Sporgon said:There's nothing like screwing up the IQ of an image with over sharpening, and the newer, higher mp cameras actually make this easier to do.
chauncey said:Not sure what you mean when using the term "crunchy" as they both were shot at ISO 100.
Image size is not a concern as I do quite a bit of photo-merging.
privatebydesign said:Sporgon said:There's nothing like screwing up the IQ of an image with over sharpening, and the newer, higher mp cameras actually make this easier to do.
So true, and the fact that the forum resamples the images doesn't help when trying to demonstrate these things!
Also the amount of sharpening varies depending on what you are going to do with the file, and if that is printing what size that specific print is going to be. Oh and throw in the fact that some people like more, or less, than others just adds to the complication.
I now do all my sharpening in PS having given up on LR even for basic import/AA filter correction settings, I have my import presets set to zero sharpening by default.
I personally shoot my 1Ds-III up to ISO 800. If I think I need higher ISO capability I prefer my 6D. By contrast I prefer to keep my 6D below ISO 2500, i.e. I'll do ETTR exposures at 3200 and in post I'll recover highlights, pull down shadows as needed and use some noise reduction to taste.chauncey said:Those ISO settings interest me as I avoid going above ISO 400.
I do all my 16-bit editing in Lightroom including sharpening. If I want to post things to the web I export to sRGB and work in GIMP, which only supports 8-bit color at the moment. I grew up using GIMP so I still need to familiarize myself with Photoshop's shortcuts, icons, menus etc...chauncey said:FWIW, I always shoot manual by first setting my SS, then f/stop and ISO.
BTW are you doing sharpening in LR or PS CC
FYI... The highlighted text above was just based on my personal impression, and looking back I realized it is quite a bold claim as I hadn't personally done a solid test of this. Anyway, I had some good weather today so decided to put my gut feeling to the test.StudentOfLight said:The 1Ds Mark-III has moderately strong AA-filter so I get sharper results with my 6D, despite it being slightly lower res than my 1Ds-III. This is most noticeable in low light where the 6D has a finer grain to the noise, while the 1Ds-III noise looks more chunky.
StudentOfLight said:FYI... The highlighted text above was just based on my personal impression, and looking back I realized it is quite a bold claim as I hadn't personally done a solid test of this. Anyway, I had some good weather today so decided to put my gut feeling to the test.StudentOfLight said:The 1Ds Mark-III has moderately strong AA-filter so I get sharper results with my 6D, despite it being slightly lower res than my 1Ds-III. This is most noticeable in low light where the 6D has a finer grain to the noise, while the 1Ds-III noise looks more chunky.
Methodology:
Set up 70-200mm on a tripod
Same settings on both 1Ds-III and 6D. (1/100s at f/6.3 ISO 100)
used 10x magnification in live view focused on same branch
Opened RAWs in DPP, removed all sharpening and noise reduction
Exported to TIF
Imported to Lightroom
Took screenshots of comparison view...
Attached are the screenshots:
Thanks Jack. Enjoy your 6DJack Douglas said:That's an interesting endeavor, thanks - seems my 6D first choice moving to Canon was a wise one. At the time I told my wife that between the 6D and 5D3 I'd take the least expensive since it seemed to have good IQ and I anticipated upgrading once I gained more experience. And here we are with my upgrade very near with the choice being 5D4 or 1DX II and I just don't know - harder choice than the first one.
Refreshing to hear, "bold claim, better check it out". I wish others would follow your example!
Jack