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

Canon 5Diii - image quality?

 
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,273 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3539
Joined May 2002
Location: 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 a registered member)
John ­ from ­ PA
Cream of the Crop
7,939 posts
Likes: 467
Joined May 2003
Location: 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."
Avatar
12,719 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 389
Joined May 2004
Location: 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."
Avatar
7,604 posts
Likes: 2560
Joined Oct 2015
Post edited 9 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
Avatar
5,236 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Likes: 379
Joined Dec 2007
Location: 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​t (external link)
Editing ok

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SereneSpeed
Senior Member
791 posts
Likes: 1023
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.


https://www.danbcreati​ve.com/blog/ (external link) - Latest Blog Post!
https://www.instagram.​com/unabashed_beauty (external link)nsfw
https://www.instagram.​com/danbcreative (external link)new brand
https://www.instagram.​com/photography.on.the​.bay (external link)new 'side project'
https://www.instagram.​com/danielmwbuehler (external link)
http://danielb.photogr​aphy (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SereneSpeed
Senior Member
791 posts
Likes: 1023
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.


https://www.danbcreati​ve.com/blog/ (external link) - Latest Blog Post!
https://www.instagram.​com/unabashed_beauty (external link)nsfw
https://www.instagram.​com/danbcreative (external link)new brand
https://www.instagram.​com/photography.on.the​.bay (external link)new 'side project'
https://www.instagram.​com/danielmwbuehler (external link)
http://danielb.photogr​aphy (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,719 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 389
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
Post edited 9 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."
Avatar
7,604 posts
Likes: 2560
Joined Oct 2015
     
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."
Avatar
12,719 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 389
Joined May 2004
Location: 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
Avatar
941 posts
Likes: 457
Joined Apr 2012
Location: 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 a registered member)

2,633 views & 16 likes for this thread
Canon 5Diii - image quality?
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
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 gunz46
763 guests, 270 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

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.