Image quality 5Dmk2 vs 1Dsmk3 vs 50D vd 5D

[miles_hecker]

<p>I've done a controlled test of IQ for the above EOS cameras.<br>

Some large files are available for downloading so you may print your own samples.<br>

The test is mostly concerned with making large prints from low ISO shots.<br>

However test shots up to ISO 1600 are shown.</p>

<p>See http://wyofoto.com/EOS_IQ_shootout_2008/EOS_shootout_2008.html</p>

<p>Enjoy and merry Xmas.....</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Nice tests. Good methodology and they relate to real world use. Can't argue with your conclusions either!</p>

[ronhartman]

<p>Now I don't feel so bad about not upgrading my 5D to mark II. Not that I can afford to!</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>The difference between the 5D and 50D, at low ISO, is small enough to be eliminated in post processing. I took the ISO 100 5D crop, resized it to the same size as the 50D crop, and applied USM for edge sharpening (150% / 0.5 px) and then again for local contrast enhancement (10% / 50 px), which would be close to the values I might choose for a print of this subject matter. (Maybe even a little high.)</p>

<p>I then tried to match the ISO 50D crop. A virtual match was achieved at 150% / 1 px and 20% / 50px. I would bet that nobody from the test group would have been able to tell the 5D and 50D prints apart if similar post processing had been applied.</p>

<p>I've seen the same thing comparing studio test shots from review sites.</p>

<p>I'm not saying the 5D shows no advantage. As ISOs go higher the increased processing necessary to pull the 50D even will start to reveal more noise and artifacts. The 5D just wins at high ISO which is no surprise given the pixel size differences. One also needs to consider lens options, i.e. there's no 35mm f/1.4 equivalent for the 50D if that's something you want.</p>

<p>But I think it's fair to say that at low ISOs, with proper post processing, a 50D is a virtual tie for a 5D at any print size. Someone might argue that you could push the 5D image harder, but I wouldn't do so. The settings I used to pull the 50D even are overkill on the 5D image.</p>

[sattler123]

<p>Finally a test worth reading. I find it vey interesting that the good old 5D MKi held up surprisingly well against the new 5D MKii and 1Ds MKiii. It just shows how fantastic this camera is - even using today's standards - well done Canon!</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>This test also goes someway to prove that we are just about at that stage where upgrading bodies doesn't necessarily bring huge advantages like it used to. Thank God! I'm sick of trying to keep up with digital gear. In the good old film days it was just a case of picking up the latest roll of film to get instant improvement. Now it's a months salary and grief from the wife. I've managed to hold onto my 350D for 3 or 4 years but just can't cope any longer knowing what gear is out there. I have the 5D2 on order and I sincerely hope it's the last DSLR body I buy for at least 5 years minimum, hopefully 10 years. Ahhh, those good old days of Fuji Provia 100...</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>I feel your pain, Jamie. There's "cutting edge" and "bleeding edge". Why do I always find myself anemic when the new stuff hits the market? :-)</p>

<p>Good test, Miles!</p>

[zml]

<p><em>One also needs to consider lens options, i.e. there's no 35mm f/1.4 equivalent for the 50D if that's something you want.</em><br>

Well, there is a 38.4 mm EFV f/1.4 lens (FF 24/1.4 in two incarnations) - close enuff..?</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Nice. I linked to you from my blog.</p>

<p>What I especially like about your test methodology is that you compared prints rather than on-screen 100% crops. By comparing prints you have normalized a whole series of variables that are just about impossible to compensate for in the on-screen test - besides which, in the end it is the print that actually matters.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>Good counterpoint ;-)</p>

<p>Still, some people want their lenses to perform normally as on 35mm, and they want the full frame viewfinder. As for me, I think the 50D is a great value. I would be curious to see Miles perform the test again at low ISO, but this time using post processing to pull the prints as even as possible. I wonder what the judges would say given a set of prints like that, especially if they weren't told which print came from which camera.</p>

<p>Incidentally, I tried post processing all three (5D mkII, 5D, and 50D) to be as close as possible. While I don't feel I matched the 5D mkII with the other two, the differences were smaller after processing. I wonder just what percentage of the population, or even of professional photographers, would be able to tell.</p>

[miles_hecker]

<p>The test was blind. The photographers did not know which print came from which camera.<br>

I even had my wife shuffle the prints, so I did not know which was which.<br>

They were marked on the back. We turned them over after judging...</p>

<p> </p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Miles,</p>

<p>Good to know. Any interest in trying the test again but after post processing the images (i.e. using USM and local contrast enhancement) to try and pull them even? At low ISO only because at high ISO the noise/tonality differences will, I think, give the same results.</p>

<p>BTW, thanks for publishing this test. Good methodology and a good scene to evaluate relative performance. Stuff like this is very helpful for those trying to decide what best meets their needs and budgets.</p>

[hawkman]

<p>Miles,<br>

I like the print comparison, thank you for bearing the cost of printing 20X30 and sharing the results!</p>

[pgranone]

<p>All of the cameras will take excellent photos. I would say it makes little difference which one you use. All will make excellent 8x12 prints.<br>

Choose the one that best fits your needs. </p>

[wingell]

<p>Miles: Thanks for this excellent test series. It's nice to know the 5D holds up so well against its new "sibling," especially at the high ISO comparison. Your effort is much appreciated.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>Miles. I liked the test. I formerly ran R&D programs and unlike most camera test programs I have observed you identified and tried to control known variables partially through printing and stated your assumptions. I won't say which body I own but I agree with your methodology which shows certain academic rigor that you don't see in most tests. You also explained the steps you took to allay bias in testing. I like the use of others to judge results. You let your results speak for themselves. As someone said you also tried to relate to the common woman or man or child who actually takes pictures. The one axiom that was evident in real world R&D is that the best way to control test outcomes is to vary test parameters or to vary your assumptions going in. A breath of fresh air. Good job. </p>

[aubreyp]

<p>Hi Miles,<br>

Thanks for the great test! I think I'll run out and buy a 1DsMkIII now. :)<br>

Can you provide a link reference on your sharpening settings. It seems weird that files of different sizes were sharpened with the same settings. I interpret your settings for all images to be<br>

Amount: 300<br>

Radius: 0.3<br>

Threshold: 1</p>

<p>Is this correct?</p>

[miles_hecker]

<p>For Canon sharpening recommendations</p>

<p>See http://www.usa.canon.com/uploadedimages/FCK/Image/2007/MARK%20III%20Suggested%20Settings%20121207/EOS1D_1DsMark_IIIoptimizingAFsettings_Final.pdf</p>

<p> </p>