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

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 24 May 2010 (Monday) 19:04
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

I need evidence to support the image quality of the 5D Mark II

 
kcbrown
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,384 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
     
May 29, 2010 00:22 |  #166

Poe wrote in post #10265220 (external link)
Sensor performance cannot be accurately evaluated on a per frame basis.

How exactly are you measuring "accuracy" here?


"There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
Canon: 2 x 7D, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, 55-250 IS, Sigma 8-16, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4, other assorted primes, and a 430EX.
Nikon: D750, D600, 24-85 VR, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-300 VC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
kcbrown
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,384 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
     
May 29, 2010 00:23 |  #167

Poe wrote in post #10265269 (external link)
He illustrates his ignorance with the quoted paragraph:

The 5D Mark II images looked significantly sharper with better local contrast at all ISO. In theory, there should not be a great difference in perceived resolution between the 18MP sensor of the 7D and 21.1 MP sensor of the 5D Mark II. I do not know why the 5D Mark II images look sharper, but if I were to guess, I think maybe the 5D Mark II has a significantly weaker anti-aliasing filter than the 7D and that could be the reason why the 5D Mark II images looked sharper. To put things in perspective though, you have to remember these are 100% crops. The 7D images do not look soft in isolation or when viewed at more realistic sizes. They only look soft when compared side by side with 5D Mark II images.

Again, someone making conclusions about the sensor performance when their test never tested sensor performance to begin with.

In what way was the quoted section talking about the sensor and not the camera?


"There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
Canon: 2 x 7D, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, 55-250 IS, Sigma 8-16, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4, other assorted primes, and a 430EX.
Nikon: D750, D600, 24-85 VR, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-300 VC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Poe
Goldmember
Avatar
1,956 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Modesto, CA
     
May 29, 2010 00:31 |  #168

kcbrown wrote in post #10265282 (external link)
In what way was the quoted section talking about the sensor and not the camera?


He used 21.1 MP and 18 MP to capture the same frame, then reduced the 21.1 MP to the dimensions of the 7D image. This gives the 5D2 reduced image greater effective pixel density which led to the increase in percieved resolution. Then tries to account for it as a result of the AA filter, which it is not. It's an outcome from the number of pixels, his manipulation of the FOV and image processing method.



Nikon D750, D7200 | Nikon-Nikkor 14-24G, 60G Micro, 70-300E | SIGMA 35A, 105 OS, 24-105 OS | ZEISS Distagon 2.0/25 Classic, Apo-Distagon 1.4/55 Otus, Apo-Planar 1.4/85 Otus, Makro-Planar 2/100 Classic, Apo-Sonnar 2/135 Classic

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tin.risky
Senior Member
Avatar
806 posts
Joined May 2007
Location: New York
     
May 29, 2010 00:37 |  #169

No one's saying you can't take amazing photos with the 7D, but there's just something about photos taken with the 5D/5DmkII that pops. Spend a bit of money and rent a 5D/5DmkII for a day and slap the same lens on that and your crop body. Don't bother with 100% crops. I doubt most of us are pros who are going to blow up wall sized shots. Just look at the pictures side by side taken with the same lens on each camera. I got the 24-105L when I had my 40D and I wasn't overly impressed, but once I slapped it on my 5D, it's become my favorite lens. Same with all my other lenses. If you don't want to go through the bother/expense/temptat​ion of renting a 5D, then just go check out the 7D admirers thread and then the 5D admirers thread and tell me there's no difference in image quality.

I've tried a lot of camera bodies and my 5D is the one that's going to stay with me for a while. It also really comes down to what you need to be shooting. Need faster AF and burst speeds and greater reach? Get the 7D. Don't need the reach, want wider shots (since you no longer have the 1.6 crop using the same lens), greater depth of field (for subject separation, etc), and (in my experience) photos with a little extra something? Get a full frame body. I find a lot of posts like this are just from people who want a quick and easy way to make their photos look better just by buying the latest and greatest. You just have to get what suits your shooting needs best.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kcbrown
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,384 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
     
May 29, 2010 00:45 |  #170

Poe wrote in post #10265314 (external link)
He used 21.1 MP and 18 MP to capture the same frame, then reduced the 21.1 MP to the dimensions of the 7D image. This gives the 5D2 reduced image greater effective pixel density which led to the increase in percieved resolution. Then tries to account for it as a result of the AA filter, which it is not. It's an outcome from the number of pixels, his manipulation of the FOV and image processing method.

Well, 21.1 MP versus 18 MP is so small a difference as to almost be a wash. The 21.1 MP image is only 8% larger on a side than the 18 MP image.

Yeah, you'll see a difference, but it'll be very subtle.

But again, how is it that he's comparing the sensors and not the cameras? His methodology is correct for comparing the cameras, even if the reasons he gives for the perceived differences are faulty.


