5d mII, vs 1d mIII 16x20 prints

Kmitch

:dunno I have been comparing prints with a friend (long time professional photographer and lab owner) At 16x20 we cannot see a difference between shots made from a Canon 5d mark ii, and Canon eos 1d mark iii. All shots were tripod mounted flash fill, groups of people. Very little or no post processing. The prints look excellent, but I bought the 5d to replace my Mamiya 6x7. The 6x7 gives the prints that little extra fine detail and "pop" and that's what I am looking for with the 5d mii. Has anyone else compared these kinds and sizes of prints? Where am I going wrong? I love my 5d mii, but I see no difference in the prints. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

ziggy53

Kmitch wrote:

<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/ne_nau.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" > I have been comparing prints with a friend (long time professional photographer and lab owner) At 16x20 we cannot see a difference between shots made from a Canon 5d mark ii, and Canon eos 1d mark iii. All shots were tripod mounted flash fill, groups of people. Very little or no post processing. The prints look excellent, but I bought the 5d to replace my Mamiya 6x7. The 6x7 gives the prints that little extra fine detail and "pop" and that's what I am looking for with the 5d mii. Has anyone else compared these kinds and sizes of prints? Where am I going wrong? I love my 5d mii, but I see no difference in the prints. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

Kmitch, welcome to the Digital Grin. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/clap.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

I have a number of 20" x 30" prints from 8 MPix cameras, even some from an advanced digicam. A lot depends upon subject matter. People stuff tends to print really well at large sizes. Vista landscapes and other highly detailed scenes seem to require more actual/original pixels than any other subject type. The proof is in the print so if it's working, don't knock it.

I do think that the images resulting from the Canon 5D MKII compare "very" well to quality scans from a medium format camera as long as you pay attention to putting quality glass on front. I also have some stitched panoramic images that I would compare to 4" x 5" view camera scans.

One area that the 5D MKII does rather better than the 1D MKIII is in dynamic range, especially with Highlight Tone Priority turned on. For critical images with a very wide dynamic range I do believe that the 5D MKII does at least 2/3rd stop better, mostly visible as highlight detail.

I do still shoot weddings with the 1D MKII and I love the more advanced AF, so there is room for all good cameras.

keithinmelbourne

I can't tell the difference

Kmitch wrote:

I have been comparing prints with a friend (long time professional photographer and lab owner) At 16x20 we cannot see a difference between shots made from a Canon 5d mark ii, and Canon eos 1d mark iii. All shots were tripod mounted flash fill, groups of people. Very little or no post processing. The prints look excellent, but I bought the 5d to replace my Mamiya 6x7. The 6x7 gives the prints that little extra fine detail and "pop" and that's what I am looking for with the 5d mii. Has anyone else compared these kinds and sizes of prints? Where am I going wrong? I love my 5d mii, but I see no difference in the prints. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

I have both cameras. I regularly print to A3 and super A3. The resolution difference doesn't seem to matter much (unless you're doing a lot of cropping). I have an Epson R2400, which gives pretty good results.