Resolution test, between crop (18MP) and fullframe (12.8MP)

Started Mar 12, 2013 | Discussions thread
qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Maybe you are not cut out to be a landscape photographer

Great Bustard wrote:

Rick Knepper wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

...and it clearly shows that the 60D havi more rez than the 5D.

I, too, see more details in the 60D photo, on the whole, but the differences are insignificant to me.

Maybe you are not cut out to be a landscape photographer.

Funny you should say that, as I was pointing out the differences between f/8 and f/16, due to diffraction softening, to someone who is a landscape photographer:

if you talking about diffraction then 5D has a clear advantage and can shoot at ISO 50 to slow down waterfall for example such as

how 60D can handle that, and the details and clarity at 100% cropped in shadow (that I am asking OP to do a test)

ISO 50, F22 w/o using any filters at 100% cropped

The differences are enough for those with practiced critical viewing.

"Enough" for what, though? It's not like I could not see any difference, but rather that any differences between the two, in terms of resolution, was insignificant for me:

with the best of the best lens such as 24-70L II, yes as DXOMark shows that they basically in statistically tired.

I, too, see more details in the 60D photo, on the whole, but the differences are insignificant to me.

Not really as others point out.  OP should make the same size output otherwise someone will get illusion that bigger is better.

I assume, then, that your opinion differs, and that the differences in resolution are significant? Myself, even the smallest differences between the scenes themselves would lead me to choose one over the other, not the resolution itself, nor would I pay more for the 60D photo than the 5D photo, were I so inclined to puchase the photo, given that the scenes were exactly the same.

But, perhaps you are right, and I am not only "not cut out to be a landscape photographer" but not even cut out to purchase a landscape.

agreed that either camera can generate good photos. I know as I own both and I generated some phtoos that are not bad all from each of them.

Even tiny detail in a landscape helps with the perception of reality which you should know is difficult to obtain in a photograph in the first place.

I'm all for capturing as much detail as possible. May I remind you:

not to mention that I am a huge advocate of as many pixels as I can get, a fan of larger formats, and a fan of the best lenses I can afford.

I am a fan of big sensor, bigger is better provided I can afford and can carry (if I am a superman for example, lol). but yield to reality for a compromise, therefore I also bought 60d after 5D, 1D3 for backup and for casual usage such as in Disney, hehe.

All that said, I also recognize that it is the scene itself, far more than the IQ of the photo, that is almost always, if not always, the primary determinant of the value of the photo. That is, I would feel no shame printing a photo from my 8 MP 20D (1.6x) at 20x30 inches and displaying it alongside a photo from my 20 MP 6D (FF) printed at 20x30 inches.

agreed. if you only print upto 20x30" then you will not find much advantage from D800 over your 6D just from perspective of resolution, but you will find it prints better and look better than your XXD/XXXD/7D if you had one.

And yet, I own a 6D rather than a 20D all the same, for all the advantages that 20 MP has over 8 MP and all the advantages FF has over 1.6x.

Absolutely. but I thought you should own D800 or EM-5, I know I know reality

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow