BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tdodd" data-source="post: 1543734" data-attributes="member: 55450">I strongly disapprove of comparing output at pixel level. It proves nothing except what we already know - small pixels collect fewer photons and therefore obviously have a worse SNR. What matters to me is which camera produces the better image, not the better pixel. Look at the end game - we want to produce pictures, so let's see which camera produces the best picture. Leave the pixel comparisons to the pixel peeping number crunchers and lab rats. I'll judge results by the images, thanks.That is exactly why my album makes comparisons of equivalent surface areas of the sensor - i.e. crops to the same composition -  not equivalent numbers of pixels. That is, in my opinion, the only meaningful way to compare. The question should be.....Does a 50D print at 12x8 look better or worse than a 12x8 from a 40D?Does a 50D print at 18x12 look better or worse than an 18x12 from a 40D?Does a 50D print at 30x20 look better or worse than a 30x20 from a 40D?The question should not be....Does a 50D print look as good as a 40D print when the 50D image is enlarged by a factor 1.22X greater? That is simply a daft comparison to make, completely unfair, or unequal if you prefer. The 50D sensor may have 50% more pixels than the 40D but it doesn't have 50% more surface area and therefore is not likely to be able to capture 50% more light. To stretch its image over an area 50% greater area than that from a 40D and expect equal levels of noise and sharpness is just silly. Sadly, that is exactly what people do when they compare 100% crops, or 50% crops etc..The same, or similar, comparisons can be made for display on a screen, but they need to be based on equivalent levels of physical linear dimensions, not equivalent numbers of pixels. e.g. a fair comparison would be to make a crop from a 50D of 1,222x815 pixels and a matching crop from the 40D (by area) of 1,000x667 pixels. Then, so both suffer equally from the artefacts of resizing, resize both to, for argument's sake, 800x533 pixels. Then you will have a comparison based on equal terms. In truth those are pretty high viewing magnifications, so maybe it would be better, and more realistic, to double the dimensions of the crops and then resample those crops down to 800x533.Lightroom and ACR should be the same, but you do need to use the latest ACR release. Adobe does have a history of screwing up on the first release or two of ACR for each new camera release. I've witnessed the problem myself with the 40D and 50D and read about similar issues when the 5D2 was launched. I don't know whether the ACR that supports PSE6 is maintained in sync with the latest releases for PSE7 and CS4. I think perhaps it isn't. Quite what DPReview was doing when they first reviewed the 50D with a beta release of ACR, God only knows. I doubt things were improved much when they retested with the first "live" release either.Disclaimer : Of course, the above rationalisation is just what I think. Others are free to make whatever comparisons they choose to, but I, for one, will stick to looking at image quality, not pixel quality.</blockquote>

Verification