Can you tell the difference?

[jamiebonline]

Hi,

I was looking on flickr the other day under 35mm prime lenses. I decided to see if I could tell which pictures were from a much higher resolution more recent apsc camera like the D7200 and which were from an older camera with an inferior sensor and lower pixel count. My laptop is, I would say, average size. Well my results are this: I could see no difference at all! I totally failed to tell which pictures were from the more advanced models and which were from a camera from 8 years ago. I'd suggest you give it a try. It's kind of interesting to say the least. I don't think my eyes are that bad either. See for yourself anyway.

I know there are a lot of posts where people go on and on about IQ and sharpness but in practical terms... it's often a different story.

Now there is a lot more to a camera than IQ. For example, number of focus points, more frames per second and so on. Many other things which make the process of getting the image somewhat easier. I am only talking about IQ here. The further back you go the more limited the machine and yet iconic sports images happened on cameras which were almost laughably slow compared to today's.

Back to where I started, I searched for images taken by the D90 and didn't specify the lens and apart from some obvious macro work or really wide aperture shots, sometimes I couldn't tell if a lens was a 50 1.4, for example or kit lens at 50mm. I was really surprised by some kit lens pictures.

One would need to see the images side by side, I guess and I am sure getting the original file and analysing it would show big differences... but who the hell does that? Do we zoom in and analyze great paintings from the past? Well some people do but 99.999 per cent of the viewing public don't and that is who it is for, no? Some people here might say it is for themselves and so be it. I personally don't think of creative stuff this way. I am again thinking about the audience. So used to smart phones as so many people are now, I myself have been surprised by the good use of an iphone for a picture, it further shows the vast gap between art and consumer-driven tech.

Of course the companies want you to get the latest model and there is nothing wrong with that, if you like that but a great picture clearly defies the tool used. Why not go back to an old TLR from the film days which has so little to it compared to all the bells and whistles in newer cameras. Aren't there TLR images that are masterpieces? Superior in every way to a picture taken with a D5, for example? Of course there are.

So I am offering something most here already know, especially the more experienced among you, that the tools you use are far less important than you think. That the gear acquisition thing is often a total waste of money. I am reminded of music, which I know quite a lot about, a factory made guitar worth 100 bucks played by a great player is obviously ten times better than a 10,000 dollar guitar played poorly. It just needs to be said again though. It needs to be brought to the surface so people who are new to photography don't get lost and lose tons of cash trying to have the latest, falling for the gimmicks and not concentrating on the art.

 

[Overread]

I guess and I am sure getting the original file and analysing it would show big differences... but who the hell does that? Do we zoom in and analyze great paintings from the past?

Yes, in fact a lot of artists and those keen on art will often look at the brush strokes and sometimes the mastery of some of the great works of art is not just in their presentation as a whole; but in the technique and skill that they display when looked at in great and close detail.


As for your comparison consider that the internet; especially for photos viewed at typical sizes, so around 1000 pixels on the shortest side, is VERY forgiving an environment for optical quality. It will hide a lot of imperfections that can be evident if you enlarge photos for printing or larger display; or if you crop them to use a segment and not just the whole.
Thus what you see online at small sizes can be missleading; however if that's all you will ever do with your photos then you can consider that yes some lower end gear can be very high performing in this environment; esp when used correctly.


However don't overlook the fact that optical quality in terms of sharpness/clarity is only one aspect of quality. For a lens the focusing speed; noise; the rendering of the background blurring*; the ability to reduce the chances for lens flares when shooting into a bright light source; the chance to reduce colouring along bright white boundaries (can be more hidden in web-sized shots); the ability to focus more easily manually; the wider maximum aperture allowing good focusing in lower light and more light gathering as well as increased aperture range for increased depth of field control.

So there's a lot of things; some big some small; that all contribute.
Also if you want a good example of how the web makes shots appear sharper go find some 100^ crops or fullsize uploads from the Canon MPE65mm macro at high magnification. What can look tack sharp at websize; when viewed at fullsize can appear quite soft in comparison to other lenses (this isn't a fault of the lens but more a result of high magnification photography).


*a point some consider minor; but you can tell some lenses apart; for example the 100-400mm often has quite a distinctive blurring to how it renders the background; which is not as smooth as some other lenses are capable of achieving,. Whilst a minor point to some it can be make or break for others keen on presenting the shot well over the whole and not just over the sharp subject.

 

[jamiebonline]

Yes, in fact a lot of artists and those keen on art will often look at the brush strokes and sometimes the mastery of some of the great works of art is not just in their presentation as a whole; but in the technique and skill that they display when looked at in great and close detail.

Yes, it's true but again the vast majority of people don't do this with a work of art. They take it as a whole. Same with Beethoven symphony which I have studied in detail with a score. It's only cause I did a degree in music. Normal people don't do this. They go to a concert and simply listen. Don't get me wrong, I believe that greatness is often evident in attention to detail but I don't see the direct correlation with new tech. I certainly don't see the connection with the consumer market either.

Also about the medium being ''forgiving''. Yes, of course it is forgiving but the medium, computers and phones, is again where almost everyone sees new pictures and almost nobody is downloading them and zooming in to see if there is chromatic aberration in the left corner. If they did find it... would the picture lose it's worth? Even a little? Like I said, a tool from 50 years ago produced images we still consider masterpieces.

 

[jaomul]

Unless pixel peeping a lot of lenses may look the same. You may notice things like chromatic aberration on pictures with distinctive high contrast areas between say trees and sky or a dark bird and sky that you won't get on better lenses.

You kind of nailed it on the head though, when you said 50 years ago there were also masterpiece images. A lot of what makes a great image may not be totally down to image quality, and where it is, a 50 year old masterpiece images was developed or printed, not viewed on an iPhone, where the quality will show

 

[Overread]

The aveage person though can consider a snapshot taken by a disposable film camera that is blurry and out of focus a great shot - esp if its of a family member or pet or the like.

Of course yes shots from 50 years ago can be masterworks; however its important to understand the criteria by which we measure that; sometimes it a masterwork whilst failing on almost all technical levels; but is a master because it shows a composition or shows a moment in history that is very key.


Old gear can still perform; composition and content are still important as they ever were; but that doesn't stop the desire for improved tools; for cameras that can perform beyond the limits of the okd gear and for an overall improvement in quality. Those things drive the advance of technolgy and make new things possible that in the past were simply not done as they couldn't be done.

 

[Ysarex]

Hi,

I was looking on flickr the other day under 35mm prime lenses. I decided to see if I could tell which pictures were from a much higher resolution more recent apsc camera like the D7200 and which were from an older camera with an inferior sensor and lower pixel count. My laptop is, I would say, average size. Well my results are this: I could see no difference at all! I totally failed to tell which pictures were from the more advanced models and which were from a camera from 8 years ago. I'd suggest you give it a try. It's kind of interesting to say the least. I don't think my eyes are that bad either. See for yourself anyway.

I know there are a lot of posts where people go on and on about IQ and sharpness but in practical terms... it's often a different story.

Define "practical terms" please. I define practical terms as a 16x20 or 20x24 print on a gallery wall. My choice of tools is therefore predicated on the practical terms of my regular photography.

You may have different "practical terms" and that's just fine. I'm not insisting that you accept mine and I hope you're not implying that I should accept yours.

Now there is a lot more to a camera than IQ. For example, number of focus points, more frames per second and so on. Many other things which make the process of getting the image somewhat easier. I am only talking about IQ here. The further back you go the more limited the machine and yet iconic sports images happened on cameras which were almost laughably slow compared to today's.

Exceptions do not make rules and exceptions do not invalidate rules. As a rule photography like this: Kristofer Rowe is possible today because of sophisticated new tools. Kristofer could not consistently take those photos using a 1950s vintage camera. Occasionally someone back then nabbed one. Kristofer does it day in and day out.

The tool doesn't in any way invalidate Kristofer's skill, but his skill shines most brightly when supported by the right tools.

