A challenge, and how much is 'enough'.

[privatebydesign]

So I've been reading the 1DX MkII vs 5DSR comments, the gorilla 1DX vs anything comments and I just wondered if, as discerning image makers and gear hounds, any of us have a clue on how much is enough.

I took this image yesterday evening, it was very dim and there is little contrast, much more of a challenge than the high contrast images we often see in 'tests'. For a pointer to the resolution capability that isn't obvious due to the lack of contrast in the scene, the feint white line below the branch is a cobweb.

So my challenge, can anybody guess the camera, lens and settings that make this very presentable 16"x24" print?

First image is the full edited image, second image is a screen grab of the image at 16" x 24" print size if you click on each to view full size you will be seeing the print as you would a 16"x24" print, don't look at the inline forum image it will be wrong.

Go on, have a guess.

 

[Eldar]

So I've been reading the 1DX MkII vs 5DSR comments, the gorilla 1DX vs anything comments and I just wondered if, as discerning image makers and gear hounds, any of us have a clue on how much is enough.

I took this image yesterday evening, it was very dim and there is little contrast, much more of a challenge than the high contrast images we often see in 'tests'. For a pointer to the resolution capability that isn't obvious due to the lack of contrast in the scene, the feint white line below the branch is a cobweb.

So my challenge, can anybody guess the camera, lens and settings that make this very presentable 16"x24" print?

First image is the full edited image, second image is a screen grab of the image at 16" x 24" print size if you click on each to view full size you will be seeing the print as you would a 16"x24" print, don't look at the inline forum image it will be wrong.

Go on, have a guess.

He he, we´re of course supposed to guess wrong, so I´ll start. My guess is the 1DsIII. Lens 70-200 f2.8L @ 200mm @f4. ISO is probably around 1600.

We have discussed the chase for resolution many times and I believe we agree that the never ending chase for resolution is a bit obsolete. Personally, I never needed 50MP for anything, but with a character as weak as mine, I could not resist the temptation of a 5DSR. The positive experience with this camera was how well it performed for a lot of uses beyond ISO100 shots for 6x4 meter billboards. As an example, people can take a look at Art Morris´BIF with the 5DSR. However, with a resolution of 50MP on a FF camera, you need to adopt a slightly different shooting style. It is more sensitive to shake (if you want return for your high resolution), so when I see rumours for 75-120MP cameras, I am not really tempted.

I have now had the 1DXII for just over a month and I am more and more impressed and, even though it is only 2MP more than the 1DX, it feels like more. I can´t explain why, but it seems like each pixel delivers more. I have a reasonable headroom for cropping and IQ is fantastic.

So, to your challenge; how much is enough ... It is up to the individual, but I believe I could live happily (forever) with something between 20 and 30 MP.

 

[privatebydesign]

Thanks for putting yourself out there Eldar, though the 1Ds MkIII really isn't much of a guess seeing as how well you know of me

Any clues as to the focal length, iso and aperture? Any comments on the print quality which as a discerning printer I am more than happy with?

The truth is it isn't about guessing wrong, it is more about can we really see the differences in practical output sizes when content is so overriding an element. So many comments are along the lines of 'you couldn't do that with this body', or 'that model is obsolete now this model does this', it does all seem as thought he spec sheet readers have totally taken over from the image makers and rather lost touch with the capabilities of even relatively modest cameras.

I know this is a predominantly rumours site with gear heads taking the lead, but at some point common sense must force a realignment, why don't we see the good in every model rather than the surpassed features of yesterdays?

EDIT: You threw in a few more EXIF guesses, thanks

 

[Eldar]

Thanks for putting yourself out there Eldar, though the 1Ds MkIII really isn't much of a guess seeing as how well you know of me

Any clues as to the focal length, iso and aperture? Any comments on the print quality which as a discerning printer I am more than happy with?

The truth is it isn't about guessing wrong, it is more about can we really see the differences in practical output sizes when content is so overriding an element. So many comments are along the lines of 'you couldn't do that with this body', or 'that model is obsolete now this model does this', it does all seem as thought he spec sheet readers have totally taken over from the image makers and rather lost touch with the capabilities of even relatively modest cameras.

I know this is a predominantly rumours site with gear heads taking the lead, but at some point common sense must force a realignment, why don't we see the good in every model rather than the surpassed features of yesterdays?

Scott, I updated my post with a guess for lens, focal length and ISO setting.

To your point, I attended a 5 day workshop with Morten Krogvold back in February. During the workshop, I Swedish photographer showed some prints from Syria, which had been shot just before the country totally closed down. These prints were in A3+ format, B&W. Fantastic images of the ruins IS has now destroyed the majority of. This guy is normally a Hasselblad shooter, both digital and analog, and I honestly believed these images were shot with that. But it turned out that he was not allowed to bring a camera into Syria, but he smuggled his Canon G15 with him. That gave me some perspective ...

 

[YuengLinger]

Thanks for putting yourself out there Eldar, though the 1Ds MkIII really isn't much of a guess seeing as how well you know of me

Any clues as to the focal length, iso and aperture? Any comments on the print quality which as a discerning printer I am more than happy with?

The truth is it isn't about guessing wrong, it is more about can we really see the differences in practical output sizes when content is so overriding an element. So many comments are along the lines of 'you couldn't do that with this body', or 'that model is obsolete now this model does this', it does all seem as thought he spec sheet readers have totally taken over from the image makers and rather lost touch with the capabilities of even relatively modest cameras.

I know this is a predominantly rumours site with gear heads taking the lead, but at some point common sense must force a realignment, why don't we see the good in every model rather than the surpassed features of yesterdays?

Scott, I updated my post with a guess for lens, focal length and ISO setting.

To your point, I attended a 5 day workshop with Morten Krogvold back in February. During the workshop, I Swedish photographer showed some prints from Syria, which had been shot just before the country totally closed down. These prints were in A3+ format, B&W. Fantastic images of the ruins IS has now destroyed the majority of. This guy is normally a Hasselblad shooter, both digital and analog, and I honestly believed these images were shot with that. But it turned out that he was not allowed to bring a camera into Syria, but he smuggled his Canon G15 with him. That gave me some perspective ...

A humbling lesson, indeed.

 

[chauncey]

Identifying camera and/or lenses based on internet display is, at least, an exercise in futility.
That said, based only on the screenshot crop, I would not print...lack of IQ.

 

[Sporgon]

No one can't say, but that's the whole point isn't it ? !

It wouldn't surprise me if it was an older body than a 1DsIII because if the original was very sharp modern processes can scale up very efficiently. However at that size, unless it's latest tech I think it is FF, with a good lens: I'm going for 300 f/2.8. If it's an older body ISO must be under 400 - it was a 1DsIII I'd say under 800.

The problem is that there is no direct comparison. Even with the latest tech in small sensors like the G3X I don't think you would have achieved that definition at that size of output.

However I reckon this could be done with an M3 and 55-200 mil lens.

That said, based only on the screenshot crop, I would not print...lack of IQ.

You're joking ? On a 24" print ?

 

[chauncey]

You're joking ? On a 24" print ?

The very first thing I do in LR is check IQ on a 100% crop...that IQ isn't up to snuff...IMHO.

 

[insanitybeard]

The very first thing I do in LR is check IQ on a 100% crop...that IQ isn't up to snuff...IMHO.

Ah well, I'd better chuck all of my camera gear out, give up and delete all of my images then, as none of them are 'good enough'.

Input such as yours is the reason I can't be ar$ed to spend any time on here any more.

 

[unfocused]

I am far more interested in where and how people manage to find owls willing to pose. We have at least one barred owl in the neighborhood, but only know that from she/he asking who is cooking for you, plus the very rare sighting of a blur of wings and feathers in the dark.

Where do people live that they manage to find these birds perching away on a branch in any kind of light?

 

[Ryananthony]

I am far more interested in where and how people manage to find owls willing to pose. We have at least one barred owl in the neighborhood, but only know that from she/he asking who is cooking for you, plus the very rare sighting of a blur of wings and feathers in the dark.

Where do people live that they manage to find these birds perching away on a branch in any kind of light?

For myself, about 35 minutes outside of Vancouver, BC. I live about an hour away from a popular local spot. I don't alway get lucky, but I go out every other weekend. Locals are a lot more lucky. I would say I catch an Owl maybe 10 percent of the time. Eagles and Osprey just shy of 100 percent of the time.

 

[TeT]

I can live with 20 or so mp... 18 was fine too...
I prefer fixed F stop lenses, those are normally better IQ but less would be fine...
I will buy all the AF & noise improvements I can get though...

 

[IglooEater]

If Eldar is right and it's the 1ds iii and the 70-200 2.8, then... Both of those are really great pieces of gear and hardly to be sneezed at. If it was a 40D and a 75-300, then you'd have a point.

Have to say that I hope privatebydesign will let us know what it is

 

[scottkinfw]

So I've been reading the 1DX MkII vs 5DSR comments, the gorilla 1DX vs anything comments and I just wondered if, as discerning image makers and gear hounds, any of us have a clue on how much is enough.

I took this image yesterday evening, it was very dim and there is little contrast, much more of a challenge than the high contrast images we often see in 'tests'. For a pointer to the resolution capability that isn't obvious due to the lack of contrast in the scene, the feint white line below the branch is a cobweb.

So my challenge, can anybody guess the camera, lens and settings that make this very presentable 16"x24" print?

First image is the full edited image, second image is a screen grab of the image at 16" x 24" print size if you click on each to view full size you will be seeing the print as you would a 16"x24" print, don't look at the inline forum image it will be wrong.

Go on, have a guess.

I saw the video by Tony ("The Man") Northrup who said that the if you want a superior image, use the 5DSR for wildlife, including bif. That got me to thinking too, but I ordered the 1DXII, and from what I can tell, that will be "enough". Tony also predicted that the 5DIV will come in at around 75 MP and may be delayed until 2017. Big grain of salt.

sek

 

[privatebydesign]

Identifying camera and/or lenses based on internet display is, at least, an exercise in futility.
That said, based only on the screenshot crop, I would not print...lack of IQ.

That is partly the point, but to say you can't judge IQ from a crop of the print preview is comical, that is exactly how you judge the expected quality of the print!

As for you thinking it lacks IQ, you are wrong, if you couldn't print this to 16"x24" with no noise then it is you that is lacking, not the camera, as I said, it might not have much contrast (again part of the point) but it has resolution down to a cobweb strand from 50' or so away.

 

[privatebydesign]

The very first thing I do in LR is check IQ on a 100% crop...that IQ isn't up to snuff...IMHO.

Ah well, I'd better chuck all of my camera gear out, give up and delete all of my images then, as none of them are 'good enough'.

Input such as yours is the reason I can't be ar$ed to spend any time on here any more.

It is also the reason I posted the little challenge. People love to say 'that's not good enough' but never show what, in their opinion, is. I know from printing regularly this will print perfectly to 16"x24", and that is good enough for me virtually all the time.

 

[privatebydesign]

I am far more interested in where and how people manage to find owls willing to pose. We have at least one barred owl in the neighborhood, but only know that from she/he asking who is cooking for you, plus the very rare sighting of a blur of wings and feathers in the dark.

Where do people live that they manage to find these birds perching away on a branch in any kind of light?

I live in rural Central Florida, the owl lives in my yard and was 50' or so outside my garage.

 

[privatebydesign]

If Eldar is right and it's the 1ds iii and the 70-200 2.8, then... Both of those are really great pieces of gear and hardly to be sneezed at. If it was a 40D and a 75-300, then you'd have a point.

Have to say that I hope privatebydesign will let us know what it is

Of course I'll let you know, I was just hoping that a few more people would try and guess.

I must say the two people who's opinions I respect most here are the two that rose to the challenge, and they are both very close but circling around the actual answer.

Sporgon also makes a very valid point with regards modern software, it is stunningly good, as are modern printing algorithms.

Come on IglooEater, have a guess

 

[3kramd5]

The OOF is really throwing me. In my mind, I'd expect the treeline (top frame) to be the furthest object. The massive blur wall behind the owl looks like it's between the owl and the treeline, but the OOF says otherwise.

I'd go 1Ds III w/300mm @ 2.8, ISO 1600, but if you're 50 feet away that doesn't seem long enough unless.

Looking forward to the big reveal!

 

[privatebydesign]

The OOF is really throwing me. In my mind, I'd expect the treeline (top frame) to be the furthest object. The massive blur wall behind the owl looks like it's between the owl and the treeline, but the OOF says otherwise.

I'd go 1Ds III w/300mm @ 2.8, ISO 1600, but if you're 50 feet away that doesn't seem long enough unless.

Looking forward to the big reveal!

Maybe I can explain the OOF areas. The owl is sitting on a branch of a tree fairly close to the one behind it, the one with the distinct branches. Then there is my driveway and then dense foliage.