tc vs cropping

[carlk]

No, total pixel # and available sensor area between 20D and 5DII cropped are exactly the same. There are of course sensor technology and processor differences but contribution from them are pretty minor. I wouldn't spend 10x money to buy 5DII and end up to crop to 20D size. Matter of fact you will be much better off IQ-wise to use a 50D than crop 5DII images if you need to do that often.

You can still try to make comparison between your 5DII and your wife's 40D even you don't have 20D anymore. The extra outer area on the 5DII sensor, which is the only difference between it and the crop sensor, will not magically make the center area any better.

Which one you think is better and why?

The 5DII will produce better quality when cropped to the same output
photo size of the 20D based on the IQ improvements in the sensor, the
DIGIC 4 processor, plus the total pixels available. The 5DII is a
significant improvement over the 5D that I had and my wife's 40D. I
don't have the 10D & 20D any more, otherwise I could show you.

Some info:
"The DIGIC 4 technology uses advanced image processing algorithms to
ensure precise, natural colors, accurate white balance, and advanced
noise reduction."
I believe that the 20D is the DIGIC 2.

 

[John_A_G]

is 70-200 2.8 without TC vs. with TC.

The 70-200 2.8 performs faster than the 100-400 (and yes I have both lenses) so it isn't a good comparison. Shoot part of the soccer game with the TC and part without. There is a definite difference in IQ and focus speed in shots with the TC vs. without it on the 70-200.

 

[SullyC5R-427]

No, total pixel # and available sensor area between 20D and 5DII
cropped are exactly the same. There are of course sensor technology
and processor differences but contribution from them are pretty
minor. I wouldn't spend 10x money to buy 5DII and end up to crop to
20D size. Matter of fact you will be much better off IQ-wise to use
a 50D than crop 5DII images if you need to do that often.

You can still try to make comparison between your 5DII and your
wife's 40D even you don't have 20D anymore. The extra outer area on
the 5DII sensor, which is the only difference between it and the crop
sensor, will not magically make the center area any better.

Let me get this correct, the 20D (8.2mp) and 5DII (21.1mp) and the 1DsIII (21.1mp) which has the same sensor are the same if cropped. So the 40D (10.1mp) and 50D (15.1mp) must be superior to all three of them? There is more to the difference in the performance of the 5DII and IDsIII vs the 20, 30, 40, 50D than just pixel count. To quote the pros...

"Sensor With a size of 24 x 36mm, 21.03 million image pixels and a pixel pitch of 6.4µm square, the 5D Mark II's CMOS sensor offers the identical pixel count in a sensor that's identical in size to the full-frame EOS-1Ds Mark III. The 5D Mark II's sensor also features the same light-gathering area within each pixel (called the fill ratio) and same microlens coverage over each pixel as the company's current flagship.

To achieve what Canon is saying will be the highest image quality and lowest noise ever to emerge from a Canon EOS digital SLR, they introduced several refinements: the array of red, green and blue coloured filters over the sensor have been made more transmissive, which effectively bumps up the sensor's light sensitivity, plus they tweaked the way the sensor's signal (the light it has gathered during the exposure) is amplified and then read out."

But for me, the bottom line is in prints, especially when we (my wife and I) lay out our 8x10 or 13x19 prints side by side and all I hear is my wife commenting that she wants a 5DII.

 

[SullyC5R-427]

is 70-200 2.8 without TC vs. with TC.

The 70-200 2.8 performs faster than the 100-400 (and yes I have both
lenses) so it isn't a good comparison. Shoot part of the soccer game
with the TC and part without. There is a definite difference in IQ
and focus speed in shots with the TC vs. without it on the 70-200.

Keep in mind that I was responding to this comment...

It depends on what body you have. for example a 5D mark II can handle
cropping easily...a 20D won't hold up as well.
I only use my tc's with a 300 2.8 and the 1.4 does really well with
that. You may have different experiences with the zoom lens. I would
not recommend the 2.0x at all. AF gets slow, IQ drops, etc.

And commenting that my 70-200 with 2x works fine.

BTW here is my post...
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=31819229

--

 

[graphikal]

The 5DII will produce better quality when cropped to the same output
photo size of the 20D based on the IQ improvements in the sensor, the
DIGIC 4 processor, plus the total pixels available.

The only possible way in which it would be better would be in SLIGHTLY better high ISO noise per pixel. Digic IV doesn't matter when you shoot RAW, and the total pixels available at that crop will be THE SAME.

 

[SullyC5R-427]

The only possible way in which it would be better would be in
SLIGHTLY better high ISO noise per pixel. Digic IV doesn't matter
when you shoot RAW, and the total pixels available at that crop will
be THE SAME.

So the upgrades that Canon has made in sensor technology for the 5DII and 1dsIII is meaningless? And the images I see in my 13x19 prints that are superior to my old 5D and wife's 40D is a figment of my imagination? When you compare your 5DII large prints to your 20D...they are the same? If so, I would return your 5DII...something is wrong.

BTW here is a 5DII shot (95mm) and one cropped from it. Then one cropped from my wife's 40D shot (115mm). With her crop plus longer lens she should have an advantage in IQ.







Here is another set of 5DII shots. The second is cropped from the first.





I had posted this in another response, but there is more than just pixel count that effects IQ...

"Sensor With a size of 24 x 36mm, 21.03 million image pixels and a pixel pitch of 6.4µm square, the 5D Mark II's CMOS sensor offers the identical pixel count in a sensor that's identical in size to the full-frame EOS-1Ds Mark III. The 5D Mark II's sensor also features the same light-gathering area within each pixel (called the fill ratio) and same microlens coverage over each pixel as the company's current flagship.

To achieve what Canon is saying will be the highest image quality and lowest noise ever to emerge from a Canon EOS digital SLR, they introduced several refinements: the array of red, green and blue coloured filters over the sensor have been made more transmissive, which effectively bumps up the sensor's light sensitivity, plus they tweaked the way the sensor's signal (the light it has gathered during the exposure) is amplified and then read out."

--

 

[graphikal]

The only possible way in which it would be better would be in
SLIGHTLY better high ISO noise per pixel. Digic IV doesn't matter
when you shoot RAW, and the total pixels available at that crop will
be THE SAME.

So the upgrades that Canon has made in sensor technology for the 5DII
and 1dsIII is meaningless?

No, but they are largely in keeping per-pixel quality high while increasing the number of pixels.

And the images I see in my 13x19 prints
that are superior to my old 5D and wife's 40D is a figment of my
imagination?

You are committing numerous logic errors here. When you print a 13 x 19 or whatever else you do, you are not all the time cropping to the 1.6x crop area. If you DO crop to that area, you will not see a huge difference from the 20D because you are losing the massive resolution advantage.

And not necessarily a figment-- just you needing to justify your purchase to yourself, perhaps.

To achieve what Canon is saying will be the highest image quality and
lowest noise ever to emerge from a Canon EOS digital SLR, they
introduced several refinements: the array of red, green and blue
coloured filters over the sensor have been made more transmissive,
which effectively bumps up the sensor's light sensitivity

Yes, EVER so slightly-- in fact there's not much difference between the 5D II and the 1Ds mark III, from before that very minor tweak.

There just isn't a huge pixel-level difference. Rather, there are more pixels.

 

[SullyC5R-427]

If you can't see it...oh well.
--

 

[SullyC5R-427]

Since you choose not to see it in the photos I posted. Try this link... http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-DSLR-Digital-Camera-Review.aspx

--

 

[graphikal]

There are no pixel-level comparisons with the 20D / 30D on the page you linked.

 

[graphikal]

No, they do not demonstrate anything of the sort. I can also take a washed-out shot using any body. We don't know how you shot the photos or processed them. I can tell you that I can definitely shoot better-looking shots than that using a crop body in good light.

You are biased because you spent a bunch of money on your newest camera.

 

[SullyC5R-427]

There are no pixel-level comparisons with the 20D / 30D on the page
you linked.

I added that link so you could 'read' about the upgrades.

Plus previously I posted information that Canon made improvements..."the array of red, green and blue coloured filters over the sensor have been made more transmissive, which effectively bumps up the sensor's light sensitivity, plus they tweaked the way the sensor's signal (the light it has gathered during the exposure) is amplified and then read out." However, I doubt that you will ever believe that Canon could actually improve sensor performance over the 20D. So, I suggest you try (rent) either a 5DII or 1DsIII. Until then you have no actual personal experience.

Have a nice day!

--

 

[SullyC5R-427]

You are biased because you spent a bunch of money on your newest camera.

If believing that truly makes you feel better, then I am happy for you.

 

[mr19]

Thanks for all the advice. Took a bit to get use to the back button focus but once I got it down it was very helpful.

Pics were just OK, was distracted a bit as I had too many of my own kids to keep an eye on.

 

[Yellonet]

You are biased because you spent a bunch of money on your newest camera.

If believing that truly makes you feel better, then I am happy for you.

--

Just make a proper test and see for yourself. Mount the camera on a tripod, focus with live view to get perfect focus, take the shot, put the lens on the other camera and take the same scene with the same lens and FL. Compare images at 100%.

 

[carlk]

I have to laugh whenever I see people who spend a lot of money to buy expensive equipments (ff cameras, L lenses) and blindly thinking they will automatically be getting better results no matter what the application is. This is a typical case that someone wants to believe full frame camera will give you “better IQ” simply because he got a higher end camera, even in a case in general favors crop camera. I’ll bet you the same person will show you a small image shot in bright daylight @f8 and tell you how great IQ it has compares to a crop camera.

 

[Jan Madsen]

graphikal wrote:

BTW here is a 5DII shot (95mm) and one cropped from it. Then one
cropped from my wife's 40D shot (115mm). With her crop plus longer
lens she should have an advantage in IQ.

The 5D crop is sharpened to death, while the 40D image is shaken and could take some more sharpening, so your comparison is moot.

--

• Jan

 

[ccartertn]

Looks good. Maybe shoot vertical or at least crop it vertical - lots of dead space to left and right.

Use Zoom browser (freebie from Canon that came with your camera) every once in a while to check your focus point to make sure you're tracking your subject good.

--
http://ccartertn.smugmug.com