Bodies and lenses IQ Comparison

[hashcake]

Leading on from a recent thread where the OP asked if a body produces sharpness, it got me thinking because when I compared photos I took with a 40D and a 50D with the same lenses, I thought that in quite a few cases the the 40D was better than the 50D but I never had the 24-105L when I had the 40D.
When I bought a Canon 50D, I also bought a 24-105L IS that I loved to use, the IQ was awesome imho.
For various reasons I sold up and left this hobby but have recently come back to it.
I am currently using a Canon 1000D, I'm not sure what version the 18-55 non IS lens is but I think the IQ really is dire.
From memory, the Canon 450D (I believe the 1000D was released later) with the mk1 18-55 IS produced much better photos.
One of the first photo I took with the 50D and 24-105L IS was of my dog and and the IQ really did take me by surprise.
I've borrowed a Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS from a friend, I did consider buying one of these a few years ago but I decided the limited focal length outweighed the cost (despite it being an f.2.8) even though it has alway received good reviews and lots of people really do like this lens.
I have taken a photo of my dog with the 1000D and 17-55 and been comparing it with the one taken with the 50D and 24-105L and been comparing them side by side.

The blue you might be able to see in here eyes in the 2nd photo is a reflection of the T shirt I was wearing (this was in the RAW flle as well)
Forgetting about the pp, the point of both photos was sharpness test on the eyes and the fact that both images are low resolution plus you can tell she has aged between the photos, can you see much difference between the sharpness of the eyes because I can't?

View attachment 32204

View attachment 32205

 

[pingu666]

there nice pics
but buy a sigma dp 2 or 3, and gain a ton of sharpness

like upto double ish i think

 

[redsnappa]

but buy a sigma dp 2 or 3, and gain a ton of sharpness

But the picture above are more than sharp enough. Why the need for more sharpness especially as IQ can decrease with too much sharpness.

 

[twist]

All the sigma dps have is resolution, everything else is pretty terrible.

 

[hashcake]

But can any of you see any difference in the sharpness?
The first photo was taken with the 50D and 24-105L and the second one was taken with the 1000D and 17-55 f2.8 IS.
Both lenses have a reputation for excellent IQ but the 1000D was a budget priced body whereas at the time, the 50D was much more expensive body.
Ok, granted the 50D would've had the edge over the 1000D when it comes to ISO levels but as both photos where taken in similar conditions, in theory surely the 50D would have produced a sharper photo (based on the fact that both lenses have good reputation for IQ level).

I suppose the point that I am trying to raise, that for the type of photography I do, the cheap body compared to the more expensive body can pershaps create the same level of IQ that can be acheived with a more expensive body when both are using lenses of similar IQ.
So back when I went from a 450D then to a 40D then to a 50D, it actually may have been a waste of money uprading the bodies,

 

[odd jim]

The 50d and 1000d don't have sensors that are particularly different so I'm not sure what you're expecting here? Also, the images are shot with different lenses as well, so a body dependant sharpness issue (btw there's no such thing!) would be impossible to detect.

Sharpness has many factors, the body is rarely one of them.

The 50d is about the ergonomics, build, and better control options / dials / joystick, mag alloy body, higher fps, faster max shutter speeds etc etc, not necessarily IQ. But surely you must have realised this when you upgraded??

 

[hashcake]

Also, the images are shot with different lenses as well, so a body dependant sharpness issue (btw there's no such thing!) would be impossible to detect.

Yes I totally agree but the IQ that both lenses can produce are on par with each other, I wasn't aiming for a scientific test just a comparison.

The 50d is about the ergonomics, build, and better control options / dials / joystick, mag alloy body, higher fps, faster max shutter speeds etc etc, not necessarily IQ. But surely you must have realised this when you upgraded??

I'd forgotten about the built quality etc and sometimes I forget that is a major difference between the XXXD and XXD models and it's been a few years since I owned the 50D.

As I first stated in my opening post, it was a previous thread about does a body affect the IQ that got me thinking, I wasn't out to prove if that could be true or not, it just made me realise that the end results can be can be the same with a cheaper body with a decent lens attached to it.
Obviously the end results could be different if the subject had been moving and required a faster shutter speed and higher fps or a higher ISO was required.

 

[stu.artd]

But can any of you see any difference in the sharpness?
The first photo was taken with the 50D and 24-105L and the second one was taken with the 1000D and 17-55 f2.8 IS.
Both lenses have a reputation for excellent IQ but the 1000D was a budget priced body whereas at the time, the 50D was much more expensive body.
Ok, granted the 50D would've had the edge over the 1000D when it comes to ISO levels but as both photos where taken in similar conditions, in theory surely the 50D would have produced a sharper photo (based on the fact that both lenses have good reputation for IQ level).

I suppose the point that I am trying to raise, that for the type of photography I do, the cheap body compared to the more expensive body can pershaps create the same level of IQ that can be acheived with a more expensive body when both are using lenses of similar IQ.
So back when I went from a 450D then to a 40D then to a 50D, it actually may have been a waste of money uprading the bodies,

For what it's worth the top picture looks 'sharper' to me. More of the dogs face is in sharp focus and along with the lighting / colour and contrast this combines to make the first one definitely look better to me. So I'd say that in this comparison the 50D / 24-105L did produce the best result.

 

[pingu666]

All the sigma dps have is resolution, everything else is pretty terrible.

dynamic range isn't too bad, great black and white, colour tone suits some stuff. Foveon is much better on fur than Bayer.

but yeah that sharpness and resolved detail is addictive

better tactility of camera too vs lower canons atleast