Reading mode: Light Dark

6D + 17TSE vs D800 + 14-24 + PS6 pc

Go to last post
E

Ed Rizk

Veteran Member
Messages
3,106
Solutions
1
Reaction score
1,673
Location
Houston, TX, US
One of the two has to be the ultimate architectural set up, short of a view camera with a lot of film and a lot of time. After the loss of pixels to software based correction, would the D800 yield a better or worse image than the 6D with the lens based correction, assuming a large correction is required? Many buildings are so close to obstructions that you would have to lose half or more of your pixels at the top of the image to correct the perspective.

If that's the only consideration, the 36 mp of the D800 would easily equal or better the 6D with the 17, but there could be other degrading factors in the software.

Would there be any visible problems with a small amount of correction in PS6?

With one or two more FF lenses, the difference in body prices is 12-18%, so the two compete heads up on price, although the reliability and service factors remain in my mind.

Thank you in advance for your answers and opinions.
 
Ed Rizk said:
Ed Rizk wrote:

One of the two has to be the ultimate architectural set up, short of a view camera with a lot of film and a lot of time. After the loss of pixels to software based correction, would the D800 yield a better or worse image than the 6D with the lens based correction, assuming a large correction is required? Many buildings are so close to obstructions that you would have to lose half or more of your pixels at the top of the image to correct the perspective.

If that's the only consideration, the 36 mp of the D800 would easily equal or better the 6D with the 17, but there could be other degrading factors in the software.

Would there be any visible problems with a small amount of correction in PS6?

With one or two more FF lenses, the difference in body prices is 12-18%, so the two compete heads up on price, although the reliability and service factors remain in my mind.

Thank you in advance for your answers and opinions.
Click to expand...
 
Ed Rizk said:
Ed Rizk wrote:
Ed Rizk said:
Press Correspondent wrote:

Although the original images seems to be gone already, you may still find this thread interesting:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/41701829
Click to expand...
Thanks, Press.

Just when you think you have an original question,...

--
Ed Rizk
Click to expand...
:-)




You may find this helpful too




Paper values are worth almost nothing.

D800E plus 14-24 at 14 mm f/8.0 cs 5D II with TS-E 17 four frames stitchend and then cut to the same FOV as the 14 mm on the nikon - also at f/8.0 - both images optimized and sharpened - Nikkor 120 and Canon 80 in LR

D800E plus 14-24 at 14 mm f/8.0 cs 5D II with TS-E 17 four frames stitchend and then cut to the same FOV as the 14 mm on the nikon - also at f/8.0 - both images optimized and sharpened - Nikkor 120 and Canon 80 in LR

not the result some might expect though and very bad for the brand fetishists :-)




Currently Canon has IMHO best setup for architecture - in fact it's the TS-E 17 and 24 II lenses that make the Canon toolchain look that good - lesser the sensor - but the sensor is anyhow overrated IMHO




--
__________________________________
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
 
joger said:
joger wrote:
joger said:
Ed Rizk wrote:
joger said:
Press Correspondent wrote:

Although the original images seems to be gone already, you may still find this thread interesting:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/41701829
Click to expand...
Thanks, Press.

Just when you think you have an original question,...

--
Ed Rizk
Click to expand...
:-)

You may find this helpful too

Paper values are worth almost nothing.

D800E plus 14-24 at 14 mm f/8.0 cs 5D II with TS-E 17 four frames stitchend and then cut to the same FOV as the 14 mm on the nikon - also at f/8.0 - both images optimized and sharpened - Nikkor 120 and Canon 80 in LR

D800E plus 14-24 at 14 mm f/8.0 cs 5D II with TS-E 17 four frames stitchend and then cut to the same FOV as the 14 mm on the nikon - also at f/8.0 - both images optimized and sharpened - Nikkor 120 and Canon 80 in LR

not the result some might expect though and very bad for the brand fetishists :-)
Click to expand...
Why the high tonal contrast on the Canon shot (accentuating sharpness and the appearance of the image in general) and the opposite, low contrast, treatment of the Nikon image?

Honestly, I never find your comparisons particularly convincing, precisely because of obvious biasing in the way you present them, such as we see here. (and I'm not alone)

Pity - because what you are trying to point out would be just as obvious if you'd treated the images more equally.
joger said:
Currently Canon has IMHO best setup for architecture - in fact it's the TS-E 17 and 24 II lenses that make the Canon toolchain look that good - lesser the sensor - but the sensor is anyhow overrated IMHO
Click to expand...
Having said what I did above, I totally agree with your conclusions. Hehe. :-)
 
schmegg said:
schmegg wrote:
schmegg said:
joger wrote:
schmegg said:
Ed Rizk wrote:
schmegg said:
Press Correspondent wrote:

Although the original images seems to be gone already, you may still find this thread interesting:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/41701829
Click to expand...
Thanks, Press.

Just when you think you have an original question,...

--
Ed Rizk
Click to expand...
:-)

You may find this helpful too

Paper values are worth almost nothing.

D800E plus 14-24 at 14 mm f/8.0 cs 5D II with TS-E 17 four frames stitchend and then cut to the same FOV as the 14 mm on the nikon - also at f/8.0 - both images optimized and sharpened - Nikkor 120 and Canon 80 in LR

D800E plus 14-24 at 14 mm f/8.0 cs 5D II with TS-E 17 four frames stitchend and then cut to the same FOV as the 14 mm on the nikon - also at f/8.0 - both images optimized and sharpened - Nikkor 120 and Canon 80 in LR

not the result some might expect though and very bad for the brand fetishists :-)
Click to expand...
Why the high tonal contrast on the Canon shot (accentuating sharpness and the appearance of the image in general) and the opposite, low contrast, treatment of the Nikon image?

Honestly, I never find your comparisons particularly convincing, precisely because of obvious biasing in the way you present them, such as we see here. (and I'm not alone)

Pity - because what you are trying to point out would be just as obvious if you'd treated the images more equally.
schmegg said:
Currently Canon has IMHO best setup for architecture - in fact it's the TS-E 17 and 24 II lenses that make the Canon toolchain look that good - lesser the sensor - but the sensor is anyhow overrated IMHO
Click to expand...
Having said what I did above, I totally agree with your conclusions. Hehe. :-)
Click to expand...
oh - I am not biased at all - I might be a bit lazy and imprecise from time to time though :-)




I'd buy a D800E plus a Nikkor lens if it would suit my needs better - I was using Nikon for more then 20 years but nikon just don't deliver the best gear for my needs any more. I#ve reworked the exposure on the above image and adapted the tone curve a bit - hope this suits your needs more?

14-24vsTS-E17.jpg


but I guess you will find again something to criticize - no problem with that - I simply post what I find interesting - and a 5D II with a TS-E 17 beating a brand new D800E with Nikkor lenses is a very interesting finding - that many others confirmed in the meantime - I am not biased at all - if at all I would be biased towards quality rather then brands - I'd buy a Nikon in a heartbeat and sell my Canon gear if I would find a better wide angle and tele lens at Nikon - it's all about the lenses - will get my hands on the new Schneider-Kreuznach tilt and shift lenses hopefully in Q1 2013

--
__________________________________
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
 
joger said:
joger wrote:

14-24vsTS-E17.jpg


but I guess you will find again something to criticize
Click to expand...
No - not at all. That's a much better comparison. :-)

And I only 'criticised' the previous version because I simply thought it looked like a comparison that was 'designed' to show a greater difference than what would actually be the case.

Comparisons like that often cause trouble - inciting owners of the camera that has been, intentionally or not, made to look worse than they know it actually would, to start arguments.

I doubt anyone using a D800 (and attempting what you have done in this comparison) would have processed their image the way you portrayed it in the original comparison.

I agree with your conclusions - and I'm glad you reposted the comparison to show the difference in a more realistic sense (though you could still go further with the D800 image I think - it still doesn't look to me like it has received the same treatment as the 5D image).
 
schmegg said:
schmegg wrote:

. . . I agree with your conclusions - and I'm glad you reposted the comparison to show the difference in a more realistic sense (though you could still go further with the D800 image I think - it still doesn't look to me like it has received the same treatment as the 5D image).
Click to expand...



It has the same treatment but I am not a D800E file treatment specialist and there might be a bit here and there possible but I am sure I am not the best 5D II file tweaker as well ;-)




I've not seen this kind of comparison somewhere else and I am pretty sure most of the highly praised products don't look that good necessarily when you compare them to other nice products.




I guess we are at a point where new gear doesn't necessarily outperform existing equipment in all possible cases.




Thus everyone should invest some time to compare the short listed potential new toys before praising/hyping the own purchases too much - I can understand though why people love their new toys and fight for them ;-)




I am happy to rework my files if it helps judging the result better
 
joger said:
joger wrote:
joger said:
schmegg wrote:

. . . I agree with your conclusions - and I'm glad you reposted the comparison to show the difference in a more realistic sense (though you could still go further with the D800 image I think - it still doesn't look to me like it has received the same treatment as the 5D image).
Click to expand...
It has the same treatment but I am not a D800E file treatment specialist and there might be a bit here and there possible but I am sure I am not the best 5D II file tweaker as well ;-)

I've not seen this kind of comparison somewhere else and I am pretty sure most of the highly praised products don't look that good necessarily when you compare them to other nice products.

I guess we are at a point where new gear doesn't necessarily outperform existing equipment in all possible cases.

Thus everyone should invest some time to compare the short listed potential new toys before praising/hyping the own purchases too much - I can understand though why people love their new toys and fight for them ;-)

I am happy to rework my files if it helps judging the result better
Click to expand...
No problems joger.

They will need different treatments - for sure. Different pixel density, in my experience, do require different amounts of sharpening, for instance.

But it's a good comparison - and I appreciate you posting it - particularly the second version. I'm sure people will find it useful or at least it will get them thinking a bit more about the realities of the subject.

Is there any chance we could see the full frame shots side-by-side from each? I, for one, would be interested in that.

And... people "love their new toys and fight for them" for exactly the same reasons that you fought so hard to make us all believe that there was no practical advantage to a 5D3 over a 5D2! :-)
 
Ed Rizk said:
If that's the only consideration, the 36 mp of the D800 would easily equal or better the 6D with the 17, but there could be other degrading factors in the software.

Would there be any visible problems with a small amount of correction in PS6?
Click to expand...

It'll really depend on the amount of correction angle you need in PS whether the optical correction with less MP + TSE is better or not. Unfortunately, you easily can estimate the increasing factors in the pixel numbers of the picture frame sides if you correct a typical motif in PS. But the potential softness of the lens in the corners may be the true limiting factor...

Personally I'd always base my decision on the lens, not on the camera, as you gonna keep lens but replace the DSLR after a while. The TSE 17 is a really outstanding lens, as all reviews say (I use a nice Zeiss 18/3.5 for landscape/cityscape but still think about upgrading to the TSE). To my knowledge you can't get currently anything with equal optical quality for a Nikon. Plus, if Canon really comes next year with a 40 MP DSLR as e.g. canonrumours.com frequently states, the game will anyway be changed again, and you may make up your mind for a replacement of your 6D ;-)...
 
joger said:
joger wrote:
joger said:
Ed Rizk wrote:
joger said:
Press Correspondent wrote:

Although the original images seems to be gone already, you may still find this thread interesting:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/41701829
Click to expand...
Thanks, Press.

Just when you think you have an original question,...

--
Ed Rizk
Click to expand...
:-)

You may find this helpful too

Paper values are worth almost nothing.

D800E plus 14-24 at 14 mm f/8.0 cs 5D II with TS-E 17 four frames stitchend and then cut to the same FOV as the 14 mm on the nikon - also at f/8.0 - both images optimized and sharpened - Nikkor 120 and Canon 80 in LR

D800E plus 14-24 at 14 mm f/8.0 cs 5D II with TS-E 17 four frames stitchend and then cut to the same FOV as the 14 mm on the nikon - also at f/8.0 - both images optimized and sharpened - Nikkor 120 and Canon 80 in LR

not the result some might expect though and very bad for the brand fetishists :-)

Currently Canon has IMHO best setup for architecture - in fact it's the TS-E 17 and 24 II lenses that make the Canon toolchain look that good - lesser the sensor - but the sensor is anyhow overrated IMHO

--
__________________________________
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
Click to expand...
What was the final pixel count for the 4-frame stitched Canon shot?
 
joger, I really enjoy your posts and your tests that everyone else could duplicate. I have seen some photos from 14-24/2.8G on Nikon cameras that are very sharp and impressive in center but not that impressive in edges/corners. Canon 17 TS-E is the best in architecture. I will get it soon and will sell my 24 TS-E once I also have Canon 24-70L II. I realize 17 TS-E will be more useful to me.
 
schmegg said:
schmegg wrote:
schmegg said:
joger wrote:
schmegg said:
schmegg wrote:

. . . I agree with your conclusions - and I'm glad you reposted the comparison to show the difference in a more realistic sense (though you could still go further with the D800 image I think - it still doesn't look to me like it has received the same treatment as the 5D image).
Click to expand...
It has the same treatment but I am not a D800E file treatment specialist and there might be a bit here and there possible but I am sure I am not the best 5D II file tweaker as well ;-)

I've not seen this kind of comparison somewhere else and I am pretty sure most of the highly praised products don't look that good necessarily when you compare them to other nice products.

I guess we are at a point where new gear doesn't necessarily outperform existing equipment in all possible cases.

Thus everyone should invest some time to compare the short listed potential new toys before praising/hyping the own purchases too much - I can understand though why people love their new toys and fight for them ;-)

I am happy to rework my files if it helps judging the result better
Click to expand...
No problems joger.

They will need different treatments - for sure. Different pixel density, in my experience, do require different amounts of sharpening, for instance.

But it's a good comparison - and I appreciate you posting it - particularly the second version. I'm sure people will find it useful or at least it will get them thinking a bit more about the realities of the subject.

Is there any chance we could see the full frame shots side-by-side from each? I, for one, would be interested in that.

