Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 1DS3 vs 5D CoC shootout in MFDB forum  (Read 41228 times)
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« on: July 08, 2008, 04:03:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting thread on MF forum. Here is an excerpt:

Thread Location:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....ic=26025&st=160

Excerpt:

http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forum...p?t=6103&page=3

See reply 23
It's an extreme sample, but sort like stories have been appearing on several sites.
I tested a 1DsIII a while ago and also found that f11 was noticable softer that f8 and this was with a 70-200 f2.8 L IS.
*



Frank,
Makes sense to me. When I moved from the 8mp 20D to the 5D, I was surprised I could use F16 with minimal loss of resolution with the 5D. With the 20D I would hesitate to stop down beyond F8 because I knew there would be a trade-off. I'd be sacrificing sharpness for the benefit of additional DoF.

The 1Ds3 has similar pixel density to the 20D. Resolution (ie. lp/mm) does not care about sensor size, only pixel density or pixel pitch. The same principles that apply to the 20D will apply to the 1Ds3. Softening of the image will appear at the same F stops using the same lens.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 04:05:00 AM by dwdallam » Logged

Conner999
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 451


« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2008, 07:31:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Effect of diffraction in combo with pixel density?



Quote
Interesting thread on MF forum. Here is an excerpt:

Thread Location:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....ic=26025&st=160

Excerpt:

http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forum...p?t=6103&page=3

See reply 23
It's an extreme sample, but sort like stories have been appearing on several sites.
I tested a 1DsIII a while ago and also found that f11 was noticable softer that f8 and this was with a 70-200 f2.8 L IS.
*
Frank,
Makes sense to me. When I moved from the 8mp 20D to the 5D, I was surprised I could use F16 with minimal loss of resolution with the 5D. With the 20D I would hesitate to stop down beyond F8 because I knew there would be a trade-off. I'd be sacrificing sharpness for the benefit of additional DoF.

The 1Ds3 has similar pixel density to the 20D. Resolution (ie. lp/mm) does not care about sensor size, only pixel density or pixel pitch. The same principles that apply to the 20D will apply to the 1Ds3. Softening of the image will appear at the same F stops using the same lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206365\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1371



WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2008, 01:26:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Effect of diffraction in combo with pixel density?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206381\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's just the matter of diffraction.

In perfect, diffraction-limited lens, using ideal values for the Rayleigh limit, and applying the contrast theory of Kühler, resolution for the average wavelength of light (0,555 micron) is:

Aperture     resolution
1,4             550 lp/mm
2,0             385 lp/mm
2,8             263 lp/mm
4,0             185 lp/mm
5,6             135 lp/mm
8,0              94 lp/mm
11               69 lp/mm
16               48 lp/mm
22               30 lp/mm
32               21 lp/mm

So theoretically, in case of 1Ds3 sensor (which resolution is 78 lp/mm), diffraction should affect image quality for apretures smaller than f8.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 01:27:39 PM by Czornyj » Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 09, 2008, 02:43:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's just the matter of diffraction.

In perfect, diffraction-limited lens, using ideal values for the Rayleigh limit, and applying the contrast theory of Kühler, resolution for the average wavelength of light (0,555 micron) is:

Aperture     resolution
1,4             550 lp/mm
2,0             385 lp/mm
2,8             263 lp/mm
4,0             185 lp/mm
5,6             135 lp/mm
8,0              94 lp/mm
11               69 lp/mm
16               48 lp/mm
22               30 lp/mm
32               21 lp/mm

So theoretically, in case of 1Ds3 sensor (which resolution is 78 lp/mm), diffraction should affect image quality for apretures smaller than f8.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Just for anyone unaware of this topic, you can read about it here:
[a href=\"http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm]http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials...photography.htm[/url]

Given the above quote, the "practical" diffraction is dependent upon print size or monitor size and distance viewed from image. So you could use f16 and get an image where your eyes cannot see the diffraction, such as shooting a 1ds3 at f16 and printing it in a magazine at 4x6 inches (or whatever size cancels the eye perceiving the diffraction). From my experience, and from reading, the sweet spot is virtually always between around 5.6 and 11, and most full frame cameras, and maybe even MF (If I recall correctly) is around f8--please correct if wrong. It's just what I remember and what I go by.

Since most people here are interested in landscapes, this would mean figuring out from the above link what your camera's best aperture is, and using it when you can, where "when you can" is the operative phrase. For instance, if you're aiming at the ground 3 feet in front of you and you want the ground and background mountains crisp, you won't be using f8 at 30mm (It may not happen whatever you do, but you get my point).

Diffraction simply means, for practical application, that you will be getting a softer image, all things being equal, which they are not.
---------

The reason I started this thread is because I am interested in what people had to say about diffraction issues and the comparison between the 20D, 5D, and 1DS MKIII. The reason I am interested in this topic is because I do a little product photography, and the higher the f stop the better when rendering an entire product in focus. If the above is true, then I'm wondering if the 5D would be a better camera for product photography than the 1DS3 in the studio, where DoF and sharpness are most important, in respect to print size and detail quality?

I just wanted to be clear about what I was thinking on this topic and what my interest is for posting it.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2008, 03:29:40 AM by dwdallam » Logged

photoshutter
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2008, 03:57:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, 5d is a better camera for product image, I can work with 16 aperture on 5d, 1dsIII is only until 11 or 8, as for crisp image with small apertures - 5d or even full frame with 6mp like light Phase
Logged
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2008, 06:00:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Doesn't this all depend on out put size and not 100% screen viewing for lpm?  I mean smaller denser pixel count ceases to be denser if it has to be stretched further right? Same with D of F.
Just my feeling, I stopped worrying about the mathematics of photography when I stopped accounting for bellows extension.

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 09, 2008, 06:51:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I stopped worrying about the mathematics of photography when I stopped accounting for bellows extension.

VERY WELL SAID.
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5121


« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2008, 10:41:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes, 5d is a better camera for product image, I can work with 16 aperture on 5d, 1dsIII is only until 11 or 8
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206602\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not really: for equal sized prints at f/16 (or any aperture) the 1DsIII will give sharper images: equal diffraction effects (l/mm), higher sensor resolution (l/mm).

Diffraction merely limits the improvement in resolution that you get at a given f-stop from an increase in sensor resolution, it never decreases resolution or sharpness in any real sense like "lines per mm", in either the image recorded by the sensor at the focal plane or on prints of equal size.
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2008, 12:43:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not really: for equal sized prints at f/16 (or any aperture) the 1DsIII will give sharper images: equal diffraction effects (l/mm), higher sensor resolution (l/mm).

Diffraction merely limits the improvement in resolution that you get at a given f-stop from an increase in sensor resolution, it never decreases resolution or sharpness in any real sense like "lines per mm", in either the image recorded by the sensor at the focal plane or on prints of equal size.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206672\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bingo. If you're always shooting at f/22 the 1DsMk3 may not provide any resolution advantage in actual output, but to think that it will actually be worse than the 5D makes no sense.
Logged

akclimber
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 102



« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2008, 01:00:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The reason I am interested in this topic is because I do a little product photography, and the higher the f stop the better when rendering an entire product in focus. If the above is true, then I'm wondering if the 5D would be a better camera for product photography than the 1DS3 in the studio, where DoF and sharpness are most important, in respect to print size and detail quality?

I just wanted to be clear about what I was thinking on this topic and what my interest is for posting it.

Wouldn't a 90mm TS-E lens solve whatever DoF issues there might be in dealing with the diffraction of the 1Ds3?  A 1Ds3 + 90mm TS-E for product shots seems like the best of all worlds.

CHeers!
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6830


WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2008, 01:59:16 PM »
ReplyReply

This website has produced or referenced a considerable amount of material on these issues recently. For example you may wish to have a look at my recent contribution:Noise About Noise. While this was in the works, Michael published: Martinec; and also see more recently Osuna and Garcia

The diffraction effect of narrow apertures is a lens issue and completely separate from the resolution of a sensor. As for the latter, yes the 1Dsmk3 has smaller photosites than a 1Ds or 5d, but the image detail using the same lens and the same f/stop is AT LEAST as good, as far as I can see from all the testing I've done.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2008, 01:59:50 PM by MarkDS » Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8854


« Reply #11 on: July 09, 2008, 06:53:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not really: for equal sized prints at f/16 (or any aperture) the 1DsIII will give sharper images: equal diffraction effects (l/mm), higher sensor resolution (l/mm).

Diffraction merely limits the improvement in resolution that you get at a given f-stop from an increase in sensor resolution, it never decreases resolution or sharpness in any real sense like "lines per mm", in either the image recorded by the sensor at the focal plane or on prints of equal size.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206672\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

BJL,
Could you provide further explanation for this point of view.

If we accept that at F16 all good 35mm lenses are very substantially diffraction limited (it wouldn't be too inaccurate to state that all lenses are equal at F16), then it's clear, as you state, that diffraction at F16 will limit any improvement in resolution from an increase in sensor resolution.

Yet you also state that at F16 the 1Ds3 will still provide sharper images (than the 5D, for example) . I agree that a higher resolution sensor will never provide less resolution, whatever the F stop. However, that it might still provide more resolution despite this strong diffraction limitation at F16 is interesting.

Since I already have a bunch of Minolta lenses, there's a strong possibility I might buy the Sony 24mp A900 that will probably be shown at Photokina this year and available before the end of the year.

It would be interesting to see some comparisons at F16, between the 5D (or D3) and the 1Ds3. I suspect that any resolution advantage of the 1Ds3 at F16 would be insignificant at any print size, after appropriate interpolation and sharpening.
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 09, 2008, 07:22:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yet you also state that at F16 the 1Ds3 will still provide sharper images (than the 5D, for example) . I agree that a higher resolution sensor will never provide less resolution, whatever the F stop. However, that it might still provide more resolution despite this strong diffraction limitation at F16 is interesting.

Go read a book on how MTF curves work. System MTF is the product of the MTFs of each component in the system, not the smallest individual component's value. If f/16 limits lens MTF to 50% at a given linear frequency, then increasing sensor MTF from 50% to 60% will still increase image MTF by 5%. There is obviously a principle of diminishing returns involved, but the amount of benefit from upgrading is non-zero. There's also other improvements in play (less noise, etc.) that make the degree of benefit more significant.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8854


« Reply #13 on: July 09, 2008, 07:49:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Go read a book on how MTF curves work. System MTF is the product of the MTFs of each component in the system, not the smallest individual component's value. If f/16 limits lens MTF to 50% at a given linear frequency, then increasing sensor MTF from 50% to 60% will still increase image MTF by 5%. There is obviously a principle of diminishing returns involved, but the amount of benefit from upgrading is non-zero. There's also other improvements in play (less noise, etc.) that make the degree of benefit more significant.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206846\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Which book do you recommend that deals with sensor MTF response? I've seen many MTF curves of film resolution in my time, but few of sensor resolution.

My impression is that sensor MTF does not fall off so rapidly as film does with increasing resolution, so the basic formula 1/S=1/F+1/L does not necessarilly apply. This is certainly the impression I get when viewing line charts I've shot to compare resolution. The lines remain strong and clear almost to the cut-off point.

However, if the sensor MTF of the 1Ds3 at 40 lp/mm is noticeably greater than that of the 5D or D3, then one would expect a marginally contrastier image from the 1Ds3 at F16.

On the other hand, since it is reported that the 5D has a weaker AA filter than the 1Ds3 and since the D3 has lower pixel noise than the 1Ds3, I'd like to see the comparisons. Seeing is believing.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6830


WWW
« Reply #14 on: July 09, 2008, 08:44:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
On the other hand, since it is reported that the 5D has a weaker AA filter than the 1Ds3 and since the D3 has lower pixel noise than the 1Ds3, I'd like to see the comparisons. Seeing is believing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206850\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, "it is reported" by who? Someone who makes the filters? Someone who knows how to take them apart and appraise them? Someone who was told something by one of these parties?

How do you know the D3 has lower pixel noise than the 1Ds3? I'd be curious to know where this is reported? Much of this depends on exposure, as I demonstrated in my article on this website.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 09, 2008, 09:09:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Which book do you recommend that deals with sensor MTF response?

Please note I said MTF in general, not sensor MTF. Since there are multiple factors involved--lens, AA filter, sensor MTF, sensor noise, etc.--a comparison should look at all of them.
Logged

ejmartin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 575


« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2008, 10:11:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Which book do you recommend that deals with sensor MTF response? I've seen many MTF curves of film resolution in my time, but few of sensor resolution.

My impression is that sensor MTF does not fall off so rapidly as film does with increasing resolution, so the basic formula 1/S=1/F+1/L does not necessarilly apply. This is certainly the impression I get when viewing line charts I've shot to compare resolution. The lines remain strong and clear almost to the cut-off point.

However, if the sensor MTF of the 1Ds3 at 40 lp/mm is noticeably greater than that of the 5D or D3, then one would expect a marginally contrastier image from the 1Ds3 at F16.

On the other hand, since it is reported that the 5D has a weaker AA filter than the 1Ds3 and since the D3 has lower pixel noise than the 1Ds3, I'd like to see the comparisons. Seeing is believing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206850\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No need to read a book, only a little thought is required.  The sensor can't resolve anything beyond Nyquist, so MTF must drop to essentially zero at that point; it resolves quite well any contrast variation of more than a few pixels in spatial wavelength, and so the sensor MTF will be a steeply decreasing function of spatial frequency starting from say 1/3 to 1/2 Nyquist, and which vanishes around Nyquist.  

Thus, all other things being equal, an increase in sensor resolution (via decreasing pixel pitch) will result in the spatial scale corresponding to the Airy disk diameter being pushed further from Nyquist and thus increasing overall system MTF, since the sensor MTF ceases to be the weakest link in the chain.  As Jonathan says, at some point the law of diminishing returns sets in, and further decrease in pixel pitch results in only marginal gains in system MTF, because the sensor MTF curve flattens out at about 1/3 to 1/2 Nyquist.

One can also probably formulate these notions in terms of a quantization error of spatial discretization of the signal, which would lead one to a quantitative formulation of sensor MTF.  I'll have to think about that at some point...
« Last Edit: July 09, 2008, 10:16:40 PM by ejmartin » Logged

emil
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 10, 2008, 01:08:11 AM »
ReplyReply

So which camera will provide more detail at f16, the 5D or 1DS3?
Logged

ejmartin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 575


« Reply #18 on: July 10, 2008, 03:56:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So which camera will provide more detail at f16, the 5D or 1DS3?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206901\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I dunno; all other things are not equal (in particular the AA filter).
Logged

emil
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8854


« Reply #19 on: July 10, 2008, 06:06:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ray, "it is reported" by who? Someone who makes the filters? Someone who knows how to take them apart and appraise them? Someone who was told something by one of these parties?

How do you know the D3 has lower pixel noise than the 1Ds3? I'd be curious to know where this is reported? Much of this depends on exposure, as I demonstrated in my article on this website.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206858\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark,
I recall Michael commented on this after his initial appraisal of the 1Ds3. Some time later, Jack Flesher reported that he was surprised the 1Ds3 images required so much sharpening, more sharpening than the 5D and 1Ds2, and concluded that the 1Ds3 AA filter was unusually strong.

As regards the pixel noise of the D3, it would have to be less than that of the 1Ds3 otherwise Michael would not have been able to report that D3 images have lower noise than any other 35mm camera on the market.

I understand from Emil Martinec's article on noise that the greater number of 1Ds3 pixels compensates for the slightly higher noise of the individual 1Ds3 pixels so that the 1Ds3 image as a whole has about equal noise to the D3 image.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2008, 06:11:00 AM by Ray » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad