5D3 vs D800E: Diminishing Returns or Reversal of Returns?

Started Jul 19, 2013 | Discussions thread
Jay A Senior Member • Posts: 1,889
Re: Assumes

The above LL statement assumes you are looking at the entire image at once and not zoomed in to match native resolution. (100% crop, for example)

On the other hand, if someone makes judgements by viewing the results only on his monitor, he is kidding himself. Yes, SOME comparisons can be made, but there is much more that cannot.

Unless you zoom in Then very easy to make valid comparison as long as you keep things equivalent. Only think you might not be able to compare is how the images look printed on a certain paper.

Again, I think you are limiting your discussion to seeing resolution differences between two different mp files. Is that all people do when they post comparison images from two cameras?

A monitor is still a monitor. It's resolution is still lower than that of a print.

No, you can also compare CA, color, bokeh quality, etc. In this case, the primary differences are resolution and processing.

True to an extent. However, this assumes the monitor is calibrated correctly and doesn't introduce its own artifacts.

I don't think it is...if it were, then why even bother..I mean we all know a 36mp file is going to have more resolution than a 22mp file..don't we? Why bother viewing anything in that case? I think rather that when people post images and discuss differences between cameras like the D800 and the 5D MKIII, they are looking for more than just that in the images. If so, again I say a monitor is just not the right place to do so.

Not really the case at all as most images today never get printed and the primary display medium is a computer monitor (or iPad). It then only makes a certain sense (to some degree) to compare using the display medium most often used.

Just because "most images today never get printed and the primary display medium is a computer monitor or ipad" does not make this method of judgement any more valid. That's almost like judging the capabilities of a 4K television with non 4K content and then stating that "well, this is the content that most people view nowadays."

Getting back to the original post in this thread. The OP posted some downsized images comparing the 2 cameras and then made mention that he was called to task for having downsized them.

He also provided the RAW files, which many of us used for our comparison.

Which are STILL being judged on computer monitors.

The feeling was that you cannot make a proper judgement based on downsized files. Well, essentially, viewing on a computer monitor is like doing the same thing. No, it may not be downsizing the original file but yes it is essentially limiting the file to 72 ppi.

No, you can indeed view at other resolutions. My monitor, for example is not set to 72ppi

Your monitor is only capable of only so much, no matter how good a monitor it is. It will not come close to what your camera is capable of producing.

It is unfair to judge these photos like that, as they are capable of much better. On the other hand, a print will not have this limitation. It will show more flaws (and good) than a monitor can. I guess if you are satisfied with viewing differences on a monitor, it works for you...but my point is that it is only a very limited comparison that you are making and you may be missing out on much more important aspects of the file.

Not necessarily...what if you're comparing the to images printed at only 8x10 from a dot matrix printer

If you were, I would say you are making an even bigger mistake.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow