1D / 40D - Better image, same lens?

So, let's say you have a 40D with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. It works OK but sharpness at f/2.8 is not quite what you'd like. Will that same lens perform better on a 1D Mark II? Will you get better effective sharpness by having each pixel in the 1D be larger than the pixels in the 40D?

Or will the IQ get worse because the lens is now having to cover a larger sensor and more of the len's poor edge performance is part of the 1D image?

I have a funny answer for you. I started off with the Xti and then I went up to the 40D. After owning the 40D for a while I went to the 50D. I recently purchased a 1D mk2.
I kid you not when I say the xti took the sharpest picture straight out of the camera. The 40D is a close second.
I believe that a body should be chosen for the feel and AF. Maybe the ISO also but I have found that if you nail the exposure noise is not that big of a deal.

Which 1D are you thinking about. The classic? What do you shoot?

I bought a 1D Mark II. I shot a lot of sports and want the better AF performance. I always shoot RAW so the sharpness / contrast / color differences from one camera to another are not all that great (most are done during JPG processing).

I've heard it said that many lenses do better on FF bodies as the pixels are larger and the image requires less magnification. I'm hoping the 1.3 crop sensor in "my new" 1D will give me some of that advantage.

Otherwise, I'll continue to be not all that impressed with my 70-200 f/2.8 IS.

Are you doing RAW or JPEG? In-camera processing can vary a good deal across the board depending on what the settings are. Personally I've always preferred RAW, and some of the tests at DPReview show that the results from two cameras of the same class, even from different brands, are quite the same when shot in RAW and processed in say, Adobe Lightroom, ACR etc.

The image quality may differ between the 1DII and 40D not only because one has a bigger sensor, but because the 1DII also has lower pixel density and technically requires less lens resolution to produce an image. Each camera itself has a low-pass or AA filter which can also introduce softness into a photo.

I'm sure there's heaps of other factors involved, which I'm not knowledgeable enough (and can't be bothered) to go into. Bottom-line is: there may be some differences, but I expect the lens to perform similarly on the 1DII.

When we're talking about the super low-density 1D Classic or the 1Ds Classic however, both of which have rather weak AA filters, you may expect more crisp images from the same lens. In the past I used the consumer 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 on the 1D Classic and they were some of the most crisp images I'd ever seen even when working in RAW. Sharpening of 3 in DPP was usually more than good enough.

EDIT: OK, you mentioned you were shooting RAW in the most recent post just as I posted. Ignore the bits in my post about them.

The AF on the 1D mk2 is simply amazing. I honestly could not ask for more in that area.
I believe that ( I may be wrong) what you are talking about is that the pixels are less dense. Since the density is lower it actually puts less strain on the lens. I have found this to be true however there is more to it. The 1D MK2 has a very aggressive AA filter that some say make the photos come out a little less sharp. I thing at some point it is just trying to find something to compare. It is hard to say what is sharper when the truth is the 40D can not keep up with what the 1D can AF wise. Even if they are not as sharp ( which there are more variables than the camera) you will get shots with the 1D that you would miss with the 40D because of faster AF and FPS.

If both cameras are calibrated and the lens is calibrated. The images should be close.

Do you shoot JPG? That would explain sharper images from the consumer level DSLR for sure.

For me, I found my 24-70L and 70-200L SEEMED to perform much better optically on the 1D2 (and 1D3) than on my 20D... sharper with much less chromatic abberation (fringing). Initially I thought this was a placebo effect, but after reading DPReview's findings on the 70-200 lens, I discovered that lens is designed with full frame in mind, and actually does perform better on a 5D vs a 40D. Since the 1D2 is closer to FF than the 1.6x crop, that explains my findings. (Ironically the opposite is true for the 70-200 in the nikon line... it performs better on their crop cameras than FF).

midnight_rider wrote in post #7625088
I have a funny answer for you. I started off with the Xti and then I went up to the 40D. After owning the 40D for a while I went to the 50D. I recently purchased a 1D mk2.
I kid you not when I say the xti took the sharpest picture straight out of the camera. The 40D is a close second.
I believe that a body should be chosen for the feel and AF. Maybe the ISO also but I have found that if you nail the exposure noise is not that big of a deal.

Which 1D are you thinking about. The classic? What do you shoot?