>>4367233The truth is that you know they don't support your claims. That's why you're afraid to link them again. (And you might as well stop pretending to be multiple people.) That's why I'm the one who posted the IQ180 vs. 4x5 sample, and not you.
Here's another sample.
- Opened the 10,000 ppi scan and cropped out the film borders. Ended up at 32,536 width.
- Hunted for a car snapshit with a similar sized headlight. Found one.
- ISO 200 5Ds RAW opened with NO sharpening, NO NR, NO optical corrections.
- Scaled straight to 32,536 using Preserve Details 2.0, NO NR.
- Took 2,500px crops of the headlights.
Well there goes the excuses of "muh tire is bigger!" and "muh shadow detail!" and "it's just a tire we need more details!" The 5Ds still wins despite being at the following disadvantages...
- ISO 200.
- Hand held with no IS.
- Headlight at the edge of the frame where the 24-70L II isn't quite as sharp.
- Shot wide open at f/2.8.
- Zoom lens. (Pro zoom, but still.)
- Headlight in shadow. (VW bug headlight is facing the strobes which would tend to increase contrast.)
- There were cars driving nearby ;-)
6x9 came very close here. But imagine if the 5Ds had been shot with a tripod at, say, f/5.6, with a prime like the 85 f/1.4L IS, with one headlight center frame where the lens is sharpest. And with no cars driving nearby (kek). It wouldn't be close. It would be just like the other comparisons. Even worse for 6x9.
Isn't it funny how you come up with any excuse you can whether or not it's true or even possible (cars driving nearby), and I'm willing to pit the 5Ds against that oversampled 10,000 ppi scan even with multiple disadvantages? Edge of frame hand held f/2.8 isn't even remotely fair to the 5Ds. And it still pulled ahead. Just like any high res FF or GFX would.
>nooooo you cheated i'm unbiased post raw!I will. All in good time. When are you going to post...anything?
