IQ - Body, lens or monitor? 6D v D90

DoctorJ

DoctorJ

Messages
332
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
My mate has just bought a 6D and a couple of L lenses. I have a D90 and a set of G primes (35, 50, 85). Looking at the first images out of his camera (on his brand new Mac) the images are amazing, beautifully sharp and much sharper than I seem to be able to achieve with my set up. I tend to view my images on an old-ish HP laptop.

So what is making the difference? Is it the camera, the lens or is it down to the quality of his monitor (or a bit of each)?? I couldn't view any of my images on his monitor as I didn't have my camera to hand so couldn't compare directly. The 6D as I understand is 20ish mp, full frame and my D90 12 mp and crop sensor and I am thinking of upgrading anyway. I had never had an issue with my IQ (or been impressed by more mp) until last Sunday and it is bothering me now!
 
Probably a combination of everything mentioned, newer full frame body, L glass (assuming it's nice L glass) and a shiny new screen. Until you can get your images on the same monitor hang fire with any gear lust ;)
 
I went from a 12mp m4/3 camera to a 16mp apsc camera and i can defiantly say the 16mp is the sharpest looking at a 100% crop.
Your G prime lenses should be every bit as sharp if not sharper than an L lens zoom its just that your sensor is hitting the resolution wall of 12mp, if you used a d7100 instead then I think you would less impressed with the 6d.
Don't get hung up on sharpness though, I mean how often do you print at 100% ?, look at the whole photo instead then decide.
In fact could you do a comparison and post the pics on here? , say use the same apparent focal lengths, iso 100 and similar f stop to get the same dof? Then we can have a look at the whole picture and maybe do some pixel peeping.
 
interesting. He kindly gave me his (not very) old MAC / monitor which I have yet to use, I will fire it up and have a look at my images. I am interested about the comments that my 'G' primes should be at least as sharp as his L glass, they were certainly much cheaper! The mystery is, with all that money to spend, why he didn't buy Nikon...
 
DoctorJ said:
I am interested about the comments that my 'G' primes should be at least as sharp as his L glass, they were certainly much cheaper! The mystery is, with all that money to spend, why he didn't buy Nikon...
Click to expand...
That's not a Nikon vs Canon thing, it's a prime vs zoom thing. Most half-decent primes will be sharper than most quality zooms, regardless of the manufacturer.
 
DoctorJ said:
Looking at the first images out of his camera (on his brand new Mac) the images are amazing, beautifully sharp and much sharper than I seem to be able to achieve with my set up. I tend to view my images on an old-ish HP laptop.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, how have you defined and measured sharpness, in order to conclude that his images are much sharper than yours? There are so many variables here - sensor format, pixel count, camera settings, monitor resolution and contrast, lens used, etc etc - and that's even before you consider the choice of subject and the lighting. So I'm genuinely interested in how you can make a fair comparison and reach a meaningful conclusion.
 
People always underestimate the monitor as a key part of their system. They'll happily spend thousands on cameras.. lenses... and often thousands on the computer itself... then buy a £100 monitor as an afterthought. The monitor is equally as important a part of the process as the camera's themselves. You see this over and over again in other areas too. Buying a nice 50inch plasma, then streaming compressed 720p content from some web service etc. Brilliant Hi-Fi gear, then listening to 128kb/s MP3s...

People baffle me.

The whole chain is as strong as the weakest link.

Your old HP laptop will be running at a stupidly low resolution, and will be a poor quality TN panel. It will be crap compared to the screen in a new iMac.... which in itself isn't that fantastic any way.
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
Out of curiosity, how have you defined and measured sharpness, in order to conclude that his images are much sharper than yours? There are so many variables here - sensor format, pixel count, camera settings, monitor resolution and contrast, lens used, etc etc - and that's even before you consider the choice of subject and the lighting. So I'm genuinely interested in how you can make a fair comparison and reach a meaningful conclusion.
Click to expand...

I have 'measured' sharpness by looking at the images on the screen - i know this isn't scientific but was clear (to me) to see. I have now wired up the (slightly) older iMac that he gave me and run it alongside my old HP with the same images from my camera. The images are dramatically improved in terms of visible sharpness, colour depth, clarity.

David, you are right, for me at least a different monitor has hugely improved my enjoyment of my own images and has reversed my brief disillusionment with my camera / lens set up. i wont be turning to Canon any time soon and laying out cash for L lenses. I am 50 in two weeks and was thinking of treating myself, might be a new watch instead!
 
DoctorJ said:
David, you are right, for me at least a different monitor has hugely improved my enjoyment of my own images and has reversed my brief disillusionment with my camera / lens set up. i wont be turning to Canon any time soon and laying out cash for L lenses. I am 50 in two weeks and was thinking of treating myself, might be a new watch instead!
Click to expand...

Good choice :D and you will be buying a mechanical watch, wont you? Rather than something, cough... digital???? :D

Glad that you're happy with your camera gear now too :D
 
DoctorJ can you post one of you "sharp" images? I would quite like to compare my view on sharp to yours.
 
danolive1 said:
DoctorJ can you post one of you "sharp" images? I would quite like to compare my view on sharp to yours.
Click to expand...

In my experience nothing I post here is as sharp as how it appears on my screen.

Re your comments on MFT v APS-C, what lenses were you using?

I have MFT and the cameras and good lenses are capable of excellent results which easily stand comparison to the APS-C DSLR's I've owned.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
In my experience nothing I post here is as sharp as how it appears on my screen.

Re your comments on MFT v APS-C, what lenses were you using?

I have MFT and the cameras and good lenses are capable of excellent results which easily stand comparison to the APS-C DSLR's I've owned.
Click to expand...
It was a lumix g2 with oly 45mm 1.8 vs sony a57 with sony 35mm 1.8, on say a full face portrait with the sony I could count every eyelash, see every pore etc the g2 wasnt bad just not as detailed at 100%.
Maybe my technique has improved as when i owned the g2 I was a complete novice.

Op could host it on imager that retains all the detail.
 
danolive1 said:
It was a lumix g2 with oly 45mm 1.8 vs sony a57 with sony 35mm 1.8, on say a full face portrait with the sony I could count every eyelash, see every pore etc the g2 wasnt bad just not as detailed at 100%.
Maybe my technique has improved as when i owned the g2 I was a complete novice.

Op could host it on imager that retains all the detail.
Click to expand...

I have pictures taken with a G1 and I can count every eyelash at 100%.

A larger sensor will very possibly produce a sharper result if only due to the amount of magnification but in practice I've found that if you use decent lenses (as opposed to comparing one camera with a crappy kit zoom to another with a top end lens, as some people do...) there's little real difference unless you push the envelope of what's possible/sensible and one factor which could redress some of the inherent disadvantages of MFT is that some of the lenses are excellent.

Not that I want to get in the middle of any discussion between you and the OP on image sharpness but personally I don't really put much stock in what I see in internet forums and I find it best to rely on what people say or compare original images on my own screen where they are not mangled by online posting.
 
DoctorJ said:
My mate has just bought a 6D and a couple of L lenses. I have a D90 and a set of G primes (35, 50, 85). Looking at the first images out of his camera (on his brand new Mac) the images are amazing, beautifully sharp and much sharper than I seem to be able to achieve with my set up. I tend to view my images on an old-ish HP laptop.
Click to expand...

Print more, pixel peep less.

(assess an image as a print, not on the screen)
 
woof woof said:
Good choice :D and you will be buying a mechanical watch, wont you? Rather than something, cough... digital???? :D
it will have hands, dials, be waterproof to alot and have lots of small moving cogs, springs and balances inside! Cant wait!
Click to expand...
 
DoctorJ said:
I have 'measured' sharpness by looking at the images on the screen - i know this isn't scientific but was clear (to me) to see. I have now wired up the (slightly) older iMac that he gave me and run it alongside my old HP with the same images from my camera. The images are dramatically improved in terms of visible sharpness, colour depth, clarity.

David, you are right, for me at least a different monitor has hugely improved my enjoyment of my own images and has reversed my brief disillusionment with my camera / lens set up. i wont be turning to Canon any time soon and laying out cash for L lenses. I am 50 in two weeks and was thinking of treating myself, might be a new watch instead!
Click to expand...


Glad that's sorted then.

Unless you print, most camera's output will look pretty much the same on the screen so It was obviously a monitor issue. LOL@ all the "buy new lenses" comments. :)

Alastair's suggestion is also correct.. Printing an image is the best way to judge it anyway.... except for one caveat... It needs to be WELL printed.. and that's another ball game entirely... and another thread full of BS no doubt.
 
:jaffano:
Pookeyhead said:
Glad that's sorted then.

Unless you print, most camera's output will look pretty much the same on the screen so It was obviously a monitor issue. LOL@ all the "buy new lenses" comments. :)

Alastair's suggestion is also correct.. Printing an image is the best way to judge it anyway.... except for one caveat... It needs to be WELL printed.. and that's another ball game entirely... and another thread full of BS no doubt.
Click to expand...
spot on. I like my D90 and am thinking of changing to a 300S (for the weather dealing mainly). I had a momentary pixel panic, but no need now, I can upgrade to the same sensor I already have with impunity. Job done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top