cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

I find this fascinating, wondering if anyone else feels this way

Canoncan59
Contributor

Being a Canon F1 film user with FD lenses, i  started with the first DIgital Rebel, went to a 20D, then a 40D, jumped to a 1D MKIIN, the a 5D3 and then a 5D4 and now an R5. i still have many many shots taken with a my 20 and 40D's. Is it me, many of these are some of the best quality i have . Sharper and less noise out of the camera, not sure if anti alias filters have changed this, however many 10s of thousands of dollars later, wondering if my 40D and 400 5.6 L should be with me now. Note this taken with the 40DBlack Bellied Plover6.jpg

5D IV 5D III R5, 500f4, 100-400 II, 70-200f4 IS, 85f1.2, 24-70f2.8, 16-35f4IS, 50f1.4, RF100-500. TC 1.4II, RF TC 1.4
1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

To a certain extent I agree. I have had a variety of DSLR's over the years, each one having a few more pixels than the preceding one. The difference in picture quality has been minimal and every time I have had to change my processing procedure to get the same or better quality results.

Usually the difference in results only show in big enlargements, if you only view your pictures on the PC then you are probably not going to see any drastic changes.

View solution in original post

12 REPLIES 12

Mitsubishiman
Rising Star

Who is that-2.jpgMy story similar to yours, the 40D is and always will be an outstanding camera, I purchased a 7D after it, and then the 5DsR, I sill look at the photos with the 40D and a 28-135 and am still impressed.

 

shawnphoto
Enthusiast

The photo is too easy to get "right". Nobody knows what a plover is supposed to look like, we will accept anything. And water has a million different colors and shapes... If I was a bird, I would probably look at this and say, "those feathers sure have a weird tint", lol. But, since I am not a bird I have literally no idea what you're showing me. It is kind of like all those weird Macro photos. Who the heck knows what it is supposed to look like.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It wasn’t really the subject as much as the sharpness, and lack of noise and moire in the photo. I was trying to stimulate conversation as we went to 50mp cameras and super senssors, are the pictures under similar conditions and sublect matters , that much better? When I look back I struggle to say yes

5D IV 5D III R5, 500f4, 100-400 II, 70-200f4 IS, 85f1.2, 24-70f2.8, 16-35f4IS, 50f1.4, RF100-500. TC 1.4II, RF TC 1.4

Pro's have not been limited in outdoor photography for about a hundred years. So it is no surprise that a 40D can produce a decent image in bright sunlight. If it couldn't have done that it would have been a piece of garbage.

 

However I have to stop at "decent". I don't find that the image you posted is good enough to suggest what you are suggesting. In fact I find a lot of things wrong with it. To put it bluntly, if my R5 produced images like that I would have sent it back to B&H for a refund.

 

 

 

 

 


@shawnphoto wrote:

Pro's have not been limited in outdoor photography for about a hundred years. So it is no surprise that a 40D can produce a decent image in bright sunlight. If it couldn't have done that it would have been a piece of garbage.

 

However I have to stop at "decent". I don't find that the image you posted is good enough to suggest what you are suggesting. In fact I find a lot of things wrong with it. To put it bluntly, if my R5 produced images like that I would have sent it back to B&H for a refund.

 

 

 

 

 


What an insightful comment,  You do realize the forum limits image file sizes to 5 MB, right?  I don't think your R5 can do any better.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

To a certain extent I agree. I have had a variety of DSLR's over the years, each one having a few more pixels than the preceding one. The difference in picture quality has been minimal and every time I have had to change my processing procedure to get the same or better quality results.

Usually the difference in results only show in big enlargements, if you only view your pictures on the PC then you are probably not going to see any drastic changes.


@Ray-uk wrote:

To a certain extent I agree. I have had a variety of DSLR's over the years, each one having a few more pixels than the preceding one. The difference in picture quality has been minimal and every time I have had to change my processing procedure to get the same or better quality results.

Usually the difference in results only show in big enlargements, if you only view your pictures on the PC then you are probably not going to see any drastic changes.


Sorry, but I unequivocally disagree with that opinion.  Someone seems to think sharpness comes from the camera, and not the lens.  I seriously doubt if an R5 can capture a better 5MB image with the same lens.  The comment thoroughly offensive.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

My first serious digital was the 1D Mark II I bought in 2005 which doubled the original 1D sensor size to 8 MP.  In decent light, it created beautiful images but I shoot primarily sports and the sensor started getting "iffy" at anything above ISO 400.  But I had zero complaints about its sharpness and detail when the lighting was good.  With the 1DX III I can shoot and crop severely without concern at ISO 6,400 and it provides very good performance far above ISO 6,400 along with better dynamic range; that is where sensor and supporting hardware have really advanced over the life of the DSLR.

 

A camera is a system and the lens and user are most often the limiting factor, with sports and some wildlife (liked birds in flight) then the AF system also becomes a critical factor and is often the difference between a captured image and a miss. An inexperienced or ill-equipped owner can lean heavily on the camera technology but an astute photographer with a low end digital body will come away with better and more useful images than a dolt with a top end body and lens.   The basics like positioning, composition, and other aspects of proper setup can sometimes be somewhat masked by the camera's "smarts" but not entirely ignored.

 

In terms of quality of output from the system, I would put the user as most critical, lens second, and image sensor along with its supporting hardware cast third.  It is the reason I am still baffled by the "mirrorless images are better" crowd because with a DSLR the mirror is NOT in the light path during image capture.  Mirrorless makes a better design for dual use video and still cameras which is the direction the world has gone but a sensor of a certain design and technology is a sensor whether it is always exposed or is covered by a mirror at times and when hit by light it captures the same image. 

 

I will look at the R1 when it comes out and at some point I will likely be forced to move to mirrorless because that is where the new development dollars are going.  Hopefully by then the focus performance will have caught up to the dedicated AF array of a DSLR, it seems the much vaunted gain by quad pixel mirrorless AF is to provide the same AF capability in both landscape and portrait orientation but the technology still lags what the top DSLR offernings from Canon and Nikon can do when rapidly grabbing focus between two widely spaced points on a field of play.  That needs to be overcome because buying new to take a step backwards with a critical capability isn't of interest to me.  The biggest difference I find shooting between my 1DX II and III bodies is an already great AF system got a little better and that was a valuable change.

 

Rodger

EOS 1DX M3, 1DX M2, 1DX, 5DS R, M6 Mark II, 1D M2, EOS 650 (film), many lenses, XF400 video


@Waddizzle wrote:


Sorry, but I unequivocally disagree with that opinion.  Someone seems to think sharpness comes from the camera, and not the lens.  I seriously doubt if an R5 can capture a better 5MB image with the same lens.  The comment thoroughly offensive.


My reply was to the original post from Canoncan59  that started this thread. I wouldn't bother to reply to the obnoxious post from Shawnphoto.

 

Sharpness requires a good lens fitted to a good camera, they both contribute.

Announcements
01/18/2023: New firmware version 1.1.1 is available for EOS R6 Mark II
01/09/2023: Help ensure your autofocus is properly aligned with a Canon Precision Alignment
01/03/2023: Welcome to CES 2023!
12/08/2022: New firmware version 1.0.5.1 is available for EOS C70
12/07/2022: New firmware version 1.7.0 is available for EOS R5
12/07/2022: New firmware version 1.7.0 is available for EOS R6
11/22/2022: New firmware available for EOS R3, EOS R7 and EOS R10
11/16/2022: We're thrilled to be ranked among the Best Employers for Veterans in 2022 by Forbes.
08/31/2022: New firmware version 1.1.1 is available for RF 70-200mm L IS USM
08/09/2022: New firmware version 1.2.0 is available for CR-N 300
08/09/2022: New firmware version 1.2.0 is available for CR-N 500
07/14/2022: New firmware version 1.0.1 is available for CR-X300
06/10/2022: Service Notice:UPDATE: Canon Inkjet Printer continuous reboot loop or powering down
06/07/2022: New firmware version 1.3.2 is available for PowerShot G7 X Mark III
05/31/2022: Did someone SAY Badges?
05/26/2022: New firmware version 1.0.5.1 is available for EOS-C500 Mark II
05/26/2022: New firmware version 1.0.3.1 is available for EOS-C300 Mark III
05/10/2022: Keep your Canon gear in optimal condition with a Canon Maintenance Service
05/05/2022: We are excited to announce that we have refreshed the ranking scale within the community!
04/26/2022: New firmware version 1.0.1.1 is available for EOS R5 C
03/23/2022: New firmware version 1.0.3.1 is available for EOS-C70
02/09/2022: Share Your Photos is back!
02/07/2022: New firmware version 1.6.1 is available for EOS-1DX Mark III
01/19/2022: READY FOR ANYTHING EOS-R5 C
01/13/2022: Community Update. We will be retiring the legacy profile avatars on 01/20/2022. Click this link to read more.