Cross platform equivalency

Started Apr 25, 2014 | Discussions
qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Joe, in the studio, I find larger format has less benefit for me.

Silverback1988 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

I own 70-200L II and 5D2 and used to own 60D. 5D2 is clearly sharper than 60D with the same EF lenses (any EF lenses) including 70-200L II if both fill the subjects into the same AOV.

Dang, I should upgrade my eyes

My eyes consider the sharpness are about the same. The DOF is my main worry there.

Outside the DOF, the blur take the sharpness heavily.

No problem with the sharpness within the DOF, even if it is done with 7D.

APS-C sensors enlarge pixels 1.6x more to project on the output at the same size on so-called crop penalty.

Maybe the lens sharpness is still up to it, Peter ?

Depends on what you shoot. In studio portrait, usually you applied some smoothness so skin will look better and smoother where you might not see much difference. But if you shoot two cameras outside in landscape with lots of fine details, you will see noticeable difference when you fit them into the same AOV.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF70-200mm-f28L-IS-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-versus-Canon-EF70-200mm-f28L-IS-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-7D-versus-Canon-EF70-200mm-f28L-IS-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III___408_483_408_619_408_795

You can see with this zoom, 5D2 has peak 18mpx (will be 21mpx on 5D3) while 7D has peak 12mpix, that is not a small difference.

Here is 5D2 with kit zoom 24-105L at 5000-pixel wide. Don't believe 7D/60D with comparable zoom EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS or EF-S 15-85/3.5-5.6 IS or the same 24-105L could deliver similar sharpness at this size.

24-105L on 5D2, 5000-pixel wide

70-200L II on 5D3 hand-held, 2500-pixel wide

This 70-200L II zoom is very sharp and will resolve noticeable more if Canon releases a mega-pixel camera.  Even its little brother 70-200L/4.0 IS is pretty sharp.  Here is a sample with 36mp A7R thru adapter hand-held.

70-200L/4.0 IS on A7R hand-held, 5000-pixel wide

Just another Canon shooter
Just another Canon shooter Veteran Member • Posts: 4,691
Re: Yes.

Silverback1988 wrote:

Yes, I could understand if it is wide open.

In my case it is already stopped down enough... f/5.6 & f/9 on f/2.8 lens.

But your link in your post below shocked me.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53566424

The difference is obvious indeed.

As I remember, there is no significant difference between the two (in those setting).

I just look my work recently in the studio with 7D. It's fine with the sharpness.

The difference is there but the 7D may still be good enough, or even excellent for portraits in your studio.

 Just another Canon shooter's gear list:Just another Canon shooter's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +4 more
Silverback1988 Contributing Member • Posts: 706
Thanks Dave, but ...
2

Dave Luttmann wrote:

Silverback1988 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

I own 70-200L II and 5D2 and used to own 60D. 5D2 is clearly sharper than 60D with the same EF lenses (any EF lenses) including 70-200L II if both fill the subjects into the same AOV.

Dang, I should upgrade my eyes

Your eyes are likely fine. In a landscape scene, say with a 16x24 print, you would be hard pressed to see a difference. That is why I stopped worrying about it a long time ago.

That's my experience as well. I often make 40x60 cm and 60x90 cm prints.

I decided to keep my 5DII for shots that significantly different than my 7D,

shallow DOF pictures that can not be done with 7D setup or need wider FOV (ie. 5DII with 24 L II).

For studio shots, I see no significant difference between 5DII and 7D setup (see in my other post above).

But however, just another Canon send me this link and shocked me :

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=4&LensComp=687&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=3

I could I understand if wide open (f/2.8) vs stopped down (f/4) make a difference,

but f/5.6 vs f/8 ??

I wonder if some mistakes had been made to the 60D's chart shot.

It look so soft.

But again, a professional who knows what they are doing did the chart shot, thus I begin to questioning my own eyes

But I am quite happy with the 7D's result, that's all that matter isn't it ?

-

Brian

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
samples?

Silverback1988 wrote:

But I am quite happy with the 7D's result, that's all that matter isn't it ?

-

Brian

Can you post a few samples in large sizes such as at least 2500-pixel wide or 5000-pixel wide as I did?  But as long as you're happy that is perfectly fine as nobody could question your subjective satisfaction level.

Silverback1988 Contributing Member • Posts: 706
Thanks, just another Canon.

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

The difference is there but the 7D may still be good enough, or even excellent for portraits in your studio.

I think you are right ...

The difference is there but my eyes could not detect it

And I agree that the 7D still good enough in the studio.

But I will give my 5DII a try someday.

Thank you for the link.

-

Brian

The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 21,060
Re: Thanks Dave, but ...

Silverback1988 wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

Silverback1988 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

I own 70-200L II and 5D2 and used to own 60D. 5D2 is clearly sharper than 60D with the same EF lenses (any EF lenses) including 70-200L II if both fill the subjects into the same AOV.

Dang, I should upgrade my eyes

Your eyes are likely fine. In a landscape scene, say with a 16x24 print, you would be hard pressed to see a difference. That is why I stopped worrying about it a long time ago.

That's my experience as well. I often make 40x60 cm and 60x90 cm prints.

I decided to keep my 5DII for shots that significantly different than my 7D,

shallow DOF pictures that can not be done with 7D setup or need wider FOV (ie. 5DII with 24 L II).

For studio shots, I see no significant difference between 5DII and 7D setup (see in my other post above).

But however, just another Canon send me this link and shocked me :

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=4&LensComp=687&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=3

I could I understand if wide open (f/2.8) vs stopped down (f/4) make a difference,

but f/5.6 vs f/8 ??

I wonder if some mistakes had been made to the 60D's chart shot.

It look so soft.

But again, a professional who knows what they are doing did the chart shot, thus I begin to questioning my own eyes

But I am quite happy with the 7D's result, that's all that matter isn't it ?

Yes, it is. Some people rely too much on DxO, etc, instead of using their own eyes on their own subject matter.

-

Brian

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +16 more
Silverback1988 Contributing Member • Posts: 706
Here the samples ...
2

qianp2k wrote:

Silverback1988 wrote:

But I am quite happy with the 7D's result, that's all that matter isn't it ?

-

Brian

Can you post a few samples in large sizes such as at least 2500-pixel wide or 5000-pixel wide as I did?

Peter, here some samples, at f/5.6 & at f/8,

but you get the idea the sharpness I am looking for.

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/BRIAN_photo%20sharing/IMG_3423.JPG?_subject_uid=125164610&w=AAC5MP9xmogzRK8YjOikEnYH6oC1z4MsNbCtGaFkb0It0g

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/BRIAN_photo%20sharing/IMG_1839.jpg?_subject_uid=125164610&w=AADeNp6oJAIErgCI_jqaNaQNkFOpEvUkkGUtbus6CSfjwA

But as long as you're happy that is perfectly fine as nobody could question your subjective satisfaction level.

Yes,

IMHO, as our knowledge is growing, I found it's harder to be happy, because the satisfaction level is changing

-

Brian

The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 21,060
Re: Here the samples ...
2

Silverback1988 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Silverback1988 wrote:

But I am quite happy with the 7D's result, that's all that matter isn't it ?

-

Brian

Can you post a few samples in large sizes such as at least 2500-pixel wide or 5000-pixel wide as I did?

Peter, here some samples, at f/5.6 & at f/8,

but you get the idea the sharpness I am looking for.

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/BRIAN_photo%20sharing/IMG_3423.JPG?_subject_uid=125164610&w=AAC5MP9xmogzRK8YjOikEnYH6oC1z4MsNbCtGaFkb0It0g

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/BRIAN_photo%20sharing/IMG_1839.jpg?_subject_uid=125164610&w=AADeNp6oJAIErgCI_jqaNaQNkFOpEvUkkGUtbus6CSfjwA

But as long as you're happy that is perfectly fine as nobody could question your subjective satisfaction level.

Yes,

IMHO, as our knowledge is growing, I found it's harder to be happy, because the satisfaction level is changing

-

Brian

True.  That said, people wanting to capture images to tell a story, or convey emotion, don't worry about per pixel sharpness, DxO rankings, FF vs APS-C, etc.  A lot of these differences never manifest themselves in print....only to measurebators staring at 100% screen views.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +16 more
qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Here the samples ...

Silverback1988 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Silverback1988 wrote:

But I am quite happy with the 7D's result, that's all that matter isn't it ?

-

Brian

Can you post a few samples in large sizes such as at least 2500-pixel wide or 5000-pixel wide as I did?

Peter, here some samples, at f/5.6 & at f/8,

but you get the idea the sharpness I am looking for.

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/BRIAN_photo%20sharing/IMG_3423.JPG?_subject_uid=125164610&w=AAC5MP9xmogzRK8YjOikEnYH6oC1z4MsNbCtGaFkb0It0g

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/BRIAN_photo%20sharing/IMG_1839.jpg?_subject_uid=125164610&w=AADeNp6oJAIErgCI_jqaNaQNkFOpEvUkkGUtbus6CSfjwA

Not able to open above links that require login.

But as long as you're happy that is perfectly fine as nobody could question your subjective satisfaction level.

Yes,

IMHO, as our knowledge is growing, I found it's harder to be happy, because the satisfaction level is changing

Happy is relative and respective during specific time period. People happy on B&W TV during that time, people happy on color TV later, people happy on CRT TV then and happy on LED HD TV now. When 4K monitor get popular and cheap and eventually 8K monitor another 5-10 yrs later, you'd be happier with 36mp or more resolution.

BTW, I see your another thread. In thumb of rule, larger sensor better IQ, better sharpness and resolution. 50mp MF > 50mp FF > 50mp APS-C > 50mp mFT > 50mp 1" provided sensors have the same QE (quantum efficiency)

Why?  Simple because larger sensor, less enlargement in pixels when project to output at the same size, so-called crop factor or crop penalty.

-

Brian

Silverback1988 Contributing Member • Posts: 706
I am sorry, Peter
1

qianp2k wrote:

Not able to open above links that require login.

I am sorry Peter, try this link :

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kppr1f7pnab4r5v/IMG_3423.JPG

It should work. If not, just consider I have low threshold on sharpness

Happy is relative and respective during specific time period. People happy on B&W TV during that time, people happy on color TV later, people happy on CRT TV then and happy on LED HD TV now. When 4K monitor get popular and cheap and eventually 8K monitor another 5-10 yrs later, you'd be happier with 36mp or more resolution.

You are right, that means now we are difficult (or can not) to be happy just CRT TV.

Honesty, I remember that I was happier when I got my first digital camera (Kodak 2 MP) rather than when I got my first FF (5DII). I don't know if I will happy at all if I got my first MF

BTW, I see your another thread. In thumb of rule, larger sensor better IQ, better sharpness and resolution. 50mp MF > 50mp FF > 50mp APS-C > 50mp mFT > 50mp 1" provided sensors have the same QE (quantum efficiency)

Yes, I could understand that logic.

Why? Simple because larger sensor, less enlargement in pixels when project to output at the same size, so-called crop factor or crop penalty.

Assuming the lens is not outresolved by the sensor, do you think the smaller one still can keep up with the larger one (for the resolution or sharpness) ?

For example, imagine a lens is designed that could record 6000 dot in 35mm linear and both can be used on any sensor.

With 35 FF sensor area, it will record 6000 x 4000 dot (or 24 MP worth of data)

With mFT sensor area, the sensor will use 25% of the lens, so it will record 3000 x 2000 dot (or 6 MP worth of data)

WHAT IF ... both sensors (FF & mFT) have only 6 MP sensor ???

Both ended up with only 3000 x 2000 dot recorded, thus has the same resolution, no ?

-

Brian

-

Brian

Rick Knepper
OP Rick Knepper Forum Pro • Posts: 16,331
Re: Cross platform equivalency

stratobill wrote:

Rick Knepper wrote:

You know, this made me think of something I just read of Galen Rowell a couple days ago. I think it was advice in a magazine article given in a top ten list format. He said don't take record shots. Shoot every shot like its going into National Geographic. I'd probably want the best IQ for National Geographic. :)--

Rick Knepper, photographer, shooting for pleasure. It is better to have It and not need It than need It and not have It. Various RAW comparisons at Link below. Includes 5D3 vs D800E (new uploads), 5D3 vs. 6D, Zeiss lenses etc. https://app.box.com/s/71w40ita6hrcfghojaie

Maybe, but I went to a presentation by two guys from National Geographic who went into the jungle in New Guinea to shoot a very rare type of bird, videos and still. They brought all Canon 5D's, and the shots were pretty awesome!

Well that was a little bit of hyperbole on my part for the sake of emphasis.

The images I make that go into my personal galleries are vastly more important to me than any image taken by another person for any other purpose (unless someone gets a shot of God maybe) and it may have been a lapse in logic to use that comparison compositionally the way I did.

So, the 5D's survived the rainforests of New Guinea with little or no weather-sealing.

I owned a 5D from month one of its release and it was a wonderful introduction to FF, but the 5D2 produced better and more versatile images for PPing with more tools to help get the capture done for the type of photography I am into. The 5D3 maintained the IQ if not enhanced IQ a bit but it's various additional tools make capture exponentially easier for a much, much broader array of photography styles. The D800E produces better and more versatile images for PPing than the 5D3 but does not beat the 5D3 in the tools that help make capture easier. The 645Z has the potential to eclipse the D800E in raw IQ if not devolve a bit with handy tools.

Some of the answers to be determined concerning the 645Z: lenses (oem and adapted - AF vs MF, stabilized), bracketing, Live View implementation, high ISO performance, will Markins make a camera plate for it..

-- hide signature --

Rick Knepper, photographer, shooting for pleasure. It is better to have It and not need It than need It and not have It. Various RAW comparisons at Link below. Includes 5D3 vs D800E (new uploads), 5D3 vs. 6D, Zeiss lenses etc. https://app.box.com/s/71w40ita6hrcfghojaie

 Rick Knepper's gear list:Rick Knepper's gear list
Pentax 645Z Canon EOS 5DS R Fujifilm GFX 50S Pentax smc D FA 645 55mm F2.8 AL (IF) SDM AW Pentax DA645 28-45mm F4.5 +8 more
qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: I am sorry, Peter

Silverback1988 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Not able to open above links that require login.

I am sorry Peter, try this link :

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kppr1f7pnab4r5v/IMG_3423.JPG

It should work. If not, just consider I have low threshold on sharpness

Nice photo! I said earlier studio portrait is not the best place to judge sharpness but landscape with lots of fine details.  I have many similar photos from 1" cameras and mFT.  You'd apply NR and smoothness anyway on portrait photos.  The difference will be oblivious in landscape photos.

Happy is relative and respective during specific time period. People happy on B&W TV during that time, people happy on color TV later, people happy on CRT TV then and happy on LED HD TV now. When 4K monitor get popular and cheap and eventually 8K monitor another 5-10 yrs later, you'd be happier with 36mp or more resolution.

You are right, that means now we are difficult (or can not) to be happy just CRT TV.

Honesty, I remember that I was happier when I got my first digital camera (Kodak 2 MP) rather than when I got my first FF (5DII). I don't know if I will happy at all if I got my first MF

You are happy at respective time and may happy less with higher diminishing return

BTW, I see your another thread. In thumb of rule, larger sensor better IQ, better sharpness and resolution. 50mp MF > 50mp FF > 50mp APS-C > 50mp mFT > 50mp 1" provided sensors have the same QE (quantum efficiency)

Yes, I could understand that logic.

Why? Simple because larger sensor, less enlargement in pixels when project to output at the same size, so-called crop factor or crop penalty.

Assuming the lens is not outresolved by the sensor, do you think the smaller one still can keep up with the larger one (for the resolution or sharpness) ?

No. 50mp FF and 50mp APS-C only the same on MP quantity before glass. Never the same after glass.

For example, imagine a lens is designed that could record 6000 dot in 35mm linear and both can be used on any sensor.

With 35 FF sensor area, it will record 6000 x 4000 dot (or 24 MP worth of data)

With mFT sensor area, the sensor will use 25% of the lens, so it will record 3000 x 2000 dot (or 6 MP worth of data)

WHAT IF ... both sensors (FF & mFT) have only 6 MP sensor ???

Both ended up with only 3000 x 2000 dot recorded, thus has the same resolution, no ?

No. Let me use two old DXOmark's test that show MTF data not MPIX with 85/1.8 and 100L/2.8 macro between 12.8mp 5D and 18mp 7D.

On paper, 18mp 7D should have a higher resolution than 12.8mp 5D. Yes on sensor's MP but different story after glass where crop factor kicks in.

Please read these two articles that will help you to understand better.

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html

http://www.imatest.com/docs/sharpness/

You see 5D with either lens clearly has higher MTF 50 resolution that matters to human eyes most, even higher on MTF 20 resolution. What 7D higher is on MTF 15 and below resolution (that 7D's curve extends). However if you read above articles, you will know human eyes virtually cannot detect MTF 20 or below details that buried in low contrast noise/grain.

That's reason why DXO claims a 12mp FF could be sharper than a 18mp APS-C here

Otherwise if 18mp crop = 18mp FF, then those PJs should use 18mp 2.0x crop instead of 18mp 1DX with much smaller/lighter lenses, 12-35/2.8 and 35-100/2.8 zoom instead of bulky 24-70L/2.8 II and 70-200L/2.8 IS II, 300mm prime instead of big/heavy 600mm prime. The reality is that they never the same, not even close. They'd have to design and optimize 12-35/1.4 and 35-100/1.4 zoom, not only likely still inferior but much bigger/heavier and even impossible to design such zoom. Check old Olympus 35-100/2.0 zoom (without IS) for its FT DSLRs such as E-3 and E-5, that is even heavier/bigger than Canon 70-200L/2.8 IS II but only FF eq F4.0 zoom.  How many still use E-3/E-5 with that zoom at side of sport fields?

Otherwise Nokia 41mp should have higher resolution than 36mp D800 and A7R or 22mp 5D3. The reality is that it even never can generate sharp photos as from my old 12mp 5D (I have too many samples can show).

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,016
I am Spartacus!

Silverback1988 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Not able to open above links that require login.

I am sorry Peter, try this link :

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kppr1f7pnab4r5v/IMG_3423.JPG

It should work. If not, just consider I have low threshold on sharpness

Say, do you happen to have her email? There's a question I need to ask her...

Happy is relative and respective during specific time period. People happy on B&W TV during that time, people happy on color TV later, people happy on CRT TV then and happy on LED HD TV now. When 4K monitor get popular and cheap and eventually 8K monitor another 5-10 yrs later, you'd be happier with 36mp or more resolution.

You are right, that means now we are difficult (or can not) to be happy just CRT TV.

Honesty, I remember that I was happier when I got my first digital camera (Kodak 2 MP) rather than when I got my first FF (5DII). I don't know if I will happy at all if I got my first MF

The other extremely important variable that people rarely mention are:

  • Display Size
  • Viewing Distance
  • Visual Acuity

These three variables go a long way to answering the question, "How much resolution is enough?"

BTW, I see your another thread. In thumb of rule, larger sensor better IQ, better sharpness and resolution. 50mp MF > 50mp FF > 50mp APS-C > 50mp mFT > 50mp 1" provided sensors have the same QE (quantum efficiency)

And also provided that the lenses for the smaller formats are not sharper by a factor of the equivalence ration and/or have less pixels.

Yes, I could understand that logic.

For example, 24 MP mFT will resolve just as well as 24 MP FF if the lens is twice as sharp.

Why? Simple because larger sensor, less enlargement in pixels when project to output at the same size, so-called crop factor or crop penalty.

