slashcam.de resolution charts

Samuel H

Samuel H

Major Contributor
I go to see the resolution charts of slashcam.de so often when trying to decide among different cameras that I ended up creating a compilation of all their results (well, some of them). You can see that downscaled 4K is really sharper and cleaner in general, and that the 1DC-S35, a7s, pocket, 5D3+RAW and RX10 are the sharpest 1080p cameras in the comparison, with nearly-perfect results.

Also, whith the table sorted by brand and name, you can see why I go to APS-C for shooting 60p.
 
Thanks for your comparison.

But we all know, that the lens is a very important item for resolution two.
I made a comparison with several lenses on my FS100 and there was a
huge difference too.
Also, the 5DIII RAW wasn't any sharper than the FS100 and didn't look any
better if you took care with the FS100s picture profile.

BTW I prefer a cinematic image without artifacts over any super sharp image
for my needs (documentary). I think people are going crazy with resolution
and DR these days...
 
Erik Wittbusch said:
Also, the 5DIII RAW wasn't any sharper than the FS100 and didn't look any
better if you took care with the FS100s picture profile.
Click to expand...

It is and it does. Just the complete elimination of any compression artifacts gives the 5d a huge edge. I compared the FS700 and the 5dmarkIII raw together. 5d raw is pretty darn close to Arriraw which is astonishing. You need to record Arriraw to external recorders like the Codex and the whole workflow is crazy with bigger filesizes than the 5d raw (2.8k vs hd). But damn the 5d gets close with just CF cards (!!). Highlights clip earlier and shadows are noisier with the 5d but damn, it really looks great.

Put the FS100 (or any avchd cam there) and the difference is huuuuge. HUUUUGE.
 
* Lenses matter, but not as much at, say, f/8.0, than at f/1.4. For test charts, stop down.
* I am not resolution-obsessed, by a long shot. But for some particular projects I need to know what is sharper than what.
* I didn't add the FS100 to my chart because it never was an option for me, but if you care, this is the FS100, from here, and it would rank around the top third of my table, better than the GH2 but worse than the RX10. Also, fun thing I found while looking for that: this is the EX1, it would be in the bottom half of my table, softer than the 5D3 but sharper than the 7D2.
* Interesting stuff, Maarek.
 
It's always a question of how you do tests.

I never saw something coming close to the Alexa. Never.
Why? Because the Alexa has a double 14bit sensor readout that is unrivaled.

I tested 5DIII Raw against FS100 and BMCC.
5DIII Raw and FS100 (with ext. recorder) was very close. BMCC was better for me
especially in terms of colour reproduction.
But only if you don't have to go over 800 ISO...
You can push the RAW files in an much easier way

Here's some FS100 vs. 5DIII Raw:
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/3618-5d-mark-iii-raw-vs-fs100-avchd/

In the end it's a matter of taste. I always wanted a "real" camera with an easy workflow
for long shootings. That's why I bought the FS100, which was cheaper (used) as the 5DIII.
But you need to work with your PP intensively.
I still use the FS100 with internal AVCHD only up to 6400 ISO with speedbooster - unrivaled
in this class. For me it was a 2 stop available light advantage over any other camera in my
range.


If you already own a 5DIII, ML RAW is very nice if you have time enough for the post workflow
and don't record 2h a day over weeks.

I found the post workflow with the BMCC is workable, but if you shoot a feature film over weeks
you won't hassle with a ML RAW. At least me...
 
There's somebody on one of the forums that keeps repeating that 60p is superior looking in APS-C mode to 24p. I haven't tested; your chart shows 24-60p implying that it's basically all the same in that mode. Is it?
 
It's not my test, but I believe slashcam.de concluded image quality is the same in APS-C mode at all fps from 24 to 60, that's why they bunched them into just one image.

What I have heard (and said) often is that 24p is better in FF than in APS-C, but 60p is better in APS-C than in FF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top