Canon Community Canon Community
 


Reply
Occasional Contributor
Posts: 8
Registered: ‎11-01-2020
Accepted Solution

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

[ Edited ]

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
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 120
Registered: ‎09-13-2014

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

[ Edited ]

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.

 

Frequent Contributor
Posts: 48
Registered: ‎11-28-2020

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

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Occasional Contributor
Posts: 8
Registered: ‎11-01-2020

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

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
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 48
Registered: ‎11-28-2020

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

[ Edited ]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

VIP
Posts: 11,415
Registered: ‎08-13-2015

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


@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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Doctor told me to get out and walk, so I bought a Canon."
Reputable Contributor
Posts: 600
Registered: ‎10-21-2016

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

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.

VIP
Posts: 11,415
Registered: ‎08-13-2015

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


@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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Doctor told me to get out and walk, so I bought a Canon."
Respected Contributor
Posts: 1,354
Registered: ‎01-25-2018

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

[ Edited ]

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, 1D M2, EOS 650 (film), many lenses, XF400 video
Reputable Contributor
Posts: 600
Registered: ‎10-21-2016

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

[ Edited ]

@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.

powered by Lithium

LIKE US on Facebook FOLLOW US on Twitter WATCH US on YouTube CONNECT WITH US on Linkedin WATCH US on Vimeo FOLLOW US on Instagram SHOP CANON at the Canon Online Store
© Canon U.S.A., Inc.   |    Terms of Use   |    Privacy Statement