Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 5DII, 1DsII and P25 comparison  (Read 42929 times)
Derryck
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« on: November 28, 2008, 04:49:09 AM »
ReplyReply

I have just converted the original 5DII files in ACR the same as the 1DsIII and P25 files. As has been pointed out already these three shots have slightly different focus so please take this into consideration when comparing the three. I didn't have my afternoon coffee that day.

I have just reshot the scene with both Canon cameras and processed both in DPP. See further down the thread for the results.


Earlier this week I took delivery of the 5DII which I'd purchased as a backup camera for my 1DsIII. Since I have a two week shoot on location in Dec I didn't mind paying a premium to get one of the first released 5DII's. First let me say that this test is flawed because I wasn't able to process all three raw files using the same converter. I still don't have CS4 yet and so couldn't use ACR to convert the 5DII file, I instead had to use DPP which is awful. So please take these comparisons with a grain of salt. I hope to be able to update the 5DII files with ones that have been converted the same as the other cameras in the coming days.

The studio setup was as follows Profoto D4 pack with three Pro Heads, the two side lights shooting through 216 Lee filter and the top light on a superboom lighting the background. Camera's were set to their native iso. 50iso for the P25 and 100iso for the two Canons. I tried as much as possible to match image size, exposure and white balance. All exposures were taken at f11. The Canon images have had a small amount of sharpening applied to make up for the AA filter but apart from that no curves or saturation was applied to any of the files.

Hasselblad 555 ELD body with 150mm CFi lens + Phase P25 DB
Canon 1Ds III with 90mm T/S Lens
Canon 5D II with 90mm T/S Lens

I could have compared these cameras with an Aptus 75s, Leaf Afi 6 and a P45+ but I didn't think that it would have been a fair fight. There's no doubt that the color produced by the P25 was much more accurate and the DR a little better, but I knew that was going to be the case beforehand. I hope to shoot a comparison low light test between the 5DII and 1DsIII in the next day or so.

Cheers,

Derryck.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2008, 09:32:14 PM by Derryck » Logged

marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #1 on: November 28, 2008, 05:05:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm about to pick up a 5D MKII and would like your view on the difference in IQ between it and the 1Ds MKIII especially DR at base ISO
Marc
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 05:09:17 AM by marcmccalmont » Logged

Marc McCalmont
Derryck
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 28, 2008, 05:16:38 AM »
ReplyReply

I had to re-upload the files because I forgot to add which camera had taken which image. Fixed now.

Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8848


« Reply #3 on: November 28, 2008, 05:26:53 AM »
ReplyReply

You shouldn't be comparing different formats at the same aperture. Having equalised the FoV as close as possible, the P25 with a sensor double the area of full frame 35mm, should be stopped down one stop.
Logged
Derryck
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 28, 2008, 05:33:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Ray, you are right, but given the depth of field required for this setup I don't think it matters too much in this case.
Logged

marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #5 on: November 28, 2008, 05:43:37 AM »
ReplyReply

[attachment=9949:5DII_4_1_.jpg]
[attachment=9950:5DII_4_Sharpen.9.jpg]
[attachment=9951:5DII_4_Sharpen1.3.jpg]

Does the 5DII have a stronger AA filter? or was focus off just a bit compared to the 1Ds III? They seem to sharpen well though (focus fixer @ .9 and 1.3)
Marc

one with a little curves and levels to look at the image potential
[attachment=9952:5DII_4_S...s_levels.jpg]
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 05:55:47 AM by marcmccalmont » Logged

Marc McCalmont
Henry Goh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #6 on: November 28, 2008, 06:33:26 AM »
ReplyReply

If you asked me, I would say the 1Ds MKIII files are the best all around
Logged
Derryck
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 28, 2008, 07:09:34 AM »
ReplyReply

When I get back to the studio tomorrow I will convert both Canon files with DPP so everyone can see what the 5DII is capable of.
Logged

marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #8 on: November 28, 2008, 07:51:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Henry Goh
If you asked me, I would say the 1Ds MKIII files are the best all around

I'm speculating that it has the best focus
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
pixjohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 667


« Reply #9 on: November 28, 2008, 02:23:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Maybe you can post the raw files.

Where did you get the 5DII? I want to get a 5dII for a project, but i am not sure I can get it in time. I might have to stick to Nikon and get a D700. I would still like to see the 5dII raw files.

Added

I just made 2 calls one said, If I pay now April the other said maybe by feb. It sounds like a D700 for me.  I feel like i am looking for a Wii system last year.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 02:36:28 PM by pixjohn » Logged
vmixer
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #10 on: November 28, 2008, 02:44:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Seconded on the RAW files, that would be a treat.  Then we could all do our own mojo on them and see what's what.  They all look to be pretty close, which is interesting considering the cost difference of about 2x at each step.  I think most clients would be happy with any of these files.

Best,
--Geoff

--
Geoff Smith Photography
Logged
RobertJ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 586


« Reply #11 on: November 28, 2008, 04:45:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Looks like the 5D2 and 1Ds3 have slightly different focus points, resulting in sharpness differences in different crops, while the P25 needs to be shot at a different aperture all together.  The 1Ds3 crops show that you nailed the focus with that camera, so it looks the best.

I have seen some samples of the 5D2 at ISO 50 where the focus is perfect, and it's outstanding.  These crops shouldn't be representative of the quality of the 5D2, but we all know that.  

Even the tests at Dpreview have this flaw, where different areas of the image are in focus for the different cameras that are being compared.  Go interpolate the 12MP 5D dpreview tabletop image to 24MP, and compare it to the 24MP Sony A900 dpreview tabletop image.  The upsized 5D file will show sharper details in some areas, while the Sony will be a little sharper in other areas due to the different focus points.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 04:46:33 PM by T-1000 » Logged
Jonathan H
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 115



WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 28, 2008, 05:54:09 PM »
ReplyReply

After looking at the Chivas Regal still life... the 1Ds3 has the "crispest" image by far.  No contest really.

The 5D2 seems to have the best DR, retaining the most detail in the dark patches of the knit fabric.
Logged

Long walks on the beach, nights by the fireplace, and sushi.
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8848


« Reply #13 on: November 28, 2008, 08:01:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Derryck
Ray, you are right, but given the depth of field required for this setup I don't think it matters too much in this case.

It matters regarding resolution at the plane of focus. This issue cropped up recently when reviews of the Canon 50D came out. The point was made by many that you needed really good lenses to benefit from the extra resolution provided by the greater pixel count of the 50D; greater resolution than can be obtained with ordinary lenses at F11.

Now the P25 doesn't have a greater pixel count than the 1Ds3 or 5D2, but it does have wider pixel spacing, a lower absolute resolution in terms of lp/mm (as opposed to lines per picture height), and therefore records image detail at a higher MTF, for any given F stop, than the smaller formats do with their greater pixel density. (Assuming the lenses used are similar in quality, which at F11 they would be.)

Using the same f stop of F11 when comparing cameras of different format would be equivalent to using different f stops when comparing cameras of the same format.

What would you say if I were to compare the Canon 40D with the 50D, using F8 with the 40D and F11 with the 50D?

Edit: I should add that it can be perfectly legitimate to compare same formats at different F stops, or different formats at the same f stop, provided the purpose is stated. If I compare a 40D at F8 with a 50D at F11, it would be for the purpose of quantifying any resolution difference at the plane of focus, for practical purposes. Can I use the 50D at F11 and get the same resolution (at the plane of focus) as I would get with a 40D at F8, for example? This sort of information can be very useful in the field. At F11 the 50D will provide significantly greater resolution away from the plane of focus (ie greater DoF). That it also provides resolution equal to the 40D at F8, at the plane of focus, makes those extra pixels worthwhile. In other words, I don't have to make a gigantic print in order to appreciate subtle resolution differences at the plane of focus. The benefit is in the greater DoF.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 09:11:31 PM by Ray » Logged
Rick_Allen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 183


WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 29, 2008, 12:33:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Send me a PM and I'll process them out in CS4
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 12:34:21 AM by Rick_Allen » Logged

BruceHouston
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308



« Reply #15 on: November 29, 2008, 01:33:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Darryck; very helpful information.

Bruce
Logged
Derryck
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 29, 2008, 02:16:17 AM »
ReplyReply

After much feedback I decided to reshoot the test for just the two Canon cameras and process them with the same software (DPP) since I couldn't process all three with the same program. I also made sure that focus was set to exactly the same distance, this time on the face of Chairman Mao (this was achieved with "Live View" at x10). Both images were shot using a 135mm f2 lens @ f11 and 1/125sec using the same lighting setup as before.

Both images were processed in DPP using the standard curve with no sharpening and no NR applied. In Photoshop both images were sharpened using Smart Sharpen at 60% with a radius of 0.6.

Now things have been evened out the results are a lot closer. I'll leave it to you to decide which is the better camera.

Unfortunately I've run out of time today to shoot a iso/noise comparison but hope to early next week.

Cheers,

Derryck.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 09:43:05 PM by Derryck » Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 29, 2008, 03:36:41 AM »
ReplyReply

It seems like we are approaching a saturation rate with digital finally, at least in high end cameras. Soon it won't really matter what you shoot, but how you shoot it and how you process it. Getting a good picture these days is teh first step. Tehn comes all the other weapons and how to use them creatively. It's good to know. Waht do you al think, a couple more years and top end cameras will be close enough that comparing them will be a past activity?
Logged

reissme
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #18 on: November 29, 2008, 06:12:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Derryck
After much feedback I decided to reshoot the test for just the two Canon cameras and process them with the same software (DPP) since I couldn't process all three with the same program. I also made sure that focus was set to exactly the same distance, this time on the face of Chairman Mao. Both images were shot using a 135mm f2 lens @ f11 and 1/125sec using the same lighting setup as before.

Both images were processed in DPP using the standard curve with no sharpening and no NR applied. In Photoshop both images were sharpened using Smart Sharpen at 60% with a radius of 0.6.

Now things have been evened out the results are a lot closer. I'll leave it to you to decide which is the better camera.

Unfortunately I've run out of time today to shoot a iso/noise comparison but hope to early next week.

Cheers,

Derryck.
Hello Derryck
Thank you for the great comparison
It looks there is no difference at all, in color, sharpness, or DR. It is the same sensor...
To my eyes, in the first comparison, the Canon 1DSmIII is slighly better in sharpness, or the same as the P 25 in other aspects.
Reiss Menachem. www.reiss.co.il
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #19 on: November 29, 2008, 09:02:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Derryck
Thanks for taking the time to do this
I had a 5DII on order and it came in today so I picked it up
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad