Post deleted due to extreme douchebaggery by fanboys. There's nothing to see here....move along....
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."
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.
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.
Both.
You are wrong. The 50D has more resolution than the 40D, yet the same noise level for any given resolution.
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.
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).
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
Agreed.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote