potential 5DX) if I were to upgrade to FF and if the lenses could handle it BUT I'd expect better performance than the 7D given 3 years of tech improvements.

I do think the rumoured 5D spilt would be the correct path for Canon and more sucessful than the spilt 1D line. Ultimately a high megapixel body is going to be a "cheap version of MF" so it makes sense to price it well below any MF options unlike the 1Ds mk3 and D3x.
 
Yes I agree,I was shooting with high quality zooms, then started using primes,wow what a differance, it has alot todo with the glass! Iwas even thinking aboutthe schider 50 mm tilt shift.
jayson craig said:
Why do you want to run high MP and lesser quality glass? Personally id rather go the other route.

--
Click to expand...
--
ershotz
 
Well, I have invested so much in canon glass to go to Nikon.
THe 5D II is probably pound per pound the best camera out there for a long time.

It allowed for the film industry to evolve in so many ways. Noise control is great and at a bargain price all else considering.

The D800 definitely looks great on paper and I am sure it will be a wonderful camera
Either systems will be fine but I would say canon has the advantage on the glass

I have a 7D now and when the 5DIII/X comes out I will wait for the market to cool down after its launch to get it.

I think canon has the DSLR video department covered but we will see how it will fair against the D800 with image quality on the stills.

I think the resolution will be higher than 22mp but not as high as the D800.

AF and fps will be superior on the nikon and noise will be better on the 5D because of the lower resolution.
 
Shockwave said:
As a Nikon user, I cannot fathom why anyone would want to switch between Canon and Nikon or visa versa unless you're a professional photographer working for a newspaper who is paying for it. If you're a professional photographer, I have no doubt that your current camera isn't holding back your profession and I don't believe a new camera will miraculously make you better.

I don't believe the investment in a whole new set of glass would justify any switches between systems and unless you currently had a bottom of the range Canon with no investment in professional glass, any switch would be ludicrous.

Like it or not, Canon will come up with something better, and then nikon will come up with something better, and then Canon, and then Nikon. If you spend your life chasing the better camera, you're in for a roller coaster ride.
Click to expand...
I totally agree, its just not sensible to waste away your money unless someone else is paying for it. Those pros whom work for themselves would not switch unless its absolutely necessary.
 
I waited and only paid $1200 for my 5dc with a brand new shutter

obsess over this stuff and you'll pay too much
 
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