Page 1 / 3
Next
Here is the deal. I have a camera purchase to make but I cant make up my mind so I thought I would ask for some help to see which set of images you all prefer and why. There is a way to do this now and I found it to be reliable because I can see patterns in the image rendition and after purchase Im usually satisfied. Before anyone says that the sensor and camera doesn't matter its the person behind the camera, it is true however cameras are tuned differently and the image output can vary between the brands as well as between specific cameras.
Flickr has photo groups that pool from thousands of people using the same gear. Of course lens and other factors can make a difference but on the whole you should be able to see a pattern. It is not about megapixels or any metric as the camera manufactures do tune the color science and other things to give it a pleasing look. I just want to know what your impressions are as I have kind of made up my mind but I want some conformation.
So here are your contenders. Keep in mind there might be a stray not taken from these cameras but at least 95% are.
Medium format Fuji GFX R
https://www.flickr.com/groups/fujifilm_gfx_50r/pool/
Canon ESO R
Topic starter
Posted : April 2, 2020 9:39 am
dev, to my uneducated eye the Cannon pictures were noticeably sharper and less muddied. I will show this to my wife, who is the photographer in the family and takes many pictures, mostly nature shots. she will be a better, more educated eye for such things. But to my eye it is a striking difference between the two groups.
Blown, it is like lift, only bigger, better, longer, stronger, harder... and that’s just the car. The first Rotrex supercharged 2zz Spyder.
Posted : April 2, 2020 10:02 am
1
Put me down for the Canon ESO R group .... the images seem more crisp in it .
On a side note whoever started the blurred background craze needs to be shot ... I hate that !!!
Posted : April 2, 2020 10:06 am
1
dev, to my uneducated eye the Cannon pictures were noticeably sharper and less muddied. I will show this to my wife, who is the photographer in the family and takes many pictures, mostly nature shots. she will be a better, more educated eye for such things. But to my eye it is a striking difference between the two groups.
Thanks and please do. I do remember that your wife is a photographer.
Topic starter
Posted : April 2, 2020 10:06 am
We have many eagle nests in our local area. One four trees overlooking the river flowing through the back yard has a tree eagles use to look for dead fish and other carrion. She has many shots of several eagles on watch.
Blown, it is like lift, only bigger, better, longer, stronger, harder... and that’s just the car. The first Rotrex supercharged 2zz Spyder.
Posted : April 2, 2020 10:17 am
Put me down for the Canon ESO R group .... the images seem more crisp in it .
On a side note whoever started the blurred background craze needs to be shot ... I hate that !!!
Thanks.
That blurred background known as bokeh and is not for everyone but it is part of the art in photography and its been around for a very long time probably 80 years especially during the film days to make the photo impressionistic. Its not for everyone and it depends on where you use it and how much of it but I agree that it is over used. The difference between the quality of the bokeh can vary greatly between a $100 lens and what people pay though the nose for which is a $10k lens just for this feature so its not so obvious and distracting.
Topic starter
Posted : April 2, 2020 10:18 am
We have many eagle nests in our local area. One four trees overlooking the river flowing through the back yard has a tree eagles use to look for dead fish and other carrion. She has many shots of several eagles on watch.
That is one area of photography I never got into primarily because I do not have that kind of opportunity. The best thats out there for me a Crane that stops by our local gardens in the spring and ducks. Duck shots are boring but I do use them to test gear.
Topic starter
Posted : April 2, 2020 10:24 am
Sorry that I cannot be of much help here. I looked at both sites and clicked back and forth between the two sites to see what I could see. I was unable to tell any difference -- and that's even with having had cataract surgery a few years back!
Posted : April 2, 2020 11:20 am
1
Sorry that I cannot be of much help here. I looked at both sites and clicked back and forth between the two sites to see what I could see. I was unable to tell any difference -- and that's even with having had cataract surgery a few years back!
That is an interesting observation. Thanks.
Im actually looking for observations from people who are not that much into photography because they are a better judge believe it or not.
I could have easily posted this on the photography forums I belong to but many of them are narrow minded and only judge such thing as sharpness or a specific metric. Photographers are often times blinded in this respect and never see the photograph as a whole like the emotion or warmth from the rendition that is actually part of the tonality. Photography forums are full of gear nuts that believes a camera that costs four times more has to take a better photograph but often it never translates to what people actually see as a pleasing image.
Topic starter
Posted : April 2, 2020 12:36 pm
Sorry that I cannot be of much help here. I looked at both sites and clicked back and forth between the two sites to see what I could see. I was unable to tell any difference -- and that's even with having had cataract surgery a few years back!
That is an interesting observation. Thanks.
Im actually looking for observations from people who are not that much into photography because they are a better judge believe it or not.
I could have easily posted this on of the many photography forums I belong to but many of them are narrow minded and only judge such thing as sharpness or a specific metric. Photographers are often times blinded in this respect and never see the photograph as a whole like the emotion or warmth from the rendition that is actually part of the tonality. Photography forums are full of gear nuts that believes a camera that costs four times more has to take a better photograph but often it never translates to what people actually see as a pleasing image.
I get it. If we trained our focus (pun intended) to look merely at the trees, it is quite easy to lose sight of the forest. I'm glad my cataract-free view of the samples was helpful in some way.
Posted : April 2, 2020 12:47 pm
Sorry that I cannot be of much help here. I looked at both sites and clicked back and forth between the two sites to see what I could see. I was unable to tell any difference -- and that's even with having had cataract surgery a few years back!
That is an interesting observation. Thanks.
Im actually looking for observations from people who are not that much into photography because they are a better judge believe it or not.
I could have easily posted this on of the many photography forums I belong to but many of them are narrow minded and only judge such thing as sharpness or a specific metric. Photographers are often times blinded in this respect and never see the photograph as a whole like the emotion or warmth from the rendition that is actually part of the tonality. Photography forums are full of gear nuts that believes a camera that costs four times more has to take a better photograph but often it never translates to what people actually see as a pleasing image.
I get it. If we trained our focus (pun intended) to look merely at the trees, it is quite easy to lose sight of the forest. I'm glad my cataract-free view of the samples was helpful in some way.
It is very much so. If possible you can go though a few more pages as there are thousands of photos. Your observation since you think they look similar could use a little more of a sample size.
Topic starter
Posted : April 2, 2020 1:09 pm
Sure I could do that. Is there a better way to contrast specific images? I know that there was at least one photo that showed-up on both camera's pages -- a woman in a reddish colored dress, leaning against the inside branches of a tree and gazing upwards -- at least that is the image that remains in my mind. They looked to be exactly the same photograph to me. Maybe I was looking in the wrong place, but I clicked on the links that you posted and both links had a menagerie of photos to look at.
Posted : April 2, 2020 1:21 pm
Sure I could do that. Is there a better way to contrast specific images? I know that there was at least one photo that showed-up on both camera's pages -- a woman in a reddish colored dress, leaning against the inside branches of a tree and gazing upwards -- at least that is the image that remains in my mind. They looked to be exactly the same photograph to me. Maybe I was looking in the wrong place, but I clicked on the links that you posted and both links had a menagerie of photos to look at.
I seen that also and its from a Sony camera. If you click on the photo it will tell you what camera has taken the photo if you have a doubt. There are some people that want attention so they make their photos show up on those pools but its mostly rare. I would say 95% of the photos are from the same camera.
Some people can make a determination right away and some people need a larger sample size. Its not uncommon for many to need some time and more photos before they see patterns that are not quantifiable and more pleasing so if you dont see it at first or never reach a conclusion its perfectly normal as we all see things differently but the consensus is usually tilts one way or another.
Topic starter
Posted : April 2, 2020 1:40 pm
From an uneducated (as far as cameras go) eye, I’m thinking the EOS pics are just a bit sharper.
Posted : April 2, 2020 2:19 pm
1
From an uneducated (as far as cameras go) eye, I’m thinking the EOS pics are just a bit sharper.
Thanks. Much appreciated. The untrained eye is usually a better judge for art.
Topic starter
Posted : April 2, 2020 2:22 pm
Page 1 / 3
Next