large prints, which combo would yield better results..

[DonWeston]

Interested in making large prints 24x36 inches, re: the following gear combos, which is more likely to yield more detailed prints with comparable color and tone? Assume ISO 100, mirror lockup, etc...

A] 50D with 70-200L IS F4
B] 5D2, same lens with a 1.4x TC, or 70-300mm IS USM

Thanks in advance, comments would be appreciated, especially from those with first hand experience with above combos...

also assuming a reasonable viewing distance of 18 inches or more...

 

[robmac]

Lot of variables between the two, but given the pixel density of the 50D and the reputation of the 70-200/4 IS (I've only used the 70-200/4 non IS on a 5D), I'd say A.

This is of course, in fine Canon fashion, you get a good copy of the lens. ;>

This site may help. Hit his comparison section and you can select side-by-sides of various lens and body mixes.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/

One aspect of the 70-200/4 IS that some people have complained about (for what it's worth) is that performance diminishes as you zoom in past say 130ishmm at MFD - you need to start stepping backwards to retain optimum sharpness.

 

[DonWeston]

Not wanting to add yet another option here, but this just was a new thought, using the 5D2 and same lens and no converter, just crop the image. Where would all this play out??

Great website by the way, you mentioned, still trying to evaluate the rez charts for comparison purposes, some lenses have a huge difference and others you might expect to show large discrepancies, don't...seems like in most differences the larger sensors are maybe more forgiving, but lots of variables....

 

[Jack]

Option C?: 5D2 plus 300 f4.5L or 400/5.6L, or possibly even the 100-400 L IS.

 

[Greg Seitz]

Interested in making large prints 24x36 inches, re: the following gear combos, which is more likely to yield more detailed prints with comparable color and tone? Assume ISO 100, mirror lockup, etc...

A] 50D with 70-200L IS F4
B] 5D2, same lens with a 1.4x TC, or 70-300mm IS USM

Thanks in advance, comments would be appreciated, especially from those with first hand experience with above combos...

also assuming a reasonable viewing distance of 18 inches or more...

I've got the 5D2 and a T1i which has the same pixel density as the 50D with the 70-200 F/4 IS, 1.4X TC, and the 100-400L IS. I'd be happy to shoot some combinations of them at the longer end and provide you the raw files so you can make your own determination if you'd like. I assume you're interested in the long end only, correct?

 

[DonWeston]

Thanks Jack, but am trying to keep my gear load as light as possible, and compact...can't have everything. Greg - that would be great, but only have CS3 so I can't convert the Raws, and I usually shoot fine Jpgs anyway, fwiw. If you could provide me a couple of shots using both cameras, and yes at the long end, shorter FLs I assume would defer to the 5D2 automatically, alone with the 70-200mm L IS F4.

Seeing the advantages play out in real world of shooting, either pixel density or pixel count is where my dilemma rests...cost wise I could opt for a 50D and 17-55 and 70-200 combo, vs 5d2 and 70-200mm and save up for other lenses. My biggest question on the short end is what to by for the mid range for the 5d2, don't want to carry a big lens like either the 24-105L or 24-70L. That leaves 3rd party like Tamron 28-75, which was OK with my D700 I just sold, but not great, or other???
Maybe some AF primes but I prefer shooting zooms where ever possible....funny how getting older, just don't want to schlepp as much...ten yrs ago, it would have been 4x5 kit, digital sure has spoiled me...thanks again for comments...Don

 

[johnastovall]

Option C?: 5D2 plus 300 f4.5L or 400/5.6L, or possibly even the 100-400 L IS.

I'm with Jack on this. Even the old 5D and the 400/5.6L would do it.

Never ever use the Canon 2x extender. Just look at the MTF charts with it in "EF Lens Work III" and you'll understand why.

 

[Greg Seitz]

Don, so you just want to see the 70-200 with and without TC on the 5D MkII and 70-200 without TC on the T1i? Not interested in the 100-400? Also, since I'm not a JPG shooter I probably wouldn't set things up properly on both for you to evaluate so I can convert the raw files to DNG which you should be able to read just fine in CS3. It's raining at the moment so if it clears I'll try to shoot them this afternoon.

 

[Jack]

I usually shoot fine Jpgs anyway, fwiw.

Don,

Seriously, if that is the case, then IMO you are leaving so much of the image on the table it probably doesn't matter what system you use. In this case, I'd just go with your 50D, 70-200 and use what it gives you.

 

[DonWeston]

Jack - in all honesty I have shot RAWs a good deal in the past, and just never saw significant differences when in print, and looking at a foot or so away. Yes, maybe some exist on the monitor, if you can be an expert converter user, but have been doing this awhile and I just don't see it. Not saying there isn't any, just I have not been able to appreciate this difference in print. YMMV. I think lots of times things may be empirically better given perfect light, shooting techniques, etc, but hard to realise in prints. Don't get me started on the professional Cibas I used to have made by commercial labs and what they considered PRO prints....sorry to digress.

Often times perfection is lost by not having perfect light, or opportunity to get the shot as one would like. I would OTOH, love to see two such large prints realizing the differences that often are mentioned, but using the same CS3or CS4 interface for converting files as RAW files. BTW - I spend quite a bit of time converting the jpg many do from Raw, but many times the jpegs get me in the ball park quicker due to the fact I have taken the time to set up the camera properly with attention to things like histogram and WB. There are always compromises...but mine are compact AF zooms and moderate amount of modern advantages like IS or VR. I remember quite a few missed shots with the 4x5, I used to shoot, due to changing lenses or loading film, let alone setup. Not meaning to be ornery or confrontatinal here, but we all have different needs and solutions.

Not sure I understand the comment about just using a 50D combo, were you making a comment about this cameras plusses for my intended useage? Were you commenting about the advantages of the 5D2 combo being lost just because I shoot jpegs or I don't want to invest in big heavy L glass? After looking at some websites, that compare lenses and body combos, I feel the way to go might just be the 5D2 and just the 70-200L but am still looking for opinions from users such as Greg who uses both FF and APS-c cameras. No one really asked, just assumed from previous posts and images in the gallery, people know I shoot mostly travel scenics and landscapes, so I don't really have a need for more then 300mm. If I did, then I would certainly invest in an appropriate lens for that usage.

 

[DonWeston]

Don, so you just want to see the 70-200 with and without TC on the 5D MkII and 70-200 without TC on the T1i? Not interested in the 100-400? Also, since I'm not a JPG shooter I probably wouldn't set things up properly on both for you to evaluate so I can convert the raw files to DNG which you should be able to read just fine in CS3. It's raining at the moment so if it clears I'll try to shoot them this afternoon.

Greg - thanks for your offer. Yes, I do not have any interest in the 100-400 at this time, as I have no current use for anything over 300mm. Could you possibly, assuming you plan to shoot some files just for me, just shoot some fine jpegs and email them to me. If you want to send me files you already have, then converting them to DNG would be fine. Used that for all my M8 shots. What ever you have would be fine. Using the converter the same manner one uses it for RAW files, should tell me what I want to know. I greatly appreciate whatever assistance you can offer. Don

 

[Jack]

Jack - in all honesty I have shot RAWs a good deal in the past, and just never saw significant differences when in print,
~SNIP~
Not sure I understand the comment about just using a 50D combo, were you making a comment about this cameras plusses for my intended useage? Were you commenting about the advantages of the 5D2 combo being lost just because I shoot jpegs or I don't want to invest in big heavy L glass?

My comment meant that as long as you don't see any difference in your particular raws and jpegs, then it is unlikely you will see much difference between a 50D/70-200 jpeg and 5D2/70-200 cropped jpeg or 5D2/70-200+2x un-cropped jpeg or 5D2/75-300DO jpeg.

More specifically I mean that adding the converter to the 70-200 or using the 75-300DO lens, both/either will probably render as much net image degradation as the crop of the 5D2; and since a cropped 5D2 is essentially the 50D, my advice is just to stick with the simpler, lighter weight, least expensive solution to begin with... As for camera differences, the 5D2 does have a bit broader DR and a bit larger native color-space than the 50D, but you lose those in the jpeg anyway, so there's no gain for you.

~~~

As a FWIW PS: On our print workshops we show examples of printing large off a jpeg versus printing large off the same raw file and the difference is so obvious I don't think any participant has ever walked away thinking they'll ever be shooting anything but raw for *large* prints. Note that a very large part of every one of our workshops is teaching raw workflow, and specifically *how* to convert raw files for optimal results regardles sof your intended output.

PPS: I'd like to clarify that I still shoot jpegs too... I shoot them (well RAW + jpeg) in my GRD2 P&S camera, and I have my 1Ds3 set to send a small/fine jpeg to the second card while it's sending the full raw to the first card. I'll then take the jpeg card to the local one-hour drug store and have them print a full set of 4x6's for my wife to scrapbook with. She loves them and I don't have to spend any time preparing them. BUT... for my prints, which are usually large, I'll always go to the raw and properly convert it before printing it big. And since you specifically asked about large prints, hence my answer...

 

[DonWeston]

My comment meant that as long as you don't see any difference in your particular raws and jpegs, then it is unlikely you will see much difference between a 50D/70-200 jpeg and 5D2/70-200 cropped jpeg or 5D2/70-200+2x un-cropped jpeg or 5D2/75-300DO jpeg.

Here I mean that adding the converter to the 70-200 or using the 75-300DO lens, both/either will probably render as much net image degradation as the crop of the 5D2; and since a cropped 5D2 is essentially the 50D, my advice is just to stick with the simpler, lighter weight, least expensive solution to begin with... As for camera differences, the 5D2 does have a bit broader DR and a bit larger native color-space than the 50D, but you lose those in the jpeg anyway, so there's no gain for you.

~~~

As a FWIW PS: On our print workshops we show examples of printing large off a jpeg versus printing large off the same raw file and the difference is so obvious I don't think any participant has ever walked away thinking they'll ever be shooting anything but raw for *large* prints. Note that a very large part of every one of our workshops is teaching raw workflow, and specifically *how* to convert raw files for optimal results regardles sof your intended output.

PPS: I'd like to clarify that I still shoot jpegs too... I shoot them (well RAW + jpeg) in my GRD2 P&S camera, and I have my 1Ds3 set to send a small/fine jpeg to the second card while it's sending the full raw to the first card. I'll then take the jpeg card to the local one-hour drug store and have them print a full set of 4x6's for my wife to scrapbook with. She loves them and I don't have to spend any time preparing them. BUT... for my prints, which are usually large, I'll always go to the raw and properly convert it before printing it big. And since you specifically asked about large prints, hence my answer...

Jack -
Thanks for the time and clarifications, and for adding the additional benefits of the 5D2 in other areas. I would truly love to see how to optimize using RAW files. I have not had much luck finding the "magic" in RAW usage. I assume that this means that it is visible without walking up to the 24x36 print and looking at it from 6 inches. Maybe I should take your course to see such real advantage, but scheduling and taking time off from work is tough in this economy with two kids in college. Could you make any gross suggestions on how you handle Raw files, i.e. workflow. Noting I have CS3 not CS4. I would like to know if I am making any basic mistakes using the converter in CS3. Or do you need some special converter to optimize RAW files not accessible in CS3. Also for clarification only I was talking about using a 1.4x[not2x] converter to bring the effective FL close to the native 300mm with the 70-300mm ZOOM.
Thanks again, Don

 

[Don Libby]

The only comment I'd like to give addresses shooting RAW vs. Jpeg.

Whenever you shoot Jpeg you are allowing the camera to take full artistic control of your image which is never a good idea. Granted you can open and do "some" processing in CS4 it's nevertheless not as good as what you can achieve with RAW.

RAW on the other hand gives you a lossless digital negative as well as takes the control from the camera and gives it back to you.

Shoot the same image with the same settings in Jpeg and then RAW and look at your files size; the RAW file is much larger and for a reason. That reason is a RAW files contains much more information of the image than a Jpeg. Shooting Jpeg the camera will capture the image using only the amount of color information is feels is necessary while a RAW file will include everything; it leaves nothing out. Very similar to the days of film.

Cameras create Jpeg images from the raw sensor data based on your camera settings like sharpness and white balance. RAW files on the other hand are files are just the raw sensor data; there's no image until processed using specific software (Photoshop or Capture One or a camera specific software).

One other difference between the two beyond the file size and amount of data is the amount of post processing between the two. If you want to present the best possible image no matter the size then RAW is the way to go. If on the other hand you're just shooting snapshots the Jpeg will be okay.

I shoot exclusively RAW and that extends to the small G9 and G10 as you just never know....

Don

PS: Shooting RAW might be time consuming it nevertheless is so much more rewarding especially when you get that "prefect" image.

 

[DonWeston]

Don - I hear this alot locally also, but seeing for me is believing, and no one I know has proven it to me in print. Don't mean to be stubborn or contrary, just I have done lots of testing using CS3 converters and much of the advantages, I have not seen in print. Like I said, maybe I just need for someone to show such advantage literally. Have you compared to using the same converter interface to handle the jpeg file as you did the RAW or are you just accepting the jpeg file as the camera has made it? It may not be the same. I understand you are losing lots of info, but not too long ago lots of folk were claiming big advantages to film that could or would not show up in prints either over digital. Can you see these advantages without planting your noses to the prints, I need to be shown. How are you managing the files in the converter? What things do you do with the file? I do plenty of adjustments or processing in the converter step and handle the jpegs the same way I did raw files. Maybe I am "ruining" my Raw files? Not really cause I save all the original files whether they be RAW of JPeg. I can always go back to either file and rework the files, if improvements arise in future converters...boy has this gotten off topic from the gear question I originally posed, but I guess it maybe ultimately relevant...

 

[Don Libby]

Hi Don

Here's my normal workflow:

Always save an untouched RAW file as archival.

Cambo RS-1000 and P45+ files:

Working off a copy of the RAW file I'll open first in C1 then after processing as far as I want move to CS4 to either complete it or print.

Canon G series or one of our 1Ds series:

Open in Bridge then camera raw. Often I'll process in camera raw to the point where once I opened it in CS4 I'll crop as needed then print.

Side note on printing: I always print 16bit and at least 300 dpi.

Capture One: I'm still feeling my way around here since they just (couple months ago) included 64bit control. I used to use CS4 exclusively until C1 went to 64bit; I now shoot all my landscape with the Cambo RS-1000/P45+ combo and need C1 for LCC.

I see a huge difference in the files opened in camera raw; there's so much more leeway for RAW processing than there is for an image taken in Jpeg. Take a look at the difference between the histograms of two equally shot images - one RAW the other Jpeg.

Didn't mean to go off topic and feel this reply might be a bit rambling and for that I apologize.

Bear in mind this is just my 2¢ worth...

Don

 

[Jack]

Don Weston:

The problem with "show me" the difference in the print is that the person printing first has to print properly using a color-managed workflow in order to see it -- and not many do that...

Suffice it to say it is very easy to see the difference at arms length in an 8x10 if you do know how to print -- just ask anybody who has seen the comparison prints of our standard test print I share and they'll confirm!

Here is that standard test print in sRGB jpeg form for web presentation, so you will *not* be able to see directly what I'm talking about. But as one example, if you look at the three green color patches up top of the color squares, you'll note that all three look very similar in this jpeg, but in print those are three VERY distinct shades of green -- more like the difference showing on the greens immediately beneath on the second row. If you have a good monitor profile, the square on the right of three will look more different than the other two:

Before anybody asks, no you cannot copy this and print it to see the difference, because it was converted to an sRGB jpeg first to show online, so all the distinct color information that would render the difference has been permanently lost in the conversion. I might save some of what has been lost if I used Adobe RGB -- and I'll post one later -- but the original of this image we print from is in Profoto RGB. Jpeg is only 8-bit capable and that's not adequate for Profoto.

 

[Jack]

Here is the same image as above, but converted to Adobe RGB, though still obviously an 8-bit jpeg. I realize we're getting way the OP's question, but it does go directly why I made the reco for the simpler, less expensive solution.

Here is the Adobe RGB image and depending on your computer, browser and monitor, you may see a bit more separation in the greens I mentioned, but still nowhere near the separation you would see out of a good, wide-gamut printer:

~~~

Okay, that was as re color space limitations of jpeg. Now we get into enlargement limitations with jpeg. Simple and quick answer is jpegs will not upscale to large prints as well as a tiff due to jpeg compression and resultant artifacting at the pixel level becoming more obvious and exaggerated on a large uprez.

Cheers,

 

[Don Libby]

Oh Boy Jack

Now you've opened a whole new area and one that I'm in totally agreement with.

Proper monitor and printer calibration is an absolute must. Critical to achieving any sort of proper image processing and printing.

I routinely check my monitors on a monthly basis and more often if I have a critical job to do. You might say I'm anal about my monitor calibration (and I have three of 'em).

Another absolute key to getting the print right is calibrating the printer. Yes you can use the canned profiles that the printer and paper companies have but the best way is to run a calibration using your specific paper on your specific printer using your specific inks. Yeah I'm anal here as well...

Okay off topic by just a little however the original question did ask for gear combos in making "detailed prints".

Okay I'm out of here as I have some of my own work that needs attending to.

Don

Edit:
Jack - I was writing and posted this before refreshing so I may have stomped on your part 2. Sorry about that....

 

[DonWeston]

Jack and Don - I appreciate what you are trying to point out, but even accepting that Raw always makes a difference, I still do not see specifically with regards to my original question that it makes a difference to my query.

Lets assume that I shoot RAW, then what would the answer be? I won't bother re-quoting from the start, re: gear question only at hand.

Also, I was seeking relative differences between the two camera and lens combos, so unless you are telling me that shooting jpegs automatically cancels out all differences between a FF camera and an APS-C camera, my query still lingers. Are you telling me that the 5D2 jpeg in camera conversion is worse then the 50D, and that NO gain from just using a higher MP and FF still remains? I was not looking for what will give me the best absolute overall quality, just within the guidelines I set out. I posed a gear question, the pros and cons of Raw vs. Jpeg I feel have kind of derailed my original quandry.

As an aside given the strong feelings here re; Raw files, would a better result be achieved shooting RAW with the 50D then Jpeg from the 5D2? I am not trying to play mental gymnastics here, just trying to balance the gear and their capacities. Also I might point out that without a similar print to compare to, generated by a RAW shooter readily available, and converted competently, would one be able to tell whether or not, what kind of file was indeed used. Point being lots of factors can contribute to final print quality, and I would say the light quality is tops on my list over gear and file type...

This is a complex topic, I am sure, but there are many factors that contribute to the final product, the question initially was one of gear for me more then the rest....