It is what we've known all along

It’s what we’ve known all along.

 

Brand A vs Brand B vs this year’s model vs last years model. It’s all good.

 

If you have good lighting, good lenses and are reasonably skilled at photography and understand light and exposure, you can get good images and nobody really knows what brand and model camera you used.

 

The images below were made with two leading brands and models of cameras. Conditions were almost identical and after running through the usual post editing in Lightroom as any professional would do. The images have been reduced to 2400 pixels wide so you can zoom in to look at detail. At 300 dpi this would work out to about 8 inch wide prints.

 

Can you tell by looking at the image what brand shot image A or image B?

 

Image A

 

Image B

Edited November 25, 2018 by Mark Keefer

I’m not an expert, but I’ll take a broad shot. Image A was taken by an Olympus or Panasonic MFT. My only evidence is the proportion of the image. And similarly, image B was taken with a full frame camera perhaps a Canon or Nikon. But your point is taken. It’s the human element not the equipment creating the art!

i feel the same as you, brands dont matter. its the final image that counts, even if it was done with an oatmeal box pinhole camera.

 

nice portraits!

Sure.

You are holding the other camera in image 1.......

;)

Can you tell by looking at the image what brand shot Image A or Image B?

No.

 

A lot of my own choice in brand isn’t about the final output as much as usage concerns, ergonomics, cost, reliability, etc.

 

Whether anyone else knows or cares what brand I use is of no importance to me. The differences may matter only to me.

 

Only a privileged few will ever know if I wear Jockey or Calvin Klein briefs, but my own comfort more than anything else determines my choice. :)

Edited November 26, 2018 by The Shadow

I’m not an expert, but I’ll take a broad shot. Image A was taken by an Olympus or Panasonic MFT. My only evidence is the proportion of the image. And similarly, image B was taken with a full frame camera perhaps a Canon or Nikon. But your point is taken. It’s the human element not the equipment creating the art!

Sorry I should have stated both images were cropped so physical dimension proportions will not be a give away. And I will give this away, both images were taken with full frame cameras. I will give the reveal after this has been up for a while. :)

I wonder how many of us, at the start, thought about the end result of investing in a particular company / system? Virtually any camera from one of the majors will produce excellent photos, but when I bought "Real" digital - a system camera rather than sophisticated P&S, of course I followed my Film, and went Nikon. After a bit, it paid off, since I can use all of my old glass on digital DSLRs. Before I had Nikon, a friend in college lent me a Canon Pellix for more than a year. I got a lot of good photos with it, and might have gone Canon, but for another friend trading me a Nikon kit he bought in Viet Nam. Ancient days!

 

Can't tell brand, but I slightly prefer the look of the first photo. Obviously, both fine cameras, and a skilled hand.

Edited November 26, 2018 by Sandy Vongries

I will give the reveal after this has been up for a while. :)

Cool .

I'll never guess what camera(s) you used. And full frame can mean that you used the whole sensor, so that's a trap I will not fall into! :-)

 

A lot of people use cameras that are 50 years old, or more. Which is awesome. I have a few cameras approaching that age and I can't wait for a chance to use them. (I'm talking about work, not just personal stuff).

 

As far as brands go, Leica is number one, but they don't suit me at this stage for various reasons. So I use a different brand for now. Note to Leica: FLIPPY SCREENS, please.

 

I will eventually upgrade, which I need to do, and I think it's fun to do a bit of window shopping now and then. And who doesn't love a bargain? But I'm not so insecure as to require the latest and greatest. My favourite feature is value for money.

 

Those who say that brands don't matter are sometimes projecting. They're the ones who buy great big hulking DSLRs with 'full frame' sensors and the brand boldly displayed on the strap for all to see. What they're saying is that you don't need a Leica or a Hasselblad, but you do need an oversized, uninspiring, heavy camera with huge telephoto lenses, AF and 10fps. I wonder why these people aren't saving their money and using older (or smaller) cameras and more sensible lenses. But that is none of my business. :-)

 

P.S. To my surprise, the 2018 model iPhones have very good cameras. They are dramatically better than anything before them. So small sensors are more potent than I used to think. Imagine a Micro 4/3 sensor with that technology. But that's another discussion for another time.

There is a long list of attributes and features besides image quality which determines the value of a camera. Different people will have different needs. A wildlife or sports photographer would not be happy with a cell phone in lieu of long, expensive lenses. 10 fps gives you at least 10 times the likelihood that you will get a keeper shot of moving subjects in a given situation. You have a choice of relative positions and hand placements, among other things, that distinguish a great shot from mediocre ones. It's not how many shots you take, it's how many you keep.

On a laptop screen, I didn't notice any difference at first. Only when comparing both at full (screen) size, it seemed to me that Image A has better definition, for example in skin, hair and chair textures. There are factors other than 'camera' which might explain this. And maybe I'm just imagining it :)

 

I agree - in general - that "if you have good lighting, good lenses and are reasonably skilled at photography and understand light and exposure, you can get good images and nobody really knows (or cares) what brand and model camera you used".

 

In some professional photos (usually portraits) I do sometimes notice a quality difference that perhaps is related to the expensive MF system used. It still somehow puzzles me that these differences are noticeable even on a web-sized image viewed on laptop screen. So maybe it's mainly the difference in skill levels between high-end photographers and others that I'm seeing.

 

Mike

 

 

 

 

It’s what we’ve known all along.

 

Brand A vs Brand B vs this year’s model vs last years model. It’s all good.

 

If you have good lighting, good lenses and are reasonably skilled at photography and understand light and exposure, you can get good images and nobody really knows what brand and model camera you used.

 

The images below were made with two leading brands and models of cameras. Conditions were almost identical and after running through the usual post editing in Lightroom as any professional would do. The images have been reduced to 2400 pixels wide so you can zoom in to look at detail. At 300 dpi this would work out to about 8 inch wide prints.

 

Can you tell by looking at the image what brand shot image A or image B?

 

Image A

 

Image B

In some professional photos (usually portraits) I do sometimes notice a quality difference that perhaps is related to the expensive MF system used. It still somehow puzzles me that these differences are noticeable even on a web-sized image viewed on laptop screen. So maybe it's mainly the difference in skill levels between high-end photographers and others that I'm seeing.

It's all about lighting and toning/retouching. Not cameras.

I have seen full resolution quick and dirty photos taken by Leica M10 (on dpreview). Much of the stuff is really nothing to write home about and can be got by means of EOS6D or a many times cheaper APS camera.

So back to the shots: they are taken at f11 to f16. Sony first and Nikon second maybe. As for the lenses the difference is evident when the f is f2 or about .... f1.4 ... but when f 11 - it is indistiguishable. :confused:

A Sony, B Canon:)

What I learned here on PN when I joined in 2004 was that the camera doesn't mean much to me. I saw a photo (Little Diver) that Eric Larson posted of his daughter that he took with a $7.00 disposable underwater film camera and was completely blown away by it's simplicity and beauty. Seeing that photo has saved me a lot of money over the years because I get by with the least amount of photo gear possible and concentrate my energy on finding nice light and interesting subjects to shoot. If I was a professional and made my living in photography I would probably change my attitude, buy better equipment and, heaven forbid, turn in to a gear head.

YES !

Camera A took Image A and Camera B took Image B

You can take a great photo with a camera that means little to you.

You can take a great photo with a camera that means much to you.

 

I prefer the latter to the former.

YES !

Camera A took Image A and Camera B took Image B

Yes but is it Brand X, Y or Z?

You can take a great photo with a camera that means little to you.

You can take a great photo with a camera that means much to you.

 

I prefer the latter to the former.

And that is good for the economy and the prevailing view of most new members here on PN. Nothing wrong with that view in my opinion but it does emphasize the tangible (gear) over the intangible (creativity). My view is based on anecdotal evidence and not scientific studies.

The right tool for the job, and a good quality tool over a poor one. My choice every time.

Yes but is it Brand X, Y or Z?

You ask us to compare two photos less than 4 MP in size with dumbed-down color and dynamic range? Furthermore, you ask us to identify which camera was used in each case. I'm not sure the latter is important in any case, when all you see is the results. On the other hand, it matters a lot to me, which camera I choose for a particular job.

 

For landscapes, resolution and corner-to-corner sharpness are very important, and dependent on both the camera and the lens. I also prefer high resolution for portraits. You can always soften the results, but you can't improve on what is not there. I like to see textures in clothing and details around the eyes, even the iris. A perfect complexion is ideal, but most people will want something less than absolute truth in that regard. At one time, my choice would have been a 4x5 camera, but now there are other options with comparable results.

The right tool for the job, and a good quality tool over a poor one. My choice every time.

You are a new guy Sandy and I understand your thinking.

And that is good for the economy and the prevailing view of most new members here on PN. Nothing wrong with that view in my opinion but it does emphasize the tangible (gear) over the intangible (creativity). My view is based on anecdotal evidence and not scientific studies.

I expect using a tool you have an “intimate” connection to allows for greater creativity to the extent familiarity allows its use to be “second nature”.

The tools you like most you usually use best.

There is an old saying, “Beware the man with One gun”.

I think the tool should compliment the creativity.

If I had to compete for work today I expect I’d use digital.

I enjoy film in old cameras I’ve used since I was a teenager.

I remember time exposures and double exposures and such with the moon and that was pretty creative long before digital came along.

With today’s access to computers and graphics programs you don’t need a camera at all for creativity if that’s what you want to do at any particular time.

I simply like using Old Tools in addition to the new ones.

I noticed when I bought my first DSLR I spent more time looking at the menus than the subjects.......

"You are a new guy Sandy and I understand your thinking" tholte.

 

;)

 

"I expect using a tool you have an “intimate” connection to allows for greater creativity to the extent familiarity allows its use to be “second nature”.tholte

 

I wheel and deal a bit in the camera market, however, the tool I use for more serious photography, is the camera which I'm intimate with .In my case it is Nikon which also gives me consistent results in varying lightening conditions.

 

"I noticed when I bought my first DSLR I spent more time looking at the menus than the subjects." moving on".

 

A learning curve which is not really advanced Calculus or linear Algebra. You set your camera in the way that it works for you....really simple stuff not to be frightened of. Lots of online manuals will tell you how to do this.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Allen Herbert

Yeah but a curious mind tends to wander with wonder among all those files......

Then you remember it’s a camera.

 

 

But it’s no problem narrowing or broadening the potential to one’s personal taste.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Moving On