Best image?

[Ted Evans]

Three Nikon cameras with Tamron 70-200 f/2.8
ISO 100, f/8, 1/15 set using Sekonic light meter
All cameras were set identically when possible with same lighting and triggered with remotes.
All images were reduced to 1600 x 2400 and converted to JPEG. No other PP done.

I would very much appreciate you ranking the images from most preferred to least preferred if you are so inclined and also your comments. Thanks

A

B

C

 

[nerwin]

B looks the best to me!

 

[MSnowy]

B. Bad
C. Badder
A. Baddest

 

[crzyfotopeeple]

Fake flowers make for bad test subjects. Try them on some good looking women then I'll vote.

 

[Ted Evans]

B looks the best to me!

Thanks Nerwin, I appreciate your response. The images were not presented for a composition/subject matter contest, they were only intended to compare the IQ of the three cameras but apparently, some misunderstood.

 

[MSnowy]

B looks the best to me!

Thanks Nerwin, I appreciate your response. The images were not presented for a composition/subject matter contest, they were only intended to compare the IQ of the three cameras but apparently, some misunderstood.

I was rating the IQ.

 

[crzyfotopeeple]

Its easy to get hung up on the very minimal differences in today's modern cameras. I would be less concerned with IQ and more concerned with trying to take good pictures. One mans trash is another mans treasure.

 

[Ted Evans]

B. Bad
C. Badder
A. Baddest

Thanks MSnowy....very informative. Now I know exactly the technical flaws of each camera and how to correct it.

 

[Derrel]

A has an unpleasant yellow color cast; the whites look polluted.
B looks okay.
C looks okay as well.
None of these images is a particularly good image...nothing compelling...some fake flowers and some moss and a black backdrop...

 

[nerwin]

Now I'm curious what camera took B.

 

[Ted Evans]

A has an unpleasant yellow color cast; the whites look polluted.
B looks okay.
C looks okay as well.
None of these images is a particularly good image...nothing compelling...some fake flowers and some moss and a black backdrop...

I appreciate your comments Derrel, that is constructive. I was not trying to impress anyone with the subject or composition, I was only looking for a response such as you provided.

 

[Derrel]

I was just trying to say that the subject matter does not lend itself well to evaluating image quality to any great degree; the subject matter is pretty narrow in its textural types, in its color range, and its physical dimensions are such that the available pixels are "spread over" a very small area, so resolution differences or advantages or limitations are not really able to be evaluated to much of a degree. For example, a three megapixel sensor will look quite good when applied to an 18 x 27 inch area that is close to the camera, especially if shrunken down to 1600 pixels in height; and also, at reduced size, the evaluation is mostly about the re-sizing software and the way the image was shrunken down, more so than it is the sensor or lens.

 

[Ted Evans]

I was just trying to say that the subject matter does not lend itself well to evaluating image quality to any great degree; the subject matter is pretty narrow in its textural types, in its color range, and its physical dimensions are such that the available pixels are "spread over" a very small area, so resolution differences or advantages or limitations are not really able to be evaluated to much of a degree. For example, a three megapixel sensor will look quite good when applied to an 18 x 27 inch area that is close to the camera, especially if shrunken down to 1600 pixels in height; and also, at reduced size, the evaluation is mostly about the re-sizing software and the way the image was shrunken down, more so than it is the sensor or lens.

Sounds reasonable...what kind of a subject would you suggest for comparing how the cameras compare for just average type of shots? What I was getting at, as an example, taking pictures of pets, or the wife's flower garden or the new water feature, would it really make that much difference which camera is used when the images will only be seen on a monitor screen? I do not do prints and never intend to. As you pointed out, the A has an undesirable color cast to it which probably could be addressed in PP but why use it if it is not necessary. Neither am I interested in which has a few pixels more or less, what I want is the image sharp where it needs to be, is there good detail and is the color accurate. I appreciate constructive criticism but I have no appreciation for criticism just to be criticizing. Thanks again for your comments. BTW, the resizing was 16 x24 not 24x16 and was only done to minimize the file size for posting and is normally the size I use for viewing.

 

[Derrel]

What I have noticed is that higher-MP images to start with tend to look a little bit higher in acuity when shrunken down to web size and seen at say, 1600 pixels wide on this 30-inch monitor. The real key that I have seen is that the degree of sharpening applied to the images be "right" for the final output size...meaning a small pixel radius sharpening at a high percentage to overcome the anti-aliasing filter's softening effect, like say .3 pixel radius, 300 to 500 percent. Then, the full-sized image needs to be reduced to a screen-sized image; I like to do that in steps, sharpening between steps. With software like Lightroom, that process is a bit different.

