Hyperthetical Comparison

[burners]

If you took 350D and a 5D and could take identical photos using the same lens at equivalent (to compensate for frame size difference), same ISO, aperture settings etc etc.

What differences would there be on the two photos, let's say of a house in daylight.

Do you think a relative novice could tell the difference?

I only ask this out of curiosity. Do you think that when you're 'in to' cameras and such, you can get carried away by the 'latest & greatest' when really, in terms of actual results produced, there is not much in it?

[bolantej]

Yeah I think it would be roughly the same when looking at a print or something online. I've seen some pretty nice work from both cameras. Now, lenses can be a different story at times.

[dpastern]

Horses for courses. If it's solely online images, then you'll notice bugger all. If you're blowing up large prints, A4 or larger, then the 5D will have slightly better resolution (and you should see it, but it might not be super obvious). The human eye is pretty damn good at interpolating missing information.

Dave

[Headcase650]

If using, say a 28-105, 5D set to 80mm and 350D set to 50mm for crop compairison.The 5D will have a shallower depth of field if both lenses are at the same aperture and the 350D will have a fatter perspective. The images would not be identical.

[hemuni]

Most non photog people will probably not see much difference between to shots of comparison like you describe.

Some will see it and i like this quote from one of ijohnson's posts:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1370908&postcount=11

What is more important is this: I can see the difference and so can you probably.

Do i need 13mp image files. Not really - most of the time I extract the 4mp preview jpeg from the raw file for web publishing and printing 4x6. I do occasionally recrop in pp and then the extra resolution comes in handy though.

In my opinion the image quality is better because of better background blur or bokeh and more apparent depth which both can be contributed to a bigger sensor. I'm still not sure how much of that extra "depth" actually comes from the picture styles. I'm exited to see comparisons to the new 30D.

[SkipD]

If using, say a 28-105, 5D set to 80mm and 350D set to 50mm for crop compairison.The 5D will have a shallower depth of field if both lenses are at the same aperture and the 350D will have a fatter perspective. The images would not be identical.What do you mean by "fatter perspective"?

Perspective is purely a function of distance between the viewer (or camera) and the subject(s), and really has nothing to do with focal length.

[farrukh]

Also if you take a shot with 5d at ISO1600 and then downsize it to 8 megapixel, than you will hardly see visible noise. compared to same shot taken with 350D at same ISO, viewed at 100% size.

[René Damkot]

Differences in DoF full frame vs. crop. (http://www.outbackphoto.com/workshop/phototechnique/essay07/essay.html)

[Hermeto]

Well, one thing is for sure: pictures from 5D will be more expensive.. ;)

[bikers1]

Do you think a relative novice could tell the difference?

My tuppence worth , Nope,

Like any other pastime/profession etc you can get soooooo anal about the subject.

Hi-Fi audiophiles as an example, I worked in Hi-Fi in the late seventies, I sold folk 50 pence ferrite rings for £3 each because hifi mags told 'em that wrapping your speaker cable around these would make a huge difference to stereo separation, mid-range definition or some other crap.:rolleyes: They would do this with £1000 speakers and were using a £15 cartridge.

"Stop listening to the equipment and start listening to the music" and "GIGO" (Garbage in Garbage Out) both apply to photography :)

I have no doubt that good lenses make more difference than anything else, which is why I won't be following the herd and selling my 20D to buy a 30D instead I'll be spending my money on a 70-200L 2.8 IS :).

[Tee Why]

My 1D Mark IIN has the same size pixels and same density as the 5D, seeing as they are both CMOS sensors with Digic II from Canon, I'm assuming that the main diff between the 1D MII and 5D is the size of the sensor itself, not the size of the photdiodes or the pixel density.

Comparing the N to the XT, I am starting to see subtle differences between the two RAW images, even when shot with the same lens in the same event. The main diff I see is that when a shot is dynamic and you bring out the details from the under/overblown areas, you get more detail out of the N before you start to see noise. With XT, I get more noise as I try to bring out the details. This is more prominant in poorly lit situatins (such as shooting plays in a theater) which often has big underexposed areas and require high ISO.

If the shot you were talking about was very evenly lit so it does not exceed the dynamic range of the sensor, I'd doubt you'd see much diff. between the two. If the shot is very dynamic and you need to bring out details, then you will notice the difference. At first, I couldn't tell, but after 6 months with the N and the XT, I am starting to notice the difference now.

[ScottE]

OK, for your house pictue, lets put a 50 mm lens on the 350D, set it at f/8 and set up our tripod 50 feet away. The depth of field will be 26 feet to 654 feet so everything from the bush on the front lawn to the trees in front of the house of your back door neighbour will be in sharp focus.

Now, take the 350D off the tripod and mount the 5D, without moving the tripod. Put an 80 mm lens on the 5D and set the aperture at f/8. The perspective and composition of the image will be the same, but the depth of field will be much different. The dept of field will be from 31.9 feet to 115.9 feet so the bush in front and the trees in the back will be a little soft.

If your objective is to keep everything in the picture in focus, the 350D has a great advantage. You would have to shoot at about f/13 with the 5D to get a similar depth of field.

If you want to only have the subject in focus and blur everything else, the 5D has the advantage.

Now lets make prints of the two photos. Up to about 11 x 14 inch prints most people will not be able to see any difference in resolution with the naked eye. Larger than that, you can start to see a small advantage for the 5D on the in focus portion of the image if you stand really close. However, if the effect of the image depends on great depth of field, the 5D image may appear softer because there is less depth of field. If you hung two 16x20 inch enlargements side by side most viewers would be able to spot the difference, if there is any in focus fine detail. Hang the pictures in two different rooms and most people would not notice the difference unless you pointed it out to them.

Other than depth of field, there really isn't that much difference between the capabilities of the two cameras except the 5D has an advantage for people who want limited depth of field and the 350D is better for those who want maximum depth of field. The used to be an advantage for wide angle lenses for the 5D, but recent lenses such as the 10-22 answer that shortfall reasonably well for the 350D. With telephoto lenses, the real advantage goes to the 350D.

[rklepper]

I would say the biggest difference would come when using the 2 under conditions that showed the differences, such as low light photography. The 5D would focus faster and more accurately under these conditions. The XT autofocus leaves some to be desired under adverse conditions.

I do not have a 5D, but know from experience that was the single biggest difference between the XT and the 20D.

[willg]

5d images just seem way more 3d and clear. I don't know what it is, maybe the full frame showing more depth or maybe the larger sensor taking advantage of the lens, but there is definitely something there

[Jon]

The same lens? Therefore moving back with the 350D to get the same FoV? The perspective, in addition to the already mentioned DoF, will be different for the two. The foreground objects in the 5D picture will be more dominant than will those from the 350D picture. The background objects, conversely, will be smaller.

[Longwatcher]

Except for maximum image size there should be little if any difference given a lens on each that would truly compensate for the sensor differences - doesn't exist that I know of.

But what makes the difference between the cameras is not ONE shot, but how many good ones do you get, how much flexability do you have, what does the more expensive camera let you do that you can't with the lower cost camera.

That is what makes the difference. On a particualr given shot under idea conditions, I actually tend to like what comes out of my D60 the best. But I get more good shots out of my 10D and I get a whole slew out of my 1DsMkII compared to either. Because that way more expensive camera has way more flexability and accuracy in taking a SERIES of shots.

If I only did studio portraits under controlled conditions up to 8x10 print size, my relatively antique D60 would potentially overall do the best job (because I would need less PS work and a lot less storage) and my old 28-135 IS lens would also be quite acceptable for that (although I would use my 85L because I have it). But I don't shoot under controlled conditions ALL the time so I need something better. In my case the 1DsMkII and an 85/1.2L is what I use for portraits because I get even better shots that way.

So does the 5D beat the 350XT?, depends on what you need...

Just my opinion,

[chris clements]

"Stop listening to the equipment and start listening to the music" :).
Are you suggesting that we should actually go out and take pictures?
We don't need radical thinkers like you round here, laddie.

(thinks: no-one has resurrected the 'D60 can't take pix at F11' thread for almost a week...)

[Jon]

(thinks: no-one has resurrected the 'D60 can't take pix at F11' thread for almost a week...)
And don't go giving them any ideas. It'll turn up again inside 6 months anyhow!

[SRPhotographic]

hyperthetical = specific and unique sitaution in time
hypothetical = general and plausible situation that can happen anytime