# Real-World Resolving-Power?... FF, APS-C/H, Extenders?..



## Khufu (Nov 3, 2014)

In short: What are the best solutions regarding ultimate resolving power, looking at real world results cropped to display the same subject at the same size?

I'm asking because after a bit of questionably-scientific-ish testing, I'm not sure the 70D shoots any more detailed images than the 5D3, despite cramming so many more pixels into any given area.

Obviously the resolving power of the lens will play a part here but I'm wondering if there's maybe a pixel size/density tipping point where adding more just becomes redundant - counterproductive, even?.. and if it lies somewhere between FF and APS-C, possibly around APS-H territory?

As of today I'm considering trading in the 70D and being done with anything APS-C outside of the SL1 and M, where the obvious pros keep me content with their existence!

As an amateur/advancing Birder and Wildlife & Animal Portrait shooter I'm wondering if those times I've opted for the 70D over the 5D3 "for reach" when I could possibly have used the latter with much greater ISO usability and therefore faster shutter etc. was a counterproductive measure? What are my options here?..

Is there any merit to considering a 1.4x III extender and 5D3 over a crop body to achieve greater actual resolving power?

Would the 1D IV possibly be a contender for best resolving Canon body?

Is the a7R (and whatever Nikon uses it) actually the best there is? I hear it's considered pretty sharp!

Is the 7D II up to much in this area that the 70D isn't? Apparently it'll have cleaner high ISO results due to microlenses or something, but is this likely to make it produce sharper images with the same lenses?

I know lots of lenses aren't considered up to resolving high pixel density sensors but I've heard people pushing the argument here recently about the engineering of APS-C sensors just not making them "as good" as similar density on larger sensors - though I'm yet to really get myself educated on that front...

No particular question, just insight and opinions sought!
1D IV? Mk III extenders? 7D2? APS-H? FF? SONY/NIKON?

I think I might consider dropping the 70D for either a 1D IV, a 1.4x III or both...
Also, where would you place the 10mp 1D III in all this, considering it can be had for around the 20mp 70D price?

I'll be back. Play nice!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 3, 2014)

A lot of questions ... 

If you really need to print larger than 1 meter, with abundant lighting, cameras like D810 or A7R has the best value. But require high quality prime lenses such as Zeiss Otus, or Sigma Art to enjoy the best quality. 

If you need to shoot in the dark without flash, Sony A7S have lower noise. 

If you need to shoot distant objects and do not want to pay many thousands of dollars on lenses, and carry many pounds of weight, 7D Mark ii is the most attractive option at the moment. 

Let the war begin. ;D


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 3, 2014)

Khufu said:


> I'm asking because after a bit of questionably-scientific-ish testing, I'm not sure the 70D shoots any more detailed images than the 5D3, despite cramming so many more pixels into any given area.



Yes, another convert from the crop camera/reach meme 

It has been slow going though..........


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 3, 2014)

Khufu said:


> I'm asking because after a bit of questionably-scientific-ish testing, I'm not sure the 70D shoots any more detailed images than the 5D3, despite cramming so many more pixels into any given area.



Many of us have reached similar conclusions – the 'reach advantage' of APS-C sensors is very modest at best, non-existent much of the time, and smaller sensors are at a disadvantage at high ISO. 

If smaller sensors really meant better reach, an iPhone would make a great birding camera:







Check out that *2300mm lens*!! :


----------



## AlanF (Nov 3, 2014)

See - http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22399.0

I estimated the additional reach of the 7D to be no more than 19% at best, and not the 60% often claimed. However, I bet my boots that a 400mm f/4 DO II (or a 300mm f/2.8 II + 1.4xTC) on a 7D II will perform at least as well and most probably outperform a Sigma 150-600mm S at 600mm on a 5D III for less weight. The f/4 on the crop will compensate for the smaller pixels. (Neuro's 600mm f/4 II on his 1DX will win, of course).


----------



## NancyP (Nov 3, 2014)

The pros tend to use the 1DX. On the other hand, I don't have a pro budget at the moment, and if the 7D2 has first rate AF, it will make the best of my 400mm f/5.6L with or without 1.4x TC. Everything is a compromise.


----------



## Northbird (Nov 3, 2014)

NancyP said:


> .............. Everything is a compromise.



Indeed, the 1DX maybe a stellar performer but the cost, weight and size are considerations for many of us. For wildlife/sports the 7D MK II is beginning to look like a winner where cost, weight and size are important alongside overall quality and performance. 

Now if the RAW converters for Lightroom and DPP on Yosemite are available soon I'll be ready to get serious about the 7D MK II to replace my 7D. Until then my rental arrives on Thursday and reasonable weather begins here on Friday so I'll get to determine firsthand if the upgrade is worthwhile.


----------



## ecka (Nov 3, 2014)

5D3>6D>1DX>1D4>7D2>7D


----------



## NancyP (Nov 3, 2014)

Actually, 12" x 20" > 11" x 14" > 8" x 10" > 5" x 7" > 4" x 5" > new MF 50 MP CMOS sensors >> all FF and APS-C cameras. :


----------



## Valvebounce (Nov 3, 2014)

Hi ecka. 
Not sure what this is suppose to mean, if I understand at all it means that the 1DX is third to a 6D and 5D III. REALLY????? Is that in some parallel universe or here on earth? Or did I just miss the point? 

Cheers, Graham. 



ecka said:


> 5D3>6D>1DX>1D4>7D2>7D


----------



## slclick (Nov 3, 2014)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi ecka.
> Not sure what this is suppose to mean, if I understand at all it means that the 1DX is third to a 6D and 5D III. REALLY????? Is that in some parallel universe or here on earth? Or did I just miss the point?
> 
> Cheers, Graham.
> ...



I'm still stuck on the idea that anyone would expect Canon to have a consumer body that had a higher resolving sensor than a current Pro body. 


quote-

"I'm asking because after a bit of questionably-scientific-ish testing, I'm not sure the 70D shoots any more detailed images than the 5D3, despite cramming so many more pixels into any given area."


----------



## ecka (Nov 3, 2014)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi ecka.
> Not sure what this is suppose to mean, if I understand at all it means that the 1DX is third to a 6D and 5D III. REALLY????? Is that in some parallel universe or here on earth? Or did I just miss the point?
> 
> Cheers, Graham.
> ...



Are we both talking about the *"Real-World Resolving-Power"*?
Yes, 1DX has less pixels than 6D and 5D3, despite that it is a better overall tool. The "Real-World" part makes it difficult to compare different formats and technologies.



NancyP said:


> Actually, 12" x 20" > 11" x 14" > 8" x 10" > 5" x 7" > 4" x 5" > new MF 50 MP CMOS sensors >> all FF and APS-C cameras. :



Sure 
...MF>D810>A7R>DP2M>A7>5D3>6D>1DX>1D4>7D2>7D>M4/3...


----------



## Khufu (Nov 3, 2014)

Please do carry on with the worthwhile posts - very much appreciating the insight and looking forward to rummaging through the 9 pages of the linked thread - good stuff - cheers for that!

Also, I'm fairly familiar with the A7 series on paper and the Focus Peaking is looking like a promising next-best-thing to Canon AF - I'll likely still have the 5D3 along for the ride for choosing AF vs Pixel Density... I think my Wildlife shooting is often more Reportage-like than most in my aporoach - and I'm shooting the 400mm f/5.6L for now, maybe I could consider the FD 500mm (around f/4.5L, right?) to use with the a7r and focus peaking.. thoughts?!

Also, also... Anyone have thoughts on how that 1D IV fits in amongst the crowd? 1D III, even?

Cheers, guys and gals!


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Nov 3, 2014)

Pity you don't live in the UK! 
Bet you could have some fun with this, an Ed Mika adapter and your 5D3!

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/CANON-800mm-L-f5-6-Metal-Case-2x-A-tele-extender-Ed-Mika-FD-EF-EOS-adaptor-/331353402853?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item4d2633ade5

I have the current EF model and it is my most used lens - love it!


----------



## Valvebounce (Nov 4, 2014)

Hi ecka. 
OK My bad, it would appear I did miss most of the point if you only consider pixels, but don't the superior 1DX processing and circuitry raise its capabilities in total above that of the 5DIII, 6D? Coming back to a camera being a system not just the sensor, note comparing to Canon, not Nikon or Sony. 

Cheers, Graham. 



ecka said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > Hi ecka.
> ...


----------



## sdsr (Nov 4, 2014)

Khufu said:


> Also, I'm fairly familiar with the A7 series on paper and the Focus Peaking is looking like a promising next-best-thing to Canon AF - I'll likely still have the 5D3 along for the ride for choosing AF vs Pixel Density... I think my Wildlife shooting is often more Reportage-like than most in my aporoach - and I'm shooting the 400mm f/5.6L for now, maybe I could consider the FD 500mm (around f/4.5L, right?) to use with the a7r and focus peaking.. thoughts?!



Focus peaking is extremely useful, though in my experience it's best used in combination with magnification (you get 10x and 15x magnification in the EVF), though this can vary with how close the subject is to you and how shallow the depth of focus is. It's not as fast as AF, of course, but sometimes the difference in speed, if you do AF with single point and need to move the focus point around a lot, is less than you might fear. Done right, accuracy is fantastic, and of course it beats AF most of the time if you're dealing with tricky conditions (shooting a subject through branches etc.). Manual focusing can never have been easier.

As for telephoto lenses on A7x bodies, you may find this interesting/useful - he used an A7 rather than an A7r, but I wouldn't be surprised if the A7r results were at least as good:

http://phillipreeve.net/blog/canon-fd-300mm-4-l-review/

Presumably there are similar reviews out there using an A7r. I've been very pleased with the results I get from my 70-300L on my A7r (I can't remember whether AF works with this lens - I use MF with it exclusively), though I've yet to meet an AF lens which is as nice to focus manually as a MF lens (mainly because the latter usually have a longer throw, making it easy to effect very small changes in focus).


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 4, 2014)

I do not own the 5D III but do have the 5D II.
I own the 1D IV, resolution vs the 5D II isn't an important thing.
The 1D IV has better contrast and has a certain feel that the 5D II doesn't replicate.
I do know the 1D X does the same.
I would take the 1D IV over the 5D III for BIF just for the frame rate.

Resolution would be a small thing.

The 7D had the resolving power over the 5D II only slightly in the real world.
I compared several times in actual field use to the 1D IV and the IQ out of the ID IV blew it away.


----------



## ecka (Nov 4, 2014)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi ecka.
> OK My bad, it would appear I did miss most of the point if you only consider pixels, but don't the superior 1DX processing and circuitry raise its capabilities in total above that of the 5DIII, 6D? Coming back to a camera being a system not just the sensor, note comparing to Canon, not Nikon or Sony.
> 
> Cheers, Graham.
> ...



I'm talking about the amount of information these cameras are able to capture. In reality, 20mp bayer sensor produces 20mp images, but it cannot capture all 20mp of actual data, which would represent reality (lens projection) 100% accurately. Huge part of the resolution is just made up (false color, noise, moire, AA filter, DR deficiency, color calibration). IMHO, the efficiency could be 20% to 50%, depending on camera capabilities and lighting.


----------

