Starting with a lens and working backwards

[scott_ferris]

<p>tarck,</p>

<p><em>"what do you all think of that? it seems a larger format sensor is not necessarily a superior one?"</em></p>

<p>I think anybody that believes that has not used the cameras or looked at readily available comparisons (like I linked to above), they also don't understand what DxO is testing or saying or the limitations of comparing their test results against different sized sensors.</p>

<p>Here are some interesting links you might find helpful.<br>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml">Kidding.</a> This rightly points out that in medium sized prints at base iso with suitable subjects and dynamic range there is no difference between P&S and medium format cameras. But read the conclusion, P&S's can't replace bigger format cameras the vast majority of the time.<br>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dxomark_sensor_for_benchmarking_cameras.shtml">DxO test results explained.</a> This points out the limitations with DxO test results and methodology. If you look at endnote 27 you will see that on a per area basis (when the article was written) the Canon S90 P&S had the highest noise rating per sensor area besting the Nikon D3s! Anybody suggesting Lewis is better off with a P&S would be rightly chastised.</p>

<p>Just look at<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk5/page20.asp"> RAW file comparisons,</a> select the 5D MkII and 400 iso, then drag the crop box to the watch, or to the yellow feather to the left of the watch. There is no comparison in IQ, the 5D MkII is substantially better, if that difference is enough to be important to you then you need the Canon, if it isn't any number of crop cameras can do the job you want.</p>

<p>If you compare same generation sensors, bigger will always be better, that is just physics, that does not mean smaller isn't good enough, each person can only decide that for their own application.</p>

<p>For Lewis' declared intent, to print at 100cm in low light with detail in shadows being important and close viewing distances, a 5D MkII is a minimum sensor requirement.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

> Some aps-c sensors are already being rated higher than some very good full frame sensors.

 

The DPreview studio comparisons of the Sony A77 and A65 ($899!) show they are competitive with full-frame DSLRs from Canon and Nikon. Better at low ISO, slightly noisier at high ISO. I used to think full-frame was the future, but it looks like I was wrong -- seems to be a dead end.

[sarah_fox]

<p>Bill, just pulling numbers out of the air, is there any reason you would believe a 16 MP full frame sensor would have performance inferior to a 10 MP APS-C sensor (i.e. with the same pixel density, but simply having more sensor area)? Also do you find that large format film cameras don't compete well with small format film cameras in matters of image quality -- grain, resolution?</p>

<p>I've seen crops from the A65 (just now), and the RAW results look pretty much like what comes out of my 40D, and not quite as good as what comes out of my 5D (original), even accounting for differences in pixel density. I must admit the jpegs do look very impressive -- probably better than my 40D or 5D can produce. I suspect Sony has developed some very nice noise reduction algorithms; however, application of these algorithms always comes at a cost.</p>

<p>I think the reason this subject gets knocked around so often is that the sensors are not really all that different in size, so the more subtle attributes of image quality (sharpness, noise, etc.) are sufficiently similar that technical advancements (e.g. new noise reduction algorithms) can muddy the comparison. The less subtle attributes (e.g. depth of field, range of usable apertures, cost) are probably better reasons to select between formats -- IMO, of course.</p>

[jore_puusa]

<p>If one wants to make pictures 0,8 meter x something and then wonders, what kind of camera I need, the answer is here:<br />It depends from what distance one looks at the prints. <br />If You look at that print and the distance is 5 meters, nobody can tell the difference between Canon or Nikon or whatever. Now if You take a loupe and go near and compare two pictures taken with Canon or Nikon one might see a difference, but then WHO looks pictures with a loupe, when they hang on walls?<br>

If Your picture is clever, visual, stunning etc. it is really no matter which lens or camera You use.<br />It is somewhat funny to read thousands and thousands of these questions when all that matters to a spectator is ----what is the visual value of that 0,8 meter picture. Nobody checks the DPI points of printer.<br>

If You do not calibrate Your camera, screen and printers together, its a total waste to even think which lens or camera body should be used to make 1 meter picture.<br />People should focus on visuals, not pixels. </p>

[bill_tuthill]

Sarah, I can't answer your questions. I just try not to be doctrinaire. To me the A77 and A65 look better than the full-frame DSLRs in RAW mode as well, until about ISO 1600.

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Scott, I'm sure your 5d2 does well. But that doesn't mean other cameras with FF or aps-c can't do the job (which is 20x30 at low ISO). It's not like we are comparing A 5d2 with, say, a canon G12. Now, at base or low ISO...I would definitely choose the new Sonys (aps-c but 24mp) than, say the original 5d or a d700 (both FF) as it has more mp and the noise issue is nil, at low ISO. </p>

<p>BTW the A77 EVF rocks!</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Leslie,</p>

<p>That is exactly why I have said in this thread,<br>

<em>"that does not mean smaller isn't good enough, each person can only decide that for their own application."</em></p>

<p>I am not a huge fan of the 5D MkII, I am a fan of its sensor. I can only convey my personal experience and that has been, if you want to print 100 cm of dark subjects with shadow detail being important a 5D MkII is a minimum.</p>

<p>Now go to<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta77/page25.asp"> this link</a> and do what I said before. Even if you leave the comparison at 100 iso but move the crop box to the yellow feather with some black you will see the A77 does not come close to the 5D MkII in IQ, and that is base iso. I am not saying the A77. or any other crop camera, is not a good camera, or that you can't take or print superb images with them, what I am saying is 100cm enlargements are pushing the limits of 135 format sensors, once you include dark subjects, shadow detail and critical close viewing distances, as Lewis has said he is, anybody who has compared actual images can't fail to agree that the 5D MkII sensor is a minimum.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Scott, he's making a 20x30 at most. FWIW, at ISO 100, I think the A900 looks better than 5d2 crop. But the point is not everyone is a pixel peeper. In fact, I really doubt most people could tell such minute differenc(es) when looking at the whole photograph, which was my point. </p>

[steve_solomon2]

Valid points made by all. However, IMHO, image quality at print sizes of 2.5 ft. across is subjective and strongly

dependent, as one poster stated, on viewing distance, lighting, paper quality and texture, presence/absence of over-

laminate, not to mention the photographer's "vision", camera sensor, stability, ISO, image detail captured, lens DOF, etc.

My point is that the camera and sensor, while obviously important, are not the "sole deciding factors" when it comes to

exhibition quality prints. Perhaps the OP would do as well to "focus" on his artistic vision, and impose that on whatever

equipment he chooses to use at that moment. Regarding sensor size, it's already been shown that generally speaking,

larger is "better" in terms of resolution and detail preservation. That's one reason why catalog product shots, jewelry,

cereal box cover shots, to name a few, are most often done with large format equipment. (The other being the awesome

and precise control of perspective, focus, and depth of field gained with the tilts/shifts/swings of the view camera.) That

said, sure, I'd love to get my hands on a Pentax 645D and a PC lens from Schneider or Hartblei. However, I still think that

high-quality enlargements are possible via the "small sensor" of a Pentax K-5, (and quality Pentax DA* or FA Limited

lenses) for example.

[scott_ferris]

<p>Leslie,</p>

<p>In this thread Lewis said 80cm, 32", in his previous one that I also replied to he is talking 100cm, 39". Any way you look at it they are above average sized prints, at those sizes, and bearing in mind his other criteria, everybody is a pixel peeper, you can't fail to be, at those sizes every smallest detail is enlarged to be easily seen by anybody.</p>

<p>Interesting that you have now, after looking at comparisons, given up on the crop camera and are suggesting the A900, I don't care, a FF is a minimum. The A900 also takes the very good 35mm f1.4 G lens so would be a very similar prospect to the 5D MkII and 35 f1.4 L.</p>

<p>Steve, </p>

<p>You make many excellent points that I agree with completely, but there is no doubt though that FF prints made from a 5D MkII or an A900 will look better, at those sizes, when subjects are dark, and shadow detail and close inspection are specified criteria.</p>

[lewis_henning]

<p>Sarah: I have the older lens which is 17-35mm.<br /><br />Scott: Nice shots. The first one is close to the sort of thing I will photographing. I agree, in the examples you show, the 5DMK2 is better. Thank for getting the links together.<br /><br />A few people have been saying that it's not important to worry about the image quality and instead think about subject. I do agree that the subject is the most important thing. But I would like to upgrade my camera, my 10D is a great but like I have said before, the shots are a little soft once they are blown up. I don't want to spend £1000 or £1500 on a system and then find out I should have spent a bit more to get something that's going to last me longer. I would rather spend an extra £500-£1000 for the right system. Saying that, I don't want to spend all that money, I would rather have a cheaper camera but only if it's going to do what I want. I really want to establish what the best system would be and then start working out the finances and work out where I might have to make compromises. One compromise is that I may only have one lens, this is why I think a 50mm F1.4 is a good option. I can use it stopped down for night work on a tripod but I can also use it for other more spontaneous shots, or for shallow depth of field close ups.<br /><br />Andrew: You mention manual Zeiss lenses. I hadn't thought about that. I really liked focusing with my old Nikon FM2 and Olympus OM10. I didn't think about using manual lenses on a DSLR because it's so hard to till if the shot in focus. But from looking at the Zeiss site, they say that you can get split image focus screen for DSLRs. This idea is quite appealing. However, apparently you can't get a split screen for the 5DMK2 which is really annoying! This sort of pushes me towards the D700 but then, it's a bit old now and costs more than the 5DMK2. I don't really want to spend so much money on something that could well be replaced soon.<br />Does anyone know if I might be wrong about the 5DMK2 not being able to have a split image focus screen.<br /><br /></p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>GInteresting that you have now, after looking at comparisons, given up on the crop camera and are suggesting the A900, I don't care, a FF is a minimum.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Uhm....I have not given up anything. I just said the A900 looks better than the 5d2. You said one need a 5d2 and 35mm f1.4 at a minimum, if I'm not mistaking. FF is not the minimum, The original 5d and D700 is FF and I would take the A77 over them. It's not a FF vs. aps-c isssue solely. If you make it a format issue, why not go MF or even LF? I'm sure they look better than 24x36mm...Just get the 5d2, Lewis, you guys are just too dense for me. I mean, why do one need a split imaging focusing screen when you have zooming in via liveview?<br>

I'm outta here...Good luck with pixel peeping.</p>

<p> </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Lewis</p>

<p> I'm glad the links helped. With all the issues Nikon has had with production interruptions both in Japan and Thailand, it has been suggested that they won't be announcing anything new very soon, and even when they do announce a D700 replacement delivery dates could be much further, I have a friend un-patiently waiting for one! Canon have suffered just as badly with lenses announced many months ago but still not available. Don't forget in my reply to your other thread though, the D700 does not print out to large sizes anywhere near as well as the 5D MkII.</p>

<p> If you can keep the 17-35 f2.8, it is a great lens. I use the 50 f1.4 a lot, many people hate it but I really really like mine and at f5.6 it is sharper than an L macro (and yes, like all my outlandish claims I can back it up with<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=6&LensComp=674&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3"> links </a>and actual user experience).</p>

<p> With regards manual focus, live view is the game changer here, 10x magnification on a screen is far more accurate than a split screen any day, but more time consuming, not really a problem with tripod and considered shooting though. I do a lot of my work with the Canon manual focus 17 mm TS-E, modern DSLR's are not made for through the viewfinder manual focus though, however much Zeiss might try to convince you otherwise and even if you find a split screen, it normally messes up the exposure readings so you end up losing accurate AE.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Lewis, I'm almost certain you can get split image focusing screens for the 5DII, but research the issue to be certain. Often these must be modified from the larger 1 series screens, which is an annoyance, to say the least. However, there are tiny businesses that modify and sell these screens.</p>

<p>As Scott says, the magnified liveview is the way to go for achieving critical focus on tripod shots; however, if I were to mount up a manual focus lens on any camera, I'd want the split image screen. I'd also want a microprism surround if I could find it. (It might be available.)</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>BTW, Lewis, another option is to mount up your old Nikkor manual focus lenses either to a Nikon or to a Canon. As strange as this may sound, manual focus Nikkors tend to be more compatible with Canon EOS cameras than with modern Nikons, given a Nikon/EOS adapter. The EOS mount is so huge that you can mount just about anything in there (except ironically for the old Canon FD lenses). You might be able to do this with other cameras too, e.g. Sony.</p>

<p>FAIW, I used a Nikkor 105/2.5 on my 5D for a while, but I ultimately bought a Canon 100/2, which I like even more. It is nice to have the AF, which I've programmed to the "*" button button on the back.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p><em>"If you make it a format issue, why not go MF or even LF?"</em></p>

<p>I would! But Lewis has already stated that is not in his budget. By saying the 5D MkII was a minimum I meant that was the minimum generation and sized sensor to do the job, the A900 would work just as well, but as he has a great ultrawide Canon lens it seemed silly to swap manufacturers when there is no need.</p>

<p>Before you go though, please point to a link that shows the A77 IQ approach that of the 5D MkII or the A900 at the enlargements we are talking about, or explain how an area enlargement in the order of 772 can be approached by one being enlarged 1802 times, that is the difference between the area ratios of a FF and crop sensor at these sizes.</p>

<p>With regards Lewis's criteria, this is a question of format first.</p>

[andrevallejo]

I've been in your shoes once...bought 5dmk2, Zeiss ZE 35 f2, and never looked back. It does not get any better in 35mm format...

[steve_solomon2]

Andre, you may very well be right, as I've always admired the 5DMII and especially Zeiss optics. However, an interesting

comparison would be between it and the Pentax K-5 coupled with, for example, the Pentax DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited! I've

gotten some razor sharp detailed images that surpass my old Nikon/Nikkor 35mm film images.

[lewis_henning]

<p>I've been dong a little bit of research into the D800. I think it's best to wait and see.</p>

<p>But if I were to go ahead right now, I think I would buy:<br>

5DMK2<br>

Split image focus screen.<br>

Zeiss 50mm F1.4<br>

Nikon to Canon lens mount for my old Nikon lenses.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Lewis,</p>

<p>That is an interesting choice that sounds bourn on an expectation or hope rather than a practical solution based on actual use.</p>

<p>The D800 has been so delayed it is almost a joke, it seems both the 5D MkII and the D700 are in a race to see who can be announced after the other, maybe both Canon and Nikon have lost their best industrial spies!</p>

<p>The 5D MkII is the best value available now, especially given your desire to put your legacy Nikon lenses on it and the 17-35 you already have, but I well understand that you are in no rush and there is nothing more frustrating than buying something and the next day a newer model with features that appeal coming out.</p>

<p>Split image focus screens are problematic in modern DSLR's, I'd be reluctant to sacrifice reliable AE to work with manual focus that is not a patch on AF the vast majority of the time.</p>

<p>The Zeiss 50 f1.4 is one of the worst Zeiss lenses ever from an image quality point of view, the Canon 50 f1.4 <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=709&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0">bests it at every aperture</a>, has reliable AF, and is <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=canon+50+f1.4&N=0&InitialSearch=yes">half the price</a> of the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/583975-REG/Zeiss_1677_817_Normal_50mm_f_1_4_ZE.html">Zeiss.</a></p>

<p>If you are in the USA why not think about renting a 5D MkII and the Zeiss for a weekend? It will answer a lot of questions that only you can see, and it is surprisingly affordable given the cost of a mistake :-)</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I started with a 10D, then progressed to a full frame Kodak SLRn and sports body, Nikon D2X. I bought a 1Ds in the spring to go with my 17 TS-E. Yes, I bought the lens first. Two months ago I upgraded to the 5D II and have not looked back. For the first time resolution from a DSLR reminds me of Kodachrome 25 and Velvia 50. I have now begun stitching shifted images from the 17 TS-E to create medium format sized 42 MP images up to an equivalent sensor size of 36mm x 48mm. I know this technique is not ideal for all photography but results for landscapes and architecture are stunning. Dynamic range of the 5D II far exceeds any of my previous DSLRs. I sold my 4x5 to buy the 17 TS-E. Again, no regrets. </p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Here is a sample:</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I'm having a problem getting the image small enough. Let's try again.</p>

<p>P.S. Not really worth posting afterall. Too much loss for inline viewing.</p><div></div>

[lewis_henning]

<p>Scott: You make a very good point about the metering... I am a little conceded about that too, I've bee reading mixed reviews about the switching the screen. I can always take it out if I don't like it. I'm surprised that you say the Zeiss lens is no good. Maybe I should look for another manual focus lens, if I want to go down that route. I think using a manual lens is something I really miss about shooting with film. - Good idea about renting one for the day.</p>

<p>I think I should wait, even if I do go for the 5DMK2, the price is likely to drop once there is a new Canon or Nikon. - I always said I would by the 5DMK1 when the MK2 came out... But I never did! Haha</p>

<p>John, loverly shot. Shame the res is too low on the site for us to see properly. I'm impressed that you could stitch an image like that so neatly! Nice the hear that you feel the Canon is like Velvia 50, I used to use that a lot.</p>

[steve_t.1]

<p>Learn more about split image focusing screens at the FAQ section of the Katzeye site, see "Light metering questions" and "ObtiBrite questions". <a href="http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/page--FAQs--help.html">http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/page--FAQs--help.html</a> If one understands how they work and how they may affect the metering of the camera, the potential benefit of the device should outweigh any potential challenges. But for manual focus photographers (which I have always wanted to do more of, and now will), it is a very useful tool.</p>

<p>I've got a Katzeye on order with the OptiBrite treatment. </p>