Same lense on $7,000 body and $500 body = same image quality?

[exploration]

Hi guys! I'm new here! =) Nice to meet you all!!


Newb question:


I have the 350D body and was wondering if it's wise to get the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM lens. Would I need to upgrade the body to fully take advantage of capabilities of this lens? (that cost over twice as much as the body)

Or let me ask this way:
Let say I had both the 1Ds Mark II (a nearly $7000 camera body) and a 350D (about $500 body) side by side –and I mounted the same lens –the 24-70L.

Settings on both cameras --the image size, shutter, ISO, the subject, lighting, etc, etc –everything is kept identical. I take the pictures and compare. Would there be a noticeable difference? Obviously the IDs Mark II has a ton of more options that ultimately allow the user for better images and the ability to blow the picture up to the size of an island –but I'm talking about just your typical glamour shot taken with the exact same settings by your average hobbyist/semi-pro photographer –would there be a difference?

If so, how much? (as in would it take professional eye, or extremely obvious?)


I should also note that 95% of my photos will be shown online –which I suppose means even more equivalence in the results between the two once posted online?

Thanks in advance for the help!

[drparker]

No you don't need to upgrade your 350D to take advantage of the 24-70L

[drparker]

And Welcome,

First post and your already talking about L series glass. Guard that wallet.:D

[joegolf68]

Hi guys! I'm new here! =) Nice to meet you all!!


Newb question:


I have the 350D body and was wondering if it's wise to get the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM lens. Would I need to upgrade the body to fully take advantage of capabilities of this lens? (that cost over twice as much as the body)

Or let me ask this way:
Let say I had both the 1Ds Mark II (a nearly $7000 camera body) and a 350D (about $500 body) side by side –and I mounted the same lens –the 24-70L.

Settings on both cameras --the image size, shutter, ISO, the subject, lighting, etc, etc –everything is kept identical. I take the pictures and compare. Would there be a noticeable difference? Obviously the IDs Mark II has a ton of more options that ultimately allow the user for better images and the ability to blow the picture up to the size of an island –but I'm talking about just your typical glamour shot taken with the exact same settings by your average hobbyist/semi-pro photographer –would there be a difference?

If so, how much? (as in would it take professional eye, or extremely obvious?)


I should also note that 95% of my photos will be shown online –which I suppose means even more equivalence in the results between the two once posted online?

Thanks in advance for the help!

Excellent question, I look forward to seeing if anyone will directly respond who has experience with both. I have asked myself the same.... can you see the difference, or does it take a really large pic to tell the difference?

Welcome to POTN.

[austincabot]

Excellent question, I look forward to seeing if anyone will directly respond who has experience with both. I have asked myself the same.... can you see the difference, or does it take a really large pic to tell the difference?

Welcome to POTN.

What is all this stuff I keep hearing about the IQ being better on the 5D vs. the XT / XTi / 30D? Would that some into question here?

[JMHPhotography]

Hi guys! I'm new here! =) Nice to meet you all!!


Newb question:


I have the 350D body and was wondering if it's wise to get the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM lens. Would I need to upgrade the body to fully take advantage of capabilities of this lens? (that cost over twice as much as the body)

Or let me ask this way:
Let say I had both the 1Ds Mark II (a nearly $7000 camera body) and a 350D (about $500 body) side by side –and I mounted the same lens –the 24-70L.

Settings on both cameras --the image size, shutter, ISO, the subject, lighting, etc, etc –everything is kept identical. I take the pictures and compare. Would there be a noticeable difference? Obviously the IDs Mark II has a ton of more options that ultimately allow the user for better images and the ability to blow the picture up to the size of an island –but I'm talking about just your typical glamour shot taken with the exact same settings by your average hobbyist/semi-pro photographer –would there be a difference?

If so, how much? (as in would it take professional eye, or extremely obvious?)


I should also note that 95% of my photos will be shown online –which I suppose means even more equivalence in the results between the two once posted online?

Thanks in advance for the help!

Full frame vs. cropped FOV and twice the resolution... I would hope that there is an extremely obvious difference in image quality. Don't get me wrong... the 24-70L is a fantastic lens and will make GREAT images with your 350D. Don't decide to buy or not buy based on what the different camera bodies are capable of. Make your decision on what the lens will do for the camera you have.

[wazmunstr]

Don't decide to buy or not buy based on what the different camera bodies are capable of. Make your decision on what the lens will do for the camera you have.


excellent point, sums up exactly what he needed to hear imho. close the thread! haha
:) :lol: :D

[Woolburr]

There really is no way to do a direct apples to apples comparison between those two camera bodies...totally different animals. The real question is..."Will you see a benefit to using the 24-70L on a 350D?" The answer to that question is yes...there will be a noticeable benefit to using any high quality lens on any camera body. Welcome to POTN.

[Steiglitz]

Full frame vs. cropped FOV and twice the resolution... I would hope that there is an extremely obvious difference in image quality. Don't get me wrong... the 24-70L is a fantastic lens and will make GREAT images with your 350D. Don't decide to buy or not buy based on what the different camera bodies are capable of. Make your decision on what the lens will do for the camera you have.


Twice the resolution? Nope, you'd have to multiply by 4 not 2, to get twice the resolution....as for 5D vs. 350D image quality differences, for 90% of all pictures not to be enlarged more then 8 x 10, you will not see any differences between these two cameras.

However the 5D will pull away as you enlarge bigger then 8 x 10, AND for low light/challanging light/flashless high ISO shots.

[Tee Why]

You'll notice the difference if you pixel peep. If you make print's, at sizes larger than 8x12, you'll probably start to see the difference.
Is it worth the $6000 in price? That's up to you.

[cdifoto]

Yes, you will see a difference in image quality if you get the 24-70 for your XT. Yes, you will need a 1Ds II to maximize the 24-70 regarding qualities in which the 1D IIn and 5D are weak. Yes, you will need a 1D IIn to maximize the 24-70 regarding qualities in which the 1Ds II and 5D are weak. Yes, you will need a 5D to maximize the 24-70 regarding qualities in with the 1Ds and 1D IIn are weak.

And further still, any of those camera bodies + the 24-70 will kick the living snot out of your XT + 24-70.

[basroil]

Twice the resolution? Nope, you'd have to multiply by 4 not 2, to get twice the resolution....as for 5D vs. 350D image quality differences, for 90% of all pictures not to be enlarged more then 8 x 10, you will not see any differences between these two cameras.

However the 5D will pull away as you enlarge bigger then 8 x 10, AND for low light/challanging light/flashless high ISO shots.


5d and the 1dmkII have the same noise patterns, though 5d has slightly better in camera processing (pointless to users of these cameras though). i have personally used a 10d, 300d, 350d, 400d, and 1dmkII. image quality is the same in all, colors approximately equal, and believe it or not, the noise levels aren't that far away from each other (xt/xti have almost same noise, 10d/300d too, 1dmkII has prettier noise, though it tends to clip the blue channel a bit early). putting the 1d's much better AF sensor (which no beginner needs), the other four cameras give pretty much the same results. since you seem to be a casual snapshooter (not to be confused with a variety of other terms), you have no need for a camera upgrade. from your diction, i would assume that you are in fact a snapshooter, and would tell you not to even bother with a 24-70, rather get a third party equivilent for much less. there is no need to waste money on something you aren't sure you need. save it up for when you begin to want to seriously study photography...


And further still, any of those camera bodies + the 24-70 will kick the living snot out of your XT + 24-70.
quite wrong. birdshot for the birds i say, no need to get the elephant gun. as my favorite signature on this thread says, the only thing worse than a fuzzy image is a sharp image of a fuzzy idea.

[Titus213]

....
I should also note that 95% of my photos will be shown online –which I suppose means even more equivalence in the results between the two once posted online?

Thanks in advance for the help!

Hmmm, at online resolution I'd put the lens on my 300D. It's good glass and that will always give better images than poor glass on any body.

[cdifoto]

quite wrong. birdshot for the birds i say, no need to get the elephant gun. as my favorite signature on this thread says, the only thing worse than a fuzzy image is a sharp image of a fuzzy idea.

