A&P How much difference does your camera really make?

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by jared_IRL, Jul 2, 2007.

  1. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,736
    Likes Received:
    54
    There's been a TON of measurebating lately here at OTAP...

    It got me curious to see just *how* much difference some of the things we talk about make...

    Can one lens really be THAT much sharper than another?

    Will my pictures be awesome if I bought a Canon instead of a Nikon?

    RAW vs JPG?

    So, I set up an experiment. I treated it like a science experiment, and so i'll present it in the same manner...

    Objective: To identify and quantify the amount of difference between identical captures using different equipment.

    Constants: Same still life subjects photographed at f8, 50mm, with on camera flash selected in ttl mode.

    Process: Tripod was setup, equipment was chosen and prepped. One after another, pictures were taken. They were then processed identically, with white and black points being set. then resized to 1200x800 and saved as jpgs. No other post work was done.

    Variables: Each shot appears to be off from the previous by a fraction. I suppose a better tripod should be next on my purchase list...


    Now - Before we get to the images, as you view them, I'd like you to note the differences between them. Color shifts, sharpness, general image quality, etc.

    OH, and yes, I know my shot selection was boring as hell... whatever...

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  2. eof

    eof New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,288
    Likes Received:
    0
    :hsugh:

    A few things to think about....

    1. You should do 100% crops to really notice the difference
    2. Camera settings should be the same and the lighting should be the same for every picture (don't change your shutter speed, aperture, etc)
    3. Don't use on camera flash...most of the time you won't be using that in real life so why would you make it the basis for your testing?
     
  3. ok_computer

    ok_computer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2005
    Messages:
    15,615
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    This is kinda :hsugh:

    WB seems to change for a few shots, they're not 100% crops, and some are at diff focal lengths
     
  4. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,736
    Likes Received:
    54
    Uhhh...

    They're all at 50mm, 1/60th and F8

    What are you guys talking about?

    White balance is untouched, RAW. Except for the ones that are shot in jog mode, then it was set to auto white balance. That is also untouched.

    Not to mention, the jpg's are a result of RAW+jpg shots of the other shots used... Which just goes to show the in camera processing used...
     
  5. midorigreen

    midorigreen New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2003
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course using different equipment is going to yield different results, thats just common sense, so again, whats the point of this test?

    This was a waste of time cause it proves absolutely nothing
     
  6. Pineapple Devil

    Pineapple Devil beat it!

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2001
    Messages:
    53,752
    Likes Received:
    8
    i just did a scientific experiment to see if i took 5 different cars and drove them to see if they would drive differently

    :hsugh:
     
  7. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,736
    Likes Received:
    54
    The results aren't that much different.

    Can you look at the photos, and without checking the exif data, tell me which one was shot with a canon, which was shot with a Nikon, which was shot with a prime lens, which was shot with a kit lens, which was shot as a jpg, and which was shot RAW??

    The point is, there's not that much difference at all. Everyone here spends hours and hours measurbating their fucking balls off, but the biggest factor in how your pics end up is NOT the camera you're holding.
     
  8. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,736
    Likes Received:
    54
    My scientific experiment is a bit different.

    I'm showing that you can take your pick of whatever camera body and lens you want, and the same picture will be within 99% of one taken with a different setup if all else is equal.
     
  9. Pineapple Devil

    Pineapple Devil beat it!

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2001
    Messages:
    53,752
    Likes Received:
    8
    so a $200 sigma lens will shoot just as good of a picture as a $1500 canon L lens?
     
  10. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,736
    Likes Received:
    54

    If you're shooting within the limits of the sigma lens, yes it will.

    pick out the difference between the two 50mm 1.8's and the 18-55 and 18-70 kit lenses...
     
  11. Pineapple Devil

    Pineapple Devil beat it!

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2001
    Messages:
    53,752
    Likes Received:
    8
    might be hard considering they are all right at the same quality (sub $100) and since you didnt post 100% crops it'd be pointless to look. i could post a p&s picture that would look better than the kit lens pictures
     
  12. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,736
    Likes Received:
    54
    So, then you're saying that just because a 50mm lens costs less that it's not as sharp as one that costs 10x more?

    The nikon and canon 50mm 1.8's are well known to be some of the sharpest either man. has EVER made.

    Price doesn't matter one bit here.

    Your point about the kit lens pics is bullshit unless you care to back it up.

    Go take an identical shot with a p&s and your camera with it's kit lens. Then show that they're the same.

    Also, The images are all the same size for a reason. There will be some differences at a microscopic level, sure. But comparing those differences is called measurbating.

    Which brings me back to my whole point. The differences you're trying to find don't matter one bit in real life. They only matter if you're sitting in front of a computer screen and looking at your shots under a microscope. Once you post process something and send it out to it's end result - either the web at ~1200x800, or printed to a 11x17, you can't see ANY difference.
     
  13. eof

    eof New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,288
    Likes Received:
    0
    You should delete this thread and pretend it didn't happen....

    Two pictures can look the same at 1200x800 but if you were to make a poster size print with a picture that was taken with inferior equipment you would realize how huge the difference is. So if you are just taking pictures to post on the internet at 25% then I guess equipment isn't that important but if you plan on doing anything else with the images you might want to spend some cash on better equipment.
     