Back to where I started, I searched for images taken by the D90 and didn't specify the lens and apart from some obvious macro work or really wide aperture shots, sometimes I couldn't tell if a lens was a 50 1.4, for example or kit lens at 50mm. I was really surprised by some kit lens pictures.

One would need to see the images side by side, I guess and I am sure getting the original file and analysing it would show big differences... but who the hell does that? Do we zoom in and analyze great paintings from the past? Well some people do but 99.999 per cent of the viewing public don't and that is who it is for, no? Some people here might say it is for themselves and so be it. I personally don't think of creative stuff this way. I am again thinking about the audience. So used to smart phones as so many people are now, I myself have been surprised by the good use of an iphone for a picture, it further shows the vast gap between art and consumer-driven tech.

Of course the companies want you to get the latest model and there is nothing wrong with that, if you like that but a great picture clearly defies the tool used. Why not go back to an old TLR from the film days which has so little to it compared to all the bells and whistles in newer cameras. Aren't there TLR images that are masterpieces?

Absolutely.

Superior in every way to a picture taken with a D5, for example? Of course there are.

Nope -- absolutely not. Of course you can take a bad photo with a D5. But putting aside operator skill and/or incompetence, differences exist between those two tools and those differences are limiting factors that the skill of the operator CAN NOT overcome. In that sense tools do matter.

That an incompetent photographer can screw up with a good camera just means there are incompetent photographers -- so what?

So I am offering something most here already know, especially the more experienced among you, that the tools you use are far less important than you think.

I am very experienced, having made my living from photography now for over 40 years. I believe I have a very balanced appreciation of the importance of my tools.

That the gear acquisition thing is often a total waste of money. I am reminded of music, which I know quite a lot about, a factory made guitar worth 100 bucks played by a great player is obviously ten times better than a 10,000 dollar guitar played poorly. It just needs to be said again though.

No it doesn't need to be said again. It's silly nonsense. I likewise know a lot about music and I have numerous recordings of Pepe and Celedonio Romero playing guitar. They play custom built Ramirez guitars that do sound amazingly better than the $100.00 Yamaha junk you get from Amazon. I much prefer listening to them play instruments worthy of their talents. If they were forced to play that junk guitar they'd play it better than I could but it wouldn't sound as good as them playing their Ramirez guitars.

Are you arguing that the Yamaha guitar played by a master sounds just as good as the Ramirez played by the same master? If not then tools matter. A good tool is not a substitute for a skilled artist, but a bad tool can hold back and hinder a skilled artist.

It needs to be brought to the surface so people who are new to photography don't get lost and lose tons of cash trying to have the latest, falling for the gimmicks and not concentrating on the art.

 

[otherprof]

Yes, in fact a lot of artists and those keen on art will often look at the brush strokes and sometimes the mastery of some of the great works of art is not just in their presentation as a whole; but in the technique and skill that they display when looked at in great and close detail.

Yes, it's true but again the vast majority of people don't do this with a work of art. They take it as a whole. Same with Beethoven symphony which I have studied in detail with a score. It's only cause I did a degree in music. Normal people don't do this. They go to a concert and simply listen. Don't get me wrong, I believe that greatness is often evident in attention to detail but I don't see the direct correlation with new tech. I certainly don't see the connection with the consumer market either.

Also about the medium being ''forgiving''. Yes, of course it is forgiving but the medium, computers and phones, is again where almost everyone sees new pictures and almost nobody is downloading them and zooming in to see if there is chromatic aberration in the left corner. If they did find it... would the picture lose it's worth? Even a little? Like I said, a tool from 50 years ago produced images we still consider masterpieces.

I think you are both correct. It seems to me that you are not really disagreeing, but talking about different things. How many different ways are there to look at a photograph? I can see it as an investment, an example of a technique, an example of technical mastery, a demonstration of the advantages or disadvantages of particular equipment, etc. But in all those cases I am not reacting to it aesthetically. Of course the equipment (and skills and experience and luck) of the photographer has will have an effect on the photo, and as a photographer I find all that interesting and useful to know. Sometimes I want to know "what do I need to buy to be able to take a shot like that?" But sometimes - most of the time - I just want to experience the image as art, and the more I see it as an example of a technically great shot of the moon, the less I am seeing the beauty of the picture. Every photo will show faults when blown up enough, but what does "enough" mean here? Until they show faults?

