If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
For your amusement and edification...
One of these incomparable works of art is the result of a 129$ US
camera. The other was about 900$ US. http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict1.JPG http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict2.JPG Without cheating by looking at the EXIF headers, can the esteemed reader tell which is which? There has been no attempt at composition or even mediocre photography, so please spare the vulgarities. Both files are about 3 MB each. This is as much about lenses as sensors... mike |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
For your amusement and edification...
m II wrote:
One of these incomparable works of art is the result of a 129$ US camera. The other was about 900$ US. http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict1.JPG http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict2.JPG Without cheating by looking at the EXIF headers, can the esteemed reader tell which is which? There has been no attempt at composition or even mediocre photography, so please spare the vulgarities. Both files are about 3 MB each. This is as much about lenses as sensors... mike Considering the images are downsized to fewer pixels than either cameras' native image dimensions, it's difficult to judge on definition alone, but observing the flare on pic2 and the better micro-contrast of pic1, I'd say pic 1 was the superior camera. Colin D. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
For your amusement and edification...
Colin_D wrote:
m II wrote: One of these incomparable works of art is the result of a 129$ US camera. The other was about 900$ US. http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict1.JPG http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict2.JPG Without cheating by looking at the EXIF headers, can the esteemed reader tell which is which? There has been no attempt at composition or even mediocre photography, so please spare the vulgarities. Both files are about 3 MB each. This is as much about lenses as sensors... mike Considering the images are downsized to fewer pixels than either cameras' native image dimensions, it's difficult to judge on definition alone, but observing the flare on pic2 and the better micro-contrast of pic1, I'd say pic 1 was the superior camera. Colin D. Mike, I preferred the very slightly lower visible noise and the reduced JPEG artefacts (on edges) of number 2. Pic 2 showed some into-the-sun lens flare, but had better detail in places (e.g. the distant snow, top right). Pic 1 shows more purple fringing, and perhaps more sharpening. I would be disappointed were a DSLR to take images of this quality, but from viewing on the screen (rather than a print) I would vote for pic 2 as being from the more expensive camera. David |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
For your amusement and edification...
"Colin_D" wrote in message .. . m II wrote: One of these incomparable works of art is the result of a 129$ US camera. The other was about 900$ US. http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict1.JPG http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict2.JPG Without cheating by looking at the EXIF headers, can the esteemed reader tell which is which? There has been no attempt at composition or even mediocre photography, so please spare the vulgarities. Both files are about 3 MB each. This is as much about lenses as sensors... mike Considering the images are downsized to fewer pixels than either cameras' native image dimensions, it's difficult to judge on definition alone, but observing the flare on pic2 and the better micro-contrast of pic1, I'd say pic 1 was the superior camera. Colin D. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com If it is it is poorly focsed on purpose then. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
For your amusement and edification...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 09:42:39 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote: I preferred the very slightly lower visible noise and the reduced JPEG artefacts (on edges) of number 2. Pic 2 showed some into-the-sun lens flare, but had better detail in places (e.g. the distant snow, top right). Pic 1 shows more purple fringing, and perhaps more sharpening. Almost exactly what I was going to write. I would be disappointed were a DSLR to take images of this quality, but from viewing on the screen (rather than a print) I would vote for pic 2 as being from the more expensive camera. I have no idea if it was the better camera but I consider it to be the better image overall - despite the flare. -- John Bean |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
For your amusement and edification...
"m II" wrote in message news:ZGQvj.36844$FO1.9246@edtnps82... One of these incomparable works of art is the result of a 129$ US camera. The other was about 900$ US. http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict1.JPG http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict2.JPG Without cheating by looking at the EXIF headers, can the esteemed reader tell which is which? There has been no attempt at composition or even mediocre photography, so please spare the vulgarities. Both files are about 3 MB each. This is as much about lenses as sensors... mike The DSLR case is missing in pic2 - hence it was taken by the DSLR. Also pic2 is not filled with purple fringing. JOhn |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
For your amusement and edification...
"Eatmorepies" wrote
... "m II" wrote in message news:ZGQvj.36844$FO1.9246@edtnps82... One of these incomparable works of art is the result of a 129$ US camera. The other was about 900$ US. Image quality in both is really bad. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
For your amusement and edification...
m II wrote:
One of these incomparable works of art is the result of a 129$ US camera. The other was about 900$ US. http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict1.JPG http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict2.JPG Without cheating by looking at the EXIF headers, can the esteemed reader tell which is which? There has been no attempt at composition or even mediocre photography, so please spare the vulgarities. Both files are about 3 MB each. This is as much about lenses as sensors... I wouldn't call it a fair comparison then, with one lens at f/2.8 and the other at f/5.6. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
For your amusement and edification...
On 2008-02-23, m II wrote:
One of these incomparable works of art is the result of a 129$ US camera. The other was about 900$ US. http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict1.JPG http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict2.JPG Without cheating by looking at the EXIF headers, can the esteemed reader tell which is which? Neither of them is particularly sharp, they both let go of colour in a rather ugly way. The second seems to handle the jaggies rather better. I don't like the mess either of them has made of the road surface. Even after looking at the EXIF I have no idea which is the more expensive. I wouldn't want to pay more than £100 for the second one, which I much prefer to the first. An acceptable snapshot camera, not something I'd take out on a shoot. And neither of them is an SLR so what's the relevance? -- Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather? - Billy Bragg |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
For your amusement and edification...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:20:09 GMT, m II wrote:
One of these incomparable works of art is the result of a 129$ US camera. The other was about 900$ US. http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict1.JPG http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict2.JPG Without cheating by looking at the EXIF headers, can the esteemed reader tell which is which? There has been no attempt at composition or even mediocre photography, so please spare the vulgarities. Both files are about 3 MB each. This is as much about lenses as sensors... I'm going to assume you didn't do anything to the images other than rescaling them. No sharpening, noise adjustments, distortion corrections, etc. post camera. If it's about sensors, image 2 has some hot pixels that are lit blue in the bottom left corner. Looking at the noise in the darker areas of the hood, image 1 has more harsh noise splotches while image 2 has smoother, maybe a little more film-like sensor noise. So despite the hot pixels, I think image 2 is the better sensor and/or in camera processor. As for lenses, looking at the row of trees, image 1 is clearer in the center but really falls off very badly at the edges. Very Very poor edge performance. Inexcusably poor. Image 2 is more consistent across the frame even though it's worse than image 1 in the center. So I'll go with image 2 as the better lens and just hope that it's a focusing problem. So, since I'd say image 2 is the better sensor and lens, my guess is that image 2 is the higher priced camera. However, I'd be very dissapointed if either of these shots came from my D200 with any of my lenses. Steve |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|