  14. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    im sorry but f/8 is a sweet spot for nearly every lens out there. post some images with a wider f/stop and you will start to notice the difference. The experiment is near pointless. because i had a lens that had max f/stop of 5.6, vs a more expensive lens that has a 1.4, i would be able to capture much more images and have much more versatility than that of the 5.6. As well get X amount more shutter speed. Its not always about "sharpness", its more about getting the good shot creatively.
     
  15. Pineapple Devil

    Pineapple Devil beat it!

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2001
    Messages:
    53,752
    Likes Received:
    8
    thats exactly what i'm saying. its all about quality of parts. just like a civic isnt going to be as good a car as one that cost 10x as much
    for what it is, yes it is sharp. is the 50mm 1.8 = to the 50mm 1.2L? no

    thats your opinion but i'm pretty sure that 99% of people will disagree with you on that. if there wasnt a difference in the performance, there wouldnt be a price difference
     
  16. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,736
    Likes Received:
    54

    I have a print on my wall at 40x60... I have two more at 32x40 and a 4th at 44x44.

    First you assume I shot them at different settings, now you're assuming I don't print. Please stop assuming.

    Honestly though, if you're printing poster size and you're not using a RIP program to upsize, perhaps you should only shoot large format. Because ANY print out of a 1.5/1.6 sensor will need to be upsized to print larger than 24x36 properly.

    You can create a perfect poster size print out of a 3mb file if you know how to use an upsizing program.

    My point is this:

    In 1200's thread about wanting to switch to canon, he was under the impression that the camera would make a difference in his photography. Some people on this forum fed into that, and others jumped in on the measurebating about how one camera can do this, and another can do that.

    One of the first things you learn in film photography is that you want as LITTLE to happen between the glass and the film. The closer it looks to what you see in real life, the better.

    Somehow, with digital, everyone's forgotten that. It seems to be a common belief that the camera has some effect on the quality of the shot.
    I'm trying to get it out there that your cameras sensor has as much to do with the quality of your shot as your film did. NOT MUCH.

    You never heard anyone saying - "dude.. If I just had some velvia instead of this roll of Porta, that shot would have been AWESOME!"

    A raw capture is essentially your 'film'. It's an unaltered capture of what you saw through your viewfinder. If your exposure was perfect, then you can process it to print as you see fit, JUST LIKE IN FILM!

    Until you understand that, trading in your d80 for a d2xs isn't going to make you a better photographer.
     
  17. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,736
    Likes Received:
    54

    I agree completely.

    I'm not saying that good lenses don't have their place.

    What i'm saying is that until you understand that the ONLY reason you need a 1.8 is when you exceed the limits of your 5.6 lenses, having that expensive lens won't do you any good.

    The advantage of having a 200mm 2.8 is that you can shoot at 2.8. Not so you can shoot it at 8.

    If you ARE shooting it at 8, you're not really using it to it's advantage, and could have prolly saved $1k and be getting the same shot.
     
  18. Pineapple Devil

    Pineapple Devil beat it!

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2001
    Messages:
    53,752
    Likes Received:
    8
    please stop while you're ahead
     
  19. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,736
    Likes Received:
    54
    You're missing my point here.

    There are people that will notice the difference, and people that don't.

    However, 99% of OTAP doesn't need a 1.2

    I agree with what you're saying. What i'm saying is that the difference between the 1.8 and the 1.2 is sooooo small, that an 11x17 print and a 1200x800 image will look just about identical.

    Just like the kit lens and 50mm 1.8 look just about identical at f8.
     
  20. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,736
    Likes Received:
    54
    I'm ahead?

    :x:
     
  21. Jonny Chimpo

    Jonny Chimpo OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    64,733
    Likes Received:
    368
    Location:
    The sweaty asshole of the universe
    Hasn't this topic been sufficiently covered by DPReview?


    [​IMG]
     
  22. eof

    eof New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,288
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not assuming you don't print...I don't give a fuck whether you print or not. I am just stating the obvious that you cannot tell the difference between the images at 1200x800 and if that is all you do is look at 1200x800 images you will not notice the difference between the equipment. Post the same exact pictures with 100% crops and you should notice some difference. Or Print out a 8x11 and you should notice the difference there....anyway I am done with this. I am dumber from reading this thread...

    I guess we will have to agree to disagree... :hs:
     
  23. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    people who are familiar with the equipment can tell you that Canons tend to blow out the highlights. That being said, I'd guess the first one is a Canon, the second is a Nikon.

    It's hard to tell with web resolution sized images, but it looks like the first few are shot in jpg and the last few are shot in raw.
     
  24. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    You went through all this to tell us what we already know?
     
  25. TtamNedlog

    TtamNedlog OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    2,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the problem here is that this was made into its own thread. It was mainly in response to 1200 in his other thread about switching to Canon. If it was put in there, maybe nobody would have jumped on Jared's back.

    That said, this would benefit 1200 greatly. People claiming they can tell the difference between a Canon/Nikon picture... are just like my friend who swears up and down that he can taste the difference of different colored m&ms. NOPE.
     

Share This Page