To crop, or not to crop, 1.6x on the 5D!

Makes you think if it is worth having a 1ds MK3 over a 1d MK3????

Nick, did you use Photozoom for the above test enlargement? I just checked the Photozoom pro 2 website and looked at the "examples" page, the parrot example and the woman with fruit example is nasty. Just wondering if they've just used really bad examples...

adamlc wrote in post #4405832
Nick, did you use Photozoom for the above test enlargement? I just checked the Photozoom pro 2 website and looked at the "examples" page, the parrot example and the woman with fruit example is nasty. Just wondering if they've just used really bad examples...

Yes thats the one I used, hangon I will have a look at those examples...

hmm yeah grosse!! but I see they have enlarged by 400% which is far more than what is needed to achieve the 1.6x fov.

Depend for what you need. Last weeks some pro photographers in my town get 40D as new body together with their 1DMKII or III and they shoot close distance with MK and 70-200 IS and for long they use 40D with 300 or 400mm f2.8 lens because they find 1.6x crop factor superb for shoting in middle of pitch (50m from us)....

Did you use jpgs or RAW for this test? I would hope RAW processed identically for both, I apologize if previously stated and I missed it. I confess to not knowing much about upsizing - does it matter if it's a relatively 'simple' subject like this with large areas of identical pixels (since it came off a commercial printer to make the label) and would a more complex or varied subject fare as well with an upsizing?

This may be a dumb question ( I hope it makes sense) but is there any reason to up sizing the 5D file then cropping it vs. cropping it and then up sizing it? Forgive me if this was already covered and I missed it. This is a very interesting test to me because I am considering purchasing a 5D and from your results I am not so sure I would have much need for my 20D except for a back up.

Thanks.

Interesting experiment, but to play devils advocate, there is another way to look at it. Is it worth paying the $2500 for a 5D when a $500 XT can do just as well? Not that I’m ready to give up my 5, but I was surprised at how close both images are. If you had not called out each, I could not have told the difference between them. Of course, the 5 has a lot more assets than pretending to be a crop I guess.

gjl711 wrote in post #4406649
Interesting experiment, but to play devils advocate, there is another way to look at it. Is it worth paying the $2500 for a 5D when a $500 XT can do just as well? Not that I’m ready to give up my 5, but I was surprised at how close both images are. If you had not called out each, I could not have told the difference between them. Of course, the 5 has a lot more assets than pretending to be a crop I guess.

That depends on the lenses you own I guess, if you have sufficient reach to fill the 5D frame a bit than backing off on a 1.6 crop

lungdoc wrote in post #4406440
Did you use jpgs or RAW for this test? I would hope RAW processed identically for both, I apologize if previously stated and I missed it. I confess to not knowing much about upsizing - does it matter if it's a relatively 'simple' subject like this with large areas of identical pixels (since it came off a commercial printer to make the label) and would a more complex or varied subject fare as well with an upsizing?

Yes, I never use jpeg, only raw.

I have not noticed any problems regardless of subject, it seems fine on anything so far.

Travis Ingle wrote in post #4406532
This may be a dumb question ( I hope it makes sense) but is there any reason to up sizing the 5D file then cropping it vs. cropping it and then up sizing it? Forgive me if this was already covered and I missed it. This is a very interesting test to me because I am considering purchasing a 5D and from your results I am not so sure I would have much need for my 20D except for a back up.

Thanks.

It shouldnt make any difference what way you do it, I just found it easier this way thats all

gjl711 wrote in post #4406649
Interesting experiment, but to play devils advocate, there is another way to look at it. Is it worth paying the $2500 for a 5D when a $500 XT can do just as well? Not that I’m ready to give up my 5, but I was surprised at how close both images are. If you had not called out each, I could not have told the difference between them. Of course, the 5 has a lot more assets than pretending to be a crop I guess.

I get what your saying & to be honest I never notice any vast amount of differences on test shots like this, there was a similar one posted comparing the 20D/40D/5D, which shows them all to be as good as each other, but its a different story on real images.

There are loads of things that effect the final result, the 5D has much lower noise than the XT, this shows up on realworld images a lot more than these tests, especially when you apply any real sharpening to the image.

Also there is the question of focus accuracy, I find the 5D MUCH better in this respect, infact coupled with the 24-105L which is known for its good accuracy I get a 100% keeper rate, any duds are always my fault, this is the biggest difference that ive noticed, its just so much better.

Lastly there is the fact that its a nicer camera to use on a daily basis as I tend to do, especially for landscapes, sure you can put a 10-22 on the XT but it doesnt match the ease of use you get from using the 5D with its large viewfinder, I also like the fact that lenses work as intended, the 24-105L is a superb lens on FF, I wouldnt own it if I was using the XT, I would have to have the 17-55IS which would be the only real option, but its not an L.

Update:

I have just received back 2 prints, one taken using a 1.6x body, the other using the 5D with the enlarged/cropped technique.

Looking at both prints from normal viewing distance they look similar, but one does seem to have more "pop" or "presence", whatever you like to call it, when viewed closer its more obvious to see, one is quite a lot clearer & more punchy than the other.

Good job I put text on the images stating which was which, I can say that the 5D enlarged/cropped to 1.6x looks considerably better than the native 8mp.

I got some more people to have a look & put my fingers over the text saying which was which, everyone picked the 5D enlarged/cropped.

So from now on its 5D all the way for me, no more 1.6x bodies , of course there are other considerations like fps, but I get by just fine with the 5D's fps, but I can understand it wont suit everyone, especially those that like to capture an entire event in burst mode, almost like a movie

Anyway, just thought I would let you know my findings, whether this has been helpful or not to anyone, I have certainly enjoyed messing about with it all

Nick, I would like to see a similar comparison test (the same target would be fine) but without upsizing the image from the 5D. That would satisfy a curiosity of mine.

Thanks.

SkipD wrote in post #4412341
Nick, I would like to see a similar comparison test (the same target would be fine) but without upsizing the image from the 5D. That would satisfy a curiosity of mine.

Thanks.

That would be about a 5mp image then? surely you mean just a crop of image 1 on that test then? as this was the 5D image without upsizing.

SkipD wrote in post #4412341
Nick, I would like to see a similar comparison test (the same target would be fine) but without upsizing the image from the 5D. That would satisfy a curiosity of mine.

Thanks.

i.e the 5mp 5D crop compared to the 8mp 1.6x regular?