# A challenge, and how much is 'enough'.



## privatebydesign (Jun 5, 2016)

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 (Jun 5, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Jun 5, 2016)

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 (Jun 5, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> 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?
> 
> ...


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 (Jun 5, 2016)

Eldar said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > 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
> ...



A humbling lesson, indeed.


----------



## chauncey (Jun 5, 2016)

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 (Jun 5, 2016)

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. 



chauncey said:


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



You're joking ? On a 24" print ?


----------



## chauncey (Jun 5, 2016)

> 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 (Jun 5, 2016)

chauncey said:


> 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 (Jun 5, 2016)

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 (Jun 5, 2016)

unfocused said:


> 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 (Jun 6, 2016)

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 (Jun 6, 2016)

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 (Jun 6, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Jun 6, 2016)

chauncey said:


> 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 (Jun 6, 2016)

insanitybeard said:


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



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 (Jun 6, 2016)

unfocused said:


> 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 (Jun 6, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> 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 (Jun 6, 2016)

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 (Jun 6, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> 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.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 6, 2016)

Living in the Midwest all my life, I'm extremely jealous of people who have the good fortune to live in areas where the wildlife is more plentiful, weather more appealing and the landscape is not comprised of corn as far as the eye can see. The most abundant wildlife for us are suicidal deer leaping into the sides of cars.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 6, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



That would do it. It gives really interesting depth to the photo.

Was a TC used?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 6, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Living in the Midwest all my life, I'm extremely jealous of people who have the good fortune to live in areas where the wildlife is more plentiful, weather more appealing and the landscape is not comprised of corn as far as the eye can see. The most abundant wildlife for us are suicidal deer leaping into the sides of cars.



We have a lot of suicidal deer too! But I am down a dirt road so our neighborhood deer are pretty tame, we also have, at the other extreme, a lot of gopher tortoises and, of course, alligators.

These two are from a gentle walk around my neighborhood a few days ago.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 6, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



No I didn't use a TC, but close........


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 6, 2016)

Looking at those casual long focal length shots I almost wonder if you, like myself, have treated yourself to a G3X. I've recently bought the EOS M3 system, and as I now have the viewfinder I got the G3X as well.

The tight, even grain pattern of the owl pic reminds me of these latest high tech sensors, but I'm still dubious that you'd have got to that size output with that definition.

Here's one of my first test shots at low ISO, full zoom. I've sized it up to 24" print.

I should add that unless you were very close I think you would have had trouble getting that seperation with such a small sensor. It's beginning to look to me as if you've cropped in tight on a FF and then resized up a fair bit.


----------



## fentiger (Jun 6, 2016)

Canon 1Dmk4 with a 400/2.8 mk1


----------



## d (Jun 6, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


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



I'll stick with Eldar's guess of the 1DsIII + 70-200 2.8. The noise looks about right for 1600, too, but maybe you're a gun at NR and it's actually ISO 3200 

To that I'll add an EF12 extension tube @ ~140mm

Shutter maybe 1/20 (you have IS I assume!), aperture f/4

I like owls - nice shot!

d.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 6, 2016)

Yes I'm pretty certain now that the point you are making is one of mega pixels, and that this was probably a 1DsIII shot, probably on a 300 mil lens, but then cropped in to leave about 8 MP, then scaled back up to 24" output @ 240 dpi in PS. That would explain the extreme seperation. 

If so it's an interesting comparison with the latest high MP small sensors, because it show that beyond a certain point of potential resolution capture size (sensor size) has as much influence on IQ as cramping in more MP. 

I've pretty much discounted the 5Ds from my possible future hardware. Although it is without doubt capable of superb quality I'll be interested to see what the next generation of lower MP FF cameras can do in comparison. 

If older tech I still think the owl pic is below 800 ISO.


----------



## zim (Jun 6, 2016)

Crop sensor with a 70-200 f2.8 ? @200mm- f3.2  f3.5 ;D


----------



## ethanz (Jun 6, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



May I come visit you and see him? I've only seen one owl in the pitch black night. Fortunately I had my big flash. He didn't like that. lol


----------



## ethanz (Jun 6, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Living in the Midwest all my life, I'm extremely jealous of people who have the good fortune to live in areas where the wildlife is more plentiful, weather more appealing and the landscape is not comprised of corn as far as the eye can see. The most abundant wildlife for us are suicidal deer leaping into the sides of cars.



Come on, the corn and plainness of the midwest is beautiful. After coming back from long trips elsewhere I appreciate the beauty of every place God has made.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 6, 2016)

Canon 5d original + 400mm F5.6 :

I've done in the past a print on photo paper 70 cm, with the totally bonehead Rebel XTi (10 megapixel) with the old lens Tokina 16-50mm F2.8, and the result was very good.
All I did was overexpose a little bit, keep the ISO200 and stop down the lens to F4. No one could say it was "only" 10 megapixel.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 6, 2016)

ethanz said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Party at Private's house. BYOC. (Bring Your Own Canon.)


----------



## JClark (Jun 6, 2016)

Apologies in advance if I'm either going too far afield or dragging this back to an original topic which has drifted, but I'm not prepared to make a guess at the actual equipment used... That said, the larger question of how much is enough is always a question for rousing debate, isn't it? 

In the case of *this specific image*, whatever the OP has done is clearly good enough to print (IMHO of course). That said, it's also my opinion that the subject matter and composition is as much a cause of this as is the technical side of it. The owl looks great, the eyes connect and the catchlight is striking. It's a *good photo* and that goes a long way toward mitigating the shortcomings, and to be fair, there are some. The feather detail is muddy and the branch isn't crisp. Maybe some aggressive noise reduction? But as I said, not a problem (and at a few feet viewing distance, you wouldn't notice anyway. And at ANY distance, non-photographers probably wouldn't care if they dig the owl - I've seen some stuff at high end galleries in Santa Fe that, up close, meaning 2 feet is embarrassing. But it still sells on subject and composition).

But let's say that this is a landscape that features high-frequency rocks, or water. To my mind, an equal wouldn't be as compelling because while the parts of *this* image that could be seen as "substandard" are largely irrelevant. In another image, they might not be.

Regardless - interesting discussion. Thanks OP for an interesting perspective. I'll be curious to know the answer.


----------



## Ryananthony (Jun 7, 2016)

I was at a hospital and in the room was a 16x24 print of an owl in flight. The picture was a blurry mess and in my opinion should never have been printed. That didn't stop my parents ( who I was seeing ) from gawking at how great that photo was. I don't think a lot of regular people notice the ''details''


----------



## wsmith96 (Jun 7, 2016)

I'm guessing it was a 1DsIII with a 300 f/2.8 mk I IS L. Settings ISO 1600, F4.0, 300mm. The bokeh in the back is throwing me off - it looks like you added some blur from just on top of the owl's head then down, but the above the owls head appears more in focus. There must be another branch just behind the owls head at the upper right with leaves coming off of it.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 7, 2016)

I'm gonna guess on the conservative side of the spectrum:
EOS 700D with 55-250mm IS STM (zoomed to 250mm + cropped slightly)

Looks like cloudy or full-shade, so maybe a few stops less than full sun... 
maybe an exposure of about 1/200s at f/5.6, ISO 200.

For me enough is:
60D (APS-C body with all crosstype AF)
24mm STM
100mm non-L macro
600EX RT
Misc (batteries/cards/gels... etc.)


----------



## IglooEater (Jun 7, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Of course, and you're right- I forgot to give a proper guess . I'm guessing it's not the combo I mentioned, and something rather higher end. Probably full frame, but then, at 50' away could well be crop.
Maybe a 7D and a 100-400 vI. At f/5.6 and, oh, say 320mm. ISO 2000 1/100 second. I'm guessing this is all wrong, but hey- that's the point!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 7, 2016)

Well done everybody that put themselves out there, there were some very good guesses!