Assuming the lens is not outresolved by the sensor, do you think the smaller one still can keep up with the larger one (for the resolution or sharpness) ?

Yes, depending on the particular lenses being compared.

For example, imagine a lens is designed that could record 6000 dot in 35mm linear and both can be used on any sensor.

Actually, it doesn't work like that. Putting more pixels behind *any* lens increases resolution. How much more resolution depends, of course, on the sources of blur which include:

  • The sharpness of the lens
  • Motion
  • Shake
  • DOF
  • Diffraction

With 35 FF sensor area, it will record 6000 x 4000 dot (or 24 MP worth of data)

With mFT sensor area, the sensor will use 25% of the lens, so it will record 3000 x 2000 dot (or 6 MP worth of data)

WHAT IF ... both sensors (FF & mFT) have only 6 MP sensor ???

Both ended up with only 3000 x 2000 dot recorded, thus has the same resolution, no ?

Let's say we had an infinitely sharp lens. Then it would resolve the same detail at the same DOF on any format that had the same number of pixels and AA filter.

However, if we are using lenses with the around the same sharpness on different formats, then the larger formats will almost invariably resolve more detail due to the enlargement factor, although, at times, the greater pixel count of a smaller sensor over the larger sensor (e.g. 24 MP APS-C over 12 MP FF) can narrow, or reverse, the gap.

By the way, these two places in the frame from DPR's comparison tool:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos6d&attr13_1=canon_eos70d&attr13_2=oly_em1&attr13_3=nikon_df&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.10321931589537224&y=0.3274263187535198

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos6d&attr13_1=canon_eos70d&attr13_2=oly_em1&attr13_3=nikon_df&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.3483651911468813&y=-0.07062136286840623

give, in my opinion, a good visual reference for the max differences in detail you may find as a function of format and pixel count.

The 6D and 70D have almost the same pixel count, so you can see the effect of the enlargement factor at work.  The Nikon Df has a lower pixel count on a larger format, so you can see how the enlargement factor and pixel count relate compared to a smaller format.

Also, if you switch one of the cameras between the D800 and D800E, you can see the resolution advantage of more pixels on a larger format, as well as the effect the AA filter can have.

Of course, the DPR studio scene shows the differences in resolution under idea conditions.  In peoples' everyday shooting, one might expect to see much smaller differences.

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: I am Spartacus!
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,016
As always...
1

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Of course, the DPR studio scene shows the differences in resolution under idea conditions. In peoples' everyday shooting, one might expect to see much smaller differences.

I'd say in real world environment, the difference is bigger than DPR well-lit lab environment especially in low light between FF and crop cameras. In true low light, FF shows more advantages than DPR simulated low light.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos6d&attr13_1=canon_eos70d&attr13_2=oly_em1&attr13_3=nikon_df&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-1.0064605445316106&y=1.120078046677673

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos6d&attr13_1=canon_eos70d&attr13_2=oly_em1&attr13_3=nikon_df&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=12800&attr16_1=12800&attr16_2=12800&attr16_3=12800&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-1.0064605445316106&y=1.1207350769010633

...we have to weight the considerations of DOF and noise for low light photography for any given shutter speed.  If noise matters more than DOF, then, for sure, larger formats will hold the advantage.  However, at the same DOF and shutter speed, the noise will be the same for equally efficient sensors.

In my opinion, when it comes to noise and DOF, most opt for less noise over greater DOF, even given that greater DOF is more desirable than less DOF, which, of course, is why many prefer larger formats for lower light photography.

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: As always...

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Of course, the DPR studio scene shows the differences in resolution under idea conditions. In peoples' everyday shooting, one might expect to see much smaller differences.

I'd say in real world environment, the difference is bigger than DPR well-lit lab environment especially in low light between FF and crop cameras. In true low light, FF shows more advantages than DPR simulated low light.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos6d&attr13_1=canon_eos70d&attr13_2=oly_em1&attr13_3=nikon_df&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-1.0064605445316106&y=1.120078046677673

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos6d&attr13_1=canon_eos70d&attr13_2=oly_em1&attr13_3=nikon_df&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=12800&attr16_1=12800&attr16_2=12800&attr16_3=12800&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-1.0064605445316106&y=1.1207350769010633

...we have to weight the considerations of DOF and noise for low light photography for any given shutter speed. If noise matters more than DOF, then, for sure, larger formats will hold the advantage. However, at the same DOF and shutter speed, the noise will be the same for equally efficient sensors.

It depends on subject and background. If subject and background relatively all far away, then DOF is largely not a factor even you take at large aperture on FF cameras.

In my opinion, when it comes to noise and DOF, most opt for less noise over greater DOF, even given that greater DOF is more desirable than less DOF, which, of course, is why many prefer larger formats for lower light photography.

That's my choice as well. Blur in out of focus plate is not the same as softness and many times make your subject more popup that is more attractive than all appear in focus but flat & dull look and nosier/grainer photo from smaller sensor. The reasons you use big aperture (low F number) are in low light where much darker edges that outside focus plate usually are not important or purposely in portrait where your subject is more popping up while the background nicely in blur rendering that something a smaller sensor is harder to achieve.

Silverback1988 Contributing Member • Posts: 706
Thank you, Peter.

qianp2k wrote:

Nice photo! I said earlier studio portrait is not the best place to judge sharpness but landscape with lots of fine details. I have many similar photos from 1" cameras and mFT. You'd apply NR and smoothness anyway on portrait photos. The difference will be oblivious in landscape photos.

Thanks, you are correct. The NR on landscape photo will be less than portrait.

I like your landscape photos even when you were using your 60D (was it 60D ?).

I could imagine how better the result is when now you are using 5DIII (or other FF) and stitch. wow.

Larger format would make the stitch easier.

-

Brian

Silverback1988 Contributing Member • Posts: 706
Re: I am Spartacus!

Great Bustard wrote:

Say, do you happen to have her email? There's a question I need to ask her...

Of course, or the better ... her phone number

voice over text, that would like 10 fps vs 3 fps 

The other extremely important variable that people rarely mention are:

  • Display Size
  • Viewing Distance
  • Visual Acuity

Yes, you are right.

These three variables go a long way to answering the question, "How much resolution is enough?"

I think we are just greedy 

Seriously, I want my photo has 300 ppi, so I could watch it closer if I want to, about 25-30 cm viewing distance.

My 5DII could give me 45 x 30 cm, which is fine.

But often I print larger than that, and ... here we are ... searching new tool

Let's say we had an infinitely sharp lens. Then it would resolve the same detail at the same DOF on any format that had the same number of pixels and AA filter.

However, if we are using lenses with the around the same sharpness on different formats,

I am afraid that was the case. The lenses about the same sharpness ...

then the larger formats will almost invariably resolve more detail due to the enlargement factor, although, at times, the greater pixel count of a smaller sensor over the larger sensor (e.g. 24 MP APS-C over 12 MP FF) can narrow, or reverse, the gap.

Yes.

By the way, these two places in the frame from DPR's comparison tool:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos6d&attr13_1=canon_eos70d&attr13_2=oly_em1&attr13_3=nikon_df&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.10321931589537224&y=0.3274263187535198

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos6d&attr13_1=canon_eos70d&attr13_2=oly_em1&attr13_3=nikon_df&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.3483651911468813&y=-0.07062136286840623

give, in my opinion, a good visual reference for the max differences in detail you may find as a function of format and pixel count.

The 6D and 70D have almost the same pixel count, so you can see the effect of the enlargement factor at work. The Nikon Df has a lower pixel count on a larger format, so you can see how the enlargement factor and pixel count relate compared to a smaller format.

Also, if you switch one of the cameras between the D800 and D800E, you can see the resolution advantage of more pixels on a larger format, as well as the effect the AA filter can have.

Of course, the DPR studio scene shows the differences in resolution under idea conditions. In peoples' everyday shooting, one might expect to see much smaller differences.

Thanks, Joe.

-

Brian

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads