Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 1DS3 vs 5D CoC shootout in MFDB forum  (Read 43645 times)
joofa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 488



« Reply #140 on: July 18, 2008, 03:56:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Removed.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2008, 04:32:19 PM by joofa » Logged

Joofa
http://www.djjoofa.com
Download Photoshop and After Effects plugins
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1157


« Reply #141 on: September 01, 2008, 10:15:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
However, what I'm looking for is more detail; some smidgen or speck that is clearly defined in the 40D shot but not in the 5D shot.

On the Wallaman falls shots

Look at the coordinates 2 and 5/8" across, 3 and 3/4" down. There is a group of light green lines, possibly grasses, that sweep down to the left on the 40D. On the 5D it looks like 1 line with the rest smeared.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 10:16:16 PM by Fine_Art » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8948


« Reply #142 on: September 02, 2008, 08:00:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
On the Wallaman falls shots

Look at the coordinates 2 and 5/8" across, 3 and 3/4" down. There is a group of light green lines, possibly grasses, that sweep down to the left on the 40D. On the 5D it looks like 1 line with the rest smeared.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218812\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I was at a disadvantage when assessing these comparison shots initially, which I'd created on a laptop in the motel room.

On my monitor back home, there seems no doubt that the 40D crops at both F16 and F22 look better. One might have difficulty identifying a specific iota of detail that's visible on the 40D shot but not visible on the 5D shot, but the over all impression is one of finer grain and greater realism in the 40D crops.

If I were travelling with a 24mp full frame and the 5D as back-up, I can't see myself choosing the 5D for a particular shot on the grounds that at F16 or F22, using the 24mp camera would provide no additional image quality benefit.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #143 on: September 02, 2008, 08:41:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If I were travelling with a 24mp full frame and the 5D as back-up, I can't see myself choosing the 5D for a particular shot on the grounds that at F16 or F22, using the 24mp camera would provide no additional image quality benefit.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218884\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray:

What do you mean by this? Are you saying that regardless of the difference of resolution between 12 and 24 MP, the benefit of 24 is lost because of the diffraction created by the sub-optimal aperture? If so, why not use the lens at its optimal aperture on the 24MP camera. Seems to me you would get the best of both worlds, unless you need the DoF of the smaller aperture. Then, I would still use the 24 MP camera, if I had both, because the diffraction loss due to the aperture should be about the same on both cameras, no?
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 #144 on: September 02, 2008, 10:22:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ray:

What do you mean by this? Are you saying that regardless of the difference of resolution between 12 and 24 MP, the benefit of 24 is lost because of the diffraction created by the sub-optimal aperture? If so, why not use the lens at its optimal aperture on the 24MP camera. Seems to me you would get the best of both worlds, unless you need the DoF of the smaller aperture. Then, I would still use the 24 MP camera, if I had both, because the diffraction loss due to the aperture should be about the same on both cameras, no?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218898\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark,
I'm saying that there's some quality beyond detail resolution that I would describe as an impression of finer grain and greater realism, with the 24mp camera at F16 & F22.

When making a 23"x35" print, I would rather start from a 24mp image than a 12mp image, even at F22.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #145 on: September 02, 2008, 10:39:45 AM »
ReplyReply

OK, I agree. I've also noticed with the 1DsMk3 compared to the original 1Ds the noise, when you see it, has a finer, less intrusive grain pattern. I imagine this is the result of the higher resolution and newer vintage of DIGIC processing methods.
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 #146 on: September 02, 2008, 05:34:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
OK, I agree. I've also noticed with the 1DsMk3 compared to the original 1Ds the noise, when you see it, has a finer, less intrusive grain pattern. I imagine this is the result of the higher resolution and newer vintage of DIGIC processing methods.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218934\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Were you showing us jpegs or raw conversions?  DIGIC IV is the jpeg engine, and has little to do with what the raw data will show.  What you may be seeing as finer "grain" is the pushing of Bayerinterpolation artifacts to finer scales.
Logged

emil
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #147 on: September 02, 2008, 05:57:36 PM »
ReplyReply

EJ, I wasn't showing anything - maybe that comment is for someone else.

For whatever reason the grain of the noise is finer with the newer processors - I consider it an improvement of image appearance, don't you?
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
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad