Photo Quality - xt vs mark II

[stephenjames716]

Hi,

Thanks for taking a look at my post. My question deals with two different cameras that I have used and the differences in photo quality between the two.

My first camera is a Canon digital rebel xt with a quantaray 18-200mm 1:35 - 6.3 lens. I have used this camera for four years now and really love the picture quality.

My friend recently gave me a Canon EOS-1D Mark II with a Canon Ultrasonic 28-200mm 1:35 - 5.6 lens to use. I have noticed that the picture quality with this camera doesn't seem as good as the xt even though it is a superior camera. I believe part of the problem is with the canon lens as it doesn't seem to be as sharp with it's auto-focus.

I took a picture of my desk using each camera with the same settings. First is the xt shot.



And here is the mark II shot.



As you can see the xt shot just looks richer and has a better color overall. I would really appreciate any comments or ideas anyone has about this.

Thanks,
Steve

[oldwolf]

what's the exif data?

[inkista]

Also not exactly sure why you were expecting the image quality of the 1DmkII to be clearly superior.

The 1DmkII is a year older than your 350D/XT in terms of design. It uses the same DIGIC processor, and while the 1DmkII's sensor is a little bigger at 1.3x vs. 1.6x, it's still only 8MP, just like your XT is. To me, this wouldn't exactly equate to a huge leap in image quality. The 1DMkII is clearly superior in terms of handling and build quality/toughness. But image quality is quite possibly the single thing that doesn't improve drastically as you move up the tiers, unless you're going to full frame, and even then it only "improves" in certain specific aspects, not overall.

Throw in the fact that the 28-200 is almost 10 years older than the 18-200 in design, wasn't all that great a lens to begin with (superzooms tend to have more compromises than your average lens), that it wasn't designed for 1.3x crop, and the 1.3x sensor is giving you a shallower depth of field, and I'm not surprised you find the 18-200 on a camera it was designed for to be sharper. [To my eyes, the 18-200 looks sharper partly because it has a deeper DoF].

There are reasons we tell newbies to save their cash until they know they need higher-tier features in a camera. Image quality isn't going to take a sudden leap up just because the equipment price did. It's handling capability and build toughness that you're generally paying for when you go up the tiers.

[jdepould]

Using different lenses on different bodies pretty much invalidates the results.

[OsmosisStudios]

Call me crazy: I prefer the second one.

(and there's NO way the settings were exactly the same: there's a full stop difference in the scene in areas)

[stephenjames716]

Originally Posted by oldwolf

what's the exif data?

Thank you all for your thoughts and opinions.

Here are some screencaps of the exif data:

xt:


markII:


thank you!

[stephenjames716]

Originally Posted by inkista

Also not exactly sure why you were expecting the image quality of the 1DmkII to be clearly superior.

The 1DmkII is a year older than your 350D/XT in terms of design. It uses the same DIGIC processor, and while the 1DmkII's sensor is a little bigger at 1.3x vs. 1.6x, it's still only 8MP, just like your XT is. To me, this wouldn't exactly equate to a huge leap in image quality. The 1DMkII is clearly superior in terms of handling and build quality/toughness. But image quality is quite possibly the single thing that doesn't improve drastically as you move up the tiers, unless you're going to full frame, and even then it only "improves" in certain specific aspects, not overall.

Throw in the fact that the 28-200 is almost 10 years older than the 18-200 in design, wasn't all that great a lens to begin with (superzooms tend to have more compromises than your average lens), that it wasn't designed for 1.3x crop, and the 1.3x sensor is giving you a shallower depth of field, and I'm not surprised you find the 18-200 on a camera it was designed for to be sharper. [To my eyes, the 18-200 looks sharper partly because it has a deeper DoF].

There are reasons we tell newbies to save their cash until they know they need higher-tier features in a camera. Image quality isn't going to take a sudden leap up just because the equipment price did. It's handling capability and build toughness that you're generally paying for when you go up the tiers.

Thank you very much for your time and opinion. Do you have any suggestions for a lens that might suit me better with the markII?

Thank you.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by stephenjames716

Thank you all for your thoughts and opinions.

Here are some screencaps of the exif data:

xt:


markII:


thank you!

Here's the thing: You're at 1/40, which is borderline for 28mm on a crop (42mm on the XT, 36 on the 1D). Increase your ISO to 800 and shoot at 1/80th and see if you can see a difference.

From here, the 1D shot looks better exposed with better contrast and colours, but it looks a bit blurred by motion blur. It's amazing that both cameras captured such different exposure levels from the same scene.

[stephenjames716]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Here's the thing: You're at 1/40, which is borderline for 28mm on a crop (42mm on the XT, 36 on the 1D). Increase your ISO to 800 and shoot at 1/80th and see if you can see a difference.

From here, the 1D shot looks better exposed with better contrast and colours, but it looks a bit blurred by motion blur. It's amazing that both cameras captured such different exposure levels from the same scene.

Hi,

Thanks very much for the reply. I tried your suggestion, here is the outcome:



exif data:



I do see an improvement but still think the richness is not there as compared to the xt. If you have any other suggestions about settings to avoid I would appreciate it.

Thanks

[OsmosisStudios]

Why didnt you re-do it on the XT as well? with the same lens? And why are you at f/6.3 at the wide end?