Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera
Thread started 20 Aug 2017 (Sunday) 13:54
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Canon 5Diii - image quality?

 
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,387 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Aug 22, 2017 07:17 |  #16

Well, with wide angle, DOF isn't really a concern, and at very low ISOs for a daylight shot, again not going to be anything that can really be noticed IMO.

The issue here is expectation and lens, it seems...


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
John ­ from ­ PA
Cream of the Crop
7,501 posts
Joined May 2003
Southeast Pennsylvania
Aug 22, 2017 16:46 |  #17

Nothing to do with the distortion, but as someone touched on, the exposure of 1/250 at f/8 (ISO 125) is likely about one-stop too much.




LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
RDKirk's Avatar
12,548 posts
Joined May 2004
USA
Aug 23, 2017 07:36 |  #18

Van Gogh wrote in post #18433924 (external link)
Where full frames shine are high ISO performance and shallow Depth of Field for portraits.
There is not going to be an astronomical jump for image quality even in that scenarios but the difference is there.

And big prints. Compare at 30x40 inches, and the difference is clear.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,739 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Post has been edited 3 months ago by Bassat.
Aug 23, 2017 07:53 |  #19

RDKirk wrote in post #18434744 (external link)
And big prints. Compare at 30x40 inches, and the difference is clear.

True. But way too frequently blown all out of proportion. An acquaintance prints 20"x30" from a 7D all the time. They look fantastic. My family doctor's office is festooned with huge prints of his vacations (ironic, I help pay for those vacations). His goto camera is a P&S. Some of them are from his cell phone.

If bigger is better, why stop at full frame 35mm? Get yourself a 6x7, or 8x10 plate camera. My BIL does gallery exhibits of his photography. Shots from his 645D hang along-side shots from his Panasonic P&S. Artistry is not in the tools. It's in the artist.

Correction:
My BIL shoots a Pentax 645 film camera, not a 645D.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
joedlh
Cream of the Crop
joedlh's Avatar
Joined Dec 2007
Long Island, NY, N. America, Sol III, Orion Spur, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Cluster, Laniakea.
Aug 23, 2017 08:10 |  #20

Bassat wrote in post #18434755 (external link)
True. But way too frequently blown all out of proportion. An acquaintance prints 20"x30" from a 7D all the time. They look fantastic. My family doctor's office is festooned with huge prints of his vacations (ironic, I help pay for those vacations). His goto camera is a P&S. Some of them are from his cell phone.

I was concerned that prints from my lowly 8mp APS-C 20D would not be great beyond 11x14. That was until one of my shots of a rehabilitated dolphin release was blown up to 3x5 feet (not by me; I would have tried to talk them out of it) and displayed in the Long Island Aquarium. It looked fine at a distance, which was the intention.

If one's concern is that a blade of grass in a landscape shot be perfectly resolved when looked at from a reading distance, yeah, go to a 135 sensor or even bigger. But you be too close for the larger picture.


Joe
Gear: Kodak Instamatic, Polaroid Swinger. Oh you meant gear now. :rolleyes:
http://photo.joedlh.ne​texternal link
Editing ok

LOG IN TO REPLY
SereneSpeed
Senior Member
722 posts
Joined Jan 2013
Aug 23, 2017 10:00 |  #21

Give it some time. Get used to the camera as a whole. When you are comfortable with it in your normal shooting conditions, you will try it in new and more challenging conditions and then one day a year from now, you'll open a file from your 550D and wonder why it's broken. There is a huge difference to me. But when I upgraded (the same camera to the same camera) I felt the way you did. It took me a while to appreciate the differences. You'll be amazed at what you can pull of with that camera, but it takes time to appreciate it.

Another factor of your distortion is that your crop sensor sampled from the centre of EF lenses. That same lens on your crop body would not have shown that much horizon and therefore the distortion would not have been so in-your-face noticeable.

Also, the 24-70 is a nice entry-level L lens, but as discussed, it is not perfect and will need some tweaking in post.


http://danielb.photogr​aphy (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/dmwbphotography (external link)
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/danielmwbuehle​r (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
SereneSpeed
Senior Member
722 posts
Joined Jan 2013
Aug 23, 2017 10:05 |  #22

joedlh wrote in post #18432765 (external link)
Um, the Earth is a sphere. The horizon is mostly perceived as flat, but it's not. A wide angle lens will make the curvature more apparent.


Yes, but we happen to live on the outside of that sphere, not the inside. And, had the horizon line been framed in the bottom (opposite) portion of the image, the horizon would be smiling, not frowning. The curvature of the earth is not the primary reason for the arcing of the horizon line - distortion is.


http://danielb.photogr​aphy (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/dmwbphotography (external link)
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/danielmwbuehle​r (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
RDKirk's Avatar
12,548 posts
Joined May 2004
USA
Post has been edited 3 months ago by RDKirk.
Aug 23, 2017 22:14 |  #23

Bassat wrote in post #18434755 (external link)
True. But way too frequently blown all out of proportion.

Good one.:-P

An acquaintance prints 20"x30" from a 7D all the time. They look fantastic. My family doctor's office is festooned with huge prints of his vacations (ironic, I help pay for those vacations). His goto camera is a P&S. Some of them are from his cell phone.

A lot depends on what kind of detail is in the image to being with. Some images simply don't have significant detail. Or course, it also depends on the discrimination of the viewer, as well.

There is a reason discriminating landscape fans are hung up on sharpness and sensor/film size: There is essentially no limit to the amount of detail landscape aficionados like to see in a wall enlargement. I once saw a guy at a gallery whip out a loupe to examine a landscape.

For portraits, most people consider it "sharp" when facial hair is resolved if the scale of the image is large enough to expect facial hair to be resolved. At 20 megapixels, a 24x36mm sensor can resolve facial hair in a loosely posed group shot enlarged to 30xx40 inches.

If bigger is better, why stop at full frame 35mm? Get yourself a 6x7, or 8x10 plate camera. My BIL does gallery exhibits of his photography. Shots from his 645D hang along-side shots from his Panasonic P&S. Artistry is not in the tools. It's in the artist.

Up until the 5D Classic, I used both 4x5 and 6x7. Here is the test that finally convinced me to retire my Mamiya RZ67

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

This was from a half-length portrait, both images taken in quick succession. If you'll notice, there is an inscription at about the 7:00 position on the man's contact lens, visible in both images. The Mamiya image still has a tiny bit better resolution and contrast than the 5D image, but this was close enough to enable me, finally, to retire the medium format camera.



LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,739 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Aug 24, 2017 05:55 as a reply to RDKirk's post |  #24

Interesting post. Most certainly, image content and anticipating viewing situation matter in large prints. Incidentally, I gave up MF in 1976 when I got my first 35mm SLR.

Correction: My BIL shoots a Pentax 645 film camera, not the 645D.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
RDKirk's Avatar
12,548 posts
Joined May 2004
USA
Aug 24, 2017 06:52 |  #25

Bassat wrote in post #18435668 (external link)
Interesting post. Most certainly, image content and anticipating viewing situation matter in large prints. Incidentally, I gave up MF in 1976 when I got my first 35mm SLR.

Correction: My BIL shoots a Pentax 645 film camera, not the 645D.

I was deep into my f/64 period in 1976--rolling in medium format, going into large format.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Monkey ­ moss
Senior Member
Monkey moss's Avatar
910 posts
Joined Apr 2012
Bristol, England
Aug 24, 2017 12:25 |  #26

SereneSpeed wrote in post #18434867 (external link)
Give it some time. Get used to the camera as a whole. When you are comfortable with it in your normal shooting conditions, you will try it in new and more challenging conditions and then one day a year from now, you'll open a file from your 550D and wonder why it's broken. There is a huge difference to me. But when I upgraded (the same camera to the same camera) I felt the way you did. It took me a while to appreciate the differences. You'll be amazed at what you can pull of with that camera, but it takes time to appreciate it.

Another factor of your distortion is that your crop sensor sampled from the centre of EF lenses. That same lens on your crop body would not have shown that much horizon and therefore the distortion would not have been so in-your-face noticeable.

Also, the 24-70 is a nice entry-level L lens, but as discussed, it is not perfect and will need some tweaking in post.

Agree with this. I had the same thoughts. The change from crop to full frame is more subtle than some people think IMHO. Plus some don't realise the downsides of FF such as what you are seeing in the distortion, more vignetting. That's said, I love my 5d now, definitely takes a long time to learn the camera properly though.

The 24-105 is a fab lens, but it does have its faults. Some love it, some bash it, you'll need to work it out for yourself :lol:

Enjoy your new camera.


Jon :cool::oops::D:cry::confused::(:lol:
Gear: 5Diii, 16-35 f4, 24-70 f2.8 ii, 70-300L, 35mm f2 IS, 85mm 1.8
My Flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

1,821 views & 16 likes for this thread
Canon 5Diii - image quality?
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00117 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s
Latest registered member is fjacp
889 guests, 460 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017