5D vs. 20D/350D - image comparison

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

03/30/2006 04:15:55 PM · #1

Here's a comparison of a 350D and 5D camera and 10-22 & 16-35 lenses. Both cameras sat on the same tripod, using the same flash and both were set to f/3.5 1/60 sec 200 ISO (200 ISO gives a better dynamic range than 100 ISO).

I did this test to see if there were noticeable differences in coverage using the same effective focal length on a FF camera vs. a 1.6 crop camera. As you can see the 16-35 on a full frame camera gives noticeable vignetting, but this is very easy to remove in CS2.

I did not do any sharpening or adjustments to these images. These are straight from the cameras. Both cameras were set neutral. I.e. no extra sharpening or saturation.

The 350D and 20D produces the same image quality as far as my eye can see. I also tested them side by side.

I worked a lot on getting the focus right. Focus is definitely set on the same spots.

Lenses used:

350D => EF-S 10-22f/3.5-4.5 set to 10mm (effective focal length 16mm)
5D => EF 16-35 f/2.8L set to 16mm

These settings should give exactly the same coverage due to the 1.6 crop factor. The coverage on the 5D is still slightly bigger. Focus on the 5D is also better but the lense is obviously to blame.

It's also noticeable that the 5D 16-35 combo gives a better dynamic range. The histograms proved this also. But the 5D 16-35 combo is almost 3 times the price of the 350D 10-22 so there should be a difference. It was most interesting for me to see the wide angle coverage differences.

350D

350D 100% crop

5D 100% crop

Message edited by author 2006-03-30 16:37:02.

strangeghost

Canon EOS-7D

03/30/2006 04:27:00 PM · #2

The 5D looks like the clear winner.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

03/30/2006 04:37:45 PM · #3

You might be seeing some effects from the lenses used here. The 10-22 is being shot wide open,and the 16-35 nearly so. Better, IMO, to do the test stopped down to a point where the sharpness of the lenses is not expected to be a factor, i.e. at least f/5.6, better f/8.
You still will see a marked difference, IMO.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

03/30/2006 04:40:08 PM · #4

Your absolutely right kirbic. The 10-22 was at a disadvantage being shot wide open. I should really have stepped it up as you suggested.

I also edited my first message to say: "But the 5D 16-35 combo is almost 3 times the price of the 350D 10-22 so there should be a difference. It was most interesting for me to see the wide angle coverage differences".

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

03/30/2006 04:52:29 PM · #5

Two words: I want!

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

03/31/2006 01:25:53 AM · #6

bump

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

03/31/2006 01:32:25 AM · #7

Interesting but I don't see how you can see the performance differences between the cameras when there is a performance difference between the lenses. How about disregard the crop factor and just use the same lens on both cameras and then compare the two images for quality?

Message edited by author 2006-03-31 01:33:06.

leaf

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

03/31/2006 01:35:52 AM · #8

I am drooling over the 5d for the time being.

I think I have decided as that for my next camera over th 1D mark II

They are almost the same price so it is a hard decision, but the 5d has more pixels, and is lighter which makes it nice. It is also nice to be able to add the battery grip when needed.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

03/31/2006 01:58:58 AM · #9

Okay - good point yanko. My initial testing was not really to compare cameras or lenses but to compare difference between FF vs. 1.6. But this is also interesting:

This time I used the 16-35 f/2.8L lense on both cameras. Both were set to f/4.0 1/60s 200 ISO and 16 mm (same flash on both - pointed up to the ceiling). Now you can also see how much difference the 1.6 crop factor actually makes.

The 100% crops also shows the difference in pixels.

All images are straight from camera and only sized in Photoshop.

350D

350D 100% crop

5D 100% crop

Message edited by author 2006-03-31 02:01:06.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

03/31/2006 02:03:19 AM · #10

Actually come to think of it, I believe we need some nude shot comparisons. I think that's the only way to be sure of the differences. :P

03/31/2006 02:10:27 AM · #11

Originally posted by yanko:

Actually come to think of it, I believe we need some nude shot comparisons. I think that's the only way to be sure of the differences. :P

Okay - nudes coming up! LOL

Message edited by author 2006-03-31 03:41:13.

Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM

03/31/2006 03:42:08 AM · #12

Originally posted by leaf:

I think I have decided as that for my next camera over the 1D mark II

I know two people that had both and both like the 5D better. It's a matter of preference and needs. I like the batty grip on mine when I'm using it for work (real-estate) but take it off when we walk on the trails or walk the streets.

Here's a tease... pardon the dust

Bud

Canon EOS-550D Rebel T2i

03/31/2006 03:47:04 AM · #13

Nice comparisions... I think the big deal is the price. Today, most of the differences can be solved with software. It would be hard to justify the cost difference unless a person is shooting professionally.

MikeO

Fujifilm x100

03/31/2006 06:39:10 AM · #14

Good test but given the price difference between the cameras this is what I would expect. Now who wants to buy me a 5D?!!

;-)

marbo

Nikon D5000

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

03/31/2006 08:48:23 AM · #15

Could we see comparison photos using the on-board flash :)