If you say so. :rolleyes:

[John_B]

exploration,
I saw a major difference between my 10D and my 5D
Shots were much sharper out of the 5D
Color accuracy was more accurate out of the 5D
Much less noise on ISO 400+ on 5D

In the film days it really didn't matter what 35mm camera you had, it mattered more on the Photographer, lens, film used and how it was developed. Now with DSLR's it matters on the Photographer, camera, lens (softwares are different too) and the printer used.
So the same high or low quality lens can give different results depending on the DSLR camera it was used on <-- to my eyes :)

[Steve Beck]

The difference mainly is going to be how fast the 1d series body can focus comapared to the rebel. I would say the majority of the 24-70L owners buy it for the f2.8 apeture, meaning they want low light performance and for a reason presumably.

There is an obvious difference in picture quality where it counts. Any camera is going to look great at 4x6 prints, but not at 16x20.

[mmahoney]

Pretty much the same image from both bodies.
Mike

[Rokkorfan]

For enlargements of A4 and lower or web presentation there will be no noticeable difference between the cameras. The 24-70mm is an amazing lens that will be a great choice for your camera, and I highly recommend it. I wouldn't upgrade your camera until you are able to comfortably afford a full frame body.

[DavidEB]

It's not clear to me what is the focus of the question from the original post. Is it:

1) will putting a good lens on an XT improve the image, compared to a cheaper lens? ("if it's wise...")
2) given a particular lens, is the image better with a 1D than an XT? ("would there be a difference...")
3) is an XT + 24-70 the best way to spend, say, $1800, or would it be better to allocate more money to the body (e.g., 30D + tamron 28-75 ?)
4) Are there factors other than optics that make the 24-70 worthwhile (focus speed, build, ...)
5) Are there factors other than sensor quality that limit the XT (focus speed, build, ...)

...or numerous other variants.

Seems to me that each post above answers a slightly different question.

[Woolburr]

I guess we will only know if the OP decides to return and discuss it more.

[AirBrontosaurus]

It depends on the lens, really.

Pictures taken with my Canon 100mm macro (very, very sharp lens) are noticeably sharper going from my 300D to my 20D. The resolving power of the 100mm macro is so great that it actually out-resolves the 300D's sensor, meaning that the body is the limiting factor in the shot (well, aside from the photographer ;)).

My nifty-fifty, on the other hand, isn't sharp enough for me to notice a difference. In that case, the lens is the limiting factor.
I haven't used the 24-70L, so I can't really help you out with that.

[Jon]

Full frame vs. cropped FOV and twice the resolution... I would hope that there is an extremely obvious difference in image quality. Don't get me wrong... the 24-70L is a fantastic lens and will make GREAT images with your 350D. Don't decide to buy or not buy based on what the different camera bodies are capable of. Make your decision on what the lens will do for the camera you have.
Actually, the 350D's sensor is higher resolution than the 5D's. A 5D would have to be about 20MP to get the same resolution of the 350D. More pixels on a larger sensor shouldn't be confused with higher resolution; that's the pixels per mm.

All else aside, the 24-70 will be an outstanding lens on whatever body you put it on. It'll just play a different role. On the 350D, or any other APS-C, it's essentially a normal to moderate telephoto lens. On a full-frame camera it's a good wide angle to short tele lens. But it's going to give you very good images on either, if you're up to the challenge (it takes some getting used to - it's very heavy for a lens in its range, and people tend to need some time to get used to that).

[canoflan]

Pretty simple. Buy the camera that fits your needs, but buy the best lens you can afford. If two cameras have essentially the same options and cost isn't an issue, then get the one with the better sensor. Cropping and the ability to enlarge must not be understimated. A Canon 350 will not have the leeway needed for these that a 5D or 1Ds would have. Lenses, on the other hand, are good no matter the camera and will maximize the performance of the camera. Isn't that the goal? Why research and spend the bucks and time to learn the camera to only settle on a lens that gives you 75% of the ability of the sensor?

