It is what we've known all along

How can anyone not appreciate this.

Getting an excellent photo from such a machine is very gratifying for me.

Watching this guy work is a treat.

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

I think it entirely depends on the model.

A Sony, B Canon:)

You have them reversed.

Image A was shot with a 5D MK IV and image B with an A7RIII. I didn't notice this until later and viewing this on a larger monitor, but I think image B did not nail focus perfectly on the eye, was hard to get it perfect sitting on this side of the camera using a remote trigger. When I posted the images I felt the two were very close and in this case made no difference as to which brand of camera I chose.

But I do acknowledge very good points were raised and there are other factors to consider when choosing a camera, features, button placement, focusing speed and accuracy, resolution. Cameras are tools and you may want to choose the best tool for the job. If I were doing landscape I would prefer a good camera with higher resolution.

But for portraits, maybe not such a big deal, though eye lock may be something you would find useful.

My point was you can get great images with any brand quality camera and we don't have to beat ourselves up that we are so vested in brand A vs brand B and think I have to sell off $20K in gear, take a loss and buy new in the other brand to keep up. We weren't shooting with junk last year, if the camera was a great camera last year it is still a great camera this year. Even if Brand X came out with super catch light bazillion pixel auto focus tracking, I am still able to create great images with either brand using good lenses and light. Nobody knows or cares what camera you used, it`s the image that counts. I look at the series of shots I took and if not in there naming convention and metadata, I can't tell which camera I shot an image with.

But very good points were made here by Photo.netters, there are other factors that go into choosing a camera beyond end results. if Brand X has some feature you have longed for, than switching is your choice. A Ford Mustang, Chevy Camero or Mercedes can get you up the street, it is a choice of which you prefer to drive.

Thanks everyone for contributing to the conversation. Great comments.

If I were doing landscape I would prefer a good camera with higher resolution.

 

But for portraits, maybe not such a big deal

I'm curious why you say resolution wouldn't be as big a deal for portraits as for landscapes.

My point was you can get great images with any brand quality camera and we don't have to beat ourselves up that we are so vested in brand A vs brand B and think I have to sell off $20K in gear, take a loss and buy new in the other brand to keep up. We weren't shooting with junk last year, if the camera was a great camera last year it is still a great camera this year. Even if Brand X came out with super catch light bazillion pixel auto focus tracking, I am still able to create great images with either brand using good lenses and light. Nobody knows or cares what camera you used, it`s the image that counts. I look at the series of shots I took and if not in there naming convention and metadata, I can't tell which camera I shot an image with.

Yes and no. First of all, good luck actually getting your point across to a lot of camera enthusiasts. I think, as with cars ... and gambling and alcohol ... there's a part of this camera business that a) is just that, a business (most diets don't work yet look at all those who are on them, losing weight and then gaining it right back), b) is a hobby not unlike coin collecting and c) it can be an addiction for some people.

But d) may be the most important point ... d) the use of different cameras likely has more validity than you're giving it credit for in a lot of cases. You posted 2 similar shots (both portraits, no landscapes) taken with two cameras in identical conditions. I'd need to make a judgment on the end result of a variety of cameras by seeing a much more wide-ranging study of a bunch of different cameras under all kinds of conditions taking a variety of types of shots in different lighting and at different distances and weather conditions, producing prints at both small and large sizes. If there are going to be significant differences, they wouldn't necessarily show up in 1000 pixel images viewed on a computer screen and they wouldn't necessarily show up in the limited conditions you've tested in.

The difference between a Camaro and a Subaru may not show up much when Grandma drives them to the local supermarket but might show up a whole lot more when her grandson drives them in heavy snow or on the open, winding road.

I think image B did not nail focus perfectly on the eye

Eye Focus in the Sony must be engaged manually at the time of exposure, using a button programmed for that function. Face recognition works 100% of the time when enabled. Even with the lens open, there should be enough DOF to get the eyes in reasonable focus. As you probably know, 42 (or 50) MP at the pixel level put to rest any notions that DOF is more than a simplifying convenience. Neither Canon nor Sony cameras tell you to sit still during the exposure ;)

I would not ignore the contribution the lens makes to the overall impression, much less detail. Per your OP, you spent considerable time adjusting the exposure, color and contrast so that the images were as close as possible. You then reduced the resolution to less than 4 MP for display on PNET. You obviously used a tripod in both cases, which is good. Camera shake in the absence of image stabilization reduces the effective resolution to 6 MP, using the 1/F rule for shutter speed.

Yes but is it Brand X, Y or Z?

I'd say Epson, because at the point it is scanned and uploaded to this thread

it is no longer what brand camera or lens but the other tool used to

digitize it. If I saw the acutal negatives, and prints uninterpreted by a light beam

otherwise, I'd say Lomo or Zorki.

In the few portrait shoots I've done, I was surprised how amazing the sharpness and quality of images when properly using studio lighting. If you guys ever look at me work, you know that 90 percent at least is in natural light, but it was a revelation to see the results of a model shoot. I tend to fall into the "camp" that believes using the elements and your instincts and know how are more important to getting "good" pictures then the camera itself. But I also believe in the right tool for the job. I like my gear and enjoy using gear I like better than the obverse.

But I also have to agree with Tim. He was making stellar images from an old Nikon D70 for years it seems after they were considered obsolete.

P.S. For some reason it seems that P.net is up-sizing images. This is much bigger than the original uploaded jpg.

I'm curious why you say resolution wouldn't be as big a deal for portraits as for landscapes.

Perhaps I should rephrase that and add, depends on how large you are printing. There comes a point when shooting people without good complection where every pore and peach fuzz hair and pimple and pock mark become too freaking detailed unless you are a dermatologist looking to diagnose something in the cells of the skin. That's all. But if you are blowing something up for a bill board, perhaps, I have never printed anything more than poster size. Shooting at 31 megapixels and going to 42 megapixels and you are doing prints for a photo album or even a photo 2 feet across, if both cameras nailed focus and shot with good light is which camera you used really going to make or break the image. I have seen stunningly gorgeous professional portraits printed large using cameras 6 years old that are just fantastic. They were done without 2017 or 2018 technology. The new Sony A7III is only 24 megapixels, it will make a good camera for shooting a wedding, Bar Mitzvah and events.

The ability to create great digital photography portraits did not just come about with the latest two generation of cameras, so that is why I say resolution wouldn't be as big a deal and I am talking between the three leading brands of Pro level cameras. I was not implying a circa 1999 1 megapixel point and shoot vs a 42 megapixel Sony A7RIII would not be a big deal, obviously these two cameras are in different classes of gear. I was referring to higher end cameras in a given class of camera such as full frame Nikon, Canon and Sony.

And I am not saying I don't love the higher resolution, but if I am shooting someone at a few feet from me under studio lighting, I feel I could achieve excellent results with a Nikon D750, D850, D3, D5, Canon 6D, 5D MK II, MKIII, MK IV, 1DX, Sony A7RII, A7III, A7RIII, A9, I could achieve excellent results with any of these camera given great light and sharp lenses. I don't feel the resolution differences in these cameras is going to be that big of deal for photo albums or wall portraits, or the web, these all will give great results and you could blow any of the shots from these cameras to poster size to sell in store or online. Just my opinion.

Perhaps I should rephrase that and add, depends on how large you are printing.

That’s what I was thinking.

There comes a point when shooting people without good complection where every pore and peach fuzz hair and pimple and pock mark become too freaking detailed unless you are a dermatologist looking to diagnose something in the cells of the skin. That's all.

I’d rather go with max flexibility from high resolution and I take care of the concerns you mention by watching the type and angle of lighting, distance I maintain from the subject, and how sharp or soft I make the focus. I use mostly natural light for portraits and there are many ways to achieve more flattering or much harsher light, depending on what I’m after. I live in San Francisco where the fog and haze make for an almost constant and natural softbox effect, so conditions help a lot. Also close-up portraits are different from environmental portraits so not all portraits highlight complexion.