AlanG Posted November 22, 2007 Share #41 Â Posted November 22, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've said (I think) 3 times in this thread already ... these pictures were not shot for comparison purposes, it was me who put them together. Â But, let's put it this way, if you take two identical shots using two different cameras ... at the same view angle both pictures will cover the same stuff, same information, right? the same image projected on a larger sensor will no doubt have more line pairs resolution than on the smaller one. Easy math. Â You did post them with the point of making a comparison. The fact that they weren't shot accurately enough for comparison is what disqualifies them. Everyone knows that there is a difference in resolution between these formats. The question is how much. Your posted examples did not accurately illustrate the differences Better comparisons have been made previously. That is all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 22, 2007 Posted November 22, 2007 Hi AlanG, Take a look here Bigger IS Better. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
hankg Posted November 22, 2007 Share #42 Â Posted November 22, 2007 Perhaps next time when I post something like this, I should label it as "for entertainment only". Â But seriously, if I post some lab test numbers it would be a crushing blow to your mind ... if my memory serves correctly, the M8 resolves about 1300 line pairs per picture height, the 1Ds Mark II can do about 1600 lp/ph ... the H3D-31? man, you'd wish I were wrong, that number is about 2300 lp/ph. LOL Â Why would it be crushing to my mind ? The M8 is a 10 MP camera the 5D is a 12 MP - guess which one resolves more lines on a test chart? You don't even have to do the test to know the outcome. However the only thing that means anything unless you make your living shooting test charts is what it looks like in print and on that score the 5D has no advantage over the M8. They are along with a whole bag full of top end 35mm digicams pretty much equivalent in IQ. It's all up to the photographer to make one look better. Â Medium format is in a different league in resolving power and price. Why should it disappoint me to find out that a $30,000 MF back out resolves my $5,000 35mm digicam. Actually I'm quite happy as I am able to do work formerly reserved for MF film with my M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted November 22, 2007 Author Share #43 Â Posted November 22, 2007 You did post them with the point of making a comparison. The fact that they weren't shot accurately enough for comparison is what disqualifies them. Everyone knows that there is a difference in resolution between these formats. The question is how much. Your posted examples did not accurately illustrate the differences Better comparisons have been made previously. That is all. Â Ok, it's my fault .... LOL Â With regards to your question how much the difference is, the one set lab number I have shows almost double ... H3D-31 2300 lp/ph, M8 1300 lp/ph. I believe there's no better comparison than the numbers I have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted November 22, 2007 Author Share #44  Posted November 22, 2007 Why would it be crushing to my mind ? The M8 is a 10 MP camera the 5D is a 12 MP - guess which one resolves more lines on a test chart? You don't even have to do the test to know the outcome. However the only thing that means anything unless you make your living shooting test charts is what it looks like in print and on that score the 5D has no advantage over the M8. They are along with a whole bag full of top end 35mm digicams pretty much equivalent in IQ. It's all up to the photographer to make one look better. Medium format is in a different league in resolving power and price. Why should it disappoint me to find out that a $30,000 MF back out resolves my $5,000 35mm digicam. Actually I'm quite happy as I am able to do work formerly reserved for MF film with my M8.  Ok, let's not talk about medium format but lab numbers show that the M8 actually is on par with the 5D in terms of resolution compared on test chart.  I hope not many M8 owners feel offended ... the purpose I put this up certainly isn't to make you unhappy. You shouldn't just look at the pictures but also READ my opening post, I said I post this because I want the R10 has the biggest possible sensor without jeopardizing backward compatibility. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telyt Posted November 22, 2007 Share #45 Â Posted November 22, 2007 The M8 is a 10 MP camera the 5D is a 12 MP - guess which one resolves more lines on a test chart? You don't even have to do the test to know the outcome. Â MP is only a part of the equation. How have you factored in the effect of the 5D's AA filter? How have you compensated for the M8's ASPH lens vs. the 5D's lens? Do you still know the answer w/o testing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted November 22, 2007 Share #46 Â Posted November 22, 2007 Michael Reichmann will publish a comparative between several MF backs and the Canon's 1Ds cameras (MII and MIII) in a few days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted November 22, 2007 Share #47 Â Posted November 22, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) MP is only a part of the equation. How have you factored in the effect of the 5D's AA filter? How have you compensated for the M8's ASPH lens vs. the 5D's lens? Do you still know the answer w/o testing? Â Yes wide open at some focal lengths the Leica glass would have an edge, sometimes a big one. But stopped down to f/8 where a test would likely be performed it becomes a non-issue. The Canon 35/1.4 L, 85/1.2 L, 90 TSE, 135/2 L and a few others are no slouches. Â The anti-aliasing filter will not have that big an impact on such a high contrast target. However real world photography is a different story and there the M8 often appears a bit better then the 5D but it's really splitting hairs at 1:1 - but shooting test targets the extra pixels make a difference. Â All things being equal I much prefer the M8 files for myself but that is not a knock on the Canon or Nikon any of them can get the job done well if properly handled. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted November 23, 2007 Share #48 Â Posted November 23, 2007 Overall, after thinking about it for a while, I've decided that this is the worst comparison I've ever seen. And I sometimes read Digital Photography Review. Â JC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rougewave Posted November 23, 2007 Share #49 Â Posted November 23, 2007 Mitch, your second image is wonderful. Ben Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted November 23, 2007 Author Share #50 Â Posted November 23, 2007 I have no idea how Americans and British folks put it but in Chinese, people say the duck's beak tip remains hard even when he is killed. Â May I have a last word please, folks? Â This is NOT meant to be a comparison, I post this because I believe a larger than FF sensor will bring a lot of advantage to the R10. Â There's no freaking need to compare medium format to 35mm ... 'cause it will make anyone doing this look very stupid. LOL Â I already know the answers because I have lab test number nobody's "impression" is able to beat. Â Do you think 35mm has more line pairs to resolve than medium format? don't just fire cheap shots, prove it. Â Be happy ... enjoy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted November 23, 2007 Share #51  Posted November 23, 2007 Mitch, your second image is wonderful. Ben  Mitch's images are wonderful which goes to show you bigger isn't better -a bigger creative vision is better.  Sdai, I don't think anyone thinks any 35mm digicam comes anywhere near digital MF back resolution at least not that's posted here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted November 23, 2007 Author Share #52 Â Posted November 23, 2007 Sdai, I don't think anyone thinks any 35mm digicam comes anywhere near digital MF back resolution at least not that's posted here. Â Then we're talking ... Â Let's stay on sheer resolution numbers and not talk about arts, vision and creativity, I like Mitch's pictures too ... but that's not what we're talking about here. Â I've no intention to dwarf the M8 or any other camera, but man, you get to admit that bigger format does have its advantage over smaller ones and the reason why I posted this is to show what MF digital can do ... because Leica give us a big teaser and now I'm expecting to see a R10 bigger than 35mm FF ... that's all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted November 23, 2007 Share #53  Posted November 23, 2007 ...Let's stay on sheer resolution numbers and not talk about arts, vision and creativity, I like Mitch's pictures too ... but that's not what we're talking about here...Thanks for the kind words about the pictures, and I hasten to say that I didn't post them to be rude. However, the title you put on the thread was "Bigger IS Better", even capitilising the verb; and my view is most emphatically that bigger is not necessarily better, which, indeed, is also the Leica tradition. Of course some people were always on the futile quest to squeeze medium format image quality from the 35mm format by using ISO 12 film and 100kg tripods, but most photographers embraced the "35mm aesthtic" and were happy with ISO 400 film and grain. It is only with digital that grain has become anathema and so many people now want medium format quality. But I think the aesthetic choices remain similar and bigger is not necessarily better. —Mitch/Paris Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted November 23, 2007 Author Share #54 Â Posted November 23, 2007 I absolutely agree with you, Mitch ... sorry if I haven't made my intention clear even though I fear some folks didn't bother to read what I've typed in the opening post and jumped straight to the picture ... perhaps I've made it too big. LOL Â Please allow me to hijack my own thread ... Â Mitch, does the GX100 fit into the GR original pouch? I'm planning to buy it without the LCD viewfinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted November 23, 2007 Share #55  Posted November 23, 2007 ...Mitch, does the GX100 fit into the GR original pouch? I'm planning to buy it without the LCD viewfinder.It doesn't, you need the GX100 pouch. The trouble for me was that the GX100 pouch doesn't have a belt loop like the GR-D pouch. It just has a metal D-ring, but attaching some sort of clip to the D-ring to clip onto my belt didn't work very well for me. However, I had a baggage repair shop put a leather belt loop on the back similar to the one on the GR-D pouch. Of course in Bangkok this cost me only US$2.00. —Mitch/Paris Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted November 23, 2007 Author Share #56 Â Posted November 23, 2007 Thanks a lot, Mitch ... I might as well look for a Lowepro or something else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.