Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 1DS3 vs 5D CoC shootout in MFDB forum  (Read 43658 times)
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 10, 2008, 06:53:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206861\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jonathan, I too was curious about your commendation to read a book on this. There is tons of (free) material on the web about MTF insofar as it relates to lenses, and some but less on sensor resolution issues, but I guess much like Ray I haven't seen all this brought together from a systemic perspective in a book. But you apparently would think it has given your recommendation to Ray. So if you happen to know the title of a book which does this, it could be of more general interest to a number of us.
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
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #21 on: July 10, 2008, 07:12:24 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]

Doug, with all the factors involved (lens, scene, pixel pitch, sensor design, AA filter, firmware, blah, blah) I think it's an impossible question to answer without doing empirical tests. From the work I did, frankly I'd be surprised if there were "hit-you-in-the-faces" differences at f/16 using say a lens with maximum aperture of f/2 ~ f/5.6. The main advantage of the 21 MP sensor is the additional 35% or so resolution - nice elbow room for cropping when we can't fill the frame with the desired composition at capture.
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
Slough
Guest
« Reply #22 on: July 10, 2008, 07:20:31 AM »
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]

Surely that would not make sense and would make having much higher pixel density pointless. I suspect that what the report means is that when images are viewed at 100%, the effect of the 1DsIII AA filter is stronger. That would make much more sense.  

People tend to confuse viewing an image at 100%, and the appearance at a given print size.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #23 on: July 10, 2008, 07:43:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206941\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, where do the results I reported in my Noise article stand in relation to these observations about D3 vs 1Ds3 noise? (Hint: "it depends"...............)  

As well, you may recall Michael's first comment on the 1ds3 AA filter was not the last word on that matter.

As for Jack Flesher's observation about the amount of sharpening needed for 1Ds3 images - this of course is rather subjective so I'm not disputing Jack's findings - especially as he is referencing the 1DsMk2 which I haven't tested myself, but I find my 1Ds3 images sharpen just as well as my previous 1Ds images did using the default settings of PK Sharpener Pro - i.e. I haven't found myself wanting to increase the opacities of those sharpening layers for the 1Ds3. And I recall at the time the 1DsMk2 appeared, some users complained the images weren't quite as sharp as the old 1Ds images.................etc., etc..
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
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2882



« Reply #24 on: July 10, 2008, 08:27:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jonathan, I too was curious about your commendation to read a book on this. There is tons of (free) material on the web about MTF insofar as it relates to lenses, and some but less on sensor resolution issues, but I guess much like Ray I haven't seen all this brought together from a systemic perspective in a book. But you apparently would think it has given your recommendation to Ray. So if you happen to know the title of a book which does this, it could be of more general interest to a number of us.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


[a href=\"http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html]Norman Koren [/url]discusses some of these factors in a tutorial on his web site. The classical additive reciprocal formula for combining MTFs works only at low contrast, around 10%, and does not apply to a more useful contrast such as 50%. If you had the MTF50s for the various components in a system, you couldn't just multiply the individual values to obtain the system MTF 50 since the individual component MTFs above and below 50% also affect the system response at 50%.

As Norman explains, you would need to perform a Fourier transform to separate the individual MTFs into the frequency domain and multiply these components. Having done this, you would then need to convert back to the spatial domain using a complicated process known as convolution. The process would be further complicated by the fact that the MTF of real lenses is different in the meridional and saggital planes.

In practice, it is simpler to determine the system MTF 50 by observation using such tools as Imatest. For 35mm style digital, many such results are posted on PhotoZone. For example, Klaus has tested the Zeiss 50 mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar lens on the Nikon D200.

This plot incorporates the test results and also shows the MTF 50 for an ideal lens as well as the Nyquist limit of the camera. Optimal MTF for this excellent lens is at f/4.0. For other lenses, the optimum may be at f/5.6 or even f/8. Beyond that, diffraction is the limiting factor.

Bill

[attachment=7398:attachment]
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8948


« Reply #25 on: July 10, 2008, 08:48:37 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm travelling in Northern Queensland at the moment, sheltering from the colder winter of Brisbane and taking a few photos. I'm using a 5D as my primary camera and the 40D as back-up. The 40D is also attached most of the time to my 100-400 zoom. At F8 it should provide sharper and more detailed results than my 5D when a 600mm lens is required with full frame.

If the 40D were full frame, it would be a 26mp camera with a slightly greater pixel count than the 1Ds3 and pretty close to the much anticipated Sony A900.

Since I have my eye on the 24mp Sony as a possible future purchase, I thought I would do a bit of testing and comparisons between the 5D and 40D whilst out shooting today.

I used the 100-400 at 400mm, the TS-E 90/2.8, the 50/1.4 and the Sigma 15-30, all at F16, and other apertures, and all at the same focal length and from the same position.

It's not looking good. My suspicions so far are confirmed. You can't get more resolution than the 5D at F16, no matter how many pixels, unless you increase sensor size, or remove the AA filter (perhaps).

The following scene was chosen for its low contrast. I upressed the 5D shot, cropped to the 40D FoV, to the same file size as the 40D. I applied no further sharpening after upressing. Both images were converted with mostly identical settings, default sharpening, 50 clarity, 30 vibrance, but I forgot to equalise WB.

I'm searching for any low contrast detail in the 40D image that is not present in the upressed 5D image. I can't find any, but it will take some time to work through all the comparison shots I took.

Here's the first comparison, at 400mm and F16.

[attachment=7399:attachment]  [attachment=7400:attachment]

I'm working on an uncalibrated laptop, so apologies if the color sucks or the brightness/contrast is off.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #26 on: July 10, 2008, 08:59:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In practice, it is simpler to determine the system MTF 50 by observation using such tools as Imatest.

Bill

[attachment=7398:attachment]
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Interesting - as you were writing (I think) I was looking at Imatest - some very interesting results there - though dated - still relevant to this discussion:

[a href=\"http://www.imatest.com/docs/sharpness_comparisons.html]Imatest Results 1Ds, 1DsMk2, etc[/url]
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
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #27 on: July 10, 2008, 09:10:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm travelling in Northern Queensland at the moment, sheltering from the colder winter of Brisbane and taking a few photos. I'm using a 5D as my primary camera and the 40D as back-up. The 40D is also attached most of the time to my 100-400 zoom. At F8 it should provide sharper and more detailed results than my 5D when a 600mm lens is required with full frame.

If the 40D were full frame, it would be a 26mp camera with a slightly greater pixel count than the 1Ds3 and pretty close to the much anticipated Sony A900.

Since I have my eye on the 24mp Sony as a possible future purchase, I thought I would do a bit of testing and comparisons between the 5D and 40D whilst out shooting today.

I used the 100-400 at 400mm, the TS-E 90/2.8, the 50/1.4 and the Sigma 15-30, all at F16, and other apertures, and all at the same focal length and from the same position.

It's not looking good. My suspicions so far are confirmed. You can't get more resolution than the 5D at F16, no matter how many pixels, unless you increase sensor size, or remove the AA filter (perhaps).

The following scene was chosen for its low contrast. I upressed the 5D shot, cropped to the 40D FoV, to the same file size as the 40D. I applied no further sharpening after upressing. Both images were converted with mostly identical settings, default sharpening, 50 clarity, 30 vibrance, but I forgot to equalise WB.

I'm searching for any low contrast detail in the 40D image that is not present in the upressed 5D image. I can't find any, but it will take some time to work through all the comparison shots I took.

Here's the first comparison, at 400mm and F16.

[attachment=7399:attachment]  [attachment=7400:attachment]

I'm working on an uncalibrated laptop, so apologies if the color sucks or the brightness/contrast is off.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206977\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, from what you describe above it's not clear to me you are doing this, but in case you aren't, let me suggest you'd get more definitive answers to your testing doing things (both capture and post-capture) one variable at a time, all else equal, and using test scenes which have the kind of surface texture and edges allowing you to get a quite reliable visual impression of sharpness and resolution.

Also, there may be issues trying to infer the quality of a 24MP Sony image from a Canon D40 sensor as more factors than MP determine pixel quality. If you're not in a panic and you want to be sure you're making the right purchase, wait till the 24MP beast hits the market and gets tested by the usual gurus - then you'll know "for sure".

I found it hard to assess the images you posted, because of the subject matter and their size at my display resolution (1200*1600).
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
ejmartin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 575


« Reply #28 on: July 10, 2008, 09:27:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If the 40D were full frame, it would be a 26mp camera with a slightly greater pixel count than the 1Ds3 and pretty close to the much anticipated Sony A900.  Since I have my eye on the 24mp Sony as a possible future purchase, I thought I would do a bit of testing and comparisons between the 5D and 40D whilst out shooting today.

I used the 100-400 at 400mm, the TS-E 90/2.8, the 50/1.4 and the Sigma 15-30, all at F16, and other apertures, and all at the same focal length and from the same position.

It's not looking good. My suspicions so far are confirmed. You can't get more resolution than the 5D at F16, no matter how many pixels, unless you increase sensor size, or remove the AA filter (perhaps).

I'm searching for any low contrast detail in the 40D image that is not present in the upressed 5D image. I can't find any, but it will take some time to work through all the comparison shots I took.

Here's the first comparison, at 400mm and F16.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206977\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm not sure what you're looking at, the 40D crop on the second pair has loads more detail than the uprezzed 5D shot.

The other question to ask yourself is whether you always intend to shoot at apertures narrower than f8.  A 5 sensel is not going to be diffraction limited at f5.6 or wider, and there will be a definite benefit to the higher resolution.
Logged

emil
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 10, 2008, 09:41:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm not sure what you're looking at, the 40D crop on the second pair has loads more detail than the uprezzed 5D shot.

The other question to ask yourself is whether you always intend to shoot at apertures narrower than f8.  A 5 sensel is not going to be diffraction limited at f5.6 or wider, and there will be a definite benefit to the higher resolution.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206989\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Part of the problem is the number of variables. Up-rezzing itself introduces yet another variable.
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
ejmartin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 575


« Reply #30 on: July 10, 2008, 09:43:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Interesting - as you were writing (I think) I was looking at Imatest - some very interesting results there - though dated - still relevant to this discussion:

Imatest Results 1Ds, 1DsMk2, etc
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206980\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Interesting indeed.  If we compare the 1Ds2 with the 20D using the DPR data analyzed by Koren (so same lens (50mm) at same aperture (f9) and hopefully other testing parameters similar), the 20D has 23% higher resolution in lp/mm, despite having only 12% smaller pixel pitch.
Logged

emil
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #31 on: July 10, 2008, 10:23:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Interesting indeed.  If we compare the 1Ds2 with the 20D using the DPR data analyzed by Koren (so same lens (50mm) at same aperture (f9) and hopefully other testing parameters similar), the 20D has 23% higher resolution in lp/mm, despite having only 12% smaller pixel pitch.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206993\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, and that I think raises a more general proposition about ranges and limits. Within certain ranges of pixel pitch, one can generalize that more PPI (higher MP per sensor size) will outresolve fewer PPI despite the incremental downsides of somewhat smaller pixels, the question being at what lower limit of pixel pitch, all else equal (if it ever is in practice) does this become the decisive variable.
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: 8948


« Reply #32 on: July 10, 2008, 10:50:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ray, from what you describe above it's not clear to me you are doing this, but in case you aren't, let me suggest you'd get more definitive answers to your testing doing things (both capture and post-capture) one variable at a time, all else equal, and using test scenes which have the kind of surface texture and edges allowing you to get a quite reliable visual impression of sharpness and resolution.

Also, there may be issues trying to infer the quality of a 24MP Sony image from a Canon D40 sensor as more factors than MP determine pixel quality. If you're not in a panic and you want to be sure you're making the right purchase, wait till the 24MP beast hits the market and gets tested by the usual gurus - then you'll know "for sure".

I found it hard to assess the images you posted, because of the subject matter and their size at my display resolution (1200*1600).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206985\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark,
This is just one shot; the first scene I used for a test, on my way up the mountain. I'll proceed to post additional shots. If I don't find any difference of significance in any of my comparisons, I'll shoot newspapers. Okay!  
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8948


« Reply #33 on: July 10, 2008, 11:00:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Okay! The next comparison of the top of Wallaman Falls near Ingham (the tallest waterfall in Australia, incidentally) was taken with the Canon 50/1.4 at F16.

I've concentrated on the rocks in sunlight. 100% crops still show no greater detail from the 40D.

[attachment=7401:attachment]  [attachment=7402:attachment]
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #34 on: July 10, 2008, 11:00:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Mark,
This is just one shot; the first scene I used for a test, on my way up the mountain. I'll proceed to post additional shots. If I don't find any difference of significance in any of my comparisons, I'll shoot newspapers. Okay! 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207018\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Looking forward to your future findings Ray!  
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
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #35 on: July 10, 2008, 11:13:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Okay! The next comparison of the top of Wallaman Falls near Ingham (the tallest waterfall in Australia, incidentally) was taken with the Canon 50/1.4 at F16.

I've concentrated on the rocks in sunlight. 100% crops still show no greater detail from the 40D.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207022\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

OK, now you're into the kind of subject matter that makes it easier to see what's going on or not going on. The issue here, going back to one of my previous posts (discussing ranges and limits), however, is whether by using f/16 the diffraction of the lens has become the binding constraint, such that differences between the sensors get over-ridden by the limitation of the lens. It would be, perhaps, more telling to see a comparison of these rock-face shots if the aperture were somewhere in the range of f/2.8~ f/4 (based on the "rule-of-thumb" that optimal image quality resides about 2 f/stops above the maximum aperture - maybe someone else has better data on the optimal f/stop range for this lens).
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
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2882



« Reply #36 on: July 10, 2008, 11:35:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Interesting - as you were writing (I think) I was looking at Imatest - some very interesting results there - though dated - still relevant to this discussion:

Imatest Results 1Ds, 1DsMk2, etc
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


[a href=\"http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/technique/page40.html]Erwin Putts[/url] has posted some interesting test results showing image sharpness with and without image stabilization. He compares the Imatest resolution handheld vs that obtained with the use of a tripod.

It would be interesting to extend these observations to a high resolution camera such as the 1DsMIII to determine how much sharpness you can actually get in the field with hand-held and image stabilization. IOW, can you really make use of the resolution of this camera under field conditions?

Bill
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #37 on: July 10, 2008, 01:13:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Erwin Putts has posted some interesting test results showing image sharpness with and without image stabilization. He compares the Imatest resolution handheld vs that obtained with the use of a tripod.

It would be interesting to extend these observations to a high resolution camera such as the 1DsMIII to determine how much sharpness you can actually get in the field with hand-held and image stabilization. IOW, can you really make use of the resolution of this camera under field conditions?

Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207030\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good article. I think he's by and large correct. I'm not a great fan of a tripod in field conditions - I find it an encumbrance, and only use it when it is just plain unavoidable. I can't complain about the sharpness of my 1Ds3 shots magnified to 13*19 or with cropping considerably larger, particularly those using the 24~105 lens. Stabilization works VERY well. I have not done a stationary eyeball-to-eyeball test of exactly the same scene handheld vs tripod, but they would be darn close at shutter speeds down to 1/100th with the 24~105 - that I have no doubt about. Using the 70~300 is a different story - hand-holding at the higher focal lengths is dicier, so with that lens I use a tripod below 1/300th or so. Given how clean the 1Ds3 images are with real ETTR exposure, in lower lighting I'd pump the ISO so I could increase the shutter speed before resorting to the tripod. But I know there's a fair bit of skepticism out there about this approach. BTW the images I shot for the Noise article were all done WITH a tripod. For testing it's just plain dumb not to, unless one is testing the need for the tripod  !
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: 8948


« Reply #38 on: July 10, 2008, 01:31:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
OK, now you're into the kind of subject matter that makes it easier to see what's going on or not going on. The issue here, going back to one of my previous posts (discussing ranges and limits), however, is whether by using f/16 the diffraction of the lens has become the binding constraint, such that differences between the sensors get over-ridden by the limitation of the lens. It would be, perhaps, more telling to see a comparison of these rock-face shots if the aperture were somewhere in the range of f/2.8~ f/4 (based on the "rule-of-thumb" that optimal image quality resides about 2 f/stops above the maximum aperture - maybe someone else has better data on the optimal f/stop range for this lens).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207025\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hey! This was incidental testing on my trip to Australia's highest waterfall. There's a limit to the amount of testing I'm prepared to do.

It seems fairly clear, so far, if I buy the 24mp Sony A900 I'm going to have to hone my skills at focus bracketing if I want to improve on the DoF and resolution that the 5D can provide at F16.
Logged
ejmartin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 575


« Reply #39 on: July 10, 2008, 02:08:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Okay! The next comparison of the top of Wallaman Falls near Ingham (the tallest waterfall in Australia, incidentally) was taken with the Canon 50/1.4 at F16.

I've concentrated on the rocks in sunlight. 100% crops still show no greater detail from the 40D.

[attachment=7401:attachment]  [attachment=7402:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207022\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, I'm still confused as to why you say that the 40D has no greater detail.  I downloaded your 100% crops and did a spatial frequency analysis.  Here is the Fourier transform of a 256x256 portion of the same area from each image:



Nyquist is out at the edge of the square, low frequencies are in the middle.  Black is no power, bright is lots of power.  What you see is that the 40D has much more power at high spatial frequencies, indicating more detail (and it's not just noise power, that is a soft grey background that goes all the way out to the edges; I'm talking about the extent of the bright blob above that background).  If the 40D were not resolving any more than the 5D, the extent of the bright disk would be the same for the two images.  This just reaffirms what my eyes are telling me, that the 40D is getting way more detail.
Logged

emil
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad