| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/25/2006 04:45:53 PM · #1 |
I've been trying to get someone to help me compare the actual difference a 5D shot and a 300D shot would be on a 30x40" enlargement.
This is what I'm looking for:
A detailed shot taken with the same settings and lens with each body. I guess you might have to account for the 1.6x factor. I then want to process the two shots the same, blow them up to 30x40, and take 8x10" crops to print.
I think kirbic was trying to help me at one time but we had issues with getting the file over to me. Anybody willing to help me? If you you MSN Messenger we could transfer them that way or I could download them from a site if someone has that capability... |
|
|
|
05/25/2006 04:49:52 PM · #2 |
Yeh, we did have problems with the 5D RAW file size. I believe you have an ISP-imposed e-mail size limit. I'm sure we can figure out a way to make file transfers happen.
I can't provide 300D or 350D files, but could compare the 5D and 10D. The IQ for the 10D is going to be almost indistinguishable from the 300D. |
|
|
|
05/25/2006 04:50:28 PM · #3 |
30D and 5D same scene
This isn't good enough for your comparison? I know they are different lenses and at different times but it should still give you a good idea of which one will work better for you.
EDIT: Oops... read that twice as 30D not 300D.
Message edited by author 2006-05-25 16:51:13. |
|
|
|
05/25/2006 05:18:24 PM · #4 |
the 5D has twice the megapixels on a larger, newer sensor with a newer, better processer, better AF system, and add in picture styles and it's gonna be hard to compare the two.
for blow ups as large as you suggest, the subject and the output method can make a difference as well as the lens (yes, you wanted to keep them the same, i know). Yo umay not notice any difference of a close up facial shot but a huge difference in detail in an urban or rural tree fill scene.
Let me save you some trouble - the 5D will win this contest.
As for the file issue - the perosn with the file needs to upload it to the web (your server space your ISP gives you or even pbase maybe) and then Dr you need to FTP download it. there is no limit on that. or mail a CD - taks 2 or 3 days and costs 50 cents.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2006 06:39:30 PM · #5 |
| I had no illusions that the 5D wouldn't win. I want to see the margin of victory... |
|
|
|
05/25/2006 07:11:51 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...I want to see the margin of victory... |
You'll need a long yardstick! :-) |
|
|
|
05/25/2006 07:17:44 PM · #7 |
.
Message edited by author 2006-05-25 19:52:35. |
|
|
|
05/25/2006 07:21:43 PM · #8 |
I'd actually like to do the comparison, and if you think substituting the 10D for the 300D is acceptable, I will do it this weekend. We'd need to settle on how the test would be done. There are a few possibilities:
1.) Use the same lens, let the framing be different
2.) Use the same lens, move back with 10D so framing is the same
3.) Use different focal lengths, such that the framing remains the same, from the same spot.
I think we can rule out (1), since it would be comparing apples to oranges looking at detail in specific areas. (2) would reduce questions of lens differences, but might not be entirely practical, and the different angle of view would change the perspective of objects, making it harder to evaluate
Overall, I think (3) is the best choice, since it maintains the same angle of view. As long as the lens(es) outresolve the sensors (they should if using a good lens at f/8 or f/11) then we should be golden. |
|
|
|
05/25/2006 07:46:43 PM · #9 |
I'd buy that kirbic. I'd go with option 3 as well. Your 70-200 would be a good option. Say 100 and 160mm to keep it out of the extreme range. f/8 is always a good idea. Something with detail to it.
Convert the two RAWs with the same parameters.
Upscale to 30x40" at a specified DPI (hmm, got a suggestion? 300 may be overkill at 30x40, 150 may be underkill. 200 DPI?) using a typical method.
Crop an 8x10 section (so the # of pixels determined by the chosen DPI)
Process both in PS the same including USM.
Print.
That seems like a fairly good protocol. Any suggestions? |
|
|
|
05/25/2006 11:15:43 PM · #10 |
IMO, either 150 or 200dpi, more is just overkill. Even at 150, you're upsizing the 10D shot by 2x linear (4x the number of pixels). It's gonna be pretty soft. The 5D, OTOH, is going to be quite sharp yet, and could take 200dpi to give a bit more smoothness. Doing both at 200 seems a reasonable compromise.
I was thinking about using the 24-70L near the wider end, since the DoF will be much greater. At f/8 or f/11, it will be razor sharp to the corners, even on the 5D. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/01/2026 11:37:11 PM EST.
