"noticeably" ?
Are you using great glass like the 35 f2 IS on SL1 which scores 14 Mpix?
Are you pixel peeping or printing greater than 20x30?
Care to show a comparison?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
I’ve sold all my mirrorless gear, and gone back to Canon
- Thread starter walkaround
- Start date
Are you using great glass like the 35 f2 IS on SL1 which scores 14 Mpix?
Are you pixel peeping or printing greater than 20x30?
Care to show a comparison?
I use the 35 f2 IS, 40/2.8 STM, 70-200 f4L IS, 70-200 f2.8L IS, 300 f4L, 24-105 f4L IS, and 100 f2.8L IS macro with both my SL1, and A6000. I also use several Canon FD and Minolta MD/MC legacy lenses with my A6000 which I can't use with the SL1.
With each lens the A6000 produces better IQ than with the SL1. I don't pay much attention to DXO scores, I just select which looks better.
I document artifacts, images, and digitally restore prints in the museum's collection including very large panoramas (as long as 10+ feet in length) from the early 1900's some of which have been subsequently been printed 6 feet in length for display, but they could be printed larger. Some have been published in books by a local author. There are also some photos of groups involved at times but that's rare.
Not really, that's not my thing.
Last edited:
well, I've been around forever in digital. You might not want to hear this, but here goes:
the 24-105 f4L IS is a full frame lens. It stinks on a crop body. Why on earth would you have FF glass for SL1?
I would not use your 70-200 f4L IS, your 70-200 F2.8 L IS, your 300 f4 L on my SL1 unless it were an emergency backup situation. Why on earth do you have this glass? did you have another canon body?
Then the Nikon d810 is you're better answer. Of course the 7d2 is not the best tool for this. But the 7d2 will do worlds better with that long L glass you have when you use that glass as it was meant to be used - 7d2 + aiservo. You ever had an action canon dslr? Aiservo rocks with those long lenses when you have an action camera
I do some art replication. No need for a 7d2 for that. So why are you here?
Because L lenses actually work better for what I do. Especially regarding edge effects on a FF vs crop. Crop simply works better for what I do. My usual procedure is to make exposures of parts of the print and stitch them in PS to yield a very high resolution image. I find APS-C works better for this.
Tried the 5D3 and went back to the crop sensor and the A6000 is better than the SL1 which in turn was better than the 7D I borrowed to try before I purchased the SL1.
Not really,not a fan of Nikon lenses, too many issues at the edges for what I do.
Don't have a need for it, I rarely use AF anymore.
I feel like it. This is the Canon APS-C board and I use Canon APS-C but only as backup now. And this thread involves a discussion of mirrorless and DSLR gear transitions which I've made. Have you made such a transition, if not, why are you here?
Last edited:
walkaround
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,551
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 2,895
I’m sorry, but this is all in your head. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to even tell FF from APS-C in most shootting conditions these days. What may be “noticeable” is jpeg processing, auto white balance, metering, etc. And without evidence, ie. sample photos, it didn’t happen.
While it’s hyperbolic to call the NEX cameras “toys”, for people who use more than the couple of primes Sony sells, it’s not yet become a viable system.
Last edited:
photog7320
Senior Member
Online tests show no significant difference. So it's not up to him to try it, it's up to you to prove it.
Put another way: RAWs or it didn't happen.
stitching can be a good way to get increased resolution for your application but:
- suggest you study system resolution (body + glass)
- eg, your 300 f4 IS only gets an 8 MPix on SL1
- Your 70-200 f4 IS is the best of the long zoom resolving bunch you have so I'm not understanding the 70-200 f2.8 IS you have which is weaker resolving and the huge overlap you have with this long L glass for art replication.
- at dxo mark, the great sony 55 CZ lens on A7R or d810 scores 29 MPix. Put it on the A6000 and note it drops to 15 MPix. Yikes - huge loss in resolving line pairs - your application. Put the 35 f2 IS on the 70d or 7d2 and ir resolves 14 Mpix on 70d and I'm predicting 14 or 15 MPix on the 7d2. This is resolving power and perception that your sony A6000 loses with one of the best CZ lenses in the world.