I'm not sure what to make of your comment "I appreciate constructive criticism but I have no appreciation for criticism just to be criticizing"...not sure if that's addressed to me or not?

My suggestion would be to figure out what white balance setting works best with each camera and specific flashes or specific situations. Some cameras have better auto-WB than others; some flash units or umbrellas have different color temperatures that they give; different software apps yield different results; sharpening routines have to be tailored to the initial capture; some new cameras have NO AA-filter, so the initial "acquisition" sharpening pass can be omitted, and so on. For on-screen images, the whole process matters.

As far as test subjects: for close-up, small-area photos, it does not take many megapixels to make a good, clear image that looks great; as the size of the captured are grows larger (think hillside covered with wildflowers) and more-detailed, it takes more information to convey a sense of richly-detailed information, and that's where the higher-megapixel sensors start to show an advantage. This flower test scenario is a close-range, artificial light test done on synthetic materials; it's a valid test for what it is, but it's not universal. It shows a yellow cast with settings used on Camera A, with that light source and that lighting gear, so your notes would give you a good source of info. But...again, it's limited data. How was the white balance determined at the shooting stage, and in software?

Adobe products cannot read Nikon's encrypted WB data from Nikon .NEF files made in the D2x and later camera generations, so...again...we come back to "the process" as much as to "the cameras"...

Another observation. I just looked at the A,B,C images again: image A appears under-exposed compared to the other two...the image looks dimmer, so the ISO performance might be a little bit different too.

 

[Ted Evans]

What I have noticed is that higher-MP images to start with tend to look a little bit higher in acuity when shrunken down to web size and seen at say, 1600 pixels wide on this 30-inch monitor. The real key that I have seen is that the degree of sharpening applied to the images be "right" for the final output size...meaning a small pixel radius sharpening at a high percentage to overcome the anti-aliasing filter's softening effect, like say .3 pixel radius, 300 to 500 percent. Then, the full-sized image needs to be reduced to a screen-sized image; I like to do that in steps, sharpening between steps. With software like Lightroom, that process is a bit different.

I'm not sure what to make of your comment "I appreciate constructive criticism but I have no appreciation for criticism just to be criticizing"...not sure if that's addressed to me or not?

My suggestion would be to figure out what white balance setting works best with each camera and specific flashes or specific situations. Some cameras have better auto-WB than others; some flash units or umbrellas have different color temperatures that they give; different software apps yield different results; sharpening routines have to be tailored to the initial capture; some new cameras have NO AA-filter, so the initial "acquisition" sharpening pass can be omitted, and so on. For on-screen images, the whole process matters.

As far as test subjects: for close-up, small-area photos, it does not take many megapixels to make a good, clear image that looks great; as the size of the captured are grows larger (think hillside covered with wildflowers) and more-detailed, it takes more information to convey a sense of richly-detailed information, and that's where the higher-megapixel sensors start to show an advantage. This flower test scenario is a close-range, artificial light test done on synthetic materials; it's a valid test for what it is, but it's not universal. It shows a yellow cast with settings used on Camera A, with that light source and that lighting gear, so your notes would give you a good source of info. But...again, it's limited data. How was the white balance determined at the shooting stage, and in software?

Adobe products cannot read Nikon's encrypted WB data from Nikon .NEF files made in the D2x and later camera generations, so...again...we come back to "the process" as much as to "the cameras"...

Another observation. I just looked at the A,B,C images again: image A appears under-exposed compared to the other two...the image looks dimmer, so the ISO performance might be a little bit different too.

No, that comment was not meant for you Derrel as I view your comments as being very constructive and informative. My attempt was a quick test with as much control in keeping everything the same as was convenient at the time to see if there was enough difference in the type of shots that I described to be of concern. After looking at many images on Flickr and primarily those of landscapes and nature images, there are times when I cannot tell the ones taken with FX and those with DX. At other times, the FX images seem to have much more detail and no doubt there are contributing factors for this. One thing that I did forget was the WB, each camera was on auto and I should have set them the same. I did no adjustments of any kind in PP software as far as exposure/sharpness goes, only the file size and format.