And... people "love their new toys and fight for them" for exactly the same reasons that you fought so hard to make us all believe that there was no practical advantage to a 5D3 over a 5D2! :-)
Click to expand...
sure - you can download the two files here




I was not fighting for the 5D II vs 5D III - I was only utterly disappointed that my use case would not benefit from the new toy. But hope is ahead - a 7D II might be exactly what I am searching for!




Even though I underwhelmed by the current offering of the crop cameras it might be a nice combination to use the TS-E 17 plus a 21 or 24 MPixel crop camera with resulting 70 to 90 MPixel files - the TS-E 17 plus four frames fully shifted and stitched on crop would get an image size of virtual 43x26 mm sensor format - the sweet spot of the TS-E 17 and the equivalent of 14 mm FOV on FF




If the 7D II has a much better S/N ratio then the current 7D this would convince me. I only need ISO 100 anyhow :-)




>10 fps would be nice too - 2 fps more then the 5D II is simply a big laugh - (for me) and my 300 f/2.8 would get a very nice range boost as well - so I am waiting for Canon to bring out more DR and S/N ratio at base ISO and I might later buy a high res version with a new sensor technology too :-)
 
ilsiu said:
ilsiu wrote:
Click to expand...
ilsiu said:
What was the final pixel count for the 4-frame stitched Canon shot?
Click to expand...
roughly 50 MPixel with a virtual FOV of an 11 mm lens




uncropped file 5D II plus TS-E 17 ±60° and ±12mm fully shifted 8904x5606 pixel - beware - huge original file ;-)

uncropped file 5D II plus TS-E 17 ±60° and ±12mm fully shifted 8904x5606 pixel - beware - huge original file ;-)




--
__________________________________
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
 
joger said:
joger wrote:
joger said:
schmegg wrote:
joger said:
joger wrote:
joger said:
schmegg wrote:

. . . I agree with your conclusions - and I'm glad you reposted the comparison to show the difference in a more realistic sense (though you could still go further with the D800 image I think - it still doesn't look to me like it has received the same treatment as the 5D image).
Click to expand...
It has the same treatment but I am not a D800E file treatment specialist and there might be a bit here and there possible but I am sure I am not the best 5D II file tweaker as well ;-)

I've not seen this kind of comparison somewhere else and I am pretty sure most of the highly praised products don't look that good necessarily when you compare them to other nice products.

I guess we are at a point where new gear doesn't necessarily outperform existing equipment in all possible cases.

Thus everyone should invest some time to compare the short listed potential new toys before praising/hyping the own purchases too much - I can understand though why people love their new toys and fight for them ;-)

I am happy to rework my files if it helps judging the result better
Click to expand...
No problems joger.

They will need different treatments - for sure. Different pixel density, in my experience, do require different amounts of sharpening, for instance.

But it's a good comparison - and I appreciate you posting it - particularly the second version. I'm sure people will find it useful or at least it will get them thinking a bit more about the realities of the subject.

Is there any chance we could see the full frame shots side-by-side from each? I, for one, would be interested in that.

And... people "love their new toys and fight for them" for exactly the same reasons that you fought so hard to make us all believe that there was no practical advantage to a 5D3 over a 5D2! :-)
Click to expand...
sure - you can download the two files here
Click to expand...
Thanks! More than generous. I'm downloading now.
joger said:
I was not fighting for the 5D II vs 5D III - I was only utterly disappointed that my use case would not benefit from the new toy. But hope is ahead - a 7D II might be exactly what I am searching for!

Even though I underwhelmed by the current offering of the crop cameras it might be a nice combination to use the TS-E 17 plus a 21 or 24 MPixel crop camera with resulting 70 to 90 MPixel files - the TS-E 17 plus four frames fully shifted and stitched on crop would get an image size of virtual 43x26 mm sensor format - the sweet spot of the TS-E 17 and the equivalent of 14 mm FOV on FF

If the 7D II has a much better S/N ratio then the current 7D this would convince me. I only need ISO 100 anyhow :-)

>10 fps would be nice too - 2 fps more then the 5D II is simply a big laugh - (for me) and my 300 f/2.8 would get a very nice range boost as well - so I am waiting for Canon to bring out more DR and S/N ratio at base ISO and I might later buy a high res version with a new sensor technology too :-)
Click to expand...
Yeah - I understand. I've always been one for not jumping on every iteration that's released anyway. I've laughed in the past at times at the incongruity and fickleness of gear-freak style photographers. Some things will probably never change.

Usually though, each iteration is an improvement over the previous one. Rarely is it what people hoped it would be though. Just the way it rolls.

Main thing is, as you well know, if the tool you have does the job, then there really isn't an good reason to upgrade apart from satisfying desire. :-)
 
joger said:
joger wrote:

Currently Canon has IMHO best setup for architecture - in fact it's the TS-E 17 and 24 II lenses that make the Canon toolchain look that good - lesser the sensor - but the sensor is anyhow overrated IMHO
Click to expand...
 
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