New high resolution camera

[jrista]

Partisans on both sides will argue their case. I really don't care. I think there is room for both and it depends more on the photographer, on his or her particular needs, on his or her post-processing skills and on the ultimate use of the photograph.

I have always maintained exactly the same point of view, there are very good reasons for preferring either system on an individuals basis based on their needs and output criteria. What bugs me, seriously bugs me, is when people who haven't compared images they actually shot themselves make endless theoretical arguments in support of a case that is easily settled by looking at a couple of images. Sure the theory side s a nice distraction, but photography is a visual medium that fully supports an empirical standard.

I have posted these images many times before. I post them again because it seems some posters have a genuine interest in the empirical results.

The test; I was interested in a 7D to compliment my 1Ds MkIII for focal length limited situations, internet wisdom was that with my 300 f2.8 I would achieve an effective 40% "reach advantage" using a much higher density crop camera than cropping my lower density ff camera. Both sensors were of a similar generation, actually the 7D (the wildly well received sports and BIF crop camera) is newer so has a slight technological advantage. I made a setup to show the biggest differences you could ever attain, solid tripod with the lens mounted on it, all I dd was swap bodies, Live View manual focus, cable release, remote flash for good contrast, 300 f2.8, optimum aperture, optimum iso (200 which favours the 7D slightly too) etc etc, things I could never use in the circumstances I wanted the 7D for but I wanted to see this 40% more reach.

Image on the left is the ff image, the red rectangle is the full image from the 7D. I then noticed a human hair next to the ruler. The 7D image is reproduced at over 100%, the 1Ds MkIII image was interpolated in PS to give the same pixel numbers as the 7D crop and is well over 200%.


My conclusions have always been that whilst in this perfect situation the 7D does have a slight resolution advantage it is very slight, and, given the extreme conditions I had to go to to see even that small difference I realised the differences in AF, iso, contrast etc would affect real world images to a greater degree than the mythical 40% more reach. I didn't get a 7D because I felt the cropped 1Ds MkIII images were close enough in ideal situations and any differences disappeared in real world shooting situations.


Now I invite you to draw your own conclusions.

Personally, and I stress that as I have 20/10 vision, and I don't necessarily want to make conclusions for anyone else...but personally, the 7D image is definitely sharper. Is there more visible detail? A bit. Not by a "vast" margin...but the scratches have more definition. The key thing, though, is that everything is sharper. The hair is razor sharp, the highlights are better defined. The grooves of the scratches on the ruler appear to actually be grooves with the 7D, where as for the most part they just appear to be white smudges with the 1Ds III. The threads of the green spool behind the ruler are better defined, particularly the dark threads...crisper, sharper. The topmost dark thread is kind of "dotted", and that fact is much more apparent in the 7D shot than the 1Ds III shot.

Additionally, and this ultimately boils down to personal preference, but I like the colors of the 7D better...just a bit richer, slightly more color contrast. I'll happily admit that may just be how the RAW was converted, and I know that for the most part the 1D series tends to have better out of camera color.

Again, this is what I personally observe. It is a lot easier to see these differences if you place both images directly on top of each other and swap back and forth, but it certainly isn't necessary to pick out the differences. Is it a massive difference? In the specific case of the 1Ds III and 7D, no. However these are just two random cameras chosen for comparison. One could also choose the 1D X and say the D7100 24mp sensor, and the difference would be more pronounced. Hell, the difference between a 1D X and D600 or D800 should be quite clear, and all three are FF sensors. As I said before, which camera's you compare, whether the sensors are crop or FF, doesn't matter to me. Fundamentally, my argument is that smaller pixels lead to better results (all else being equal.)

The 1Ds III and 7D is a close race, but that doesn't change the fact that the 7D wins. If we had our hypothetical 7Dx with half the pixel pitch (71.6mp), the difference would indeed be "vast", and the hypothetical 7Dx would win hands down, no contest.

As for reach, reach is primarily a factor of framing. Fundamentally, I think when most photographers talk about reach, they are referring to the sensor ratio, in which case the 7D would have a 40% advantage. In terms of pure pixel pitch reach advantage, there is no way to define that as a single ratio...it would entirely depend on the pixel pitch of the sensors you are comparing, which makes it a rather non-viable way to define reach advantage. There are dozens of different pixel pitches used in hundreds of different sensors. It would take a rather complex graph to define the pixel pitch centric reach advantage for every one.

 

[jeremypark]

Now I invite you to draw your own conclusions.

The 7D crop has more in camera sharpening seen in larger amount of artefacts / noise seen in even the low res jpegs. The 1DSM3 has more image to play with.