1Ds MkIII, 300mm f2.8IS MkI, 400iso, f2.8, 1/30 (handheld).

The interesting bit? It is a 75% crop, or slightly over 5MP from a 21MP capture, then re-sampled to 240ppi at 16"x24" (well done Sporgon, I expect no less from you). 

Now a couple have made comments on the quality, I can assure you as a high end printer this image prints perfectly to 16"x24", the issue with detail, as I said at the outset, is not lack of resolution as evidenced by the cobweb, it is because of the very low contrast in the scene, the fine feather details are there when they go against the green background, just not when they are on top of each other.

So a few things I found interesting. 

A 75% crop gives me an equivalent crop factor of 2, so I'd get a M4/3 sensor with a 300mm lens, or an equivalent fov of a 600mm lens and a dof of f5.6 and an iso of 800, very close to almost all the genuine guesses.

IS is amazing, even older IS. 1/30 sec with a 600mm fov is pretty darn good in my book.

You can play with noise reduction until you are happy, especially with an image like this, the more time you spend processing and masking the better the result. I only did very basic global adjustments to the image, if I spent an hour on it I could remove all the noise and sharpen up the detail. To be honest it was a throwaway crop my wife wanted to see, the original is a landscape orientation image, I'd never crop as hard. But it got me thinking what I could actually do with it and I surprised myself.

If you want genuine unbiased and friendly advice on actual image quality here trust the opinion of Sporgon and Eldar, they both know what they are looking at and obviously look at large numbers of images, and to our great benefit can use that experience to make honest assessments. 


Here is the full frame of the original image.

Hope everybody found something of interest.


----------



## Eldar (Jun 7, 2016)

Interesting Scott!

Good to see the full size picture. I liked that composition better 

i am clearly not the print wizard you are, but I have also printed heavily cropped images at sizes I initially thought would not work and people need to consider what they need all the resolution for. Is it for printing or is it for insane zooming and pixel peeping on their computer screens?


----------



## IglooEater (Jun 7, 2016)

Very interesting privatebydesign, thanks for sharing! Admit though that that gear is hardly rudimentary... You're trying to convince people that your kit is good enough compared to newer, better stuff, and I heartily agree. However, coming from a 60d and a 70-200, your kit is an inaccessible dream for me.  no, I'm not a pro- I'm not even very good.


----------



## JClark (Jun 7, 2016)

Out of curiosity, what was the up-res methodology?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 7, 2016)

I was about to reply when I saw your reveal of the camera. I've taken similar images with point and Shoot cameras, a G15, my SX50HS, or my G1X MK II would take similar images that could be printed at 16 X 24 and most people would think they were wonderful.

Since you mentioned the low light, a larger sensor would do better.


----------



## bwud (Jun 7, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> The interesting bit? It is a 75% crop, or slightly over 5MP from a 21MP capture, then re-sampled to 240ppi at 16"x24"



Out of curiosity, of how much significance is the crop to this demonstration, if the intent is to show the (lack of) importance of pixel density? You mostly (entirely?) cropped horizontally, and then upsampled vertically (obviously that's not exactly true but I think it gets my meaning across), whereas typically when people talk about heavy cropping it is to take something small relative to both dimensions of the frame.

You could have just as easily left it uncropped and made it 36"x24", which would have preserved the fantastic original comp and still made the point about sampling (albeit perhaps less extreme than "I took 5MP and made it very large").

In any case, cool discussion. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## HarryFilm (Jun 7, 2016)

Ryananthony said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



----

I am assuming based upon the trees you're somewhere 
in Coquitlam or Maple Ridge which has LOTS of owls,
eagles, cougars, black bears, lynx, cranes, etc.
With the mountains so close by you can find 
almost any type of creature if you're willing
to wake up at 5:00 am for a sit-down session
in a near swamp (i.e. by Pitt Lake in British Columbia)

In terms of printability, I have taken a 6 megapixel
aerial shot of a cruise ship (i.e. Star Princess using 
Canon Powershot G3) and printed it at 24 x 16 with
only minor noise. The KEY ISSUE if you shoot JPEG 
is find some decent DE-MACROBLOCKING software 
plugins and then add some contrast (10%) and 
FINALLY add just a 1.5 pixel wide UnSharp Mask.

From normal 30 inch or more viewing distances,
it really won't look that bad even at 6 megapixels
for the original shot!

It's CONTENT not megapixels in my opinion,
I've seen INCREDIBLE WILDLIFE SHOTS done
on a Sony Xperia Cell Phone (20 megapixel)
and printed UTTERLY SHARP at 24 x 16.

The content (a shot of a bald eagle with 
spread out wings on top of a telephone pole) 
was so good that seeing that photo at 24x16
made my mind forget any TECHNICAL aspects
of the image!

So look for good light, great content and then 
focus sharp and crop hard to get your perfect 
shots for large format printing!


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 7, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> 1Ds MkIII, 300mm f2.8IS MkI, 400iso, f2.8, 1/30 (handheld).
> 
> The interesting bit? It is a 75% crop, or slightly over 5MP from a 21MP capture, then re-sampled to 240ppi at 16"x24" (well done Sporgon, I expect no less from you).



Well I had a head start because I know the gear you favour. The subject separation was a bit of a give away on the lens / format combo as you had said 50'.

But it does raise some interesting points, one of which is that the software is narrowing the gap between old and new gear. I'm in limbo on where to move with FF now. I've sold my 6D because I prefer the 5DII, and also the point I just made: the latest software has reduced the gap between the 6D and 5DII at moderately high ISO. I've got the full M3 system, and quite honestly I'm of the opinion that if you want to beat this for _general_ "IQ" you have to move to the latest tech FF cameras, so the 1DXII, 5Ds, A7r2 etc. However non of these are what I want so I'll have to see what happens next.

I know the M3 is later generation than the 5DII, but as the 5DII, 5DIII and 6D are all identical at 100 ISO (not including trying to correct for absurd under exposure) I'm going to be looking at how cropped FF of 8 mp stands up to 24 mp ape-c. There should be no contest but you have shown that in a practical large print size the difference is not as obvious as you might think. Also there is the issue of making every pixel count on the M3 which given its pixel density is not always easy. Then of course as you print larger there is the issue of viewing distance and dpi. On a print of say 36" across the image can appear to have very high resolution if printed well at 80 dpi. 

I suppose a camera such as the 5Ds could be regarded as two or even three cameras in one given how you can crop and maintain pixels, but as Eldar said, so far, to me, the most impressive thing about the output of these cameras is being able to zoom in and in for amazing size and detail - none of which gives a _practical_ advantage to even a quite large print.

But then we are talking about printing, and a picture should be tangible IMO, but I think many only view electronically and make all their judgements based on this method of display.


----------



## chauncey (Jun 8, 2016)

Your up-sizing explains my dissatisfaction with the IQ...years ago one of my teachers said his only 
print viewing distance was nose length, to which I subscribe.


----------



## IglooEater (Jun 8, 2016)

chauncey said:


> Your up-sizing explains my dissatisfaction with the IQ...years ago one of my teachers said his only
> print viewing distance was nose length, to which I subscribe.



That's great from a purely academic vantage point and fine for the fine arts, but irrelevant for most clients and even more so for actually viewing the overall image to appreciate its beauty. What's important just depends on the motive behind the image.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jun 8, 2016)

I am only incredibly jealous of you guys who have money to buy and discuss these cameras. I try to make do with what I have. Though my picture quality sucks and no one will probably buy my work, I decided that it's about what I enjoy doing with what I have. Maybe I'll grab myself a 5D sometime.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jun 8, 2016)

Hi cellomaster. 
I did the buying a 5D thing, it's likely the first thing you will do after that is the buying a 24-105 thing to have a standard lens for it, this will likely be slightly dearer than the 5D! ;D I tried to resist but a nifty fifty felt rather limiting for me. : 
What I will say is the 5D is still IMHO a very capable camera despite the rumours of its 3rd successor being near to launch. 

Cheers, Graham. 



cellomaster27 said:


> I am only incredibly jealous of you guys who have money to buy and discuss these cameras. I try to make do with what I have. Though my picture quality sucks and no one will probably buy my work, I decided that it's about what I enjoy doing with what I have. Maybe I'll grab myself a 5D sometime.


----------



## dak723 (Jun 9, 2016)

cellomaster27 said:


> I am only incredibly jealous of you guys who have money to buy and discuss these cameras. I try to make do with what I have. Though my picture quality sucks and no one will probably buy my work, I decided that it's about what I enjoy doing with what I have. Maybe I'll grab myself a 5D sometime.



Keep in mind that many folks here are gear heads and pixel peepers. If you are not one, then chances are your gear is fine. I had the original digital rebel (6 MP) for 9 years. It is low MP, but not so low that you can't get a nice 8 x 10 or 8 x 12 print. When I upgraded to a 6D a couple years ago, I thought that it might make all my older prints obsolete - since certainly there would be a big difference between my older prints and the new ones that I would be printing from shots taken with my 6D. 

In fact, the 8 x 10 and 8 x 12 prints I have from my new 20 MP FF 6D are indistinguishable from those shot with the 300D. And many of the older lenses (and the inexpensive APS-C lenses) are very good optically. The main difference between them and the expensive L lenses is build quality and (often) the fast apertures. I just bought an old 28-105MM f/3.5-4.5 lens for $60 on Ebay and find very little difference between that and my 24-105 f/4 L. I used to have an old 28-70mm non-L lens that can be had on Ebay for less than $100 that was just as sharp as the 24-105mm L. Again, if you're not a pixel peeper or print very large, chances are you don't need the expensive stuff! 

And, oh, by the way, I sold quite a few of those prints taken with the old 300D and the kit lens.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 9, 2016)

I'd be thrilled with an owl shot like that. The soft light is fine - rather suits the atmosphere and subject.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 10, 2016)

cellomaster27 said:


> ...I decided that it's about what I enjoy doing with what I have.



That's really what it is all about and you have a very fine perspective on the hobby.  

Nobody is going to buy my photos, or the photos of most of us here either. That's the truth of it all.

Like any other hobby, it all boils down to having fun.

At a factory I used to work at all the guys interested in motorcycles were buying Harley-Davidsons. One of the guys bought a Vulcan. The Harley riders teased the crap out of him when he rode up on that dirty used Vulcan. "When are you going to get a real bike?"

Rock, as he was called, replied wisely, "I have just as much fun on my Vulcan as y'all have on your Harleys and still have about $15,000 left in my pocket." Nobody teased him again and he really did have as much fun as they did. He certainly broke down less. 

This is the only hobby I have. I've spent myself out of any other hobby. Sometimes thinking about that is no fun at all. 

Have fun my friend.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jun 16, 2016)

Seems to me the thread started with how much is enough, implying that we were talking primarily Megapixels. When the talk shifted to camera features in general that adds a different dimension. As someone else commented such things as better/faster AF are game changers if that is something you need. IQ-wise I love my 6D but for BIF the 1D4 was so much better.

I'm here on CR and hardly a gear-head. I'm a nature lover but still enjoy the tech talk as much as I can decipher the topics. CR has threads with very little focus on pixel peeping and gear too. A bit of everything - and I like it.

Jack


----------



## Valvebounce (Jun 16, 2016)

Hi Dak. 
You raise some very interesting points and there is some truth there, but with all due respect, I came here thinking my photos were good, following some criticism and advice, I now take better pictures, every once in a while I will get a great shot. 
I'm grateful to the people of this forum for being kind enough to forgo the nice praise and to be critical of my work to help me, but it usually requires asking for criticism before people will give it, criticism is also only helpful when accompanied by advice which is usually freely given here. 
Some improvements came from gear, most from improved technique due to the advice. 
I didn't throw away all my early shots because they are no good, they are great reminders of family etc, just that my new shots are better. 
I don't see a problem with learning, yes I had to learn to filter the information here too, but this is one of the more friendly forums I have been on. 

Cheers, Graham. 



dak723 said:


> With all due respect, it is forums like this one that can - and often do - kill the fun. There should be a warning to all newcomers when they fist sign in - beware, pixel peepers and gear heads are here in abundance.
> 
> Lots of snip 8<
> 
> And in terms of selling - I have sold some photos at local art fairs. Taken with my 6 MP Rebel and my kit lens and even some with the old 75-300mm zoom (non-L) that is normally described on forums like this one as "trash". >GASP< Funny how well they work and how good prints can look when you aren't pixel peeping!


----------



## chauncey (Jun 16, 2016)

Photography is a hobby to me, but, that does not mean that I'm satisfied with mediocre images.
Perfectionism/anal retentive is ingrained into my psyche, if it fails at 100%...toss it.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 17, 2016)

chauncey said:


> Photography is a hobby to me, but, that does not mean that I'm satisfied with mediocre images.
> Perfectionism/anal retentive is ingrained into my psyche, if it fails at 100%...toss it.



You can do what you want, we all do, but I hope you understand why that attitude is not shared by many others - many great images look ropey at 100%, but they are never viewed that way in practice. Understanding how close the scrutiny an image can bear is an important part of *practical* photography. And the subject matter may demand an image be used even when it fails on purely technical aspects.

(As an aside, the increasing disparity between the resolution of sensors and display devices means it's less and less important what an image looks like viewed 1:1).


----------



## Andyx01 (Jun 17, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



I took 30 seconds to correct your color. As for "when is enough enough"; You may want to invest in a new monitor if the color appeared to be correct on yours.

(Image attachment specified)


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 17, 2016)

Andyx01 said:


> I took 30 seconds to correct your color. As for "when is enough enough"; You may want to invest in a new monitor if the color appeared to be correct on yours.
> 
> (Image attachment specified)



Andy, 

Colour is entirely subjective and you weren't there, you can't possibly know what was "correct". Also if it takes you 30 seconds to 'correct' the WB what are you doing for the other 29 seconds! I have found heavily overcast evening light in Florida to be much bluer than your edit, if I was intending to actually do anything with the file I wouldn't change the temp much, if any, but would give it some positive tint.

As for my monitor, it is calibrated and works very well when I use proof mode in PS to print.

But your input is just a diversion, the WB is easily adjusted to whatever you want in any model camera with no IQ impact if you shoot RAW, ergo it doesn't change the premise of my point in the slightest.

When I asked _"when is enough enough"_ I was asking a broad question to see what people said, and there has been a healthy input, I wasn't specific about MP I was thinking of a more gear and output orientated question. The truth is we can get outstanding results that vastly outstrip virtually all practical output requirements with comparatively modest gear. A 1Ds MkIII can be had for around $1,000-1,500, a 300 f4L for $500-750.


----------



## Andyx01 (Jun 17, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Also if it takes you 30 seconds to 'correct' the WB what are you doing for the other 29 seconds!



Right... Because your so amazing it only takes you 1 second.

P.S. I said color, not WB. Color correction involves more than temperature alone.



privatebydesign said:


> I have found heavily overcast evening light in Florida to be much bluer than your edit, if I was intending to actually do anything with the file I wouldn't change the temp much, if any, but would give it some positive tint.



If you like poor color reproduction for an artsy look; whatever floats your boat man. You could always invert the colors and apply a psychedelic glow to it too.



privatebydesign said:


> As for my monitor, it is calibrated and works very well when I use proof mode in PS to print.



Neat. You may find this site interesting: http://www.color-blindness.com/color-blindness-tests/



privatebydesign said:


> But your input is just a diversion, the WB is easily adjusted to whatever you want in any model camera with no IQ impact if you shoot RAW, ergo it doesn't change the premise of my point in the slightest.



There you go on WB again. The color including the WB was corrected in the edit. White balance alone does not correct color. Apologies' if you find the corrections offensive.

To answer your question, when is enough enough; You tell me, is 10fps enough? is 14? How about 60, or 120? Really depends on your needs. Obviously your needs aren't very high, that doesn't mean others aren't.



privatebydesign said:


> When I asked _"when is enough enough"_ I was asking a broad question to see what people said, and there has been a healthy input, I wasn't specific about MP I was thinking of a more gear and output orientated question. The truth is we can get outstanding results that vastly outstrip virtually all practical output requirements with comparatively modest gear. A 1Ds MkIII can be had for around $1,000-1,500, a 300 f4L for $500-750.



Well, now you know what I said... Some people are okay with your setup, color accuracy, and quality requirements. Others have higher standards than you.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 17, 2016)

Andyx01 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Also if it takes you 30 seconds to 'correct' the WB what are you doing for the other 29 seconds!
> ...



That is pretty much all _argumentum ad hominem_.

The only 'correct'* 'color' is done on a neutral tone and that is best done automatically via the WB tool. The only neutral tone in the image that is usable is the eye, putting the WB tool on the eye takes 1 second, any other 'adjustments' to the WB, color and tint, are entirely subjective. You were not here, you did not see the light I saw, your 'correction' is your subjective assessment of what you think it should look like on your monitor.

The rest of your drivel is just that, ad hominem drivel.

_* 'correct' is used as meaning neutral. But neutral in this context is entirely fallacious, if the light is blue, or orange or green, the WB tool is useless as an accurate representation of the scene in front of you._

P.S. Thanks for the colorblindness tests, it seems I am good to make color assessments of my own images.


----------



## d (Jun 18, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Andyx01 said:
> 
> 
> > If you like poor color reproduction for an artsy look; whatever floats your boat man. You could always invert the colors and apply a psychedelic glow to it too.
> ...



+1

Some regard their "knowledge" more highly than they ought. 

d.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 18, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Andyx01 said:
> 
> 
> > I took 30 seconds to correct your color. As for "when is enough enough"; You may want to invest in a new monitor if the color appeared to be correct on yours.
> ...



Precisely - we all see colour differently. Each of my eyes has a different 'white balance'. For me, the original was subdued (blue/green), but this 'corrected' version is too red. But that's me, my monitor, my eyes. So long as a photographer is satisfied, then the image is correct. Some things cannot be objectively arbitrated.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 18, 2016)

Andyx01 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Also if it takes you 30 seconds to 'correct' the WB what are you doing for the other 29 seconds!
> ...



Ooh, way to go man. You've been here five minutes and are already telling people they're wrong and assuming a superior attitude. Maybe be a bit more humble and understanding? Especially when you're talking out of your arse.


----------



## JClark (Jun 18, 2016)

Andyx01 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Also if it takes you 30 seconds to 'correct' the WB what are you doing for the other 29 seconds!
> ...



I don't get the way overly aggressive response, Andy? Reasonable people can disagree over whether PBD's original crop would be suitable for print/display/sale, but this was sort of out of left field.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 18, 2016)

d said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Andyx01 said:
> ...



And their opinion too. Posts from people like "Andy" are both amusing and depressing at the same time. His "corrected" image has a brown / orange cast that whilst undoubtably may appeal to some, to me it just makes the image look too warm and quite ordinary. It's also had the levels compressed in an attempt to brighten the overall image, the sort of result you can get from applying "auto correct" in pp programs. The blue / green of private's original makes the picture IMO, and I'm sure if private had been producing that as a final image he'd had given it a tiny bit more punch but left the colour alone.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jun 18, 2016)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi cellomaster.
> I did the buying a 5D thing, it's likely the first thing you will do after that is the buying a 24-105 thing to have a standard lens for it, this will likely be slightly dearer than the 5D! ;D I tried to resist but a nifty fifty felt rather limiting for me. :
> What I will say is the 5D is still IMHO a very capable camera despite the rumours of its 3rd successor being near to launch.
> 
> ...



+1. This is the exact path I took as well. The 5d has great iq. I ended up trading up to the 6d because I like live view focusing for macro and I occasionally shoot some video. I miss the feel of the 5d, but I've had a good experience with my 6d with exception for 1 thing. Occasionally after I change a lens the auto focus won't engage. I have to turn the camera off and on again to bring the lens to life. I've got the camera ready to ship to canon for them to investigate.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jun 18, 2016)

Andyx01 said:


> Well, now you know what I said... Some people are okay with your setup, color accuracy, and quality requirements. Others have higher standards than you.



Wow..this is kind of harsh given the subject and debate of this thread. Since we are handing out URL's, here's one for you: http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2015/09/a-gentlemans-guide-to-not-being-an-asshole/


----------



## zim (Jun 19, 2016)

scyrene said:


> For me, the original was subdued (blue/green), but this 'corrected' version is too red.



+ 1 me too

The only obnoxious thing I find is the overbearing self opinionated arrogant opine of the poster, may as well throw in rude while I'm at it.


----------



## Andyx01 (Jun 20, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> That is pretty much all _argumentum ad hominem_.



Well that was an offensive thing to say. I found it rather factual and to the point myself.



privatebydesign said:


> The only 'correct'* 'color' is done on a neutral tone and that is best done automatically via the WB tool.



So now there is a 'correct' color. And it is 'Neutral tone", "Best done automatically via WB tool."

This is all bad information and false. Please don't spread bad information.



privatebydesign said:


> The only neutral tone in the image that is usable is the eye,



You cannot be serious?



privatebydesign said:


> putting the WB tool on the eye takes 1 second,



It does? Sounds subjective.



privatebydesign said:


> any other 'adjustments' to the WB, color and tint, are entirely subjective.



Not true. WB is a crude method. Read up on Color Rite Passport.



privatebydesign said:


> You were not here, you did not see the light I saw, your 'correction' is your subjective assessment of what you think it should look like on your monitor.



Correct



privatebydesign said:


> The rest of your drivel is just that, ad hominem drivel.



Yeah I'm just puking garbage. I'm a bad person. That is slow to edit by your standards, posting bad criticism. You are right in every way. Enough is enough, what you have is all anyone needs. Thanks for clearing everything up.



privatebydesign said:


> P.S. Thanks for the colorblindness tests, it seems I am good to make color assessments of my own images.



Sure no problem. Not sure the two are mutually exclusive, but I'll leave you with your take away. You did an amazing job, with the best gear anyone could ever need. Good for you!

Don't listen to comments like mine or:


chauncey said:


> 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.



We are full of drivel, and are mean people.

-PC


----------



## chauncey (Jun 20, 2016)

I'm beginning to think that we should have a Proctologist in attendance.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 20, 2016)

Andyx01 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > That is pretty much all _argumentum ad hominem_.
> ...



Why would you make the assumption that I haven't profiled my camera? Look through my history and you will see it is a core aspect of my replies.

Did I walk up to the owl and put a color checker in the frame with it? No I didn't, but I do have profiles for this camera with this lens and similar light.

But a custom profile will do nothing for the temp and tint, that is why there are so many different 'whites' on an X-Rite Passport, once you have the three channel tone curves in some kind of order the subjective bits are the temp and tint. Again, you were not here, you don't have a clue what the colors were.

Your 'corrections' are entirely incorrect with regards the scene as it was, they are your subjective version of what you believe it looked like on your screen, why is that such an upsetting thing to be told?

As for me being offensive. You told me I was color blind, I proved I wasn't, how exactly is that offensive to you?



chauncey said:


> I'm beginning to think that we should have a Proctologist in attendance.



Only if he is also a dentist ;D


----------

