Thanks, Moose. A most interesting result! I haven't had a chance to do
much of anything with mine yet. However, it's going to the beach today.
Hope I don't drop it in the water or the sand. What a handful though.
Fitted out with the 28-80 Tokina 2.8 and a Sunpak 522 handle mount
flash the whole thing weighs 6.4 pounds.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>>I'll be watching for all your opinions on the 5D/Tokina etc.
>>
>
> Only one UPS guy came here, and he didn't drop anything. He did have a
> fear of dogs, waiting until I assured him we don't have one and only
> venturing a little ways in past the gate to get my signature.
>
> Now that I've done my tests, I can admit to a theory I've been using in
> my camera body decision. Although I've found the lack of real WA without
> buying a specialized lens for the APS-C sensor bodies a minor annoyance,
> I have simply loved what they do for tele. Running around with a small,
> light zoom that goes to the eq. of 480 mm, has been just wonderful.
>
> So the dilemma was about significantly increased rez, bigger viewfinder,
> real WA with lenses I already have (including some of the Zuikos that
> the Canon FF folks love), etc. of the 5D vs. just a bit more rez and the
> same 1.6x factor in a 30D. With much the same thinking about the right
> long term choice that AG posted about, I really thought the higher cost
> of the 5D would be a better deal for me in the long run.
>
> So I'd done some calculations and test reading and thinking. It turns
> out that the actual pixels in the 5D and 300D are very close to the same
> size, with those of the 300D about 10% smaller. Cropping a 5D image to
> the same 6.3mp of the 300D gives a factor of 1.7. So given the overall
> improvements in sensors since the 10D/300D sensor, I figured maybe I
> could have my cake and eat it too.
>
> Shooting tele on the 5D, I figured I could just crop to get the same
> result as on the 300D. And with any luck the better sensor would give
> useful resolution about the same as I was getting now.
>
> Sooooo, after taking a handful of junk shots to make sure the thing
> worked and reading the manual to be sure I knew more or less how it
> worked, I did an experiment
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Canon%205D%20vs%20300D/C300v5D.htm>.
>
>
> I set up a tripod with quick release head and put plates on both bodies.
> I used the Canon 50/1.8 II lens, simply swapping bodies at the exact
> same location. I shot tests at f8, to rule out the lens and DOF as
> having noticeable effects. I then shot tests at iso 200 and 1/4 sec. and
> iso 800 and 1/15 sec. with each body.
>
> I processed the RAW files as a batch in Canon DPP software and took a
> look. Although the result was plain, I went further. For the iso 800
> samples, I downsized the 300D image to 90% for a close match to the 5D.
> For the iso 200 samples, I upsized the 5D image to 111% for a close
> match to the 300D. All that to make sure the choice of which way to
> match sizes didn't affect the results.
>
> So now the results, if you haven't already peeked, the 5D sensor is
> enough sharper at the pixel level that I actually get an increase in
> effective resolution. In addition, the lower noise at iso 800 improves
> the effective rez a bit too. It's also interesting, considering that the
> conditions were exactly alike, how much smoother the exposure/tonality
> is on the 5D samples, especially at 800.
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|