[jptsr1]

would be interesting to see the theories this post presents in action. anyone have the equipment necessary to post some actual proof?

J.

[HughScot]

would be interesting to see the theories this post presents in action. anyone have the equipment necessary to post some actual proof?

J.

I have none to post but I do work partime in a camera store and I've taken the same excellent lens and put it on every different Canon body....XTi, 30D, 5D and the 1Ds Mark II. At 8x10 there was no difference in the picture quality. I've also done the same thing with Nikon bodies with the same results. It's all about the lens as respects the image quality. IMHO

[Steiglitz]

Actually, the 350D's sensor is higher resolution than the 5D's. A 5D would have to be about 20MP to get the same resolution of the 350D. More pixels on a larger sensor shouldn't be confused with higher resolution; that's the pixels per mm.

All else aside, the 24-70 will be an outstanding lens on whatever body you put it on. It'll just play a different role. On the 350D, or any other APS-C, it's essentially a normal to moderate telephoto lens. On a full-frame camera it's a good wide angle to short tele lens. But it's going to give you very good images on either, if you're up to the challenge (it takes some getting used to - it's very heavy for a lens in its range, and people tend to need some time to get used to that).


On the other hand, given a particular FOV, framing, and composition, the 5D does show higher resolution then the 350D....for this example the 5D breaks up the image into 12.8 million pieces, and the 350D into 8.0 million pieces.

Between these two cameras, to get the same FOV/framing/Compostion, one cannot use the same lens on both....the lenses would have to be different in order to get the same FOV.

So for a given resulting framing/compositon, the 5D will show more detail, higher resolution, and better image quality, of which may not even be noticable until the picture is enlarged past 11 x 14 or bigger.

If you want the highest image detail and resolution, shoot with a 5D or 1DS Mark II fullframe.

[Steiglitz]

5d and the 1dmkII have the same noise patterns, though 5d has slightly better in camera processing (pointless to users of these cameras though). i have personally used a 10d, 300d, 350d, 400d, and 1dmkII. image quality is the same in all, colors approximately equal, and believe it or not, the noise levels aren't that far away from each other (xt/xti have almost same noise, 10d/300d too, 1dmkII has prettier noise, though it tends to clip the blue channel a bit early). putting the 1d's much better AF sensor (which no beginner needs), the other four cameras give pretty much the same results. since you seem to be a casual snapshooter (not to be confused with a variety of other terms), you have no need for a camera upgrade. from your diction, i would assume that you are in fact a snapshooter, and would tell you not to even bother with a 24-70, rather get a third party equivilent for much less. there is no need to waste money on something you aren't sure you need. save it up for when you begin to want to seriously study photography...


quite wrong. birdshot for the birds i say, no need to get the elephant gun. as my favorite signature on this thread says, the only thing worse than a fuzzy image is a sharp image of a fuzzy idea.

I would have to disagree about the 5D and 1D Mark II having the same noise patterns...I have never found this to be true, not even close...this after making over 100,000 images between the two. The 5D clearly has at least 1 stop of lower noise performance then does the 1D Mark II. Between the two cameras, the 5D's better noise performance is very noticable at ISO 800 and especially at ISO 1600 and faster.

[KevC]

At ISO100, it should be almost identical.

Contrary to popular belief (well, popular ... outside of hobbiest/professionals), you pay for autofocus, ruggedness, weathersealing, larger viewfinder... NOT image quality.

[Tareq]

There is no big different in IQ on web, with print can be different on large size prints, but i can tell you that you will see big difference, sorry your mind (in fact).

[superdiver]

There has GOT to be someone on here who can put up some sample shots of these two bodies under controled cirmcumstances with the same lens and then we could see if there is a noticable difference on the images when viewed on the internet...

[Tareq]

There has GOT to be someone on here who can put up some sample shots of these two bodies under controled cirmcumstances with the same lens and then we could see if there is a noticable difference on the images when viewed on the internet...

I think if you go to any lens archive you will see many shots taken by a lens on different bodies, so is that not enough to judge? if you want only side by side then there are many who got $3000 body beside $800 and some L glasses, ask someone to do that tests you request and we will see.

[S Taylor]

if you want only side by side then there are many who got $3000 body beside $800 and some L glasses, ask someone to do that tests you request and we will see.

Wouldn't that be you Tareq?? :p

[Tareq]

Wouldn't that be you Tareq?? :p

good i said $3000 refering to 5D and there are many, if i said $7000 then it will be narrowed more then i think i will be most wanted, hehe.
I have many bodies and some L glasses but i am not good in tests.

you do try with your 1D2N and 20D and let us see your tests.

[delhi]

There is no big different in IQ on web, with print can be different on large size prints, but i can tell you that you will see big difference, sorry your mind (in fact).

Agreed 100%. A coupla issues back Photography Monthly did a comparo b/t a 350D and I think a 1DmkII or 5D to see if there are any difference in IQ. They came to the conclusion that there aren't any... atleast to the viewing public. But the general perception is that the person carrying the 5D/1DII was pro and the 350D wasn't. The irony was that the 350D was actually handled by a Pro in a proper way while the 5D/1DII was carried by a regular person.
This is not to say that there aren't any IQ differences. They are but not a whole lot. What the pro-bodies offer are its richer features, robust built, better ergonomics etc....
For you and me, it's a mind thing.

[exploration]

It's not clear to me what is the focus of the question from the original post. Is it:

1) will putting a good lens on an XT improve the image, compared to a cheaper lens? ("if it's wise...")
2) given a particular lens, is the image better with a 1D than an XT? ("would there be a difference...")
3) is an XT + 24-70 the best way to spend, say, $1800, or would it be better to allocate more money to the body (e.g., 30D + tamron 28-75 ?)
4) Are there factors other than optics that make the 24-70 worthwhile (focus speed, build, ...)
5) Are there factors other than sensor quality that limit the XT (focus speed, build, ...)

...or numerous other variants.

Seems to me that each post above answers a slightly different question.

I'd say a mix between #2 thru 5 :)
Thanks all for the the replies!

I'm still interested --as one member suggested-- for someone to do an actual test =)

[Steiglitz]

There has GOT to be someone on here who can put up some sample shots of these two bodies under controled cirmcumstances with the same lens and then we could see if there is a noticable difference on the images when viewed on the internet...


You will most often not find differences between the cameras when viewing output on a web site....this cannot often be done....you would have to view prints, and the bigger the prints the more differences you will see.

As for noise, you can see differences viewing images on the web...but as for other image qualities, more then likely not.

[Steiglitz]

I think if you go to any lens archive you will see many shots taken by a lens on different bodies, so is that not enough to judge? if you want only side by side then there are many who got $3000 body beside $800 and some L glasses, ask someone to do that tests you request and we will see.


Nope, this will not work...too many varying factors, like photographer skill, lighting used, composition used, methods used, post processing methods, on and on and on and on....looking at images on the web is most often very useless in judging image quality differences between cameras, lenses, etc.

[Tareq]

Nope, this will not work...too many varying factors, like photographer skill, lighting used, composition used, methods used, post processing methods, on and on and on and on....looking at images on the web is most often very useless in judging image quality differences between cameras, lenses, etc.

I know, but if you for example show 2 printed nice photos taken by one from $7000 and another from %1000 then you will see most will say wow for that $7000 as they believe it will produce great amazing photos always, and about that cheap $1000 they will say it is nice great but not WOW as that from the expensive, unless you mislead them.

[jptsr1]

i would think with as many people on this site that have sub $1k and $5k or so bodies in their list of gear list it would be fairly simple. mount the rebel on the tripod with sweet L lens set it to neutral and snap a picture of a coke can or something. then mount the 1d or 5d on the tripod with the same lens and match the rebel settings. snap the picture again. post the results, maybe even with some %100 crops if your feeling feisty. wouldn't take 10mins.

J.

[Bodog]

I think the answer is "maybe." Theoretically the full frame has less noise and a little more dynamic range. But then, not every picture you take will push the limits of the smaller sensor. Just like, theoretically a 16 bit image is better than an 8 bit image, but not every image will have enough range or details to show you the difference. I doubt that you will find an image on the web that would allow you to see the difference. Any difference would have been destroyed in the the process of preparing it for the web in the first place.

[Steiglitz]

I know, but if you for example show 2 printed nice photos taken by one from $7000 and another from %1000 then you will see most will say wow for that $7000 as they believe it will produce great amazing photos always, and about that cheap $1000 they will say it is nice great but not WOW as that from the expensive, unless you mislead them.


Nope again...if you don't tell the views which picture came from which camera, 9 times out of 10 they will not be able to guess which camera produced the photos....unless you show them poster sized prints, and/or low light high ISO prints, they would not be able to tell the difference.

[Steiglitz]

i would think with as many people on this site that have sub $1k and $5k or so bodies in their list of gear list it would be fairly simple. mount the rebel on the tripod with sweet L lens set it to neutral and snap a picture of a coke can or something. then mount the 1d or 5d on the tripod with the same lens and match the rebel settings. snap the picture again. post the results, maybe even with some %100 crops if your feeling feisty. wouldn't take 10mins.

J.

Ok, sure, but what if I prefer Pepsi?!?

[Jon]

Ok, sure, but what if I prefer Pepsi?!?
That's like shooting a pigeon instead of a duck; your results are instantly invalidated.

[ScottE]

That's like shooting a pigeon instead of a duck; your results are instantly invalidated.

At first glance the shot pigeon and shot duck both look like dead birds, but when you post process with a cognac and blueberry reduction you can bring out much better results from the duck.

[austincabot]

the 5D breaks up the image into 12.8 million pieces, and the 350D into 8.0 million pieces.



I think what was meant was ratio of the surface area of the sensor compared to the number of pixels. I.E. the Sensor Size Divided by the resolution. But oh well.

[tomhide]

Hi guys! I'm new here! =) Nice to meet you all!!


Newb question:


I have the 350D body and was wondering if it's wise to get the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM lens. Would I need to upgrade the body to fully take advantage of capabilities of this lens? (that cost over twice as much as the body)

Or let me ask this way:
Let say I had both the 1Ds Mark II (a nearly $7000 camera body) and a 350D (about $500 body) side by side –and I mounted the same lens –the 24-70L.

Settings on both cameras --the image size, shutter, ISO, the subject, lighting, etc, etc –everything is kept identical. I take the pictures and compare. Would there be a noticeable difference? Obviously the IDs Mark II has a ton of more options that ultimately allow the user for better images and the ability to blow the picture up to the size of an island –but I'm talking about just your typical glamour shot taken with the exact same settings by your average hobbyist/semi-pro photographer –would there be a difference?

If so, how much? (as in would it take professional eye, or extremely obvious?)


I should also note that 95% of my photos will be shown online –which I suppose means even more equivalence in the results between the two once posted online?

Thanks in advance for the help!

You'll get awesome IQ with your 350D with 24-70L but you'll get better IQ from full frame camera.

Here's little something I learned from the Canon's "white page" (info on full frame censors)

Quote====

Regardless of format, full-frame sensors are all about image quality. The most
obvious advantage of full-frame sensors is the ability to combine high resolution
with large pixel sizes. Compare two sensors with the same number of pixels, one a
full-frame unit and one smaller. The pixels of the full-frame sensor are larger. Each larger pixel has a greater surface area available for gathering light. More light collected means less amplification needs to be applied to the output signal of each pixel for the purposes of readout and image processing. Less is better here
because magnifying low-level signals inevitably entails picking up and increasing
noise that will then have to be removed as thoroughly as possible in a later step.

Unquote===
Quote====

Larger pixels help full-frame sensors to produce a higher dynamic range and finer tonal gradations than their smaller brethren. Insufficient dynamic range for a given situation means values at their respective ends of the exposure curve will be compressed, showing little separation or variation, or worse, they will be entirely featureless. These unwelcome events are called, respectively, “blowout” and “black-crush.”

Unquote==

There are heap more info in the "white page" but don't know where the download link is gone to.