Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: M6 ii

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #11
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    4,850
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidEccleston View Post
    Compare M6 II vs. 5DIV both at 10ft, as this is often the real world situation. You cannot get closer to the subject without one of the following:

    a) Falling from cliff, in river, off boardwalk, etc.
    b) Scaring "it" off
    c) Making yourself "it"'s lunch.
    d) View is obscured from further away (trees, crowd, etc.)
    ... You get the idea.

    Considering this 10ft vantage point, what gets me a better image? Possible comparisons - Crop 5DIV to match M6II (which gives best detail at 100%). Downscale M6II to match center of 5DIV (which gives best image for a equally sized print, assuming you're cropping the 5DIV to 1.6).

    Your 10ft vs. 16ft test is the opposite of c), and/or reducing the odds of b). It's the "I don't feel comfortable with how close I am, can I move further away if I switch bodies?" / "Can I make my subject more comfortable by moving away?" situation. This is also a good test.
    So, I was trying to keep what I was looking at pretty simple: I wanted to assess if the "true" crop factor of modern APS-C sensors was still ~1.2x or if it had improved. My conclusion, it has improved. While I did not show it, the 1.2x clearly has more detail. Yet, I can look at Bryan's comparison of the two cameras with the 200 mm f/2 at f/2 and the 5DIV image has more clarity. Stop down a bit, and this gets a lot closer, especially at the edge of frame, but zoom in on your screen (Ctrl +) and I would slightly give it to the 5DIV. There is some loss with going to smaller pixels. This gets down to the argument of "not all pixels are created equal." So, I wanted to know, within the means of my testing set up, how unequal. Because we can take the resolution and treat pixels as equal and calculate "pixels on target" but that analysis is flawed if pixels are not equal.

    So, based on my little test, I am thinking modern APS-C sensors are getting much better, I would put it at 1.4x to 1.5x being the true multiplier for additional "reach," or we are getting 70-80% of the ideal benefit of additional "pixels on target."

    But, I understand what you are saying and I did take photos of the target with each camera on 1 ft increments from 9 to 18 ft. So, I do have the comparison you referenced.

    Using a different crop, which is a bit bigger:
    5DIV at 10 ft
    Name:  5DIV at 10 ft-9711.jpg
Views: 58
Size:  140.7 KB




    M6II at 10 ft scaled to be the same size as the 5DIV
    Name:  M6 II  at 10 ft (5DIV Equiv)-9124.jpg
Views: 26
Size:  156.0 KB



    M6II at 10 ft full resolution

    Name:  M6 II  at 10 ft (1-1)-9124.jpg
Views: 26
Size:  154.1 KB
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	M6 II 10 ft (5DIV equiv)-9124.jpg 
Views:	7 
Size:	155.0 KB 
ID:	2852   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	M6 II 10 ft (1-1)-9124.jpg 
Views:	6 
Size:	153.4 KB 
ID:	2851  
    Last edited by Kayaker72; 07-19-2020 at 12:41 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •