Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 7 8 [9]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 5D Mark III official...  (Read 28457 times)
stevesanacore
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 218


« Reply #160 on: March 08, 2012, 01:45:13 PM »
ReplyReply


Although not scientific, I have found that the images from my 7D just don't look at nice as the images from my 5Dmk2. Using my Leica R lenses on the 7D, I felt it would be a great travel camera for my fine art work but after two trips I decided the images just don't look as good. They just don't look as clean with the same level of detail as the 5D or 1Ds I have. Could be there is some truth to the density of the photosites just becoming too much? As always, until we see lots of objective tests by people we trust, all the rumors are really worthless. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon pulled the plug on a high MP camera because to many of their WA lenses just can't handle it yet. Let's see how Nikon pulls it off. In the end MF may still be the only option for very high quality images. Maybe size does matter :-0

IMO
Logged

We don't know what we don't know.
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #161 on: March 08, 2012, 02:04:31 PM »
ReplyReply

... I have found that the images from my 7D just don't look at nice as the images from my 5Dmk2. ... They just don't look as clean with the same level of detail as the 5D or 1Ds I have. Could be there is some truth to the density of the photosites just becoming too much?
Could you gives some extra details, like which models of 5D and 1Ds you mean, the choices of aperture sizs and shutter speeds involved in your comparisons, and whether you are comparing equal sized prints or crops to an equal number of pixels, as with 100% on screen viewing?

Because if you mean 5D Mk II or 1Ds Mk III, there is a difference of resolution which means be able to get the same display size with higher PPI from those 35mm format cameras, but if you mean earlier models it would be the reverse. Likewise, comparisons at equal ISO speed (and thus with different aperture diameter, diffraction effects and DOF at equal shutter speed) would skew one way, while comparisons at equal effective aperture size (and so different f-stop, and so different ISO speed for equal shutter speed) would skew in a different direction.

But in one respect, the combination of higher resolution (more pixels per mm, and so more lp/mm) with shorter focal lengths and greater degree of enlargement that typically go with the use of a smaller format like the 7D is likely to have the effect of revealing lens and optical limitations more, through that greater degree of enlargement. More so if for some reason comparisons are done at equal f-stop, meaning with smaller aperture size, more diffraction blurring and less OOF blurring with the smaller format.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6051


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #162 on: March 08, 2012, 02:20:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Although not scientific, I have found that the images from my 7D just don't look at nice as the images from my 5Dmk2... They just don't look as clean with the same level of detail as the 5D or 1Ds I have...

7D is known as a soft camera, no matter how you compare it and slice it and dice it. See Darwin Wiggett's review.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8908


« Reply #163 on: March 08, 2012, 05:57:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Although not scientific, I have found that the images from my 7D just don't look at nice as the images from my 5Dmk2. Using my Leica R lenses on the 7D, I felt it would be a great travel camera for my fine art work but after two trips I decided the images just don't look as good. They just don't look as clean with the same level of detail as the 5D or 1Ds I have. Could be there is some truth to the density of the photosites just becoming too much? As always, until we see lots of objective tests by people we trust, all the rumors are really worthless. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon pulled the plug on a high MP camera because to many of their WA lenses just can't handle it yet. Let's see how Nikon pulls it off. In the end MF may still be the only option for very high quality images. Maybe size does matter :-0

IMO

You're referring to the benefits of the larger sensor, not the disadvantages of pixel density. All else being equal, including pixel density, the larger sensor will tend to deliver better SNR at 18% grey where it's noticeable, on smooth areas and skin tones for example, and better tonal range.

We've all heard of the benefits of MFDB. They are due to the larger sensor. The difference in sensor size between the average MFDB and full-frame 35mm is actually greater than the difference in size between the cropped-format 35mm and full-frame 35mm.
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #164 on: March 08, 2012, 06:04:30 PM »
ReplyReply

You're referring to the benefits of the larger sensor, not the disadvantages of pixel density. All else being equal, including pixel density, the larger sensor will tend to deliver better SNR at 18% grey where it's noticeable, on smooth areas and skin tones for example, and better tonal range.

We've all heard of the benefits of MFDB. They are due to the larger sensor. The difference in sensor size between the average MFDB and full-frame 35mm is actually greater than the difference in size between the cropped-format 35mm and full-frame 35mm.

The most common 22MP, 30MP, 37MP, and 40MP MFD backs and cameras are size difference between 1.28 and 1.5 from 35mm. That sounds a lot like the difference between 35mm and APS.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8908


« Reply #165 on: March 08, 2012, 08:10:02 PM »
ReplyReply

The most common 22MP, 30MP, 37MP, and 40MP MFD backs and cameras are size difference between 1.28 and 1.5 from 35mm. That sounds a lot like the difference between 35mm and APS.

My mistake. I meant to write, the differences in sensor size between cropped 35mm format and ful-frame is actually greater than the difference between FF 35mm and the average size of MFDB. One of the exceptions would be the IQ180 which is very close to full-frame MF. Earlier models such as the P45 are actually cropped-format MFDBs.

The essential point is, the additional light-gathering potential of the larger sensor usually translates to smoother and better tonality at the same or similar ISOs, or at least at base ISO in the case of MFDBs which tend not to have good high-ISO performance as a result of differences in sensor design.
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #166 on: March 08, 2012, 08:34:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I am with you that size matters.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8908


« Reply #167 on: March 09, 2012, 06:09:37 AM »
ReplyReply

I am with you that size matters.

I guess we could say a lot of females would agree. Grin (Sorry! Couldn't resist. Apologies to all females  Grin ).
Logged
MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 910



WWW
« Reply #168 on: March 31, 2012, 08:04:26 AM »
ReplyReply

to those that have had the camera i their hands for a few days i would like to ask if there is much difference in the mirror slap between the II and III? i can sometimes feel the camera jump in my hands especially with the longer zoom at those shutter speeds you think should get away with, does the silent shooting mode help with this?
it's not a deal breaker as i'll probably be upgrading to a III but this is one area i'm hoping to see an improvement in.
Logged
ericksjl
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


WWW
« Reply #169 on: April 02, 2012, 01:59:27 PM »
ReplyReply

to those that have had the camera i their hands for a few days i would like to ask if there is much difference in the mirror slap between the II and III?

Mirror slap is much improved in the III over the II. The entire action is noticeably better damped. It's a satisfyingly softer "snick" compared to the "thunk" of the II. If it were an automobile engine, the one in the III is tuned for quieter, smoother, faster performance. Have yet to try the silent mode so can't speak to that.
Logged
henk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


« Reply #170 on: April 02, 2012, 03:24:39 PM »
ReplyReply

to those that have had the camera i their hands for a few days i would like to ask if there is much difference in the mirror slap between the II and III?

Perhaps this link helps
http://www.gallery.photoglow.co.uk/canon-5d-iii-videos/h19548676#h19548676

Henk
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 7 8 [9]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad