5D 100% zoom > 40D Full size ?

futureal33

futureal33

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,390
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
Morning all,

Just found an article which quite blatantly stated that an image from a 5D when digitally enlarged by 100%, was still superior to a full size shot from a 40D (in terms of sharpness and constrast)

I find that a little hard to believe.... Can anyone comment?

The article was relating to whether giving up the 1.6x crop factor was worthwhile, and this article basically said that even though 200mm zoom on full frame is significantly less than 200mm on Crop, that you can crop the image to recreate the same size as the 40Ds, and quality will still be just as good?
 
100% is a bit much methinks but the images from my 5d are a lot nicer than the 50d I have but I've never tried that sort of comparison. If I get chance later I will try and do a controlled test and post my findings. Unless anyone beats me to it.
 
I remember something similar when AP reviewed it years ago. Said that you got away with using it as a wildlife camera with a 300mm lens becasue you could crop so close....:thinking:
 
This is the quote I was referencing, it was actually a uses response to an article, rather than the article itself - sorry for any misunderstanding there: Anyway here is what was said:

"I have had both 40D and 5D for a two weeks now. Testing them side-by-side I can safely say that there is no argument in favor of 40D except cost.

The resolution, detail, contrast, color rendition of 5D are signficantly better than 40D. When I bought 40D I was upgrading from Nikon D70. I ran both side by side and there was no differnce in picture quality with comparable lenses.

When I did 40D/5D comparison; 5D stood out immediately. In my testing I found
1. 5D makes better photos with cheaper lenses
2. 5D photos, when viewed 100%, look normal. 40D (or any 1.6 crop cameras) at 100% look fuzzy. You have to downsample the 1.6 images to get good image.
3. 5D gives better color than 40D for the same picture style

Theoretical 40D advantages (or myths):
1. 1.6 crop gives you better telephoto. In my experience, in most cases I could blow up 5D image 200% and still get a better picture than 40D at 100%. This is because of the better local contrast in 5D files. When the image is blown up, the resizing algorithm can create better image due to better contrast. I would not recommend using 40D images at 100% (much less at 200%).

2. Frame rate. If you are shooting action sports or shooting wild-life action and absolutely need 5+ frames per second, 5D will not work for you. However in many cases you do not care to catch just that right moment when the ball strikes the bat. In most cases you need fast focus and clear picture. 5D gives you that! Shoot at ISO 1600 and increase your shutter speed to catch the action! In my opinion 5D is quite good for sports photography and very good for bird/wild life photos. It will focus fast and apture great details.

"
 
It's not saying when you enlarge it by 100%, it's saying that if you pixel peep at 100%, the 5D images look sharper.

Basically, he/she is saying the pictures are better from the 5D when compared to the 40D.
 
arad85 said:
It's not saying when you enlarge it by 100%, it's saying that if you pixel peep at 100%, the 5D images look sharper.

Basically, he/she is saying the pictures are better from the 5D when compared to the 40D.
Click to expand...

Well that much is certainly true. Of course it is, the main difference being that the 5D has more than twice the sensor area (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). And a handful more pixels too, which are correspondingly more than twice the size of a 40D's. Tons more photons collected, substantially better - that's the whole basis of full frame's quality advantage.

There are a lot of factors at play, but another big one is that lenses work better at lower resolution (basic MTF contrast vs resolution theory) and lenses on larger formats have to work less hard for a given size of output.

Here's another comparison - 5D MarkII has 21mp and when cropped down to 1.6x format still has 8.2m pixels - that's effectively the same as the 40D's 10mp. Two cameras in one, if you look at it like that.
 
My experience with the 40D (without the 5D comparison) was that it did not crop down very well at all, it just didn't have the pixel count. The 7d on the other hand seems to allow for huge crops (probably due to pixel count again) but also produces much better pictures in general.
 
I have been pretty impressed by the cropability of m 60D so far.
However I have wondered about that in the past - compare it to say a 5D MK II, does the 1.6x really mean anything at all, because on the FF camera you can then just actually do a 'crop' and come out with a similar or possibly better result and probably be not too far off in pixel count either.
 
futureal33 said:
When I did 40D/5D comparison; 5D stood out immediately. In my testing I found
2. 5D photos, when viewed 100%, look normal. 40D (or any 1.6 crop cameras) at 100% look fuzzy. You have to downsample the 1.6 images to get good image.
Click to expand...


Then there's something wrong with your camera, lens or technique.

I can give you as many 100% examples as you want that look sharp without a hint of fuzzy.

I'm not claiming that APS-C can match FF, but to say that 100% APS-C crops are fuzzy just does not fit with my own experience.
 
Umm, not sure what made you think the 40D would have superior IQ to the 5D2, but you cannot compare the two.... The 5D MkII has outstanding image quality and far superior to most cameras in the world.... (that is presuming you are talking about the MkII and not the MkI... I couldn't comment on the MkI...).
 
In the old days I usexd a 645 film camera to shoot slides, I then cropped the "negative" to fit a 35mm slide frame. The images on the 645 always looked better than the 35mm equivalents as a test of the image on both formats. I find these days that the same is true of my FF vs crop frame cameras, the IQ is a better point at the start of the process on FF, the depth of colour, the graduation from light to dark or one colour to another all makes the FF "look" better. Obviously there comes a point when cropping a FF explodes the pixels too much and you'd be better off with a more packed cropped image so it will look better but I find the cropped FF images look better most of the time, however I think its a very personal thing, as is the way we perceive colour and sharpness etc.

Matt
 
Assassin said:
Umm, not sure what made you think the 40D would have superior IQ to the 5D2, but you cannot compare the two.... The 5D MkII has outstanding image quality and far superior to most cameras in the world.... (that is presuming you are talking about the MkII and not the MkI... I couldn't comment on the MkI...).
Click to expand...
From the test images on the mk2 vs the Mk1 sites I have seen there is very little difference (actually I prefer the Mk1 images)

Matt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top