This demonstrates the point you have made, Kirk, from time to time. That is, that it's hard (impossible ?) to tell which is which when all one may be doing with an image is downsizing it (in this case to less than 1mp) to be displayed on the Web. I see that both of these measure about 1000 pixels wide, only. Also, for me, viewing this on an 19" standard-issue monitor at my office, there's no way to see the extra detail one camera may be capturing over another as I am viewing at only about 90 dots per inch.
moot point, indeed. today's 'middle of the road' cameras are superior from a technical standpoint to the 'professional' cameras of just a few years ago, so one could argue that they are both professional, or that neither one is ... :-)
'professional' is the eye behind the viewfinder.
i seem to remember you posted the tulips image earlier on to show how nice images an 'old' professional camera could take, but i could be wrong.
judging photos on a computer screen is like test driving a car on a video game anyway, so .... thank you for the entertainment, as always, much appreciated!
A comment not quite on point, but... With a variety of fairly inexpensive "adapters," it's easy to put an expensive lens (eg, Leica) on a relatively inexpensive bodies (eg, Panasonic), for a nice mix-and-match of glass and bodies/sensors. Does this qualify as another form of mix-and-match?
In 2006 Denis Manning's Motorcycle Streamliner set a new Worlds speed record of 350.8 mph. One of the on-lookers asked if he was using a motorcycle engine. He answered "must be a motorcycle engine because it's in a motorcycle." :)
I kind of like both pictures in the generic "still life" sense. I like the colors in the pumpkins better, though. If you were to shoot both pictures with both cameras, then people could spend countless hours comparing pixels. (Instead of taking pictures.)
I also like the idea of not telling people. Then, for people who think the camera makes all the difference, you should put up several shots with similar depth of field, and ask people to bid on the cameras that made each picture.
That way, you can sell your used equipment instead of selling workshops. Toss in the copyright for the flower picture, and you will have not only a happy customer, but enough cash left over to buy a new G3 with some sweet lenses.
I bet both are from a MFT camera... My E-P3 with the right lens can equal anything that the Full Frame Gear produces if it is for a modest print size or on the web.
The camera that you let out in the morning together with the cat is professional, provided that it returned with one of the images above. Ideally together with the cat who brought a vole for dinner.
In the old days (film, that is) a knowledgeable viewer could look at a print and make a pretty good guess as to which film, and even what format camera was used. In today's online world, I've never heard anyone claim to be able to spot a Canon or Nikon or Olympus image based on its look. If you can't tell the difference, then maybe it just doesn't matter which one you use.
23 comments:
That's easy...the one you sold came from the professional camera. :-)
It's not a professional camera unless it is at least 80 gigapixels and is waterproof down to 300m.
Both!
This demonstrates the point you have made, Kirk, from time to time. That is, that it's hard (impossible ?) to tell which is which when all one may be doing with an image is downsizing it (in this case to less than 1mp) to be displayed on the Web. I see that both of these measure about 1000 pixels wide, only. Also, for me, viewing this on an 19" standard-issue monitor at my office, there's no way to see the extra detail one camera may be capturing over another as I am viewing at only about 90 dots per inch.
Peter F.
The image where someone paid you money for it :)
moot point, indeed. today's 'middle of the road' cameras are superior from a technical standpoint to the 'professional' cameras of just a few years ago, so one could argue that they are both professional, or that neither one is ... :-)
'professional' is the eye behind the viewfinder.
i seem to remember you posted the tulips image earlier on to show how nice images an 'old' professional camera could take, but i could be wrong.
judging photos on a computer screen is like test driving a car on a video game anyway, so .... thank you for the entertainment, as always, much appreciated!
A comment not quite on point, but... With a variety of fairly inexpensive "adapters," it's easy to put an expensive lens (eg, Leica) on a relatively inexpensive bodies (eg, Panasonic), for a nice mix-and-match of glass and bodies/sensors. Does this qualify as another form of mix-and-match?
if a professional is holding the camera, it's a professional camera.
Define a professional camera!
Your definition works for me.
In 2006 Denis Manning's Motorcycle Streamliner set a new Worlds speed record of 350.8 mph. One of the on-lookers asked if he was using a motorcycle engine. He answered "must be a motorcycle engine because it's in a motorcycle." :)
ooh I have a pumpkin shot like that which I never shared. Should do that tonight. My guess is that both of them came from cheap ass old cameras :)
The "top" one.
A camera is a camera, it is the photographer behind it that counts.
Turn your monitors upside down to read the answer.
Trick question Kirk. You're a pro. You were holding the cameras. Hence, they are both "pro" cameras.
I kind of like both pictures in the generic "still life" sense. I like the colors in the pumpkins better, though. If you were to shoot both pictures with both cameras, then people could spend countless hours comparing pixels. (Instead of taking pictures.)
I also like the idea of not telling people. Then, for people who think the camera makes all the difference, you should put up several shots with similar depth of field, and ask people to bid on the cameras that made each picture.
That way, you can sell your used equipment instead of selling workshops. Toss in the copyright for the flower picture, and you will have not only a happy customer, but enough cash left over to buy a new G3 with some sweet lenses.
I'm going to guess the first one because it looks to me like it should be the second one :).
I bet both are from a MFT camera... My E-P3 with the right lens can equal anything that the Full Frame Gear produces if it is for a modest print size or on the web.
Neither
The camera that you let out in the morning together with the cat is professional, provided that it returned with one of the images above. Ideally together with the cat who brought a vole for dinner.
You sure fooled me !
I would swear the pumpkin was the "professional"
The score - KT 1 : YN 0
Give another one. I wanna try to make it even :-)
In the old days (film, that is) a knowledgeable viewer could look at a print and make a pretty good guess as to which film, and even what format camera was used. In today's online world, I've never heard anyone claim to be able to spot a Canon or Nikon or Olympus image based on its look. If you can't tell the difference, then maybe it just doesn't matter which one you use.
As several people noted, the pictures are really too small to make much of a judgement.
That said, the Pen 40/1.4 is so good that using it amounts to cheating. Shame!
Post a Comment