"There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
Canon: 2 x 7D, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, 55-250 IS, Sigma 8-16, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4, other assorted primes, and a 430EX.
Nikon: D750, D600, 24-85 VR, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-300 VC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Poe
Goldmember
Avatar
1,956 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Modesto, CA
     
May 29, 2010 00:52 |  #171

kcbrown wrote in post #10265359 (external link)
Well, 21.1 MP versus 18 MP is so small a difference as to almost be a wash. The 21.1 MP image is only 8% larger on a side than the 18 MP image.

Yeah, you'll see a difference, but it'll be very subtle.

But again, how is it that he's comparing the sensors and not the cameras? His methodology is correct for comparing the cameras, even if the reasons he gives for the perceived differences are faulty.

Because he goes back to the sensor as an explanation for the difference in image quality.



Nikon D750, D7200 | Nikon-Nikkor 14-24G, 60G Micro, 70-300E | SIGMA 35A, 105 OS, 24-105 OS | ZEISS Distagon 2.0/25 Classic, Apo-Distagon 1.4/55 Otus, Apo-Planar 1.4/85 Otus, Makro-Planar 2/100 Classic, Apo-Sonnar 2/135 Classic

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kcbrown
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,384 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
     
May 29, 2010 01:06 |  #172

tin.risky wrote in post #10265332 (external link)
No one's saying you can't take amazing photos with the 7D, but there's just something about photos taken with the 5D/5DmkII that pops.

That wouldn't be the narrower depth of field, would it? Creating more background blur generally tends to make the subject stand out more -- to make it "pop" more.

Spend a bit of money and rent a 5D/5DmkII for a day and slap the same lens on that and your crop body. Don't bother with 100% crops. I doubt most of us are pros who are going to blow up wall sized shots. Just look at the pictures side by side taken with the same lens on each camera. I got the 24-105L when I had my 40D and I wasn't overly impressed, but once I slapped it on my 5D, it's become my favorite lens.

And if you shot the 24-105L on the 5D at f/6.3 and up and limited the low end of your focal length range to 38mm, while on the 40D you shot at f/4.0 and limited your focal length range on the long end to 65mm, how much of a difference would you perceive?

You can't really compare two cameras unless you shoot them both on the same terms.

The full frame will give you more flexibility, though.

I've tried a lot of camera bodies and my 5D is the one that's going to stay with me for a while. It also really comes down to what you need to be shooting. Need faster AF and burst speeds and greater reach? Get the 7D. Don't need the reach, want wider shots (since you no longer have the 1.6 crop using the same lens), greater depth of field (for subject separation, etc), and (in my experience) photos with a little extra something? Get a full frame body. I find a lot of posts like this are just from people who want a quick and easy way to make their photos look better just by buying the latest and greatest. You just have to get what suits your shooting needs best.

My shooting needs are general. I need to be able to do it all. I need a camera that will focus fast and accurately over as much of the frame as possible (the coverage provided by the 5D autofocus system is far from "as much as possible" -- it's laughable). I need a reasonable burst speed (5 frames per second is enough for me). I need to be able to go wide and long. I need to be able to do short depth of field and long depth of field. I prefer as much image quality as I can get without sacrificing any of those other things.

Now given all that, what single camera from the Canon line would you recommend, short of the 1Ds series?

The answer to that question is that there is no such camera from Canon. Nikon has the D700, but I hate the way it feels in my hand.

And so, I await the release of the 5Dmk3, and will continue to use crop cameras until Canon finally sees the light. That said, from what I've seen of full frame shots versus crop shots, I'm not missing that much -- the differences are subtle.

But it would be nice to be able to narrow that depth of field a bit more under some circumstances without having to spend a fortune on glass.


"There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
Canon: 2 x 7D, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, 55-250 IS, Sigma 8-16, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4, other assorted primes, and a 430EX.
Nikon: D750, D600, 24-85 VR, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-300 VC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kcbrown
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,384 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
     
May 29, 2010 01:08 |  #173

Poe wrote in post #10265379 (external link)
Because he goes back to the sensor as an explanation for the difference in image quality.

That means he's attributing a difference in the performance of the camera to a difference in the attributes (not to be confused with performance) of the sensors. That is not the same thing as comparing the performance of the sensors themselves.

If the 7D shots are softer per-pixel than the 5Dmk2 shots, when both cameras have lenses on them that can outresolve their sensors and all focusing is done manually via live view, wouldn't it follow that at least some of the difference he sees is attributable to the antialiasing filter?


"There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
Canon: 2 x 7D, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, 55-250 IS, Sigma 8-16, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4, other assorted primes, and a 430EX.
Nikon: D750, D600, 24-85 VR, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-300 VC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tin.risky
Senior Member
Avatar
806 posts
Joined May 2007
Location: New York
     
May 29, 2010 01:31 |  #174

kcbrown wrote in post #10265423 (external link)
That wouldn't be the narrower depth of field, would it? Creating more background blur generally tends to make the subject stand out more -- to make it "pop" more.

And if you shot the 24-105L on the 5D at f/6.3 and up and limited the low end of your focal length range to 38mm, while on the 40D you shot at f/4.0 and limited your focal length range on the long end to 65mm, how much of a difference would you perceive?

You can't really compare two cameras unless you shoot them both on the same terms.

The full frame will give you more flexibility, though.

The narrow depth of field isn't the "pop" I was talking about. I've shot at all apertures with the 5D and there's just something about the photos which looks different. I hesitate to say sharper, but that's part of it. Shooting at f/4 on the 40D wouldn't be fair because wide open it'd have a sharpness disadvantage from the get-go. At higher apertures though, still keeping the difference in aperture, I can still tell the difference. You can do all the lab tests and exacting experiments with 100% crops that you want, but for me the most important thing is whether or not I'm happy with the shots I get when I'm shooting an event or for enjoyment. I shoot them in real life situations with the same lenses, and 4 out of 5 times, the 5D shots need less post processing and I'm generally happier with the photos. I'm not a gear collector and touting the 5D just because it's full frame and hence better, as I've had lots of L glass and chose to go with 3rd party lenses in almost every instance and found them to be just as good IQ-wise.

kcbrown wrote in post #10265423 (external link)
My shooting needs are general. I need to be able to do it all. I need a camera that will focus fast and accurately over as much of the frame as possible (the coverage provided by the 5D autofocus system is far from "as much as possible" -- it's laughable). I need a reasonable burst speed (5 frames per second is enough for me). I need to be able to go wide and long. I need to be able to do short depth of field and long depth of field. I prefer as much image quality as I can get without sacrificing any of those other things.

Now given all that, what single camera from the Canon line would you recommend, short of the 1Ds series?

And so, I await the release of the 5Dmk3, and will continue to use crop cameras until Canon finally sees the light. That said, from what I've seen of full frame shots versus crop shots, I'm not missing that much -- the differences are subtle.

It's just what I said about getting what works for you. Looks like the 7D will be what you're looking for until Canon steps up to the plate and releases the 5Dmk3. I wouldn't call the 5D autofocus "laughable", but I definitely admit the 7D is much better in that instance. I just hate when these kinds of threads descend into which camera is "the best" and not "what's best for your needs", if you know what I mean. Both will give you great image quality, and you'd have to sacrifice either the short or long end for either camera anyway (using the same lenses) since you'll either lose the 1.6x with a FF or gain it with a crop.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kcbrown
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,384 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
     
May 29, 2010 01:44 |  #175

tin.risky wrote in post #10265487 (external link)
The narrow depth of field isn't the "pop" I was talking about. I've shot at all apertures with the 5D and there's just something about the photos which looks different. I hesitate to say sharper, but that's part of it. Shooting at f/4 on the 40D wouldn't be fair because wide open it'd have a sharpness disadvantage from the get-go. At higher apertures though, still keeping the difference in aperture, I can still tell the difference. You can do all the lab tests and exacting experiments with 100% crops that you want, but for me the most important thing is whether or not I'm happy with the shots I get when I'm shooting an event or for enjoyment. I shoot them in real life situations with the same lenses, and 4 out of 5 times, the 5D shots need less post processing and I'm generally happier with the photos. I'm not a gear collector and touting the 5D just because it's full frame and hence better, as I've had lots of L glass and chose to go with 3rd party lenses in almost every instance and found them to be just as good IQ-wise.

I guess that's one of the things I was talking about that simply doesn't seem to be able to come across in web forum comparisons. I've no idea why that is.

It's just what I said about getting what works for you. Looks like the 7D will be what you're looking for until Canon steps up to the plate and releases the 5Dmk3.

Yeah, that's how I figure it, which is why I have one. Low-ISO vertical banding issues aside (which I'm going to take care of one way or another if possible), the 7D doesn't appear to have any significant faults other than those that might arise from the fact that it has a crop sensor instead of a full frame one.

I wouldn't call the 5D autofocus "laughable", but I definitely admit the 7D is much better in that instance. I just hate when these kinds of threads descend into which camera is "the best" and not "what's best for your needs", if you know what I mean. Both will give you great image quality, and you'd have to sacrifice either the short or long end for either camera anyway (using the same lenses) since you'll either lose the 1.6x with a FF or gain it with a crop.

Well, because you can treat each camera as a system unto itself, the real question is what you lose or gain when comparing the two systems. For that, you don't really lose anything with the full frame camera except FPS, and that is very much an artificial limitation, as evidenced by the fact that the EOS 1V film camera can do 10 frames per second.

The full frame camera can gain the "reach" of the crop camera if you slap a teleconverter on it, so it doesn't lose in the "reach" department, either. With the release of the Sigma 8-16, the crop cameras don't really give up much in wide angle capability, either.

So the advantages the full frame camera retains over the crop camera are the ability to achieve a shorter depth of field and the relative ease with which a sharp, detailed image can be captured (thanks to the fact that light is being captured across a larger surface).


I think Canon is desperately trying to avoid building a "does absolutely everything really well" camera, even in their 1D series.


"There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
Canon: 2 x 7D, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, 55-250 IS, Sigma 8-16, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4, other assorted primes, and a 430EX.
Nikon: D750, D600, 24-85 VR, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-300 VC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
43,640 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3211
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
May 29, 2010 09:05 |  #176

kcbrown wrote in post #10265525 (external link)
So the advantages the full frame camera retains over the crop camera are the ability to achieve a shorter depth of field and the relative ease with which a sharp, detailed image can be captured (thanks to the fact that light is being captured across a larger surface).

...we shouldn't forget that FF has a 1.6x advantage in not taxing the lens' resolution when making a large print, whereas the APS-C takes the same lens and demands 1.6x more from it to make the same size large print.
If we assume a great lens with 84ll/mm of resolution in the center, and 60ll/mm at the edges, the APS-C frame only presents 53ll/mm at the center of its print (which is inferior to the FF's use of the edges of the field and its lesser resolution!)


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mmahoney
Goldmember
Avatar
2,789 posts
Joined Jan 2007
     
May 29, 2010 09:18 |  #177

kcbrown wrote in post #10265525 (external link)
I think Canon is desperately trying to avoid building a "does absolutely everything really well" camera, even in their 1D series.

The 1DS series are about as close as Canon comes to doing everything really well in one camera, and your wallet will know it.

Product line differentiation combined with feature dumbing has been the major factor driving sales & profits across several product lines for both Canon and Nikon but more so with Canon.

Remember we photographers are just sales targets to the large corporations .. they have their primary commitment to profit, and product line differentiation is a large part of that profit equation.


Newfoundland Wedding Photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
13,614 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 873
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
May 29, 2010 09:22 |  #178

Poe wrote in post #10265220 (external link)
Sensor performance cannot be accurately evaluated on a per frame basis.

People who are using cameras to take real pictures of real subjects and do real things with them are more concerned about the "per frame basis."


TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ilumo
Goldmember
1,736 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 34
Joined Oct 2009
     
May 29, 2010 10:09 |  #179

RDKirk wrote in post #10266621 (external link)
People who are using cameras to take real pictures of real subjects and do real things with them are more concerned about the "per frame basis."

and have real budgets that will not allow them to purchase $2000+ lenses (f/1.2) to give them equal DOF to cheaper f2.0-2.8 lenses that could be used on the full frame counterparts.

Yes, longer telephoto lenses will work better on the crop cameras vs full frames, but then again, you should be able to crop a FF to 1.6 and it be pretty similar. you can always get the crop FOV with a FF, but you can't do FF FOV with crop. So, yea, versatility is nice.

I'm not bashing crop bodies, but IMO, FF is better than crop, no if ands or buts. Now sensor is only part of the photo taking experience. the 7d "features" are amazing. MUCh better than the features of the 5dm2.


Body: Sony a7R IV
Glass: 50mm f/1.8 | 35mm f/1.4L USM | 16-35 f/4.0 IS USML USM | 24-70 f/2.8L II USM | 24-105 f/4.0L IS USM | 70-200 f/2.8L II IS USM | 85mm f/1.4L IS USM | 100mm f/2.8L IS USM | 24mm f/1.4GM | 70-200mm f/2.8GM | Samyang 85mm f/1.4 | Voigtlander 10mm f/5.6
Accessories: 430 EX II, 600 EX, tripods, umbrellas, and other goodies.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
May 29, 2010 11:18 |  #180

Originally Posted by Poe
Sensor performance cannot be accurately evaluated on a per frame basis.

RDKirk wrote in post #10266621 (external link)
People who are using cameras to take real pictures of real subjects and do real things with them are more concerned about the "per frame basis."

I am also still baffled by what Poe's goals and objections have been throughout the thread. He has acknowledged that if we wish to compare images (designed to be the "same" image) from two different cameras at a given print size ( a real world situation) then the size of the print will be a major factor in how discernible the difference is.

We used to be able to assess film performance on a per area basis and make sensible, practical use of that information: because the same film was available in several formats we could decide which format/film combination met our needs. We can't do that with "per area sensor performance " data.

If one were needing to account for the degree of geometrical enlargement from sensor to print in critical cropping situations, it would be a useful parameter. That's been covered in many other threads under the "pixels per duck" discussions.


My picture galleries (external link)

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

23,788 views & 1 like for this thread
I need evidence to support the image quality of the 5D Mark II
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is malibug
775 guests, 286 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.