Megapixels

docsmith · Dec 14, 2024

I had been thinking of doing a fairly detailed side by side comparison of birds at my perch with the 24 MP R1 vs the 45 MP R5. I can start doing a few comparisons even though they were not side by side, such as:
Taken in January. Junco...R5 1/1000, f/8, ISO 1000, 500 f/4 II w 1.4 tc so @ 700 mm.

Vs a shot taken early this week, another Junco, R1, 500 f4 II w 1.4 TC, 1/3200, f/5.6, ISO 6400. So, not the same settings at all, but...

I can see a bit more detail in the R5 image, particularly in the feathers under the beak, but that may just be the difference in DoF from f/5.6 to f/8 at 700 mm.

So, I was thinking of a big test. Then I realized I had images of the same breeds of birds on the same perch going back to Covid (I started photographing birds as a more significant part of what I shoot during lock-downs in 2020).

Looking back through my files, this was much more interesting. I have shot from the same spot to the same perch with the same lens (mostly the 500 f/4 II w/ w/o 1.4 TC) for almost 5 years now with the 5DIV, M6 II, 1Dx III, R5, and now the R1.

So, much more interesting to me, I thought I would share 3-4 of my favorite images from each camera. Starting off with the 20 MP 1Dx III which I had as a loaner before I bought the R5.

Next up, the 24 MP R1 (which admittedly, I have been testing at lower light/higher ISOs....so some IQ differences)

docsmith · Dec 14, 2024

Moving on to the 30 MP Canon 5DIV (and having to go to some smaller output files)

Next up, 45 MP R5

mmmm · Dec 14, 2024

Regardless of the test which is difficult to ascertain on my phone, beautiful pictures.
Edit, sorry to interrupt!

docsmith · Dec 14, 2024

And finally the highest pixel density, the M6 II at FF equivalent of 82.5 MPs

I have tried to match up some of the birds. I can see a difference in resolution (or lack thereof)....but it is really most pronounced as you get to the M6 II and it's 82.5 MPs. The goldfinch image on the M6 II is much more resolution than the other cameras). But, I recall the miss rate with the 5DIV and M6 II was incredibly high. I would delete a very low keeper rate. The R5 changed that with the animal Eye AF.

My point being, overall, 24 MP is a bit on the low side, but so far I am finding it absolutely enough in practice. If I wanted to do a "headshot" portrait series on birds, I would break out the M6 II or need to get an R7.

I forget how much I loved the images that came off the 5DIV, Glad I kept it.

As for more MPs....at least in my opinion, the old lesson applies, get good glass (that EF 500 f/4 II is amazing). Beyond that, I am actually taking and framing similar images with a 20, 24, 30, and 45 MP body. It wasn't until I got to an 82.5 MP FF equivalent body that I framed my pictures differently.

AlanF · Dec 14, 2024

docsmith said:
I had been thinking of doing a fairly detailed side by side comparison of birds at my perch with the 24 MP R1 vs the 45 MP R5. I can start doing a few comparisons even though they were not side by side, such as:
Taken in January. Junco...R5 1/1000, f/8, ISO 1000, 500 f/4 II w 1.4 tc so @ 700 mm.
View attachment 221424

Vs a shot taken early this week, another Junco, R1, 500 f4 II w 1.4 TC, 1/3200, f/5.6, ISO 6400. So, not the same settings at all, but...
View attachment 221425

I can see a bit more detail in the R5 image, particularly in the feathers under the beak, but that may just be the difference in DoF from f/5.6 to f/8 at 700 mm.

So, I was thinking of a big test. Then I realized I had images of the same breeds of birds on the same perch going back to Covid (I started photographing birds as a more significant part of what I shoot during lock-downs in 2020).

Looking back through my files, this was much more interesting. I have shot from the same spot to the same perch with the same lens (mostly the 500 f/4 II w/ w/o 1.4 TC) for almost 5 years now with the 5DIV, M6 II, 1Dx III, R5, and now the R1.

So, much more interesting to me, I thought I would share 3-4 of my favorite images from each camera. Starting off with the 20 MP 1Dx III which I had as a loaner before I bought the R5.

View attachment 221426

View attachment 221427 View attachment 221428

Next up, the 24 MP R1 (which admittedly, I have been testing at lower light/higher ISOs....so some IQ differences)

View attachment 221429 View attachment 221430
View attachment 221431

They are all very nice shots where the IQ from all is very acceptable for me. But, the conditions vary far too much for a scientific analysis.

AlanF · Dec 14, 2024

docsmith said:
And finally the highest pixel density, the M6 II at FF equivalent of 82.5 MPs

View attachment 221438 View attachment 221439 View attachment 221440

As for more MPs....at least in my opinion, the old lesson applies, get good glass (that EF 500 f/4 II is amazing). Beyond that, it is about significant differences in MP, not necessarily the 36.5% difference in linear resolution between 24 and 45 MPs. At least for me.

36.5% in linear resolution is just about what you get on adding a 1.4xTC. So, if 36.5% is not significant, why were you using a 1.4xTC for those shots? (Actually, the TC gives less than 40% as it also hits the MTF of the lens). You could compare the bare 500mm on the R5 with 700mm on the R1 as both images will have near enough the same megapixels per duck.

docsmith · Dec 14, 2024

mmmm said:
Regardless of the test which is difficult to ascertain on my phone, beautiful pictures.
Edit, sorry to interrupt!

Thanks! You even got to it before I finished the series.

AlanF said:
They are all very nice shots where the IQ from all is very acceptable for me. But, the conditions vary far too much for a scientific analysis.

Thanks and agreed. That is the bigger test I was referring too. To get scientific about it, I would want same day, same settings, hopefully the same or similar birds, shot within minutes of each other. I was starting to line up camera bodies to do that when I decided to scroll through my older files.

AlanF said:
36.5% in linear resolution is just about what you get on adding a 1.4xTC. So, if 36.5% is not significant, why were you using a 1.4xTC for those shots? (Actually, the TC gives less than 40% as it also hits the MTF of the lens). You could compare the bare 500mm on the R5 with 700mm on the R1 as both images will have near enough the same megapixels per duck.

This is what I expected. I have still been focused on getting to know the R1 and am only transitioning to comparisons. I was surprised when I put the Junco's both shot at 700 mm (500 f/4 II w/ 1.4tc) side by side. ISO, aperture, shot 11 months apart...it is not a direct comparison. I do think they are surprisingly similar.

Ok. I was going to offer to do a more direct test if you or others were interested. Sounds like you would like to see that. I'll try in the next couple of days. Of course, I am also interested if anyone else wants to do a more controlled comparison. I expect to be able to see some difference. But my takeaway from looking back through old files is that the difference needed to be significant, up to 82.5MP equivalent, before I started shooting differently.

That said, R5 is still a remarkable all-around camera.

MSH411 · Dec 14, 2024

Other than ISO which may vary by body for the test to be accurate would the F stop and shutter speed need to remain exact on both bodies. The feathers under the beak being sharper could be from nothing more than the stop or two difference impacting DOF.

AlanF · Dec 14, 2024

docsmith said:
Thanks! You even got to it before I finished the series.

Thanks and agreed. That is the bigger test I was referring too. To get scientific about it, I would want same day, same settings, hopefully the same or similar birds, shot within minutes of each other. I was starting to line up camera bodies to do that when I decided to scroll through my older files.

This is what I expected. I have still been focused on getting to know the R1 and am only transitioning to comparisons. I was surprised when I put the Junco's both shot at 700 mm (500 f/4 II w/ 1.4tc) side by side. ISO, aperture, shot 11 months apart...it is not a direct comparison. I do thing they are surprisingly similar.

Ok. I was going to offer to do a more direct test if you or others were interested. Sounds like you would like to see that. I'll try in the next couple of days. Of course, I am also interested if anyone else wants to do a more controlled comparison. I expect to be able to see some difference. But my takeaway from looking back through old files is that the difference needed to be significant, up to 82.5MP equivalent, before I started shooting differently.

That said, R5 is still a remarkable all-around camera.

There is the problem of diffraction. f/8 is above the diffraction-limited aperture of the R5 and the R7. You need fast glass to get the best out of the high megapixel bodies - good glass as you say. I used to shoot with the 90D some years ago, with basically the same sensor as the M6ii and R7. For that, I really noticed the f/4 of the EF 400mm f/4 DOii improved IQ. over the !00-400mm ii. I very rarely use the 1.4xTC with the RF 100-500 and never with the 200-800 on the R5 or R7 because the narrowing of the aperture to even more above the DLA and the lowering of IQ just don't give enough extra resolution to make it worthwhile for me - mind you, the 2xTC on the RF 100-500 does give me 40% more resolution, which does it make it worthwhile in some circumstance.

docsmith · Dec 14, 2024

I am thinking of starting with 500 f/4 II. R1 and/or R5 w/ and w/o 1.4xtc.

Then 500 no tc, f/4, shutter 1/2500 or 1/3200 and set the ISO to get proper exposure. I have the four bodies to test: M6 II, 5D IV, R5 and R1.

Hopefully I’ll get some cooperative birds. That is often a big assumption.

Search

Search

Megapixels

docsmith

docsmith

mmmm

docsmith

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds

docsmith

MSH411

Born to Wander

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds

docsmith

Similar threads