Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800 resolving power

Started Apr 4, 2013 | Discussions
A Owens Veteran Member • Posts: 3,144
Re: Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800 resolving power

Mikael Risedal wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:

Hans Kruse wrote:

See this http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Which-lenses-should-you-choose-for-your-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-vs.-Nikon-D800-Competition-is-closer-than-expected

I have both the 5D mkIII with the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II (and more) and the D800E with the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8VRII. To my eyes there is little to distinguish the resolution between the 5D III with the 70-200 and the D800E with the 70-200.

Either the Nikon 70-200 is not nearly as sharp, or the test was bungled.  There is no way that a 70-200 as sharp as Canon's 2.8L IS II would perform only as "good" as the Canon combo, especially since the D800 is the E model without an AA filter.  The Canon lens is pixel-sharp on a 7D with much smaller pixels, even with a 2x TC.

I put "good" in quotes because I think that using MPs as a unit of resolution is absurd, as is considering aliasing to be "resolution".

The d800 and d800E needs careful sharpening, the 5dmk cameras has higher internal default sharpening than Nikon

-- hide signature --

Member of Swedish Photographers Association since 1984
Canon, Hasselblad, Leica,Nikon, Linhoff, Sinar
Member of International anti-banding and read out noise Association

Really? Sharpening the Raw file?

-- hide signature --
Freeman-Jo Senior Member • Posts: 2,583
Re: Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800 resolving power

A Owens wrote:

Mikael Risedal wrote:

The d800 and d800E needs careful sharpening, the 5dmk cameras has higher internal default sharpening than Nikon

-- hide signature --

Member of Swedish Photographers Association since 1984
Canon, Hasselblad, Leica,Nikon, Linhoff, Sinar
Member of International anti-banding and read out noise Association

Really? Sharpening the Raw file?

-- hide signature --

I do not know if this is true or not that 5D3 would have already applied that's higher than the D800/E and this may sound like a surprise to your but they are not truly RAW.  Meaning the RAW file are not directly coming straight out of the sensor with nothing pre-applied.  Normally if any, maybe a small amount of sharpening and noise removal or some other type of filter applied after the read out from the sensor but before written as a RAW file.

-- hide signature --

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
If picture worth a thousand words, how many megapixel is it?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

 Freeman-Jo's gear list:Freeman-Jo's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Canon G7 X II Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III +8 more
joger
joger Veteran Member • Posts: 4,105
Re: Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800 resolving power

schmegg wrote:

If those are 100% crops then I suggest that the difference is trivial unless you intend to produce extremely large final output.

BTW - it's quite obvious you've sharpened the D800 fairly aggressively.

Yes - the D800E and the 5D III need more sharpening then the 5D II (to my experience) and that's nothing to worry about. Different camera plus lens combinations need different sharpening and correction before the final output is optimized. Fortunately workflow tools like LR or Capture one offer a very fine set of tools to do that.

I may repeat myself here but at low ISOs neither the 5D III nor the D800E produce files that are significantly perceivable better prints at sizes I normally produce (24x36 inches is a normal print size for me)

That said cropping is a nice thing and if you are able crop a bit more then the extra pixel count will surly help a lot.

Is Canon behind Nikon in terms of sensor technology - oh sure - no discussion about that. Canon lacks a high res high DR sensor design. Is Canon out of the game - surely not. The differences are only in certain situations visible and if those situations are your daily work then there is no doubt that Nikon has the better offering for the sensor.

Unfortunately it is not that easy. Since the lens selection is quit different and IMHO the lens has the biggest influence from all components.

Canon has currently some lenses where I really believe not many companies will ever come close within the coming years or even decades. Yo may use them or not but if you do Nikon has a hard time to compete even with such a significantly better sensor.

But let's come back on the sharpening - I use for many lenses in LR a sharpening of 60 to 70 for my 5D II. For the 5D III I use some 80 for the very same lens and for the D800(E) I used a setting of some 100 to 120 for the same style of images to get a similar result.

Interestingly it is nearly impossible to judge the camera from the prints except you have a high dynamic range and then the nikon files are easily to be detected. But normally you won't see a big difference.

I hope Canon is not too concentrated on their Cinema activities and works also on new sensor designs for mass production but if it takes another two years - well - if the result is on the level of their latest lenses compare to other brands i would be extremely happy.

Until then I have fun using my 5D II and seeing the results I would say I may have a point here

-- hide signature --

__________________________________
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's gear list:joger's gear list
Sony Alpha a7R II Leica APO-Telyt-M 135mm f/3.4 ASPH Sony FE 85mm F1.4 GM Sony FE 50mm F1.4 ZA Zeiss Loxia 35 +9 more
schmegg Veteran Member • Posts: 5,768
Re: Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800 resolving power

joger wrote:

Until then I have fun using my 5D II and seeing the results I would say I may have a point here

The "point" being, if you don't need the improved features of the newer cameras ... you don't need the improved features of the newer cameras! LOL!

Not really a point at all - just common sense I'd have thought.

Mike CH Veteran Member • Posts: 7,729
Re: Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800 resolving power

Hans Kruse wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:

Hans Kruse wrote:

I shoot landscapes and I don't agree. There is more resolution bur far from staggering. If you want staggering extra resolution you need to look at full frame medium format from 60MP and up.

No, you don't need medium format.  Medium format will always have the potential to be superior, with more sensor area to collect more light, but MF and FF both are wasting their sensor space now with coarse, artifacted under-sampling.

It's not clear to me what you mean by that.

I can only make it make sense if it comes from the viewpoint compare at same focal length instead of compare at same FOV.

But that's me

Regards, Mike

-- hide signature --

Wait and see...

 Mike CH's gear list:Mike CH's gear list
Canon G7 X II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM +14 more
Mikael Risedal
Mikael Risedal Veteran Member • Posts: 4,620
Re: Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800 resolving power

schmegg wrote:

Mikael Risedal wrote:

Tizzio wrote:

Hans Kruse wrote:

See this http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Which-lenses-should-you-choose-for-your-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-vs.-Nikon-D800-Competition-is-closer-than-expected

I have both the 5D mkIII with the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II (and more) and the D800E with the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8VRII. To my eyes there is little to distinguish the resolution between the 5D III with the 70-200 and the D800E with the 70-200.

I'm also shooting with a Phase One IQ160 and the resolution of the 60MP of this camera is heads and shoulders above the two DSLRs! There are no measurements of the Phase One cameras with lenses on DxO, but my feel is that the IQ160 resolves at least 50MP or more with the best lenses.

-- hide signature --

Kind regards,
Hans Kruse
Home Page -- www.hanskrusephotography.com, http://500px.com/hanskrusephotography, www.hanskrusephotography.zenfolio.com
Workshops -- www.hanskrusephotography.com/gallery/14682573_Q9mq4
Facebook Photography http://www.facebook.com/HansKrusePhotography
Workshop Newsletter signup http://eepurl.com/bA0Pj

Same as you Hans, I have the 5D3 and the D800E; I don't see major difference in resolution except one thing.... I hate the color tonality of the D800E, it looks artificial!

In the film era, Nikon reigns supreme, not anymore for their latest crop of digital cams....

Been thinking of off-loading all my Nikon gears; but not an easy task with 4 bodies and thirty some old and new nikkors that I never touched....... sad!

Try  to understand how a camera work and  which profiles are you using? how can the color tonality looks artificial when the CFA in Nikon is better than in a Canon with thinner CFA and less Colour accuracyn  than Nikon. Are yountalking about JPG out from the camera?  If you do not se any difference between a d800 and a 21-22 Mp sensor  I suggest you start to use a compact camera, they are usually good enough

This was taken today, I have no problem to se resolution difference between one of my 5dmk2 and d800,  sigma 35/1,4 + d800 and 5dmk2 together with Canon 35/1,4   and f-5,6

How about you?

If those are 100% crops then I suggest that the difference is trivial unless you intend to produce extremely large final output.

BTW - it's quite obvious you've sharpened the D800 fairly aggressively.

the sharpening is the same, trivial, what did you expect? there are some more resolution

here is the pictures again, In addition to the actual size  you can also see more details and fewer estimations errors , artifacts in the Nikon, watch the wire that can not be reproduced separated by Canons resolution

-- hide signature --

Member of Swedish Photographers Association since 1984
Canon, Hasselblad, Leica,Nikon, Linhoff, Sinar
Member of International anti-banding and read out noise Association

Mike CH Veteran Member • Posts: 7,729
Re: Don't get your meaning?

John Sheehy wrote:

Mike CH wrote:

The way I understand you, you want to compare at the same focal length for both sizes (ie. ignoring image differences due to different crop factors). To me, when taking a photograph, that comparison is of very little interest, because the framing is too different.

This is the problem with monolithic concepts; there is more than 1 type of resolution, and there is much more to any kind of resolution than a single resolution, based on a single contrast threshold.  Then there is real resolution, and aliased "resolution".

A 36MP sensor can not possibly get the real (properly sampled) resolution of more than about 4 million transient objects (luminance objects; red or blue object resolution is 1/4 of that with a Bayer CFA).  Aliasing or spatial distortion will be minor maybe up to about 12MP, but beyond that, things get a bit flaky, and flaky is what we are accustomed to looking at, because we don't get to see better, except in comparisons that most people write off as "extreme", because we don't have fine displays (but finer ones seem to be around the corner - Panasonic is coming out with an 8MP 20" tablet; that would be 32MP at 40", and 72MP at 60").

Schmegg is talking about absolute sensor surface resolution, or resolution per unit of sensor area.  Others think of resolution as resolution per sensor.  It needs to be stated or at least established in context what type of resolution one is thinking of.

I get that, no problem. It is real obvious that there are various definitions of resolution and various ways to measure said resolution.

What I don't get is, of what practical interest are those (various) measurements at all, if they don't compare at the same FOV?

So far, people have been saying, these measurements exist. Yes, thank you - I knew that

Nobody has so far (that I have seen) eyplained of what practical use they are to a photographer. They are of interest to an engineer, yes, but the practical use I have not seen explained, yet.

Regards, Mike

-- hide signature --

Wait and see...

 Mike CH's gear list:Mike CH's gear list
Canon G7 X II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM +14 more
Mike CH Veteran Member • Posts: 7,729
Re: Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800 resolving power

John Sheehy wrote:

Mike CH wrote:

Phew, thank you, Hans

For a moment I was getting a bit worried that I was the only one seeing the world that way!

There was a time when resolution was often described in lines or line pairs per millimeter.  Remember millimeter?  How confusing was that?

Yes, I do remember. No, I don't find it confusing. The problem comes when it is misrepresented or in the wrong context.

To use an analogy from somewhere else: it is quite obvious, isn't it, that a cars fuel consumption can be measured in square miles, yes?

IMO, the least-confused people are those who see the lens first, as an analog projection device with its own set of imperfections, the FOV determined by the sensor size, and then the imaging quality per unit of sensor area.  Every other way of looking at things can be extended from this, with a minimal amount of confusion.

Ehm, yes?!? So how do you get from there, in a minimal way, to a practical comparison of (whatever measure you favour of) resolution at same FOV?

And why not go there directly?

I see so many people chasing their own tales,

Yes, well some people do show canine behaviour. Does that mean that they are dogs?

starting from a position that fails to distinguish between relatives and absolutes.

Are you saying that there is no absolute measurement of resolution which can be used at the same FOV?

My practical interest is simple. Say I've taken an image with my current system of a given scene with a given composition, framing and FOV. Could I have gotten a better result IQ-wise (sharper, more detail, better colour rendition) with a different system? Measures which can't answer that question are of, at most, secondary interest to.

Regards, Mike

-- hide signature --

Wait and see...

 Mike CH's gear list:Mike CH's gear list
Canon G7 X II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM +14 more
John Sheehy Forum Pro • Posts: 19,157
Re: Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800 resolving power
2

Hans Kruse wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:

Hans Kruse wrote:

I shoot landscapes and I don't agree. There is more resolution bur far from staggering. If you want staggering extra resolution you need to look at full frame medium format from 60MP and up.

No, you don't need medium format.  Medium format will always have the potential to be superior, with more sensor area to collect more light, but MF and FF both are wasting their sensor space now with coarse, artifacted under-sampling.

It's not clear to me what you mean by that.

I thought it was clear - both formats have way too few pixels to properly sample the optics they use.

schmegg Veteran Member • Posts: 5,768
Re: Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800 resolving power

Mikael Risedal wrote:

schmegg wrote:

Mikael Risedal wrote:

Tizzio wrote:

Hans Kruse wrote:

See this http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Which-lenses-should-you-choose-for-your-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-vs.-Nikon-D800-Competition-is-closer-than-expected

I have both the 5D mkIII with the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II (and more) and the D800E with the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8VRII. To my eyes there is little to distinguish the resolution between the 5D III with the 70-200 and the D800E with the 70-200.

I'm also shooting with a Phase One IQ160 and the resolution of the 60MP of this camera is heads and shoulders above the two DSLRs! There are no measurements of the Phase One cameras with lenses on DxO, but my feel is that the IQ160 resolves at least 50MP or more with the best lenses.

-- hide signature --

Kind regards,
Hans Kruse
Home Page -- www.hanskrusephotography.com, http://500px.com/hanskrusephotography, www.hanskrusephotography.zenfolio.com
Workshops -- www.hanskrusephotography.com/gallery/14682573_Q9mq4
Facebook Photography http://www.facebook.com/HansKrusePhotography
Workshop Newsletter signup http://eepurl.com/bA0Pj

Same as you Hans, I have the 5D3 and the D800E; I don't see major difference in resolution except one thing.... I hate the color tonality of the D800E, it looks artificial!

In the film era, Nikon reigns supreme, not anymore for their latest crop of digital cams....

Been thinking of off-loading all my Nikon gears; but not an easy task with 4 bodies and thirty some old and new nikkors that I never touched....... sad!

Try  to understand how a camera work and  which profiles are you using? how can the color tonality looks artificial when the CFA in Nikon is better than in a Canon with thinner CFA and less Colour accuracyn  than Nikon. Are yountalking about JPG out from the camera?  If you do not se any difference between a d800 and a 21-22 Mp sensor  I suggest you start to use a compact camera, they are usually good enough

This was taken today, I have no problem to se resolution difference between one of my 5dmk2 and d800,  sigma 35/1,4 + d800 and 5dmk2 together with Canon 35/1,4   and f-5,6

How about you?

If those are 100% crops then I suggest that the difference is trivial unless you intend to produce extremely large final output.

BTW - it's quite obvious you've sharpened the D800 fairly aggressively.

the sharpening is the same, trivial, what did you expect? there are some more resolution

I'm sorry - but I don't buy that for a second. Look at the sky in the D800 image in particular - though it's easy to see with the haloing around high contrast edges too.

The D800 has clearly been oversharpened - and the amount applied is different - as can now be seen below since you've posted images that actually appear to have been sharpened by a similar amount (perhaps).

Why do stuff like that - it's sloppy at best and disingenuous at worst. And it's not the first time I've seen you do it either.

here is the pictures again, In addition to the actual size  you can also see more details and fewer estimations errors , artifacts in the Nikon, watch the wire that can not be reproduced separated by Canons resolution

That's what I would expect. Pretty much the same as you see between a 5D3 and a 7D if you sharpen-up the 7D to match. Makes sense too, as the 7D has pretty similar pixel density to the D800.

Both are now oversharpened! LOL!

I guess it's one way to exaggerate the artifacts etc., but I'm not finding it a particularly useful comparison. Why not just post the images with no sharpening? At least then we can judge the straight files without knowing that you've been playing around with the sharpening slider.

But my comment still stands. The difference exists for sure. And it is quite small in relevance unless you intend to be producing very large output or you go peeping at 100% looking for differences.

