| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/26/2005 08:13:07 PM · #1 |
Which camera will give a better resolution? If you took a 100% crop of a picture using the exact same settings and lens.
From the report I saw on DP Review. It seems that the 5D has a larger pixel pitch than the 1DsMKII.
Does this translate into better images? If this is the case, wouldn't it make more sense to use the 5D for overall resolution?
For the price of the MKII you could get the 5D and the 1DMKIIn. Even if the resolution of the 1Ds is better I think I would still go that route. You would have the best of both worlds. Quality, full frame and resolution with the 5D and speed in the MKIIn.
Just my opinion.
Message edited by author 2005-08-26 20:13:19. |
|
|
|
08/26/2005 08:16:09 PM · #2 |
the 1DsII has more pixels so if you have good glass it will do better. But i've heard that it only is better by 5% which sounds off to me. Really there isn't much difference between 12.8 and 16mp. The bigger pixels of the 5D will give your lenses a sharper look to them, and make them not have to be quite as good to get better results. I hope that makes sense and is accurate (i think it is).
|
|
|
|
08/26/2005 08:18:57 PM · #3 |
| WOW!. If that is accurate and it is only a 5% difference It would make total sense to buy the 5D over the MKII. You could also purchase a couple of L lenses. |
|
|
|
08/26/2005 08:44:56 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by krazyivan:
WOW!. If that is accurate and it is only a 5% difference It would make total sense to buy the 5D over the MKII. You could also purchase a couple of L lenses. |
It's not 5%. The 1DsMkII has 1.3 times as many pixels, but linear resolution scales with the square root of the number of pixels. The 1DsII therefore has SQRT(1.3)=1.142 or 14.2% greater linear resolution.
It's true that in the center of the frame, the 5D will be a little more forgiving of glass than, say, the 20D. Near the corners, though, things will be markedly different. That's where lenses are always worst, and the 20D doesn't even see that area. The 5D will. It will certainly be necessary to carefully consider lens purchases for the 5D.
Message edited by author 2005-08-26 20:47:20.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2005 08:50:07 PM · #5 |
I think there is a lot more to the diferences between the 1ds Mark II and the 5D then you all are stating in this thread.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2005 09:40:19 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
I think there is a lot more to the diferences between the 1ds Mark II and the 5D then you all are stating in this thread. |
I'm referring to the resolution of the sensors. As far as features, there are many differences between the 5D and the 1Ds. I'm trying to determine what the resolution differences are between the two. I would love to see examples of the 2 side by side to compare.
I would like to see a test of the 5D and 1Ds with the 24-70 f/2.8L (good copy).
- 1 picture @ 24mm shot at f/2.8, f/5.6, and f/8
- 1 picture @ 50mm shot at (same as above)
- 1 Picture @ 70mm shot at (same as above)
- ISO 50, 800, 3200 for all shots
- Also the same test with a couple of primes like, 24mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.2
- Normal Shots and 100% crops
I think this would show what the resolution difference is between the 2. I guess what I'm really trying to find out is if the $4000.00 differnce in price between the 2 really worth it when it comes to overall resolution. |
|
|
|
08/27/2005 10:29:16 AM · #7 |
For pixel-pitch diagrams on several different cams, including the 5D and the 1DS, go here and scroll down near the bottom.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2005 10:46:51 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
For pixel-pitch diagrams on several different cams, including the 5D and the 1DS, go here and scroll down near the bottom.
R. |
That's what I was looking for a little while ago. Thanks Robert.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2005 10:57:54 AM · #9 |
Smaller pixels means finer detail. Fine detail will be significantly better in the 1ds Mk 2. Rougly 14.2% better.
You will be able to print 14.2% larger than the 5D with the same image quality.
If you are only happy with print quality up to 8x10 on a 5D, you will get the same quality on a 9x11.
If you are happy with print quality on a 24x30 on a 5D, you will get a 27.5x34.
Another way to view this is that you can get a 1.14x crop factor to do the same thing.
Larger pixels means less noise. The 5D will have less noise in it because it will be better at gathering light. This means that less information will need to be boosted and less guesswork will need to be done by the camera.
1ds Mk = bigger prints, better crops, OR finer detail (you choose)
5D = Less noise, truer pictures.
I also learned recently that something called Diffraction limitation is typically less of an issue with larger pixels. This allow you to take pictures with narrower apertures on cameras with bigger pixels. This is something of a moot point in the better or worse game because it is just a limitation that the photographer needs to know how to work around. If you always shoot at F8 or F11, you are unlikely to run into issues in many cameras. If you like F22-35, you might want to go for the 5D.
see Cambridge in Colour website.
Keep in mind that noise levels on both of these cameras is very good, possibly quite a bit better than many types of film, so noise may be a small issue at this point.
It is very difficult to place numbers on the actual effects of these things because different types of shooting affect pictures in different ways. |
|
|
|
08/27/2005 11:05:27 AM · #10 |
PS. You don't need to go through square root calculations to get the 14.2% figure. I just divided the number of pixels on the X axis on the 1ds by the same on the 5D. 4992/4368=1.1428571428571428571428571428571, or 14.28%
Kirbics method sounds more accurate, but I do wonder if it perhaps isn't the same thing, what with the distributive principle of multiplication and all......
4368*14.28*2912*14.28=4368*2912*14.28(sq) |
|
|
|
08/27/2005 11:07:47 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
PS. You don't need to go through square root calculations to get the 14.2% figure. I just divided the number of pixels on the X axis on the 1ds by the same on the 5D. 4992/4368=1.1428571428571428571428571428571, or 14.28%
Kirbics method sounds more accurate, but I do wonder if it perhaps isn't the same thing, what with the distributive principle of multiplication and all......
4368*14.28*2912*14.28=4368*2912*14.28(sq) |
It is in effect the same thing, since we're comparing two cams with essentially the same size sensor.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2005 11:12:04 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
PS. You don't need to go through square root calculations to get the 14.2% figure. I just divided the number of pixels on the X axis on the 1ds by the same on the 5D. 4992/4368=1.1428571428571428571428571428571, or 14.28%
Kirbics method sounds more accurate, but I do wonder if it perhaps isn't the same thing, what with the distributive principle of multiplication and all......
|
Will that work the same way when comparing different size sensors? I know it will not if the aspect ratio is different.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2005 11:21:28 AM · #13 |
Kirbic, just giving you a hard time. Your information is based on details of experience and knowledge. Mine is merely based on observations and basic reasoning.
nsbca7, I checked the aspect ratio on this particular camera. I actually chose to use my method over the sq rt method because of this exact reason. Some sensors provide more vertical resolution than horizontal via different aspect ratios. I would compare the X to the X and the Y to the Y. That will give you resolution along those lines. Absolute resolution may be calculated a different way, but a resolution chart is probably more useful than numbers with these sensors because resolution is color based anyhow and is interpolated, so it isn't really accurate in the true sense. Jaggies can be created by bad interpolation algorithms which affect resolution as well by what I call smudging.
This is a different topic however. When in doubt, compare apples to apples... and listen to kirbic :) |
|
|
|
08/27/2005 11:35:36 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Will that work the same way when comparing different size sensors? I know it will not if the aspect ratio is different. |
No, it kinda falls apart if the sizes are not the same (which by proxy means the aspect ratio is the same.) It's prolly more informative to talk about two figures:
1.) The linear spatial resolution (ala Nyquist) in line pairs per mm. That's defined as one over twice the pixel pitch in mm. So for an 8.2 micron pitch (0.0082mm) it's 1/(2*0.0082) = 61 lp/mm.
2.) The pixel count in X and/or Y divided by two, which tells you how many line pairs can be resoved across the image width (X) and/or height (Y)
The first number is useful because it directly relates to how lens quality is measured. You can pull up the MTF chart for a lens, and determine whether the lens will outresolve the sensor, or vice versa, in a given area of the frame. The second number is useful as an indicator of the amount of detail that can be reproduced. It increases with the square root of the pixel count, since it scales with linear resolution (for a given sensor size). And that brings us back to the simple calculations we used above to arrive at the 14.2% figure :-)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/13/2025 07:08:04 AM EDT.
