usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> I'll be watching for all your opinions on the 5D/Tokina etc.
>
Only one UPS guy came here, and he didn't drop anything. He did have a
fear of dogs, waiting until I assured him we don't have one and only
venturing a little ways in past the gate to get my signature.
Now that I've done my tests, I can admit to a theory I've been using in
my camera body decision. Although I've found the lack of real WA without
buying a specialized lens for the APS-C sensor bodies a minor annoyance,
I have simply loved what they do for tele. Running around with a small,
light zoom that goes to the eq. of 480 mm, has been just wonderful.
So the dilemma was about significantly increased rez, bigger viewfinder,
real WA with lenses I already have (including some of the Zuikos that
the Canon FF folks love), etc. of the 5D vs. just a bit more rez and the
same 1.6x factor in a 30D. With much the same thinking about the right
long term choice that AG posted about, I really thought the higher cost
of the 5D would be a better deal for me in the long run.
So I'd done some calculations and test reading and thinking. It turns
out that the actual pixels in the 5D and 300D are very close to the same
size, with those of the 300D about 10% smaller. Cropping a 5D image to
the same 6.3mp of the 300D gives a factor of 1.7. So given the overall
improvements in sensors since the 10D/300D sensor, I figured maybe I
could have my cake and eat it too.
Shooting tele on the 5D, I figured I could just crop to get the same
result as on the 300D. And with any luck the better sensor would give
useful resolution about the same as I was getting now.
Sooooo, after taking a handful of junk shots to make sure the thing
worked and reading the manual to be sure I knew more or less how it
worked, I did an experiment
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Canon%205D%20vs%20300D/C300v5D.htm>.
I set up a tripod with quick release head and put plates on both bodies.
I used the Canon 50/1.8 II lens, simply swapping bodies at the exact
same location. I shot tests at f8, to rule out the lens and DOF as
having noticeable effects. I then shot tests at iso 200 and 1/4 sec. and
iso 800 and 1/15 sec. with each body.
I processed the RAW files as a batch in Canon DPP software and took a
look. Although the result was plain, I went further. For the iso 800
samples, I downsized the 300D image to 90% for a close match to the 5D.
For the iso 200 samples, I upsized the 5D image to 111% for a close
match to the 300D. All that to make sure the choice of which way to
match sizes didn't affect the results.
So now the results, if you haven't already peeked, the 5D sensor is
enough sharper at the pixel level that I actually get an increase in
effective resolution. In addition, the lower noise at iso 800 improves
the effective rez a bit too. It's also interesting, considering that the
conditions were exactly alike, how much smoother the exposure/tonality
is on the 5D samples, especially at 800.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|