- I'd sure re-invent my system if I had your art replication application - and sell some of that overlap L glass.
- btw - zooms like your 24-105 lose the resolution luster - sigma primes 35, 50 are ruling these days.
7d or 7d2? SL1 is better than 7d for resolution because Canon has tweaked the 18 mpxl sensor over time. But 7d2 is better than SL1 and is noted to be one of the best crop cameras for aquiring images - ie, 99.9% don't have the application you have - and even so, I don't think you've optimized the gear for your application with respect to the dollars spent. d810 or A7R with sony CZ 55 would be a must for me - at 29 MPix - if I were doing what you do with art. Also - btw, the 6d for $1430 does slightly better with resolution than the 5d3. When you stop down the lenses, the corners get sharp, and you get MPix in the high teens with the best primes
you can put a sony 55 CZ on it, stop down, and get 29 MPix - which blows away anything you can put on the A6000
then you are in the 0.001% of this forum for applications with your art replication - but imo your not using the right gear for that application
to put your comments into perspective (that you haven't until I did above) that your manual focus and resolution centrist application falls into 0.001% of the applications on this board that is more interested in action, event, and video photography - and that even so, imo you've chosen the wrong gear for high dollars - sony A7R + CZ 55 blows everything you have away - and certainly you can move your feet on tripod and manual live view focus
I've proved it to myself, I have no need to prove it to anyone else.
LOL...is that all you've got? More bullying demands? Another reason for me not to post anything is you'll just be blinded by your brand loyalty and refuse to see it.
There's no reason tho think anything I post will open your eyes since, given the same examples in the tests of these cameras all over the 'net that I and anyone can examine, you don't see what many others have.
Last edited:
- prove it
- it's not a fact until you prove it
- it didn't happen unless you prove it
- even if you prove an ever so slight advantage, most of the shooters want to be able to acquire images via autofocus, aiservo, glass made for system, versus you're manually focused museum views
the canon 17 and 24 TS's would help also
but again, I'd be all over the sony 55 CZ and the D810 or A7R
I know FF vs Crop and Adaptor redux
good luck with duplication with that setup. Many of us would prefer original creations with our gear, and 7d2 system is superior with original creation acquisition capability, that is a fact
I still can't figure those replicate long lenses. Wasted money. You could have had a 6d with better IQ when stopped down, less diffraction, less CA, less LoCa
For the money, you could have had the best with A7R and 55 CZ.
If it were me and that art replication application, this misappropriation of funds would not be a laughing matter
Last edited:
Considered 6D but FF demonstrated more risk of edge/corner issues with softness and CA.
A7R too expensive and FF demonstrated more risk of edge/corner issues with softness and CA.
LOL, I've had several of those lenses for years so that money was spent years ago. Are you saying the Canon lenses are inferior?
I wanted to get better imaging with a Canon body and hoped the 7D2 would be that body but found the Sony had better IQ than the Canon. Plus I can still use my Canon lenses on the A6000 thereby not wasting that investment.
As far as your worries about fiduciary responsibility, I traded some unused gear I got inexpensively in a private sale several years ago for the $600 A6000 instead of spending $1800 for a 7D2 body with inferior IQ. I would have wound up paying about $1200 for the 7D2 body with the trade so I saved $1200 and got better IQ, a tilting rear screen which comes in handy for low level macros amd over the head shots, focus peaking, and the ability to use my legacy Canon FD and Minolta MD/MC lenses with inexpensive adapters.
Works for me.
nope - less risk when stopped down by 1.6 times crop f stop to set the dof equal. also links below show less ca
sell that old long glass which is useless on the sony - then you can fund
the links below tell the story why you had better ff options. A body alone doesn't take one pic and your long glass on the sony is a waste
dxo mark shows
sony A6000 scores 15 MPix with one of the greatest lenses 55 CZ - a shame cause it scores 29 MPix on the A7R
whereas the lowly canon M with 22 mm scores 13 MPix
and the 35 f2 IS on a 6d scores 18 mpix
You can see at TDP site when you line up the M4/3 combos with the FF combos with the APC-s combos -- how sharp across the frame the FF is and how less ca there is
also you can see how sharp the sigma 35 and 50 arts are even at f2
all one needs to know is where to look and how to interpret
there were better options for your application than wasting the $600 + what - $350 for a metabones adapter
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...USM-on-Canon-EOS-6D___1252_942_989_0_1086_836
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=812&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=812&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=812&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3
Last edited:
photog7320
Senior Member
The SL1 outputs 18 MP, period, as MP is a count of the recording sensor elements on the sensor. There is no such thing as "equivalent MP" and I consider DxO claiming/reporting otherwise to be the modern equivalent of snake oil. Same with Foveon.
Line pairs per millimeter is one way to measure resolved detail, which of course varies with variations in equipment and also in scene and technique. But, all other factors being equal, there is generally little to no difference (<5%) in resolved detail between FF and crop when the sensors have the same MP, and sometimes it is the crop sensor which resolves slightly more.
There is a difference in sharpness between the formats, which one can predict by looking at any lens' MTF graph. The way this is traditionally reported, lpmm at a given contrast level, sometimes leads to the mistaken impression of a difference in resolution when it really is not. The details are there, the detail contrast is just not as high OOC. lpmm @ MTF50 on FF might equal lpmm @ MTF40 on crop (for example).
At ISOs where sharpening will not negatively impact noise, it's trivial to equalize sharpness, and doing so will generate similar numbers (lpmm for a given contrast) using the same testing software.
Again, this is snake oil nonsense. The A6000 is a 24 MP camera, the A7R is a 36 MP camera, and there's no such thing as a lens which causes them to be 29 or 15 MP cameras.
I doubt there's any human observable difference between Canon's 18 MP sensors in terms of absolute resolution (lpmm) at lower ISOs. I certainly have not noticed this with the original 7D and M. There's possibly a difference in sharpness (AA filter), though that has not stood out to me either. The 18 MP sensors did improve in terms of high ISO performance which can lead to less aggressive NR and more retained detail.
One of the more annoying aspects of DxO's snake oil use of MPix is that it makes people think there are huge differences where there are not. A debate with a friend resulted in us making 36" prints from RAW files produced with the A7R, A7, 5D3, and 70D. He predicted differences would be obvious between all four, and that the A7 (for example) would "blow away" the 70D. I predicted only the A7R would stand out. We were both surprised. Small differences were human observable in the most challenging areas of the A7R print, but otherwise there was nothing to pick the four prints apart. I will note that this was not SOOC, but we applied processing we would to any image intended for exhibition.
MF digital or stitching...with crop or FF...seems to be required to make a real jump to the human eye in print, and even then the gain is best seen in larger print sizes.
sometimes snake oil, sometimes not. you can see in the links below that on the same generation 18 mpxl canon sensor ( ie, 7d -> 60d) that the 300 f2.8 L IS, one of Canon's best resolving lenses, and of course one pays a price for this, the 300 f2.8 L IS smokes the 300 f4 L IS, even at f2.8 it is sharper than the f4 lens. This seems to deserve it's 15 MPix rating on 7d at dxo. The other point is that on the 18 mpxl 700 d the 300 f2.8 rating goes up to 17 MPix - yes canon was improving their body/lens performances in these 18 MPxl updates. Then the 300 f2.8 goes to 18 MPix on the 70d and the 300 f4 L IS goes to 9 MPix on the 70d. My $181 55-250 STM, though not f4 fully extended, even comes close to the 300 f4 L in MPix - and you can even see this at TDP link below.
Those buying the 100-400 version 1 for the 7d btw were in for only a 6 MPix - the new 7d2 and 100-400 II fixes this a bit to 11-12
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...TM-on-Canon-EOS-7D___263_619_928_619_1212_619
TDP shows line pairs
I make my comments based on not just dxo #s, but what I see in TDP visuals
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum