That's what I found after analyzing the frames. The 1DX has less blurring on the horizontal axis only ("anisotropic antialiasing"), leading to increased aliasing but not really much increase in actual detail/information. Sharpening both 5D3 and 1DX in post- the 1DX could not be sharpened as much (and required more sharpening on the vertical axis). In any case, the 5D3 post sharpened looked better than the 1DX (also post sharpened as noted): less artifacts. Cranking up the bitrate on the 5D3 will really help improve image quality, as post sharpening's limit is due to compression artifacts.
5d mark 3 vs C100
- Thread starter Baddgsx
- Start date
That's what I found after analyzing the frames. The 1DX has less blurring on the horizontal axis only ("anisotropic antialiasing"), leading to increased aliasing but not really much increase in actual detail/information. Sharpening both 5D3 and 1DX in post- the 1DX could not be sharpened as much (and required more sharpening on the vertical axis). In any case, the 5D3 post sharpened looked better than the 1DX (also post sharpened as noted): less artifacts. Cranking up the bitrate on the 5D3 will really help improve image quality, as post sharpening's limit is due to compression artifacts.
klas
Active member
So full frame looks rubbish? What about 70mm? Do that look rubbish too? Or is small format the only size that is gimmicky in your opinion?
Per Lichtman
Well-known member
Current generation (or about to be released) full-frame 1080P options sub $7k:
- Canon: 1DX, 5DMkIII, 6D
- Nikon: D4, D800, D600
- Sony: A99, VG900
Full-frame options above $7k
- Canon: 1DC
Previous generation offerings:
- Canon: 5DMkII
- Nikon: D3s
Have I missed any others?
- Canon: 1DX, 5DMkIII, 6D
- Nikon: D4, D800, D600
- Sony: A99, VG900
Full-frame options above $7k
- Canon: 1DC
Previous generation offerings:
- Canon: 5DMkII
- Nikon: D3s
Have I missed any others?
Formats are neither gimmicks, nor rubbish.
The content (or lack of it)is what causes images to fall into that category.
If the things we are seeing lack strength or substance,
that is the author leaning on technique rather than personal depth.
Personally, I have seen enough domestic animals and
"tests" shot on APS-C to last a lifetime and I'll even take P.Blooms slider
shots of nature and rusty barbed wire over that.
Oh and shooting on Super 8 merely to give a nostalgic look,
is about as interesting as picking my nose in a photo booth cabin. Hello Instagram.
Further in 20 years kids will be using a plug in to simulate rolling shutter
and aliasing to give that DSLR look that folks are kicking around today.
And we will still be seeing cats, dogs and children in diapers by the backyard pool.
The content (or lack of it)is what causes images to fall into that category.
If the things we are seeing lack strength or substance,
that is the author leaning on technique rather than personal depth.
Personally, I have seen enough domestic animals and
"tests" shot on APS-C to last a lifetime and I'll even take P.Blooms slider
shots of nature and rusty barbed wire over that.
Oh and shooting on Super 8 merely to give a nostalgic look,
is about as interesting as picking my nose in a photo booth cabin. Hello Instagram.
Further in 20 years kids will be using a plug in to simulate rolling shutter
and aliasing to give that DSLR look that folks are kicking around today.
And we will still be seeing cats, dogs and children in diapers by the backyard pool.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
To me, full frame is not a gimmick. It is what I would need to make my lens set shine. Using my lenses to their best would be my number 1 reason to move to full frame. Others may have other reasons. This article is for photogs but applies here too: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/07/the-full-frame-move