And more amazingly - that's what DxO have found too!

John Sheehy Forum Pro • Posts: 19,157
Re: Don't get your meaning?

Hans Kruse wrote:

I don't know of any bird shooter who would make such a picture If you use FF you will use longer focal lengths to compensate for the somewhat lower resolution per area of the sensor on FF compared to smaller formats.

Yeah, I just love that 5lb image-stabilized 3000mm f/5.6.

But of you can fill the frame on FF you will obviously get the best resolution and result (assuming proper focus, exposure etc. ). But this is an old discussion isn't it?

Of course, but you can rarely do so.

schmegg Veteran Member • Posts: 5,768
Re: Don't get your meaning?

John Sheehy wrote:

Schmegg is talking about absolute sensor surface resolution, or resolution per unit of sensor area.  Others think of resolution as resolution per sensor.

Yes - people often "think of resolution as resolution per sensor", but then turn to "absolute sensor surface resolution" by comparing at 100% (or higher) to show the difference!

OP Hans Kruse Veteran Member • Posts: 3,398
Re: Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800 resolving power

John Sheehy wrote:

Hans Kruse wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:

Hans Kruse wrote:

I shoot landscapes and I don't agree. There is more resolution bur far from staggering. If you want staggering extra resolution you need to look at full frame medium format from 60MP and up.

No, you don't need medium format.  Medium format will always have the potential to be superior, with more sensor area to collect more light, but MF and FF both are wasting their sensor space now with coarse, artifacted under-sampling.

It's not clear to me what you mean by that.

I thought it was clear - both formats have way too few pixels to properly sample the optics they use.

And the point is?

-- hide signature --

Kind regards,
Hans Kruse
Home Page -- www.hanskrusephotography.com, http://500px.com/hanskrusephotography, www.hanskrusephotography.zenfolio.com
Workshops -- www.hanskrusephotography.com/gallery/14682573_Q9mq4
Facebook Photography http://www.facebook.com/HansKrusePhotography
Workshop Newsletter signup http://eepurl.com/bA0Pj

 Hans Kruse's gear list:Hans Kruse's gear list
Canon EOS 5DS
OP Hans Kruse Veteran Member • Posts: 3,398
Re: Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800 resolving power

schmegg wrote:


And more amazingly - that's what DxO have found too!

Yes, and the point of the thread. There is a difference but not shattering and probably visible in a print several meters wide. The D800E is a nice camera and as mentioned I shoot also the 5D III and still the 1Ds III. I do not choose any of these cameras for a given picture because of resolution. I may prefer the D800E in high DR situations.

-- hide signature --

Kind regards,
Hans Kruse
Home Page -- www.hanskrusephotography.com, http://500px.com/hanskrusephotography, www.hanskrusephotography.zenfolio.com
Workshops -- www.hanskrusephotography.com/gallery/14682573_Q9mq4
Facebook Photography http://www.facebook.com/HansKrusePhotography
Workshop Newsletter signup http://eepurl.com/bA0Pj

 Hans Kruse's gear list:Hans Kruse's gear list
Canon EOS 5DS
John Sheehy Forum Pro • Posts: 19,157
Re: Don't get your meaning?
2

Mike CH wrote:

I get that, no problem. It is real obvious that there are various definitions of resolution and various ways to measure said resolution.

What I don't get is, of what practical interest are those (various) measurements at all, if they don't compare at the same FOV?

FOV is irrelevant when you have the longest lens you can manage to use, but it is not long enough.  When you are focal length limited, all that matters is qualities of a recording surface (film or sensor) per unit of sensor area, or in lines per mm to look at it in one dimension, for resolution, at various contrasts (but resolutions are usually only stated at a single contrast).  FF sensors fall flat on their face, especially Canon ones at low ISOs, when their hard crops have to compete the smallest compact sensors placed behind the lens.

So far, people have been saying, these measurements exist. Yes, thank you - I knew that

Nobody has so far (that I have seen) eyplained of what practical use they are to a photographer. They are of interest to an engineer, yes, but the practical use I have not seen explained, yet.

We are creatures of illusion.  What seems to be the case to our eyes, is often wrong, because we fail to adjust for context.  If we find measurements that we can trust, then we can have "seeing eye dogs" to walk us through our illusions as we make decisions.

OP Hans Kruse Veteran Member • Posts: 3,398
Re: Don't get your meaning?

John Sheehy wrote:

Hans Kruse wrote:

I don't know of any bird shooter who would make such a picture If you use FF you will use longer focal lengths to compensate for the somewhat lower resolution per area of the sensor on FF compared to smaller formats.

Yeah, I just love that 5lb image-stabilized 3000mm f/5.6.

Haha, get closer to your subject

But of you can fill the frame on FF you will obviously get the best resolution and result (assuming proper focus, exposure etc. ). But this is an old discussion isn't it?

Of course, but you can rarely do so.

Not rarely so, but often you have to crop since you can't compose as precisely as otherwise, but the same goes for crop cameras. But still bird shooting is a niche part of photography compared to all other forms. For example for landscape photography it is rather more relevant to compare at the same FOV.

-- hide signature --

Kind regards,
Hans Kruse
Home Page -- www.hanskrusephotography.com, http://500px.com/hanskrusephotography, www.hanskrusephotography.zenfolio.com
Workshops -- www.hanskrusephotography.com/gallery/14682573_Q9mq4
Facebook Photography http://www.facebook.com/HansKrusePhotography
Workshop Newsletter signup http://eepurl.com/bA0Pj

 Hans Kruse's gear list:Hans Kruse's gear list
Canon EOS 5DS
John Sheehy Forum Pro • Posts: 19,157
Re: Don't get your meaning?

schmegg wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:

Schmegg is talking about absolute sensor surface resolution, or resolution per unit of sensor area.  Others think of resolution as resolution per sensor.

Yes - people often "think of resolution as resolution per sensor", but then turn to "absolute sensor surface resolution" by comparing at 100% (or higher) to show the difference!

Then they certainly wouldn't like to see what is really hitting the focal plane, without the influence of the photosites: a mostly black starfield with lots of isolated color stars, if you magnify enough and/or exposure is low enough.  Even a "white" subject would have no white stars; just a rainbow of colored ones.

schmegg Veteran Member • Posts: 5,768
Re: Don't get your meaning?

John Sheehy wrote:

schmegg wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:

Schmegg is talking about absolute sensor surface resolution, or resolution per unit of sensor area.  Others think of resolution as resolution per sensor.

Yes - people often "think of resolution as resolution per sensor", but then turn to "absolute sensor surface resolution" by comparing at 100% (or higher) to show the difference!

Then they certainly wouldn't like to see what is really hitting the focal plane, without the influence of the photosites: a mostly black starfield with lots of isolated color stars, if you magnify enough and/or exposure is low enough.  Even a "white" subject would have no white stars; just a rainbow of colored ones.

Jot sensor anyone?

Mikael Risedal
Mikael Risedal Veteran Member • Posts: 4,620
Re: Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800 resolving power

schmegg wrote:

Mikael Risedal wrote:

schmegg wrote:

Mikael Risedal wrote:

Tizzio wrote:

Hans Kruse wrote:

See this http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Which-lenses-should-you-choose-for-your-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-vs.-Nikon-D800-Competition-is-closer-than-expected

I have both the 5D mkIII with the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II (and more) and the D800E with the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8VRII. To my eyes there is little to distinguish the resolution between the 5D III with the 70-200 and the D800E with the 70-200.

I'm also shooting with a Phase One IQ160 and the resolution of the 60MP of this camera is heads and shoulders above the two DSLRs! There are no measurements of the Phase One cameras with lenses on DxO, but my feel is that the IQ160 resolves at least 50MP or more with the best lenses.

