There seems to be a lively discussion in a photography forum in Israel related to my earlier post, "Small Format Deep DOF Advantage - Fact or Myth?" 
If anyone from that forum reads this post, or if any other other readers speak Hebrew, I would love to know whether those in that discussion think I'm crazy or what. So far, aided by one friend who reads Hebrew at the level of a two-year-old, I can't make out any of it. I'm still enjoying it in parts, especially this post in which Godzilla has a facial expression similar to the avatar of the man who posted him :-p.
Anybody speak Hebrew?
Friday, November 30, 2007
Posted by Amin
18 comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The gist of the discussion is pretty simple, a bunch of 5D owners (and a few other participants who crave to own the camera) were offended by the comparison of their mighty DSLR to an off-brand P&S, so they came up with "arguments" that attempt to invalidate your test and your findings. Many of them missed the point about maximum DOF and somehow saw a hidden agenda on your part (or mine, as the OP) as if the test represents a general claim that "GX100 is an overall better camera than the 5D". I guess the concept of owning both a small-sensor digicam and a full-frame DSLR - and using each to its advantages - is foreign to them.
Here are a few select "arguments" (for lack of a better term) regarding your methodology:
- You should have used the same 10mm lens on both cameras and cropped the image of the 5D to match that of the GX100 (about 5X crop).
Rebuttal: 1. Such a crop would leave the 5D with less than 0.7 MP of data, hardly competitive to the Ricoh's 10 MP image. 2. What if the desired field of view is that of the 5mm end of the Ricoh? There's no 5mm EF lens (and I'm not so sure it's possible to use the Sigma 10-20mm on the 5D to test both at 10mm).
- You should have used a wider lens on the 5D (e.g. a 24mm lens) and a larger aperture value, then cropped to get the same FOV of a 50mm lens. For ISO, you could rely on a 3-stop advantage of Canon IS vs Ricoh IS (yeah, right) and use ISO 400.
Rebuttal: This would require a 1" sec exposure - hardly a handheld shutter speed.
- The test has no implications on real-life, because stopping down a stop or two is sufficient.
Rebuttal: When comparing any parameter, sufficient is not …sufficient. The tested parameter should be identical (e.g. same shutter speed, same DOF, etc…). Moreover, what’s sufficient for one person is not necessarily sufficient for another.
- The use of Adobe software and automatic settings is amateurish.
Rebuttal: Come up with a better test if you can (needless to say, he didn't)
- Use a tripod when you want large DOF in low-light.
Rebuttal: Maybe for a different test, but not for one that tries to mimic the ability to shoot handheld and achieve a given DOF.
By the way, that Godzilla picture was posted by a man.
Wow, thanks for the detailed summary Oren! Glad you were there to offer the rebuttals =). Regards, Amin.
richo has less DOF .. look at train picture
so u can use bigger apprature on the 5D and with 24mm stabalized
lens you can shoot at even 1/4 if you say 1/10 is ok to hold.
together with using iso800 on the 5D too we have a winner.
The Ricoh does not have less DOF. It appears that way because the vertical angle of view is greater for a camera with a 4:3 aspect ratio than for a camera with a 3:2 aspect ratio. As for the rest of what you said, I think you are missing the point of this comparison. For a given diagonal field of view, perspective, shutter speed, print size, apparent exposure, and DOF, the small sensor camera does better when the goal is deep DOF in low light. Once you start adding image stabilization to one and not the other (which, btw the Ricoh has built in) and shooting at a different shutter speed or angle of view, we're no longer talking about the same issue.
If you want to check my DOF calculations with an independent source, you can use DOF Master to compare the DOF for the 5D at f/18 and the GX100 at f/4 for a given subject distance. They don't have f/3.9, but you can see with those settings (f/18 and f/4) that the 5D DOF is slightly lesser.
Hi Amin,
The debate got so lively as Oren focused on high ISO in his opening post.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Hi Yakim,
Thanks for your comment. I'm glad to hear that the discussion has been lively and wish I could read it myself! I can understand why this is a controversial topic in general. In fact, until recently I was convinced that there was no situation in which a small sensor camera would manage better IQ than a large sensor camera. High ISO is however, an important focus of my post. To get the same photo (DOF, perspective, framing, apparent exposure) with these two cameras, the 5D must either use a slower shutter speed (which will produce a different photo if the subject is moving) or increase the ISO by the same number of stops as necessary to get the same DOF as the small sensor camera.
Regards,
Amin
This whole comparison is not right because its like saying richo has video and 5D don't.
You sayed when i change parameters i change the test. you changed parameters yourself when you don't shoot at the exact same parameters - for example same iso.
you want large DOF get back , use wider lens , use tripod , but dont make ppl think this camera is better because you can count on one hand the times you will need this kind of DOF in this rare situation.
Usually you will want DOF effect on the 5D.
"Usually you will want DOF effect on the 5D."
There are plenty of times when I, as a 5D user, want a deep DOF. In almost every street photography, landscape, and macro photograph I take with the 5D, I use a high f-number.
"You sayed when i change parameters i change the test. you changed parameters yourself when you don't shoot at the exact same parameters - for example same iso."
It's not a matter of changing the test. You are fundamentally changing the photo when you change the framing, perspective, or DOF. When I take a photograph, I am most interested in what the final output will look like. That final output may be in print or on the screen, generally the former. If I want the final print to look a certain way in terms of framing, DOF, etc, then I need to use different settings on the 5D versus a small sensor camera. If I am shooting handheld or I have a moving subject, particularly the latter, then I need a certain shutter speed to get the photo I want.
"you want large DOF get back , use wider lens , use tripod ,"
Getting back changes the framing and perspective. Using a wider lens changes the framing. Cropping drops the resolution. Using a tripod soesn't get you shutter speed when you have a moving subject and is impractical for my style of street photography.
"dont make ppl think this camera is better "
Never would I do such a thing. I was careful to write the original post in way that does not imply that the small sensor camera is better. The one situation I have found in which the small sensor camera has better image quality is in low light when one is shutter speed-limited and desires a deep DOF.
"because you can count on one hand the times you will need this kind of DOF in this rare situation."
That's just not true. It's uncommon for me, but not as uncommon as you say. This is an example of a photo I took where I wanted max DOF. For someone who does a lot of street photography, I suspect it's not so uncommon at all.
Regards,
Amin
Hi Amin,
Let me explain shortly why so much wrath has errupted in that thread.
Mr. "oren_b" has quite a lengthy record in the Forum (d-spot) as being a continuous basher of Canon & Nikon DSLRs (e.g. - non-Pentax, non-Minolta), and a basher of most of P&S cameras which aren't Richo, Fuji F31, and/or Olympus C5060 ("oren_b"'s own).
This has been long recognized (in d-spot) as "oren_b"'s AGENDA ... Whether right or wrong, and whether these bashings are justified or not, they are continuously posted there during the last 2 years.
Now comes he again, uses your study to bash [again] yet another Canon DSLR - this time the 5D - on grounds of poor ISO performance vs. the Richo. And while your study is driven from pure DOF arguments, "oren_b"'s are driven from his long proven "Agenda" as described above.
Sorry to be that blunt - but that is how spirits are (in d-spot) ...
Best regards,
roli_bark
Almost forgot - the title [translated] of that thread is as follows:
"A quite SURPRISING high-ISO comparison between Canon 5D & Richo GX100"
Now, go on figure for yourself whether this is in line with your original intentions when writing your DOF study ....
The "agenda" is very simple:
Smaller companies (Pentax, Olympus, and in the past Minolta) in general offer better value-for-money because they have to. If they don't, almost nobody will buy their cameras when they can get a bigger name that offers the same value-for-money. Main points that demonstrate the value of smaller players include:
- In-body IS - a far more cost effective solution than in-lens IS
- Full features even in the most inexpensive models (DOF preview, MRL, AEB, Spot metering etc...)
Now, is the above incorrect? Is there any surprise that people who bought Canon and Nikon want to defend their choice when faced with someone who points these facts out loud?
I'm not saying that Canon and NIkon top models + IS lenses don't offer a compelling choice for those who can afford them. I am saying, however, that for most people who can't, the smaller companies offer great solutions with better value.
As for Ricoh, they offer unique cameras that are unmatched by the competition. As did the C5060 when it was introduced, several years ago. I can go into more details, but we're already wey off-topic.
Regarding the title of my thread, it’s possible that it could have been better phrased, but those who bothered to read the actual post could figure it out. You failed to translate this part:
“There’s an accepted claim that the high-ISO advantage of DSLRs allows these cameras to get as high quality results just as small-sensor cameras (P&S) even when large DOF is required, when shooting without a tripod under low-light. For example when street shooting at night.
This claim may be logical in theory, but it turns out that once tested in practice the situation is fundamentally different. In the following page you’ll find a comparison between the two cameras in the title. The results are definitely interesting”.
By the way, nice way Roli to overcome the killfile. You’ve been plonked once, you’ll be plonked again...
"By the way, nice way Roli to overcome the killfile. You’ve been plonked once, you’ll be plonked again..."
Well, as everybody can visualize, "oren_b" isn't the type of person who will be stopped from carrying his "bag-of-issues" in other places over to here.
Thanks for he additional comments Roli and Oren. I think I pretty much get whats going on there. As for me, I enjoy both of theses cameras, and a few others as well. No allegiance to any, and I thought this one small observation was interesting. Also, I had to Google "plonk" and "killfile" to figure out what those mean =). Regards, Amin
Now, if someone could tell me what this thread is about, that would be great =).
"Now, if someone could tell me what this thread is about, that would be great"
Nothing much significant, except that "ShacharWeis" offending post.
Points taken.
First, that poster with a women AVATAR ('adys') is actually a man ...
Secondly, I have asked poster ("ShacharWeis") to immediately remove that offending remark ...
Thanks again for the comments Roli. As for the personal remarks, I'm not sweating it, either way. I doubt D-Spot can, on a bad day, get close to DPReview in terms of that sort of thing. Regards, Amin
Oh, and I corrected my post with regards to the sex of Adys. Thanks again =).