 

[jamiebonline]

No it doesn't need to be said again. It's silly nonsense.

It's hardly nonsense. I do believe there is sense in what I say and you see that too I am sure. Nor do I think it is silly to raise this point which is often overlooked. It is not like everyone is saying this all the time. On the contrary we are swamped with websites and posts focused entirely on what the latest and best gear is.

Finally the point about the performer. Of course a musician will produce a better sound on a better instrument if they are talented. I am aiming this at people who believe the tool is the most important factor and are scurrying after the latest tech and going into the minutia of detail on its performance while forgetting who the audience is or how they perceive things. I am not saying the tool is not relevant. Of course it is.
I also said that most people here who are more seasoned in photography will not need to hear this so I see you are one of those people

 

[Gary A.]

I echo otherprof, that both of you are making excellant arguements, as this is a subjective topic with no right or wrong. I have found that with most modern digital cameras, that up to at least an 8x10 and under ISO 1600, that the average viewer cannot see a difference between the images from a flagship camera and a entry level camera.

Generally, I have found that the better/more expensive the hardware, the easier it is to consistently capture the exceptional image. The easier the capture the greater the number of keepers.

The fallacy is grouping all beginning photographers into one pot. I think that was Joe's primary argument. What's good for the gander may not be good for the goose. We all see the world differently and we all spend money differently. I shoot with a newish camera system, Fuji. When I first started with Fuji, the lens lineup was sparse, long and fast native lenses did not exist. When Fuji introduced the more expensive long and fast lenses my images significant improved and it was much easier to capture the exceptional, previsualized images I desired. Expensive hardware will improve one's photography, but the amount of improvement is dependent upon skill level.

Remember that the photographer needs to satisfy their own sense/idea of what is a successful image. For many photogs, self-satisfaction is more important than being successful in the eyes of the viewer(s). When I process, I always view for sharpness at 100%. If the image isn't sharp at 100% I generally will dump it. I am now striving to crop everything in the camera, if the horizon is crooked, the image gets dumped, if there is something distracting in the image ... It doesn't get cloned, it gets dumped. Just because an image may be deemed successful on others viewing it on the internet, the same image may not be equally successful in the eye of the photographer. In the hands of an experienced and skilled photographer, better equipment goes a long way to meet the expectations of the photographer, while seemingly overkill in the eyes of viewers with lower expectations. Example: For me, if in a particular image, sharpness is important, then meely looking sharp on the internet does not meet my standard. The image must look sharp at 100%, otherwise it gets dumped.

Photography isn't a one-size fits all activity. Some beginners will be completely satisfied with an entry level camera and kit lens (low expectations). While other beginners will quickly realize that the entry level camera with kit lens was a waste of money money and they need to upgrade to satisfy their individual need/desire for quality and consistency (higher expectations).

 

[Ysarex]

No it doesn't need to be said again. It's silly nonsense.

It's hardly nonsense. I do believe there is sense in what I say and you see that too I am sure. Nor do I think it is silly to raise this point which is often overlooked. It is not like everyone is saying this all the time. On the contrary we are swamped with websites and posts focused entirely on what the latest and best gear is.

We are likewise swamped with websites and posts to the contrary -- read selectively.

Finally the point about the performer. Of course a musician will produce a better sound on a better instrument if they are talented. I am aiming this at people who believe the tool is the most important factor and are scurrying after the latest tech and going into the minutia of detail on its performance while forgetting who the audience is or how they perceive things.

You didn't do that. You presented a lot of generalizations, assumptions and dogmatisms supported with spurious logic and you were not at all clear who you were aiming at.

For example, "The further back you go the more limited the machine and yet iconic sports images happened on cameras which were almost laughably slow compared to today's." That's spurious logic which you repeat with the TLR/D5 comparison.

For example, "...but a great picture clearly defies the tool used." That's a dogmatism. Say's who? You? How do you explain a great picture that derives directly from the tool used?

For example: "Well some people do but 99.999 per cent of the viewing public don't and that is who it is for, no?" That's a generalization and to answer your rhetorical question, No, that may not be who it's for.

For example: ..."I myself have been surprised by the good use of an iphone for a picture, it further shows the vast gap between art and consumer-driven tech." This ones called a non sequitur. And it's the iphone that is consumer -driven tech. My use of tools is only driven by my need to do work that meets my requirements.

I am not saying the tool is not relevant.

You're not? You did: "..."but a great picture clearly defies the tool used."
And: "Why not go back to an old TLR from the film days which has so little to it compared to all the bells and whistles in newer cameras. Aren't there TLR images that are masterpieces? Superior in every way to a picture taken with a D5, for example? Of course there are."
And: "The further back you go the more limited the machine and yet iconic sports images happened on cameras which were almost laughably slow compared to today's.
And: "...a factory made guitar worth 100 bucks played by a great player is obviously ten times better than a 10,000 dollar guitar played poorly."

Of course it is.
I also said that most people here who are more seasoned in photography will not need to hear this so I see you are one of those people

Yeah but I get to comment on it anyway. This is a very old and tired dead horse that gets beaten in these various forums pretty much weekly. As in life as in all things an appropriate balance struck is probably the best way to go for most of us. But what that balance is depends a lot on each of our personal requirements. You can't generalize and assume those requirements and apply them to others. I wouldn't assume that you should be adopting tech that supports high IQ results in a 16x20 gallery print if that's not appropriate for you. You can't see the difference between a D90 and newer camera, prime/lens versus kit lens, photo on your laptop? I can believe that. That's fine. But that doesn't generalize that into a prescription for others nor does it generalize into a blanket assumption that, "the tools you use are far less important than you think." You don't know what others think.

And to answer your original question; Yep, I can see the difference.

Joe

 

[fmw]

OP, when you view a jpeg on a website you are looking at a small fraction of what the camera and lens are capable of delivering. I make a ton of internet product photos. I use a 6 megapixel camera that is from the last century. It does just as well as a new DSLR for that purpose because the viewer is looking at a relatively low resolution image on the web site. I use it because it is cheap and there is little point in putting shutter actuations on a current technology DSLR for something that doesn't benefit from the technology. For other applications the current technology DSLR becomes more important.

 

[PaulWog]

This bugs me. There are a few points that I would like to make:

1) When people research which telephoto lens they want to buy, they often look to Flickr to view photographs taken with that lens. If you go right now and look at the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary pool, you will likely see consistently okay-ish photographs, as far as sharpness is concerned. If you view the data on most of those photographs, you will see that shots are taken at too slow of a shutter speed, or the shot has been significantly cropped, or there are some other issues. But why would maybe the Tamron 150-600 group have more photos that are quite good? (This was the case months ago, I don't know if it is now). The reason: Because those with the Tamron lens tended to have had the lens for a year+ or longer, and the Sigma lens was newer to most users.

My first point I hope illustrated this: You can view any number of Flickr photos that you like, but it's a terrible way to gauge the usefulness of the tech that was used to take the photograph. It is often a difficult thing to pin-point exact user error problems (especially when the error is very minor).

2) Already said above... viewing a small image is not the same.

3) The pyramids were built thousands and thousands of years ago, without the advanced machinery we have today. Other sorts of amazing tools, weapons, clothes, art, buildings, etc were all made before we had electricity. Does that make everything we have now fairly pointless?

You might able to achieve the same photograph (except resolution) as my D750 with a D5000, or D5100. Very possible. But I bet if you went out for a day and took photographs, you would have less artistic freedom, and less keepers. You will have misfocused more times. You will not be able to bring shadows up, or bring your highlights down, or sharpen the image more without getting a horrendously grainy picture.

Unless if you think the following features (of which I am only naming some) are pointless... I think newer cameras are pretty important:
- Better AF system (tracking, accuracy, speed)
- Better dynamic range (brightening shadows, getting details out of highlights, etc)
- Better high ISO performance
- Better resolution (to print bigger, crop better, or have two photographs... one full, and one crop version)

 

[beagle100]

Hi,

I was looking on flickr the other day under 35mm prime lenses. I decided to see if I could tell which pictures were from a much higher resolution more recent apsc camera like the D7200 and which were from an older camera with an inferior sensor and lower pixel count. My laptop is, I would say, average size. Well my results are this: I could see no difference at all! I totally failed to tell which pictures were from the more advanced models and which were from a camera from 8 years ago. I'd suggest you give it a try. It's kind of interesting to say the least. I don't think my eyes are that bad either. See for yourself anyway.

I know there are a lot of posts where people go on and on about IQ and sharpness but in practical terms... it's often a different story.

Now there is a lot more to a camera than IQ. For example, number of focus points, more frames per second and so on. Many other things which make the process of getting the image somewhat easier. I am only talking about IQ here. The further back you go the more limited the machine and yet iconic sports images happened on cameras which were almost laughably slow compared to today's.
Back to where I started, I searched for images taken by the D90 and didn't specify the lens and apart from some obvious macro work or really wide aperture shots, sometimes I couldn't tell if a lens was a 50 1.4, for example or kit lens at 50mm. I was really surprised by some kit lens pictures.
One would need to see the images side by side, I guess and I am sure getting the original file and analysing it would show big differences... but who the hell does that? Do we zoom in and analyze great paintings from the past? Well some people do but 99.999 per cent of the viewing public don't and that is who it is for, no? Some people here might say it is for themselves and so be it. I personally don't think of creative stuff this way. I am again thinking about the audience. So used to smart phones as so many people are now, I myself have been surprised by the good use of an iphone for a picture, it further shows the vast gap between art and consumer-driven tech.
Of course the companies want you to get the latest model and there is nothing wrong with that, if you like that but a great picture clearly defies the tool used. Why not go back to an old TLR from the film days which has so little to it compared to all the bells and whistles in newer cameras. Aren't there TLR images that are masterpieces? Superior in every way to a picture taken with a D5, for example? Of course there are.

So I am offering something most here already know, especially the more experienced among you, that the tools you use are far less important than you think. That the gear acquisition thing is often a total waste of money. I am reminded of music, which I know quite a lot about, a factory made guitar worth 100 bucks played by a great player is obviously ten times better than a 10,000 dollar guitar played poorly. It just needs to be said again though. It needs to be brought to the surface so people who are new to photography don't get lost and lose tons of cash trying to have the latest, falling for the gimmicks and not concentrating on the art.

yes, you would need to look at images side by side taken at the same time, same subject. One way to do this is to join a local photography club and go on a monthly photowalk - zoo, local historical site, nighttime, a weekend event, etc. Lots of pics from the same angle, same subject, same time .... but with different cameras and lens. Older cameras, newer models. I would highly recommend doing this, you can try different cameras and lens and test them out without buying anything
Very interesting !
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[Solarflare]

I could see no difference at all!

Thats because your test is invalid.

You are assuming there would be huge leaps in technological advance but thats not the case.

If you keep to cameras with the same sensor size, the differences will be in the details. A bit more dynamic range and shadow detail, a bit more color depth, a bit less high ISO noise.

The guy USING the camera will feel a huge difference. He can now use ISO 1600 or 3200 while his old camera managed only 800 or 400 with acceptable results. He can now photograph scenes with drastic dynamic range and still get a decent final image. But you wont see such things from just looking at the final image.

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, a quick thought here...

I began a few years ago shooting a D5100 with a 16 mp sensor, and then upgraded to a D5200 using a 24 mp sensor. I noticed a big difference right away when it came to my ability to crop a picture.

If I looked at shots from the 16mp sensor straight off the camera vrs shots using the 24mp sensor they looked very similar. However if I zoomed in, or went to crop the photo, suddenly the differences became pretty evident.

So even if one isn't doing large prints, etc - if you crop photos often (and for folks like me we often do) then the larger MP count really can make a significant difference in the final results.