No one can reliably diagnose this without the original RAW. I'm not even sure what magnification I'm looking at, much less if LightRoom has done anything to it.
Upload the RAW.
Upload the RAW.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The same thing. Even I do it when I see a photograph hanging on the wall. I can't tell you how many big printed images I have seen up close on a wall that makes me think who are they kidding with this sub par quality.
its a simple fact thats not too hard to grasp that the image quality from canons full frame cameras is significantly better than their crop cameras to date especially at higher iso
I'm in the market for a new body with the criteria being superior low light capabilities, something my 1DsIII is somewhat lacking, and superior IQ.
Dynamic Range and bit depth also rank in the want column as well. I'm thinking that photomerge will overcome the need for high MP needed for large images.
I'm thinking that a crop sensor that utilizes the "center sweet spot" of the lens coupled with reduced MP to allow more utilized light would be the answer.
What amuses me is people who shoot their mouth off but offer no proof.
Put up pics you've shot with both lenses, and with a Sony Nex, or whatever you're using...that "proves" it's as sharp as say, a 15mm Zeiss f/2.8 on a D600.
As for the 70-200 IS being sharper than the non IS, I have the non-IS, and it's awfully sharp. I'll put mine up against yours any day of the week young lad. Whoever's lens loses, has to buy the winner a chess set made of all the Nikon and Canon supertelephoto lenses...oh, and we exchange wives and/or girlfriends...and mistresses, for a month...yours won't be coming home after they've played chess with me! If I lose...well...I keep my harem chained in an underground lair out in the woods...they aren't really allowed to leave...but I'll send you my neighbor's wife.
here is the comparison shots i did for another thread
5Dmk3 + 300f4L IS + Canon 2X mk3
EOS-M + 70-200 f2.8L IS II + Canon 2X mk3
I think we can all agree the 70-200 is a sharp lens with lots of resolving power
the 300f4L IS is a much older optical design
As I have said before, they may be able to achieve supreme sharpness with $13,000 super telephoto lenses
But when it comes time to shoot a wide angle image with a 24 MP or higher crop sensor, good luck ever getting sharpness on the level that you could from the same pixel count via a full frame sensor and lens, taking in the same angle of view Never going to happen...not ever.
We'll never see a wide angle zoom rectilinear lens, that goes to 10mm for a crop sensor camera, that will be sharp to the corners wide open, with no CA, and zero "decentering"...and somehow rival the best 14 or 15 mm wide angle full frame zoom. Not going to happen.
I'm not saying its worse, its just the extra MP don't make any difference to the resolving power once diffraction has set in.
Take another example - scan a photo which was a bit blurry -
However, back to the meaning of my original point, do we really need all these MP? Do you need 24MP from your crop camera?
going from 3 to 6MP is a very real difference. Going from 18 to 36 MP isn't.
We're at the point of diminishing returns now - especially as lenses and physics are now becoming limiting factors, and virtually no-one needs to print anything that big and that detailed. If you really do, a larger format than APS-C will yield more real life improvements at such high MP counts. Marketing is leading this drive into the unneeded.
10-22 and 17-55. Admittedly, the 10-22 does have the 17-40 beaten when it comes to detail at larger apertures in the corners, so to call the cheaper L lens comparable is debatable.
But the 17-55/24-105 comparison is a good one. The 24-105 when used on FF goes wider, longer, offers more detail, is brighter (f2.8 on crop = f4.5 on FF), and (at least in the UK) cheaper. OK, its vaguely bigger and heavier, but you can't have everything...
If you have an aperture so small that both a high MP body and a low MP body have diffraction, the high MP body will have no advantage. It doesn't matter how finely the sensor can resolve the blur projected by the lens, its still just blur.
While a 24MP sensor with DLA setting in at f6.0 will allow for some lenses to shine at larger apertures, where will this marketing machine stop? If the next round of crop cameras hit 40mp, and then after that 60, will you still be arguing for it to carry on?
There comes a point where making EF-S glass good enough to resolve such detail at the large apertures needed to avoid diffraction becomes unaffordable. We're already at the point where the 17-40L and 24-105L cost less than their EF-S counterparts.
But for those than want the extra MP so they can resolve more detail, in all but very select circumstances and with all but the very best glass, they'll be very dissapointed.
APS-H is a nice middle ground; better IQ than 1.6, better reach than FF.
Ps - I really hope Canon resist the temptation to take their 1.6x crop sensor up to 24mp. It'll suffer from softness due to diffraction from f6.0 onwards - mount an f5.6 lens on there and you've got little in the way of options. Even the legendary 300/2.8 II with a 2x TC III will underperform, and leave you with just one aperture option if you want to attempt to utilise all of those megapixels.
Canon cannot put the same AF-system like the 5D Mark III´s in an 7D Mark II for the mentioned price. So don´t expect it.