-- hide signature --

Kind regards,
Hans Kruse
Home Page -- www.hanskrusephotography.com, http://500px.com/hanskrusephotography, www.hanskrusephotography.zenfolio.com
Workshops -- www.hanskrusephotography.com/gallery/14682573_Q9mq4
Facebook Photography http://www.facebook.com/HansKrusePhotography
Workshop Newsletter signup http://eepurl.com/bA0Pj

Same as you Hans, I have the 5D3 and the D800E; I don't see major difference in resolution except one thing.... I hate the color tonality of the D800E, it looks artificial!

In the film era, Nikon reigns supreme, not anymore for their latest crop of digital cams....

Been thinking of off-loading all my Nikon gears; but not an easy task with 4 bodies and thirty some old and new nikkors that I never touched....... sad!

Try  to understand how a camera work and  which profiles are you using? how can the color tonality looks artificial when the CFA in Nikon is better than in a Canon with thinner CFA and less Colour accuracyn  than Nikon. Are yountalking about JPG out from the camera?  If you do not se any difference between a d800 and a 21-22 Mp sensor  I suggest you start to use a compact camera, they are usually good enough

This was taken today, I have no problem to se resolution difference between one of my 5dmk2 and d800,  sigma 35/1,4 + d800 and 5dmk2 together with Canon 35/1,4   and f-5,6

How about you?

If those are 100% crops then I suggest that the difference is trivial unless you intend to produce extremely large final output.

BTW - it's quite obvious you've sharpened the D800 fairly aggressively.

the sharpening is the same, trivial, what did you expect? there are some more resolution

I'm sorry - but I don't buy that for a second. Look at the sky in the D800 image in particular - though it's easy to see with the haloing around high contrast edges too.

The D800 has clearly been oversharpened - and the amount applied is different - as can now be seen below since you've posted images that actually appear to have been sharpened by a similar amount (perhaps).

Why do stuff like that - it's sloppy at best and disingenuous at worst. And it's not the first time I've seen you do it either.

here is the pictures again, In addition to the actual size  you can also see more details and fewer estimations errors , artifacts in the Nikon, watch the wire that can not be reproduced separated by Canons resolution

That's what I would expect. Pretty much the same as you see between a 5D3 and a 7D if you sharpen-up the 7D to match. Makes sense too, as the 7D has pretty similar pixel density to the D800.

Both are now oversharpened! LOL!

I guess it's one way to exaggerate the artifacts etc., but I'm not finding it a particularly useful comparison. Why not just post the images with no sharpening? At least then we can judge the straight files without knowing that you've been playing around with the sharpening slider.

But my comment still stands. The difference exists for sure. And it is quite small in relevance unless you intend to be producing very large output or you go peeping at 100% looking for differences.

And more amazingly - that's what DxO have found too!

LOL? They are not hard sharpen for print etc.

-- hide signature --

Member of Swedish Photographers Association since 1984
Canon, Hasselblad, Leica,Nikon, Linhoff, Sinar
Member of International anti-banding and read out noise Association

Mikael Risedal
Mikael Risedal Veteran Member • Posts: 4,620
Re: Interesting article on DxO about 5D III and D800 resolving power

Hans Kruse wrote:

schmegg wrote:


And more amazingly - that's what DxO have found too!

Yes, and the point of the thread. There is a difference but not shattering and probably visible in a print several meters wide. The D800E is a nice camera and as mentioned I shoot also the 5D III and still the 1Ds III. I do not choose any of these cameras for a given picture because of resolution. I may prefer the D800E in high DR situations.

-- hide signature --

Kind regards,
Hans Kruse
Home Page -- www.hanskrusephotography.com, http://500px.com/hanskrusephotography, www.hanskrusephotography.zenfolio.com
Workshops -- www.hanskrusephotography.com/gallery/14682573_Q9mq4
Facebook Photography http://www.facebook.com/HansKrusePhotography
Workshop Newsletter signup http://eepurl.com/bA0Pj

if you resize the d800 to 5dmk3 mk2 file size all surfaces looks cleaner and have more details and less jaggies

-- hide signature --

Member of Swedish Photographers Association since 1984
Canon, Hasselblad, Leica,Nikon, Linhoff, Sinar
Member of International anti-banding and read out noise Association

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads