Post deleted due to extreme douchebaggery by fanboys. There's nothing to see here....move along....
Printable View
Post deleted due to extreme douchebaggery by fanboys. There's nothing to see here....move along....
For those of you who will ask, the full files are found here:
50D: http://www.ithinksmall.com/IMG_4589.jpg
1D Mk II: http://www.ithinksmall.com/IT6Q0523.jpg
That seems pretty close, if you were to compare the resolution at high ISO's such as 1600-3200 that would be an interesting comparison indeed. If there's not that much difference mabye I should consider the 1D IIas a cheaper alternative to the 7D.
John.
Interesting. I never really considered the depth of field difference between crops.
Funny, Rob. You spent the weekend doing this, and I spent the weekend taping up all the Canon logos on my gear with black gaff.
After reviewing your images, I'm not at all surprised. The 50D overpromised and underdelivered, especially compared to the (IMO) superior 40D. For anyone reading this who doesn't know, Canon introduced the50D while it was still competing in the megapixel war with Nikon and the other camera companies, and this is the natural result of that war (if memory serves me right, Nikon was offering cameras with slightly higher resolutions and Canon [foolishly] must have felt likeit needed to overdose on the MPs to make a statement or show dominance or something). There's no reason to have 15 MPs for most people.
<span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]One thing you didn't mention was the significant noise in your 50D images (compare the white space in the background of the images). That, of course, can result from a lot of factors, but probably results from trying to cram too many pixels onto a sensor that's just too small (gapless pixels and microlenses and better pixel pitch blah blah blah aside).Hmm, now that I'm looking at the images on a different monitor, the noise seems to have disappeared. Interesting. . . .
Fortunately, the major camera companiesseem to beeasing up on the megapixels. Canon (especially after the release of the G10) recently released the G11 with fewer MPs than its predecessor, although the mark 4 has 16-ish MPs (compared to the Nikon D3 or new D3s, both of which have 12.1). Still, it's reviews like this that embarrass me and make me cringe as a Canon-shooter.
In a way, I feel like discussing theneed for more MPs is a bit like kicking a dead pig. By now, people should know that more MPs doesn't always equal better images. What's important is that these companies listen to their consumers and put out products that we can be proud of. And mind the quality control, lest we all jump ship to Sony! I'm tired of making my frequent trips to the Canon repair center because my brand new $1000+ L lens is backfocusing or focusing unevenly across the frame from left to right, or because my 5D mk II's sensor is dying or because its outermost focal points can't focus worth a damn in low light. Am I being unreasonable? Cuz it's kind of upsetting when I know that I could probably produce sharper images at an indoor wedding with a Canon G11, a non-TTL sync cord, and a Metz or Nikon SB-900 flash.
P.S. DOF differences are most likely related to the different sensor sizes. As you know, bigger sensors = greater DOF. That's why certain videos shot with DSLRs are so impressive, compared to dedicated camcorders and video cameras.
and by "greater" DOF, I really meant "more shallow."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Gardner
Rob,
1) How was the 50D calibrated? It appears to me that the body/lens is back focusing badly.
2) At f11, DLA(table in the MkIII review)has a negative effect on the IQ of the 50D. Because of the pixel density of that sensor diffraction begins to effect IQ at f7.6 ABC (According to Bryans Calculations). Diffractionblur is not noticable on the 1D MKII until f12.7 ABC. Bryan illustrates effects of diffraction on the 50D here.
I would really like to see a comparison using a focus chart. Try this one at larger apertures like f4-f8. Tim Jackons D70 Focus Chart Follow his setup as closely as possible. This reveals quite a bit about a len's performance.
When you post your results, try posting 100% crops 240-300 pixels wide in a side by side format. It's much easier for people to compare. It's a shame we don't have a way to do overlays like Bryan does.
Thanks for sharing your test data and thoughts. I hope you will continue to test your equipment to find it's strengths and weaknesses. It is a noble endeavor.
A few things:
1. ISO - I shot at ISO 100, as this was not a noise/sensitivity comparison. I expect the 50D to handle low light much better than the 1D Mk II and it does for me. Of that, there is no question.
I just expect the 50D to provide decent image quality at ISO 100, which I can't seem to produce. And more importantly, I shouldn't have to work this hard. It took 20 shots AND an hour fooling around with AF Microadjustment to get what I got - that to me is unacceptable for a $1000 camera, pro or not. The better ISO sensitivity (dynamic range?) and higher native resolution *did* capture more shadow detail, even though the areas were soft (see full JPGs). But that detail seemingly comes at a price - too high a price for me - with a sacrifice in overall image quality.
2. Pro vs. prosumer - I understand the 1D is a pro camera. I would expect nothing but the best image quality from a 1-series. I've had many 1D's and 1Ds's over the years, and they have never failed to disappoint. But back in the day, technology and quality seemed to trickle down. Resolution, sensitivity, and speed were always higher on the premium series, and slowly made their way down the food chain. However, it seems like Canon is taking the reverse approach. Is it that these technologies are still a bit too "beta" to sell in their 1-series to pro shooters? The 1D Mk III was criticized for being "only" 10mp when lower cameras in the Canon lineup were of equal or greater MP. Though I'm still not totally convinced that the Mk III was a great step up (Canon never got me to part with my Mk II, and I know plenty of people who agree), it seemed as if others in the prosumer lineup eclipsed much of its performance on the spec chart. This test still convinces me that the best all-round camera made (for my needs) is the Nikon D3/D700. Or at least until the 1D Mk IV price drops..... ;-) And no, I have no interest in switching, so I'm not pushing Nikon, or even bashing Canon, for that matter. Just making observations....
3. Test charts: This is something I don't understand. While I get the need for standardized tests, the ISO test charts are 2D objects. When do I ever shoot anything that is 2D? Never! So why should I care about 2D performance? Yes, I know it can tell you how well a sensor / lens can resolve detail. That is ONE measure of performance. But my very unscientific real-world tests told me something far more important - when I need to get the shot, I have to work far harder with the 50D, and I get no real benefit in return (other than better ISO performance). Which brings me to point #4...
4. Why I did this: I have a limited budget. I see ads and reviews, and was feeling it may be time to get rid of my "lowly 8mp" camera that has been my go-to body for some time now. I looked at the 50D as an upgrade - double resolution, bigger screen, greater ISO, etc. A used 50D with battery grip is about the same price as a used 1D Mk II, so I felt it was a good comparison in my $$$ value-o-meter. I was keeping my 1Ds Mk II, so the full frame "studio camera" need was covered. In that environment, I almost never shoot higher than ISO 100, as I have total control over lighting. I wanted a better field camera. I wanted more resolution, as often I have to crop in tight for a shot, and found the 8mp sometimes lacking. Hence the appeal of the 50D and the 1.6x crop - greater reach on my existing lenses, and theoretically more resolution to work with. But I don't seem to be "getting the shots" with the 50D - even in controlled environments. I'm picky, and apparently spoiled, as the IQ of the 1-series is my benchmark. And apart from the ISO issue, I don't feel like the 50D is in any way an upgrade - for me. Other users may certainly disagree - and many will!
5. My conclusions: Unless you are at the very top end of the equipment/$$ spectrum, the IQ of the older 1-series and the original 5D are better for everyday use. For example, in the world of real $$, for the price of a 7D I'd rather have a 5D and a 40D. The IQ on these bodies are still excellent, and their ISO performance still falls well within the range I need (I rarely shoot beyond ISO 800-1600 ever). Two bodies with two good lenses covering a greater focal length gives you a greater chance to get the shot - until they make a 18-200 f/2.8 L IS with excellent sharpness at all focal lengths, controlled CA, minimal distortion and light fall-off, that is!
Technology and progress are great. The 5D Mk II is an awesome camera - no doubt! It is capable of producing some amazing images, given the right environment. But, as many 5DII owners know, its not the most reliable thing in the world. In a controlled environment, there's nothing that can beat it, short of medium-format. But I'm not always in a controlled environment - in fact, I rarely am - and I need to get the shot. So screw the ISO test charts - I need to know what works in my real world and in my real budget, and I found my answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Gardner
It's very noticably better, if you crop or print large enough to use it. In your comparison it looks like focus was missed on the 50D shot, though. Also, the f-number should be 1.3X wider to get the same level of diffraction in the 1.6X.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Gardner
Both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conway Yen
You are wrong. The 50D has more resolution than the 40D, yet the same noise level for any given resolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conway Yen
If by "most people" you mean people who never print larger than 5x7, then I agree. But for 8x10 or larger prints, or for wildlife, macro, and many other types of photography, 15 MP and more is very useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conway Yen
The softness of the 7D is caused by bad demosaic algorithms forced by green channel imbalances due to poor manufacturing. Hopefully they wont make the same mistake when they put the 7D sensor into the 60D and 550D (if they do).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conway Yen
I disagree. I need and want more MP. I could use at least 200 MP on a 1.6X (and more on full frame) to get the most from my very expensive lenses. I can't fathom why anyone would want their lenses to be limited by what is ideally the cheapest component in the system: the camera.
Please read this thread:
http://community.the-digital-picture...ms/t/2025.aspx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conway Yen
Agreed.
Ever since I saw this thread, I was waiting for Daniel to chime in... :-)
Yes, its always entertaining to hear from people who don't have practical experience of a situation tell us we're wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Gardner
Did you follow the link I posted? It was to a focus chart. It is to test the focus accuracy and sharpness of a body/lens. It is not a "2-D" wall poster ISO test chart. It is common courtesy to at least look at the links supplied by a post responder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Gardner
You post "The resolution question" when I think actually you are struggling with an "AF accuracy question" There is no way that any XXD model camera, or 5D, or 5DII, is going to be as "real-world" shot after shot accurate as the 1D series. That is why the 1D series is so blame expensive. Your working harder because the AF in your 50D is wack! Have you tried another body? Have you sent it to Canon for repair under warranty? What do you have in a similar body to compare it to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Gardner
Whendid anyone, anytime, anywhere, insinuate that the 50D would be an upgrade from a 1DMkII? I think you are spoiled. It's funny, The guys at dpreview didn't seem to have a very hard time shooting lots of very useable/professional looking photos with the 50D. And for some really strange reason it doesn't appear that Bryan had any problem either. If I kept looking, I could very easily find dozens of pros using this camera making a living with this tool.
At this point I just scratch my head in wonder at what this post set out to accomplish.
Oh an BTW, the MKIV is 16.1MP. Jeff Ascough Likes
Damn, that 1D Mark IV looks like an INCREDIBLE camera! Ascough's review is very insightful. Not being an experienced photographer, I don't really understand how some of those shots look like they do. Some of the shots he said were at night look to be taken in broad daylight. How does one do that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Lee
I was not responding to you or anyone elsewhen I made the test chart comment. In fact, I wrote that post sitting in a cigar bar with no internet access, not having read your post. Why you would take it to refer to you personally is beyond me. I apologize for offending your sensitivities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Lee
I haven't done anything other that what was stated. On a tripod, in controlled lighting, from a motionless inanimate object, I EXPECT TO GET AN ACCURATE SHOT. Otherwise I may as well give up the business. I tried to focus 20 different shots, both manually and with AF. The shot shown is the best manual focus shot I could take. I have 20/20 uncorrected vision. I spent an hour screwing with the AF Microadjustment. I got the shot right the first time with the 1D Mk II, and took five subsequent shots, with exactly the same result. I have never had this problem with any other camera. Here's what I've owned before (quantities): 10D (3), 20D (1), 40D (2), 5D (3), 1D (3), 1D Mk II (2), 1Ds (3), 1Ds Mk II (1). I still have an old 10D that gets a sharper picture straight out of the gate. As far as AF is concerned, I wasn't using it, so your point is irrelevant. That being said, even if it were, there should be SOME area on this image that is sharp, should it not? The object I chose has multiple surfaces (leaves) at multiple depths, so SOMETHING should be in crisp focus, but its not. The sharpest area is too soft, IMO. And I'm not the only one to make this observation about the 50D, so I know I'm not crazy. My old 10D at 6MP can take a crisper shot straight out of the box, without the need for AF Microadjustment or such shenanigans. Also, I expect a camera to produce a decent result at f/11. This is not an unreasonable expectation. I don't care if I get a better result at f/5.6 if I need to shoot at f/11 for depth control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Lee
The guys at DPREVIEW also commented on its image softness, and justly criticized the 50D for it. Read the review before you call them to your defense. I never said you couldn't make a living with this body. In my experience, however, I have to work too hard to get the results I need. I found it surprising that a four-year-newer body with twice the MP and significantly better ISO performance can't deliver a crisp shot in controlled conditions, and that my four-year-old 8MP camera could produce a similar image when up-rezzed (sp?) to 15MP. I chose to compare them based upon time, technology, and price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Lee
If you had read my reasoning and conclusions, you would understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Lee
I was referencing the MP of the Mk III - I never referenced the Mk IV in terms of MP. I stated "The 1D Mk III was criticized for being "only" 10mp when lower cameras in the Canon lineup were of equal or greater MP." You seem to be quick to correct, without taking the time to read.
Interesting answers.
I won't repeat any of the previous dialogue, but I will mention a few things I notice. I too own a 1D MKII and a 50D (plus 3 other bodies). I do a lot of shooting where I pair up bodies and lenses for an event and then have pictures from many bodies to work with I'm compiling proofs for a client. Some days, this means I'm looking at8MP images from the 1D MKII and XT, whilealsoworking with 22MP images from my 5D MKII. There's too many variables to analyze, but sometimes one body just handles white balance, focus or some other variable better than the others.
My1D MKII never focuseswell with the 2X converter, butmy XTi willwork perfectlyin the same lighting. My 50D needs moresaturation in post processing than anyof my other bodies. My 1D MKIItakes sharpeningbetter in the RAW files than any of my other bodies...and the differences go on and on.
Ithink there are a lot of small variables with lenses and bodies than impact image quality. Anyone out there who hastwo copies of the same lenshas noticeddifferences...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Gardner
That's what's so funny! The DPR editors are so indoctrinated by their own war on pixel density propaganda that they did indeed say that the 50D "per-pixel detail" (a misleading a useless metric to begin with) is not as good as 10 MP cameras, but even this is wrong.
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/Ca...eos40d-002.jpg
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/Ca...0D-Res-002.jpg
Not only is the 50D sharper than the 40D at any given absolute spatial frequency, but also relative to Nyquist. Their own measurements prove it. Siemens Star tests with the 40D and 50D prove that the 50D has even higher "per pixel sharpness" with the right lens and technique.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
And if only people would pay for pictures of test charts, I'd be a happy man.....
But over here, in reality.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Gardner
I have made lots of money with my XTi. Know your equipment, its strength and weaknesses. The most important tool is the photographer. Deliver good quality and they will pay no matter what canon tool you are using.
Mark
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Gardner
Your "reality" is predicated on the inability to achieve accurate focus even in the easiest and most controlled circumstances. Live view makes it so easy (especially at f/11), that it should not take any photographer more than a few seconds. That's separate from autofocus or miscalibration, of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
You are very quick to presume my inability to take a picture in focus. Over the past 20 years, I think I've managed that once or twice. And the fact that the 1D shot is in perfect focus should alleviate any doubts you may have about this user. You are drowning in your arrogance, and your condescension is no lifeline. I joined this forum to share images, experiences, and have fun. It's people like you who ruin it for everyone.
As I stated before, I chose my test target for a reason - multiple flat surfaces at multiple depths - to make it easy to discern results. SOMETHING in that image should be sharp and in proper focus, but it is not.
Feel free to argue your charts and resolution formulas to your heart's content. I hope it serves you well. Some of us actually have to make a living using these little black boxes, and I've clearly wasted enough time on this topic. For those I have somehow offended with this post, my apologies.
Alright guys, settle down. Somewhere in here we strolled past the constructive discussion phase in relation to the topic. I think you both (Rob and Daniel) have made good points, so let's try to keep the conversation going in a constructive manner.
Personally, I've noticed that shots with my 50D are sometimes soft when I think they ought not to be. Did I miss focus? Possibly. I know that my 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS worked best after a microfocus adjustment of +15. It's possible that the 50D's "zero" focus is a bit off by nature; or maybe its anti-aliasing filter is set relatively strong when rolling off the factory line. However, the images do take sharpening in DPP fairly well. Rob, you might want to try doing another microfocus adjustment to get the most out of your lens/body combination. [EDITED] If you've maxed that out, and you're still seeing a substantial softness, then anyone else's opinion on the issue doesn't really matter--you should send the lens and body to Canon for adjustment like Colin says below. But when you ask a question, be prepared to get a variety of answers. Take from those answers what you will and don't take it personal when someone disagrees with the way you're rationalizing your own position on the matter.
I've also learned that from the technical side of things, Daniel is usually spot on and can provide evidence to back his position. However, Daniel, you could be a bit less assertive [aggressive] in arguing your stance.
At the end of the day, we're a community that should strive to respect one another whether we agree with them or not. :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Gardner
Apologies accepted. I'm not sure the nature of that particular post from the cigar bar. Neither am I trying to offend. That's not what we do here.
In your profile you say "Looking for shooting buddies and constructive criticism". Now, I'm not in NewYork, but if your're ever down in Williamsburg, VA, I'd love to go out and shoot somephotos. Just let me know. Secondly, You posted a topic illustrating that the resolution (15MP) of the 50D is inferior to the resolution of the 1DMkII (8.2MP) which in my humble opinion makes no freak'n sense.
Your problem is with focus or diffraction yet you continue personal attacks rather than facing the facts as presented. Yes, there are sharp portions of leaves in the 50Dimages you posted. The flat leaf to the back right is much sharper in the 50D than the MkII shot. The 50D is obviously "BACK FOCUSING". You have said nothing about the Diopter adjustment on the viewfinder. You also have not mentioned 10X zoom in live view. So, what are we to think. Every time someone says something it's taken as a personal attack on your 20 yrs of photographic knowledge. You said that the micro adjustment was at +20 and needed more. Obviously, to the objective observer you either haven't a clue what your're doing or the AF on your50D is a mess. What would you think reading that?
I'm sorry your having a hard time with the 50D. Sean Setters obviously loves his. (ask him, he's a forumfriendof yours) I, as well as others have tried to suggest things you may be over looking to somehow help you resolve this issue that we can't ourselves replicate. That's know as "constructive criticism" which I believe you are on this forum looking for. I am a member of this forum because I found TDP first and studied much of the information that Bryan C makes available here. It is a treasure trove of knowledge. i.e. f11 sucks on a 50D and if you continue to dispute that then you are hardly fulfilling the mission statement written in your profile. So suck it up and try f6.3 and maybe things will look better in the morning.
So, In my opinion, if you detest the current 50D that you own, return it, or sell it, or throw it in the Hudson River and get on with the more important matter of making great images. Please, when posting, ask questions that you are sincerely looking for answers on rather than using it for a place to vent about your unhappiness with a recent equipment purchase. Except for Conway Yen, I don't think you'll find too many others agreeing with your post or conclusions.
And yes, we've all wasted toomuch time on this topic. The big thing you miss is the effect your opinion has on those looking for answers. When they come across your post do they run forNitax because of your inaccurate tests and conclusions or do they find accurate, intelligent answers and insights that help them wisely purchase and use Canon photographic equipment. I don't know if you care. I honestly don't think you do. Forums are more than a whiteboard for slander. They're a great source of education and knowledge.
Thanks Sean, I just read your post as was finishing up. Community......that's the deal. Sorry if I'm being to "assertive" here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Gardner
I'm sorry that I did not make myself clear. I did not mean that you do not have the ability to ever take a picture in focus. What I meant was that your conclusion ("1D2 has more resolution in reality") is based on an invalid comparison, because you were not able to get the comparison photos in focus. The reason I said that is because of two facts:
- The 50D photo is clearly
and obviously out of focus compared to the 1D2 shot. The two photos do
not have the same plane of focus.- You said you spent over an hour and more than twenty shots to get one in focus:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Gardner
What I meant to convey is that the reason for the difference in your comparison (and incorrect conclusion) is due to the missed focus, and since any photographer with liveview can achieve the correct focus in the given circumstances, the problem does not lie with the 50D.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Gardner
I disagree. Many of the 1D features make it easier for the user to achieve accurate focus: a better autofocus system, higher AF accuracy, stricter calibration standards, and lower resolution. The 50D, in comparison, is generally more difficult to achieve accurate autofocus (microadjustment excepted).
I know that when I sent my 5D in to have the 135 f/2 matched for focus, the results that came back were WAY better.
If the 50D won't micro adjust enough, it (and the lenses you're going to be using) simply need to go back to the factory to get in tune.
Rob, I really do understand your frustration. I was ready to throw my 135mm under a car, or better yet, go beat the Canon Technical support guy who informed me that my lens wasn't back focusing, I just needed to stop down.
That still pisses me off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
You are assuming that the camera is functioning perfectly. Is there any chance in your world that it could be the machine, and not the user? See below...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Gardner
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
Did you bother to read where I stated that I used MANUAL focus to get that shot, as the AF was having too much difficulty?? And, for the record, I have AF set to the AF-On button on all my bodies, so there's no chance of the AF overriding my manual adjustments as I depressed the shutter. And I used a remote shutter release to eliminate any user-generated camera movement.
It amazes me how someone can so vehemently claim that it HAS to be user error, because the camera certainly cannot be defective, malfunction or have difficulty producing an accurate image in any way. The FACTS are this - 1) I was visually able to produce (and reproduce EVERY time) an in-focus image with the 1D by using my little analog eye to look through the pretty little picture hole in the top of the camera, and twisting the rubber knob around the lens. 2) Despite trying every method available (AF, manual, LiveView) I could not get a clean image given my parameters. 3) I later tested a Canon 10D in the same conditions, and produced a sharp image.
So I just went back this morning to change parameters and reshoot, taking the advice of opening up to f/5.6. I took shots using manual and LiveView, trying to leave AF out of the equation. This produced dramatically different results. Using the same methods as before, my image quality was significantly better. So I went back to f/11 to see if I could reproduce the same issues as before, and sure enough, I got the same crap. The scientific method of reproducible results points to a camera issue, not a user issue, in the real world - not on a spec chart.
At f/5.6, this 50D produces a very usable image. However, in my world, I do need a camera that produces acceptable images from f/1.4-f/22 (lens-dependent, of course). If my cutoff point is f/7.6 or so (regardless of lens), that severely limits this camera's usefulness to me. I am going to bring the body in to Canon to have them take a look and make sure there is nothing wrong with this particular unit - and get some use out of my CPS membership.
This post has taught me a very valuable lesson. There are those on this board who are here to become better photographers, and those who like to talk about specs and data. There are those who post frequently about tech and love to tell others how wrong, misguided, or ignorant they are about physics, science, and technology - yet little of it is actually about why we are here (835 posts to this forum, only one was about an actual picture taken by the author of said posts). I clearly do not belong here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Lee
My original post made no such statement about resolution - it was about image quality - two different points. The post was about the idea in my crazy head that my 1D Mk II was out of date and inferior to today's technology in the mid-range, that I could replace the 1D Mk II with a 50D for the same money and it would be an "upgrade". It illustrated the difficulty I was having with generating a clean image from the 50D that worked as well as the older 1D. I was not saying that the 50D was an inferior camera, but merely that the 50D did not provide the upgrade I was (perhaps inaccurately) expecting, given its superior specs in certain key areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Lee
I never "attacked" anyone. You might want to go re-read your original and unsolicited responses to myself, and Mr. Browning's responses to Conway Yen and myself first, before you level such accusations. And yes, I stand by my comment that it is arrogant and condescending of Mr. Browning to tell me that any idiot can perfectly focus a 50D with LiveView in a matter of seconds. In theory this is true. It looked good on the screen, but the file produced different results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Lee
I started AF Microadjustment by taking 5 shots, starting from -20 to -10 to 0 to +10 and +20. The shots progressively got better from -20 to +20 - it was as far as I could go and there was no "sweet spot" in between. I am limited by the software parameters - what else can anyone else do? How do I "not have a clue as to what I am doing"? Once again, you imply that I'm an idiot. Thank you for proving my point about personal attacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Lee
Have you tried replicating the issue? Obviously not. So don't bother us with specious comments like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Lee
My original post did not ask questions. I sought neither "constructive criticism" nor was it "venting unhappiness about a recent purchase". It was you who provided answers to questions I did not ask. It was sharing my own observations in my unique situation. I never made a claim that "all 50Ds suck" or some such nonsense. I was not reviewing the camera for general consumption...I had a unique situation with a unique perspective. I shared it with the community, which as you have pointed out was a very big mistake. As to the effect my opinions have on this board, you have made it clear to me that individual observations on this "whiteboard for slander" are not welcomed. Not to worry - I got the message.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Gardner
No, not in this case. It's very obvious from the picture itself that you simply missed focus. If you were testing the autofocus performance, then it would make sense to blame the machine. But in this circumstance you were not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Gardner
I thought that only applied to the 50D. In any case, the 1D2 has several advantages over the 50D for manual focus as well, such as a larger, brighter viewfinder and thinner DOF (for the same framing and f-number, as in your comparison). (I always replace the standard viewfinder screen with a precision one as well. If they differ in that way it would be another advantage.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Gardner
The issue of f-number is separate from and in addition to missed focus. There's not much sense in comparing the difference in contrast caused by diffraction when there is a much, much larger difference in contrast caused by missed focus. In fact, I would think that a correctly focused 50D would still yield greater resolution in the face of more diffraction. The reason it has more diffraction, of course, is only because you shot the 50D at a deeper DOF than the 1D2. The 50D would require f/8 to get the same optical DOF as f/11 on the 1D2.
There is a third issue as well: the MTF of the lens. Since the 1D2 uses a different image circle, the spatial frequency of any given print size is 1.3X lower than the 50D, so the contrast of the lens will be higher at any f-number that is not dominated by diffraction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Gardner
You still have not posted any images where both are focused at the same distance, and/or the same depth of field. If you were to do that, it would prove the opposite of your first post: the 50D has far more resolution than the 1D2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Gardner
That's nonsensical. At f/22, the 50D has a depth of field that is far deeper than the 1D2 at f/22. You only need f/17 or so on the 50D to get the same DOF as f/22 on the 1D2. The only possible problem I can imagine is that the 50D is too sensitive, you can't get your shutter speed slow enough, and you dislike using ND. If you fall into that rare circumstance, then I agree with your problem, but it's just a natural consequence of sensor size and has nothing to do with the specific implementation of the 50D, and applies equally to all APS-C for a given level of technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Gardner
That is only the cutoff point to get the maximum possible return from the additional resolution of the 50D over previous cameras. You can still use it at any given DOF and get more resolution than previous cameras. You only have to use f/7.6 if you want the maximum possible return (rather than just a modest improvement).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Gardner
So what? Posting pictures is not a requirement to be a part of this forum. I share my prints with people in real life and I get all the feedback I could want, so I have no need to post photos online for discussion. The reason I come here is for discussion of the more advanced and technical aspects of photography which I do not find in my real life circle of acquaintances.
No offense anyone, but a simple way to end this debate would be to put a lens with tripod collar on a tripod, MF with the 1D II, then swap to the 50D without adjusting the lens focus. There should be no room debate then...
$0.02
...and that's what I did. 70-200 f/2.8 L with tripod collar, Manual focus, remote shutter release, 200mm at f/11, ISO 100.
OK, then I don't see what the debate is about.