Test Results: Pentax 67 vs Canon 5D

<p>I photographed the same scene with each camera. The details and results are posted here: <a

href="http://www.americansouthwestphotos.com/comparison">americansouthwestphotos.com/comparison</a></p>

<p>Marty Hulsebos<br />

Many tests have confirmed that a good 10-12mp camera is equivalent to 645. But since 6x7 has twice the area of a 645 it would take the new 21mp 1Ds Mark III to equal 6x7. The Pentax is cheaper.

Thanks for the test. The Pentax does look more detailed. The Canon appropriately sharpened still holds up pretty well at that size and I would think this would be adequate resolution for quite large prints.

 

It's like the example on another thread here of a flatbed vs a Nikon MF scanner- sharpen the heck out of the former and it's hard to tell the difference between the two.

"Clearly the Pentax is the winner."

 

I've been using a Pentax 67II for about 6 years, and it's a fantastic camera. I've been using a 5D for about a year. Anyone who is interested in buying my P67II email me.

I had to upsample the 5D image

 

I used Photoshop's bicubic smoother

 

went through Camera Raw, with no sharpening or noise reduction

 

...how could this test could be reliable?

 

Anyone know that;

 

1_Any digital image need a bit of capture sharpening to get the perfect capture result.

 

2_That when you upsample a digital image it become blurrier, therefore you also need at that stage to apply a bit of sharpening to regain some details

 

Send me the file and i will redevelop it appropriatly so whe can compare apple vs apple correctly.

 

Im not implying that a 5D is better than a Pentax, i say that if you dont know how to develop & prepare a digital file the test result coudltn be accurate, like in your test. Maybe with better care the difference will not be that bad..then maybe you will like even more the faster way to shoot in digital ; )

Although I continue to love my Mamiya, I will point out that Nikonscan software applies sharpening, EVEN WHEN IT IS TURNED OFF. Also, all digital fles, scans or DSLR images, require sharpening.

Sharpen that 5D image and it is suprisingly close to the Pentax 67.

Have a look at this comparison of Canon 1Ds and Pentax 6x7 on Luminous Landscape, from a few years back:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

A problem with this test is that both images were taken at f/8, even though the lenses were different focal lengths (105mm and 50mm). The depth of field will therefore be different. Unless the point examined was perfectly in focus, the Pentax 67 image will be softened (more than the 5D image) by lack of focus.

 

I'd suggest doing it again with the 50mm at f/5.6 and the 105mm at f/11.

That way the depth-of-field would be the same.

To respond to those who asked to see a sharpened version of the 5D, I have uploaded it to

the site, along with a sharpened version of the Pentax 67 image. Here's the <a

href="http://www.americansouthwestphotos.com/comparison">link</a>.</p>

<p>Marty Hulsebos

I agree with Radford - you should reshoot with each camera focused on the same point and

different apertures to capture the same DOF.

I think there is plenty of depth of field for both images so that the crop area is well within the

range of clear focus. In fact it is probably very close to the actual focusing distance.

 

Marty Hulsebos

Whether due to focus/DOF or other problems, your images from both the 5D and the 67 seem rather soft to me. Possibly your focus is off for both. You don't mention shutter speed - maybe wind was a factor? Possibly GEM has softened the scan for the 67. Whatever happened, the 67 scan is not as sharp as I would expect. Here's a Coolscan 9000 (standard glassless holder) scan of 120 Fuji Reala 100 film that I've grabbed to illustrate (I probably have sharper ones, but I didn't look further). It's done with ICE, but no GEM, and no sharpening has been done:<div></div>

I'm quite confident in the focus for both images. I evaluated them both from center to corner.

The fence in the foreground is in sharp focus, and the horizon is slightly out of focus. The

crop area seems to be right around the area of sharpest focus. The shutter speed is 1/15th.

 

I think the apparent softness is just the nature of fine detail in medium to low contrast light.

(notice that the finer grasses to the side of the large clump seems to be in flat light). Your

image is very different. It would be easier to evaluate an image that has approximately the

same scale and lighting contrast as the grasses.

Your shot seems to be taken with the sun low, but still the grass seems to be in direct sunlight, which I would have thought would produce reasonably high contrast.

 

Some other possibilities... Could the focus be off for your scan? The version without GEM you show now doesn't have the hints of grain that one can see in my scan, which could indicate that the scanner wasn't in perfect focus. Or could shutter vibration be a problem? I've heard that that's a concern with the Pentax 67, maybe especially around 1/15s

shutter speed. (My example was with a Mamiya Press, with leaf shutter, and was also done with flash, so there would have been no such problem.)

OK.

 

Heres the deal; I download your 5D file, process it, develop it in 16bits AdobeRGB no raw sharpening.

 

Then i apply a 150% Smart Sharpen with a 1 radius using Lens Blur removal.

 

Then i interpolated it using BICUBIC SMOOTHER to a similar size of your crop. I crop it and apply a small amount of print sharpening.

 

Then i put them side by side and reduce both so i can upload it here at a 511pixel wide.

 

I think the result is clear; if you dont know how to process a digital file you end up with a soft image, and trying to do a test without all the knowledge will give you a rong result..like you got.

 

I prefer a test like the luminous landscape that for me seem to have a better understanding of EVERYTHING than from someone who dont, or at least dont seem to. no offence.<div></div>

Thank you for your effort. I must say, however, that this is not a comparison of different

sharpening methodologies for the same raw file, but a comparison of film vs digital?

specifically the 5D vs Pentax 67. I would be useful if you would do a full sharpening routine

on the Pentax file, and compare it to your version of the 5D file. I will email you a small

section of the file if you would be willing to do it.

Marty, indeed it is a digital vs digital comparaison..because to be able to compare a film vs digital you need to get the best of both medium before trying to do a comparaison.

 

You have to be agree that my version of your 5D file is way better, therefore it can be use now as starting point. To be honest i dont have the time to do more conversion this week, but if i had i will be interested of getting both *original* file the one from your scan and the 5D again so i can start from the beginning and than having a real VS result.

 

But again, i dont have the time this week for it, and the test from the luminouslandscape satisfy me.

 

thanks for the offer.

Oh i must add, from my example you can now see how important it is to have the knowledge to process a digitl file, because if you dont you end up with a image that could be way more than what it is. As Marty says, it was not originaly a post on different methodology of HOW TO SHARPEN, but using wathever method you like, it is important that people understand that a digital image must be sharpen before being printed.

 

I personnaly discover that using a 2-3 sharpening method was the best, and i was happy to have it comfirmed by Bruce Fraser in is book Real World Sharpenning where he explain the why and how to do it.

 

I repeat, knowing all you can in both medium is important so you can compare apple vs apple. If you lack on knowledge on one of them you will end up with bad result in your test, and therefore anyone will be able to crush it and prove that your rong.

That is fine. It will be interesting to see your result. I must say that your comparing your

sharpened image to my unsharpened image is not relevant. Why did you not compare it to

my sharpened image?

because when i donwlod it i didtn see any sharpen version.

i just saw it and even your version of the 5D sharpened look unsharped...like it say, i prefer to start fresh form the original because i like to think that being a professional i know what im doing..and it look like it too when i compare mine vs your 5D sharpend. no offence.

Why would you have done print sharpening? That seems irrelevant unless you are comparing

print to print.

Agree, i rongly use the term. I should have say that a 3 pass sharpening consist in those;

 

1_ Capture Sharpening is applied early in the image-editing process, and just aims to restore any sharpness that was lost in the capture process.

 

2_ Creative Sharpening is usually applied locally to accentuate specific features in an image-for example, we often give eyes a little extra sharpness in head shots.

 

3_ Output Sharpening is applied to files that have already had capture and creative sharpening applied, after they've been sized to final output resolution, and is tailored to a specific type of output process.

 

So i should have use the term output sharpening to the file, because i resize it.

 

sorry if that cause some understanding problem : )

In my sharpened version, I did a 2 pass process. The first was in DXO Optics, hardly an

unprofessional program. The second pass was with Bruce Fraser's own Photokit Sharpener,

using creative sharpener-high pass 2. I used the same second step with the sharpened

version of the Pentax file. I didn't choose to do output sharpening for the web, and that

certainly contributed to the apparent softness of all images. But, nonetheless, the idea was to

compare apples to apples. Had I done output sharpening it would be comparing oranges to

oranges. I should apply output sharpening to mine so orange is compared to orange.