Posted by William Vrolyk on November 25, 2006 at 12:49 PM
Could I make sharp 36x24" prints or bigger from images taken with a Canon 5D? Lens choices are the Canon TSE tilt-shift 24mm and 45mm lenses or the 24-70mm f2.8. For now it will be one of these.
With the help of the feedback I got from my "How to Choose a DSLR" post in the General Discussion forum I decided to go slightly overbudget and buy the Canon 5D. Thank you all for that.
The ability to produce large prints that can be viewed even up close without loosing sharpness and clarity was one of the main reasons I got the Shen Hao LF camera. If I can accomplish the same goal, or reasonably close, with the Canon 5D then I am faced with the agonizing decision to sell my Shen Hao and stay with the DSLR system. It would help to buy the D5.
Thank you for your response.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Posted by Guy Tal on November 25, 2006 at 12:59 PM
In my opinion - no. It will not be detailed enough for my own definition of "sharp". Still, with the proper viewing distance and the right image it can certainly look very good.
Well, all I can say is 40x50cm is the limit for 35mm. And I have been quite happy with the results from digital at this size. May be with FF you can go a little further if not comparing with 4x5.
Please check the mail box.
Posted by Steve Foss on November 25, 2006 at 8:18 PM
I have shot a 5D in a limited way, but have not made prints from one, so have no experience with that body and prints.
I rarely make prints larger than 13x19, largely because few clients have wanted larger images so far. However, I have made about two dozen prints of 20x30 from the following cameras: the 10D and Drebel (6.3 Mp), 20D (8.2 Mp) and 1DMk2 (8.2 Mp). I did not know what the "limits" to such enlargement were supposed to be, or what the accepted thinking was at the time. I just went ahead and tried it on my own to see if it would work. All through the enlargement processes I've done in the last four years with digital, I've kept in mind a stunning image more than three feet across in Jim Brandenburg's gallery shot with a 5 Mp digital camera.
And, with great respect to those who already have commented, here is what I have found, and here is what my results have led me to believe about the capability of enlargements from a ff 12 Mp sensor.
1. A jpeg full-frame image shot at iso800 from a 10D I enlarged to 13x19 using CS's interpolation feature. It was a close-up profile of an Arctic wolf, and the enlargement was full of detail, color subtlety and was quite sharp without being oversharpened.
2. Also from the 10D, I have shot RAW images for a commission of still life images of an abandoned Finnish farmstead that I interpolated in the same way as previously mentioned and delivered my largest prints (20x30) to the client. They also were full of detail and sharpness. These were shot iso100 with a 1.6 crop factor sensor.
3. I have made prints using the aforementioned technique to 20x30 with the 20D (1.6 crop factor) and 1DMk2 (1.3 crop factor) with similar results, and all the prints mentioned aren't so large they have to be viewed from far back. People get within a foot of them and are still impressed.
All that being said, how much you can enlarge an image depends quite a lot on what elements are in the image. One with a lot of tiny detail may fall apart faster than one without, though I must say I was pleasantly suprised at how sharp and subtle the wolf's pelage was in the first jpeg mentioned.
Because I've been able to make prints of those sizes with those bodies, I wouldn't hesitate to enlarge an image from a 12 Mp full-frame sensor to the size you mentioned. If you're talking about shooting landscapes, then the large sensor and low iso make me think you should find success. Now, it's possible my standards are lower than some other shooters who have already given you their feedback. I would not be at all surprised if that's the case. And no doubt they've been in the business a lot longer than I have. And, well, we're all a little different in what we think is "sharp enough."
But I believe it's the photographers who are so exquisitely picky about the sharpness and subtlety of our own work. Unless you're selling to other photographers, your fine art print customers buy the print because of the awe it inspires in them, and they tend not to even notice the flaws writ small we see in our own work.
However, you have the best of both worlds, because you have the 5D coming and have LF as well. I'd say take your time, capture a variety of images with varying levels of detail with the 5D, and spend the money required to get four or five 24x36 enlargements and see if they satisfy you.
And then you can share your experiences with us so we keep learning.
Posted by Ed Dubois on November 25, 2006 at 9:47 PM
Hi Will,
I think the answer is subjective and only you can answer what's sharp enough for you. I've made 20x30 prints from 35mm slide film and from crops of images made with my 1D2 (8 mp). In each case the clients were completely satisfied with the results. In light of your post earlier about buying a DSLR, why not try some shots with a 5D at your local camera store (on a tripod of course) and make a test print at that size to see how YOU like it.
I hope you have a great deal of pleasure from your 5D.
Posted by Peter Cox on November 26, 2006 at 6:42 AM
Will -
I specialize in large fine-art prints, so most of my work is around the 20x30" size. I shoot mainly with the 5D, and I also have a pretty basic LF setup which I use on occasion. I have no problems with the 5D's quality. Certainly as you get to that size you lose critical sharpness up close, but I've found that doesn't matter to my customers. I don't get comments about how much detail is in my prints between ones I made from the 5x4 and the 5D.
Hell, one of my most popular images is one I made with a 6MP Digital Rebel (or 300D if you're in Europe) a few years ago. I shot it in RAW and did a quick convert to jpg right after I shot it. I since lost the original RAW file (very irritating). It's a great image, but I didn't want to try selling it because it suffers from pretty serious artifacting. Eventually after enough people commented on it in digital form, I decided to see how it would enlarge, and sure enough to my eye it looks awful up close.
However, every time I exhibit it, it sells in 20x30" size. Go figure.
The answer then is - if critical sharpness with nose to the glass is important to you, then keep the LF rig and use it when the situation allows for it. When you need to travel light or work more quickly than LF will let you, use your 5D.
As regards lenses, I use the 24-70 f/2.8 pretty extensively and it's a fine lens - nice and sharp, especially when stopped down to the 'sweet spot' of f/13 (lowest aperture you can use before diffraction starts to have an effect with the 5D based on its pixel pitch).
As for the T/S lenses, I don't own one (although I'll probably be getting the 24mm soonish). However, I've spoken with people who have all three, and the general consensus is that the quality is inconsistent with them. The 90mm is the best, the 45mm in the middle and the 24mm is apparently not great.
However, if it's a choice between an image with big diffraction problems at f/22 or an image that's made at f/13 with good front-to-back focus using the tilt - I'd say go for the T/S lens. That depends on how much of your photography can make use of Scheimpflug, of course.
Obviously this is very subjective, but I think (Will, correct me if I'm wrong) the issue is "large prints that can be viewed even up close without loosing [sic] sharpness and clarity" specifically compared to prints made from 4x5. In my opinion this is not so subjective - at these sizes the 4x5 will have measurably more (much much more) detail.
Assuming a print resolution of 300dpi, a 5D image will need to be interpolated upwards over 600% to achieve a 24x36" print (equivalent of about 78 megapixel). A 4x5 scan at 2400dpi will produce a 115 megapixel file so not only will it not require upwards interpolation - you will actually be throwing away detail to make that size print.
Guy
Posted by Jerry Greer on November 26, 2006 at 8:12 AM
Guy, I'm not sure but with C1Pro the scaling factor is much different than with your figures.
100% @ 300dpi is 14.56 x 9.68 in
150% @ 300dpi is 14.52 x 21.84 in
200% @ 300dpi is 19.36 x 29.12 in
250% @ 300dpi is 24.20 x 36.40 in
All these interpolations are done in the RAW converter (C1Pro) and I've tested against CS2 and there is no comparison, it's night and day between the two. C1Pro is exceptional with its scaling with a maximum interpolation of 250% making a file from the 5D @ 250% 24.20 x 36.40. The same scaling with CS2 is unexceptable for me.
BTW, the prints that were purchased by Marriott Hotels were a mixture of 10 digital and 8 large-format at 20in on the short side. I was shocked at how well the digital images held up in side-by-side viewing against the LF prints (all were Cromira Prints) at this size. You could see the difference at very close inspection but at a normal viewing distance they were almost impossible to see the difference. I'll never again worry about side-by-side showings at this size.
I've said this before Capture One Pro (not LE) is in a league by itself! If you can afford the new version 4 coming soon buy it! It will take your digital images to the next level, a level that cannot be reached by CS2.
Jerry, C1 and others use the amount of interpolation per individual axis to calculate percentage (i.e. in this case either width or height is stretched ~247%) which is the same as saying the entire frame is stretched by that number squared (2.47^2 = ~ 6), but the end result is the same - for every one pixel of real image data, the interpolation algorithm needs to manufacture about 5 more.
Sure, some interpolation algorithms do a better job than others and as I stated above - with the right image results can look very good. Also, as you and Peter noted, customers often don't care. Still - if I understand Will correctly - this is not a relevant answer to his question. He wants to know if HE (i.e. a photographer with LF experience) will be able to tell a significant difference between 4x5 scans and 5D captures.
I say there is a significant difference between real image detail and interpolated detail at these sizes. Interpolation can stretch existing detail to appear smooth and natural but it can't know what other detail was there that was not captured by the sensor. At 24x36" a side-by-side comparison of the same image will almost always favor LF (unless most of your image is made up of smooth surfaces and/or straight lines).
That said - personally I don't see this as a very productive discussion. Images live and die primarily by composition, by qualities of light, color, and tone, and ultimately by emotional appeal. All these trump differences in detail and sharpness in my opinion. This is why I am happily using a 5D myself. A good image form a 5D will beat a mediocre image from 4x5 hands down, even if the latter is infinitely more detailed.
True, I still use my 4x5 as well but not for its advantage in detail, rather because I love using it - the experience of composing an image upside down on the large GG is something no SLR can provide, and the financial argument is there too - rather than spend thousands on TS lenses, I get all the movements I need with every lens I want, and at my current volume (especially now that much of my work is digital) the financial saving is significant as well.
True, I still use my 4x5 as well but not for its advantage in detail, rather because I love using it - the experience of composing an image upside down on the large GG is something no SLR can provide, and the financial argument is there too - rather than spend thousands on TS lenses, I get all the movements I need with every lens I want, and at my current volume (especially now that much of my work is digital) the financial saving is significant as well. >>>
That is why I decided not to buy a 5D (well, it was a little beyond my budget too). One option was to sell LF camera and lenses I have but I decided not to. I often compose and do not expose the film. That is great fun. Pros can not afford this perhaps.
Having said that I saw a 60cm (shorter side) wide print made with 5D today at a local lab and it was beautifully done. Obviously the artist knew his job well.
Posted by Steve Foss on November 26, 2006 at 9:17 AM
Jerry, thanks for that info on Capture One Pro. I'll be looking at that as I need to make larger prints.
Posted by Jerry Greer on November 26, 2006 at 11:33 AM
Guy, I'm not questioning your answer to William's post! All I was questioning was the way each comes up with the different scaling percentages, so thanks for your answer. That and I wanted William to know that I've been really happy with the 5D up to 24" (short side), even when compared with 4x5. I really didn't think that I would've been that happy when hanging them side-by-side but I was really surprised!
Posted by Jerry Greer on November 26, 2006 at 11:44 AM
As for the T/S lenses, I don't own one (although I'll probably be getting the 24mm soonish). However, I've spoken with people who have all three, and the general consensus is that the quality is inconsistent with them. The 90mm is the best, the 45mm in the middle and the 24mm is apparently not great.
Peter, is this not the normal issues with lenses in general, the longer the lens the sharper? The problem with most photographers that buy the TS-E's is they really do not use them correctly, especially with the 24mm. I've talked to most that have a problem with the 24mm and almost everyone of them tilt the lens then stop down to f/22. This is where they run into the problem of defraction softening. When using tilt correctly the most one needs to stop down is about f/8 to f/11 and this is the sweet spot for this lens.
I've owned all three of the TS-E's since the first day I went to digital from large-format and I love them! The 90mm is sick sharp with the 45mm then the 24mm, all being awesome lenses when used correctly.
Posted by William Vrolyk on November 26, 2006 at 11:55 AM
Personally I don't see this as a very productive discussion. Images live and die primarily by composition, by quality of light, color, and tone, and ultimately by emotional appeal.
Guy, if my work did not meet those requirements I would not print it at any size.
Perhaps I am getting too greedy in wanting large print sizes and should be content with smaller sizes. I recall Eric Fredine's 16x20 work taken with an EOS 1DS at the Lando Gallery here in Edmonton and the detail was outstanding even up close.
I bought my 4x5 for its advantage in detail because I thought seeing a well composed image with quality light, color, tone and emotional appeal should be shown large and in exquisite detail. I wanted the same, albeit at a lesser size with images taken with a 5D. I thought a full frame sensor would help in that regard. I just wanted to know if the 5D could reach the 36x24 plateau. If I can reach the 16x20 level I should be content.
Peter, obviously it is not the quality of detail in a large print but its emotional appeal that works well. An image with the qualities already mentioned automatically has emotional appeal and would do well shown at any size. So perhaps this obsession for big prints is not to important after all.
Thank you all for the replies.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Posted by Peter Cox on November 26, 2006 at 12:21 PM
Jerry -
Re the 24mm T/S - I was passing on reports that I had heard from people whose judgements I respect, and would certainly know how to use the lens properly. I haven't been able to make the comparisons myself, though. When saying the 24mm wasn't so good, they were comparing it's relative sharpness against the normal 24mm lenses in the Canon lineup.
My comment on f/22 and diffraction problems was in comparing a T/S lens with a normal lens. With a fixed lens you have to stop all the way down to get front-to-back sharpness, where with the T/S you only have to go as far as the sweet spot as you mentioned.
Thus, used properly, it will always beat a normal lens of the same focal length.
I'm glad to hear that you have such good results with your collection, and it has strengthened my resolve to get one myself.
Will -
I agree. The full frame sensor helps only in terms of signal-to-noise ratio - so the 5D has excellent performance in that regard. From what I gather, the latest medium-format 39mp backs are as close as makes no difference to 5x4 quality. The 5D is 13mp, so it's a long way off being able to capture that level of detail.
As I said, use both to their strengths - the 5x4 for detail when you have the time to compose it effectively, and the 5D for those occasions where LF just isn't fast enough.
Peter
Posted by Barry Siegel on November 26, 2006 at 1:16 PM
Reply posted by Jerry Greer on 11/26/06 at 08:12 am EST
All these interpolations are done in the RAW converter (C1Pro) and I've tested against CS2 and there is no comparison, it's night and day between the two. C1Pro is exceptional with its scaling with a maximum interpolation of 250% making a file from the 5D @ 250% 24.20 x 36.40. The same scaling with CS2 is unexceptable for me....... I've said this before Capture One Pro (not LE) is in a league by itself!
Jerry, I thought the difference between the LE and the Pro was primarily in batch processing. I do not recall a way to upsize in the LE version now that you mention it. Could you please elaborate on the differences.
I also thught that there is not much of difference between LE/Pro version than batch processing and faster speed. One of my complaints against C1 is that there is no way (that I know of) to remove CA.
Posted by Jerry Greer on November 26, 2006 at 1:37 PM
Barry, with LE you cannot scale the image at all. I feel that this option alone makes the program worth the extra $$$$$. I've found nothing else on the market that will up-res a digital file as good as C1Pro. The only other RAW program that is equal is Raw Developer but is not available for Windoz machines.
Posted by Jerry Greer on November 26, 2006 at 1:51 PM
Pete, just as I found myself, most photogs do not test the 24mm as they should. If one is going to test a TS-E 24mm one should test it the way it is to be used, using the tilt function and taking advantage of the ability to shoot at f/8 or f/11. If one tests the TS-E 24mm against a fixed 24mm at like f/stops what good is that? The tilt is there for a specific reason so one should test for what makes the lens special.
Also, just because a shooter is knowledgeable in photography doesn't make one knowledgeable in every aspect. Just as I when I first used a TS-E over 10 years ago. I did just as most when using the TS-E's, I tilted then stopped down to f/22. I was just used to doing it when I needed maximum DOF. It wasn't until I spent 5 years shooting behind a view camera that I really understood where the advantage of the TS-E's would be when shooting digital.
Posted by Jerry Greer on November 26, 2006 at 1:55 PM
I also thught that there is not much of difference between LE/Pro version than batch processing and faster speed. One of my complaints against C1 is that there is no way (that I know of) to remove CA.
Prashant, I never use ACR to remove CA. I always found that when you remove CA in one location it adds it somewhere else. I found a better way using CS2 and the color noise filter. With that I can clean specific areas as needed.
Discussion
19 repliesWith the help of the feedback I got from my "How to Choose a DSLR" post in the General Discussion forum I decided to go slightly overbudget and buy the Canon 5D. Thank you all for that.
The ability to produce large prints that can be viewed even up close without loosing sharpness and clarity was one of the main reasons I got the Shen Hao LF camera. If I can accomplish the same goal, or reasonably close, with the Canon 5D then I am faced with the agonizing decision to sell my Shen Hao and stay with the DSLR system. It would help to buy the D5.
Thank you for your response.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Guy
Please check the mail box.
I rarely make prints larger than 13x19, largely because few clients have wanted larger images so far. However, I have made about two dozen prints of 20x30 from the following cameras: the 10D and Drebel (6.3 Mp), 20D (8.2 Mp) and 1DMk2 (8.2 Mp). I did not know what the "limits" to such enlargement were supposed to be, or what the accepted thinking was at the time. I just went ahead and tried it on my own to see if it would work. All through the enlargement processes I've done in the last four years with digital, I've kept in mind a stunning image more than three feet across in Jim Brandenburg's gallery shot with a 5 Mp digital camera.
And, with great respect to those who already have commented, here is what I have found, and here is what my results have led me to believe about the capability of enlargements from a ff 12 Mp sensor.
1. A jpeg full-frame image shot at iso800 from a 10D I enlarged to 13x19 using CS's interpolation feature. It was a close-up profile of an Arctic wolf, and the enlargement was full of detail, color subtlety and was quite sharp without being oversharpened.
2. Also from the 10D, I have shot RAW images for a commission of still life images of an abandoned Finnish farmstead that I interpolated in the same way as previously mentioned and delivered my largest prints (20x30) to the client. They also were full of detail and sharpness. These were shot iso100 with a 1.6 crop factor sensor.
3. I have made prints using the aforementioned technique to 20x30 with the 20D (1.6 crop factor) and 1DMk2 (1.3 crop factor) with similar results, and all the prints mentioned aren't so large they have to be viewed from far back. People get within a foot of them and are still impressed.
All that being said, how much you can enlarge an image depends quite a lot on what elements are in the image. One with a lot of tiny detail may fall apart faster than one without, though I must say I was pleasantly suprised at how sharp and subtle the wolf's pelage was in the first jpeg mentioned.
Because I've been able to make prints of those sizes with those bodies, I wouldn't hesitate to enlarge an image from a 12 Mp full-frame sensor to the size you mentioned. If you're talking about shooting landscapes, then the large sensor and low iso make me think you should find success. Now, it's possible my standards are lower than some other shooters who have already given you their feedback. I would not be at all surprised if that's the case. And no doubt they've been in the business a lot longer than I have. And, well, we're all a little different in what we think is "sharp enough."
But I believe it's the photographers who are so exquisitely picky about the sharpness and subtlety of our own work. Unless you're selling to other photographers, your fine art print customers buy the print because of the awe it inspires in them, and they tend not to even notice the flaws writ small we see in our own work.
However, you have the best of both worlds, because you have the 5D coming and have LF as well. I'd say take your time, capture a variety of images with varying levels of detail with the 5D, and spend the money required to get four or five 24x36 enlargements and see if they satisfy you.
And then you can share your experiences with us so we keep learning.
I think the answer is subjective and only you can answer what's sharp enough for you. I've made 20x30 prints from 35mm slide film and from crops of images made with my 1D2 (8 mp). In each case the clients were completely satisfied with the results. In light of your post earlier about buying a DSLR, why not try some shots with a 5D at your local camera store (on a tripod of course) and make a test print at that size to see how YOU like it.
I hope you have a great deal of pleasure from your 5D.
I specialize in large fine-art prints, so most of my work is around the 20x30" size. I shoot mainly with the 5D, and I also have a pretty basic LF setup which I use on occasion. I have no problems with the 5D's quality. Certainly as you get to that size you lose critical sharpness up close, but I've found that doesn't matter to my customers. I don't get comments about how much detail is in my prints between ones I made from the 5x4 and the 5D.
Hell, one of my most popular images is one I made with a 6MP Digital Rebel (or 300D if you're in Europe) a few years ago. I shot it in RAW and did a quick convert to jpg right after I shot it. I since lost the original RAW file (very irritating). It's a great image, but I didn't want to try selling it because it suffers from pretty serious artifacting. Eventually after enough people commented on it in digital form, I decided to see how it would enlarge, and sure enough to my eye it looks awful up close.
However, every time I exhibit it, it sells in 20x30" size. Go figure.
The answer then is - if critical sharpness with nose to the glass is important to you, then keep the LF rig and use it when the situation allows for it. When you need to travel light or work more quickly than LF will let you, use your 5D.
As regards lenses, I use the 24-70 f/2.8 pretty extensively and it's a fine lens - nice and sharp, especially when stopped down to the 'sweet spot' of f/13 (lowest aperture you can use before diffraction starts to have an effect with the 5D based on its pixel pitch).
As for the T/S lenses, I don't own one (although I'll probably be getting the 24mm soonish). However, I've spoken with people who have all three, and the general consensus is that the quality is inconsistent with them. The 90mm is the best, the 45mm in the middle and the 24mm is apparently not great.
However, if it's a choice between an image with big diffraction problems at f/22 or an image that's made at f/13 with good front-to-back focus using the tilt - I'd say go for the T/S lens. That depends on how much of your photography can make use of Scheimpflug, of course.
Hope that helps.
Peter
Assuming a print resolution of 300dpi, a 5D image will need to be interpolated upwards over 600% to achieve a 24x36" print (equivalent of about 78 megapixel). A 4x5 scan at 2400dpi will produce a 115 megapixel file so not only will it not require upwards interpolation - you will actually be throwing away detail to make that size print.
Guy
100% @ 300dpi is 14.56 x 9.68 in
150% @ 300dpi is 14.52 x 21.84 in
200% @ 300dpi is 19.36 x 29.12 in
250% @ 300dpi is 24.20 x 36.40 in
All these interpolations are done in the RAW converter (C1Pro) and I've tested against CS2 and there is no comparison, it's night and day between the two. C1Pro is exceptional with its scaling with a maximum interpolation of 250% making a file from the 5D @ 250% 24.20 x 36.40. The same scaling with CS2 is unexceptable for me.
BTW, the prints that were purchased by Marriott Hotels were a mixture of 10 digital and 8 large-format at 20in on the short side. I was shocked at how well the digital images held up in side-by-side viewing against the LF prints (all were Cromira Prints) at this size. You could see the difference at very close inspection but at a normal viewing distance they were almost impossible to see the difference. I'll never again worry about side-by-side showings at this size.
I've said this before Capture One Pro (not LE) is in a league by itself! If you can afford the new version 4 coming soon buy it! It will take your digital images to the next level, a level that cannot be reached by CS2.
Sure, some interpolation algorithms do a better job than others and as I stated above - with the right image results can look very good. Also, as you and Peter noted, customers often don't care. Still - if I understand Will correctly - this is not a relevant answer to his question. He wants to know if HE (i.e. a photographer with LF experience) will be able to tell a significant difference between 4x5 scans and 5D captures.
I say there is a significant difference between real image detail and interpolated detail at these sizes. Interpolation can stretch existing detail to appear smooth and natural but it can't know what other detail was there that was not captured by the sensor. At 24x36" a side-by-side comparison of the same image will almost always favor LF (unless most of your image is made up of smooth surfaces and/or straight lines).
That said - personally I don't see this as a very productive discussion. Images live and die primarily by composition, by qualities of light, color, and tone, and ultimately by emotional appeal. All these trump differences in detail and sharpness in my opinion. This is why I am happily using a 5D myself. A good image form a 5D will beat a mediocre image from 4x5 hands down, even if the latter is infinitely more detailed.
True, I still use my 4x5 as well but not for its advantage in detail, rather because I love using it - the experience of composing an image upside down on the large GG is something no SLR can provide, and the financial argument is there too - rather than spend thousands on TS lenses, I get all the movements I need with every lens I want, and at my current volume (especially now that much of my work is digital) the financial saving is significant as well.
Guy
That is why I decided not to buy a 5D (well, it was a little beyond my budget too). One option was to sell LF camera and lenses I have but I decided not to. I often compose and do not expose the film. That is great fun. Pros can not afford this perhaps.
Having said that I saw a 60cm (shorter side) wide print made with 5D today at a local lab and it was beautifully done. Obviously the artist knew his job well.
Peter, is this not the normal issues with lenses in general, the longer the lens the sharper? The problem with most photographers that buy the TS-E's is they really do not use them correctly, especially with the 24mm. I've talked to most that have a problem with the 24mm and almost everyone of them tilt the lens then stop down to f/22. This is where they run into the problem of defraction softening. When using tilt correctly the most one needs to stop down is about f/8 to f/11 and this is the sweet spot for this lens.
I've owned all three of the TS-E's since the first day I went to digital from large-format and I love them! The 90mm is sick sharp with the 45mm then the 24mm, all being awesome lenses when used correctly.
Guy, if my work did not meet those requirements I would not print it at any size.
Perhaps I am getting too greedy in wanting large print sizes and should be content with smaller sizes. I recall Eric Fredine's 16x20 work taken with an EOS 1DS at the Lando Gallery here in Edmonton and the detail was outstanding even up close.
I bought my 4x5 for its advantage in detail because I thought seeing a well composed image with quality light, color, tone and emotional appeal should be shown large and in exquisite detail. I wanted the same, albeit at a lesser size with images taken with a 5D. I thought a full frame sensor would help in that regard. I just wanted to know if the 5D could reach the 36x24 plateau. If I can reach the 16x20 level I should be content.
Peter, obviously it is not the quality of detail in a large print but its emotional appeal that works well. An image with the qualities already mentioned automatically has emotional appeal and would do well shown at any size. So perhaps this obsession for big prints is not to important after all.
Thank you all for the replies.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Re the 24mm T/S - I was passing on reports that I had heard from people whose judgements I respect, and would certainly know how to use the lens properly. I haven't been able to make the comparisons myself, though. When saying the 24mm wasn't so good, they were comparing it's relative sharpness against the normal 24mm lenses in the Canon lineup.
My comment on f/22 and diffraction problems was in comparing a T/S lens with a normal lens. With a fixed lens you have to stop all the way down to get front-to-back sharpness, where with the T/S you only have to go as far as the sweet spot as you mentioned.
Thus, used properly, it will always beat a normal lens of the same focal length.
I'm glad to hear that you have such good results with your collection, and it has strengthened my resolve to get one myself.
Will -
I agree. The full frame sensor helps only in terms of signal-to-noise ratio - so the 5D has excellent performance in that regard. From what I gather, the latest medium-format 39mp backs are as close as makes no difference to 5x4 quality. The 5D is 13mp, so it's a long way off being able to capture that level of detail.
As I said, use both to their strengths - the 5x4 for detail when you have the time to compose it effectively, and the 5D for those occasions where LF just isn't fast enough.
Peter
All these interpolations are done in the RAW converter (C1Pro) and I've tested against CS2 and there is no comparison, it's night and day between the two. C1Pro is exceptional with its scaling with a maximum interpolation of 250% making a file from the 5D @ 250% 24.20 x 36.40. The same scaling with CS2 is unexceptable for me....... I've said this before Capture One Pro (not LE) is in a league by itself!
Jerry, I thought the difference between the LE and the Pro was primarily in batch processing. I do not recall a way to upsize in the LE version now that you mention it. Could you please elaborate on the differences.
Also, just because a shooter is knowledgeable in photography doesn't make one knowledgeable in every aspect. Just as I when I first used a TS-E over 10 years ago. I did just as most when using the TS-E's, I tilted then stopped down to f/22. I was just used to doing it when I needed maximum DOF. It wasn't until I spent 5 years shooting behind a view camera that I really understood where the advantage of the TS-E's would be when shooting digital.
Prashant, I never use ACR to remove CA. I always found that when you remove CA in one location it adds it somewhere else. I found a better way using CS2 and the color noise filter. With that I can clean specific areas as needed.