Those who need an explanation why a FF D3 or D700 has better IQ than a m43 obviously dont need a FF.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
real world example wedding photos Nikon D3 v Panasonic GH1
- Thread starter YouDidntDidYou
- Start date
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
But when the skills are the same, the one with the better camera wins.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
SantaFeBill
Veteran Member
All the two group shots prove is either 1) the newspaper photog doesn't know how to use a D3, or 2) the newspaper doesn't know how to reproduce a digital image, or 3) both of the above.
Not that the m4/3 shot is all that great.
Not that the m4/3 shot is all that great.
saghost
Veteran Member
I wouldn't put it that way. If the skills are equal, the one with the better camera can do more - can deal with worse light, or more difficult/faster moving subjects. But in typical images with good light, you won't be able to tell the difference...
Walter
AlanKl
Forum Enthusiast
Here's the Nikon I adjusted in PSE8. Seems to have been missing some contrast. Trust me I'm not a PS expert. I think I hit auto correction and then added just a little more contrast. Does this change the discussion?
the wedding I photographed was attending by 2 press photographers who ended being a nuisance (interupting my work flow, blocking shots, trying to take wedding away).
The link to my picture I posted I chose because it was similar in position to the press photographers (wasn't for artistic merit/composition etc)
anyway side by side comparisions
his D3 image, he was also either bracketing or shooting in burst mode
my image shot as a jpeg with GH1
--
'the rule of 4 thirds'
dko22
Leading Member
I don't need an explanation -- i know the explanation. But am still waiting patiently for some evidence to prove it
I think that the comparison is not fair.
The picture of the photojournalist is not the original picture. Something succeeded during postprocessing and downsizing, which is probably not the fact of the photojournalist, but of the editor, webmaster, whatever.
A fair comparison would present both originals treated by a good postprocessing, which is evidently not the case here.
Also, from what I see, in the photojournalist picture the highlights are blown out, but in your the shadows are not coming out entirely either.
Anyway, it says nothing concerning the respective cameras capabilities, neither concerning the respective photographers. A wedding photographer may have a skill advantage in this shot over a photojournalist, but it doesn't mean that the photojournalist is a bad one, neither that the wedding photographer would be able to take good pictures in a more traditional photojournalist context.
rrr_hhh
The picture of the photojournalist is not the original picture. Something succeeded during postprocessing and downsizing, which is probably not the fact of the photojournalist, but of the editor, webmaster, whatever.
A fair comparison would present both originals treated by a good postprocessing, which is evidently not the case here.
Also, from what I see, in the photojournalist picture the highlights are blown out, but in your the shadows are not coming out entirely either.
Anyway, it says nothing concerning the respective cameras capabilities, neither concerning the respective photographers. A wedding photographer may have a skill advantage in this shot over a photojournalist, but it doesn't mean that the photojournalist is a bad one, neither that the wedding photographer would be able to take good pictures in a more traditional photojournalist context.
--the wedding I photographed was attending by 2 press photographers who ended being a nuisance (interupting my work flow, blocking shots, trying to take wedding away).
The link to my picture I posted I chose because it was similar in position to the press photographers (wasn't for artistic merit/composition etc)
anyway side by side comparisions
his D3 image, he was also either bracketing or shooting in burst mode
my image shot as a jpeg with GH1
--
'the rule of 4 thirds'
rrr_hhh
YouDidntDidYou
Veteran Member
--
'the rule of 4 thirds'
jim stirling
Veteran Member
I use the D3s for my work and whilst I am very happy with my mFT set up which provides a very well performing but very compact system , ideal for travel hill walking etc. The simple truth is the further we deviate from bright well lit situations {where all cameras even P&S can deliver decent results} the advantage of FF increases greatly, and in genuinely low lit situations there is simply no contest. By the time we get to ISO 1600 and above the FF camera has considerably better DR combined with better noise performance and colour sensitivity. Resulting in significantly more malleable RAW files.
The built in or lens based IS is of dubious benefit in most shooting scenarios especially if your subject may be alive and moving and if the subject is static then use some form of camera support and any combination of aperture and ISO you desire. Also there are not many areas where double the depth of field is needed combined with the need to bump the ISO, for most subjects the DOF of the FF cameras is adequate and most areas where larger DOF is a key objective {macro, landscape} the ability to use flash for macro and simply increase the aperture {landscape} to achieve the desired DOF without having to boost the ISO due to the largely static nature of most landscapes. While I have no doubt that there are indeed shooting scenarios which make the IS { which Nikon has in lens from as wide as 16mm all the way up to 600mm } and extra DOF an advantage I suspect that they are not the most common shooting situations.
For wedding and portrait work the subject isolation achievable from FF cameras when combined with the very fast lenses is of more benefit than extra DOF. The results available with the best FF sensors {D3s at the moment} using high ISO and a fast prime beggar belief compared to what was available just a few years ago. This is not an attack on the GH1 which is a very capable camera and considering how young the mFT systems I am very interested in what the future will bring. If I could achieve the same results with a smaller camera and lenses { high ISO , AF, VF, DR and so on} I would jump at the chance . I do not use the large heavy equipment for show , I use them as they are the best tools for the job.
Jim
I'm not sure that the backlighted situation is such a problem :
It is still better than if the subjects are grinning to avoid direct sun light and it diminishes the risk of blown out highlights on the wedding dress.
--
rrr_hhh
First - sorry about the tone, it was late when I wrote the post.
Anyway - you can turn the argument around. Its hard to see any IQ advantage for a m43 vs a cheaper entry level APS-C DSLR.
In ideal conditions even a good P&S produces good results than can be hard to separate from DSLRs or m43s.
The IQ advantage of a FF vs a m43 is:
much better high ISO
DOF control - if you dont want shallow DOF you can stop down the FF with no noise penalty vs the m43 because of the better noise performance, but not the other way around.
Can take much more punishment in PP. Try to lift deep shadows and compare to your m43.
Then there is a harder to quantify factor. I think tonality and separations of tones
looks better on larger formats. Just like medium format looks better than FF in this area.
Besides the IQ, the D700 is vastly better at taking the photos - fast response, superior AF, no viewfinder lag/freeze/blackout, can shot in low light, has much better lens selection for any task.
If nothing of this above is important to you, I dont see any reason for an expensive
FF system. That is what I meant.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
http://www.holga.net/
Violinist Fritz Kreisler was famous for making cheap pawn shop instruments sound like a Stradivari
Violinist Fritz Kreisler was famous for making cheap pawn shop instruments sound like a Stradivari
If we only took photos in ideal conditions, we dont need so good cameras, that is true.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
Maybe, but backlighting with no fill flash? I think that's the issue in both. Later in the thread someone adjusted the levels of the Nikon pic, and it looks much better.
Better staging would have helped the photo. The alternative to not backlighting is not blowing out the bride's dress through overexposure on the front.
The squinting bit is fair, but again, the alternative to backlighting is not sun in your eyes, it's partial shade, or using diffusers, etc.
I refuse to wed myself to any of these vendors. I'm just having fun taking pictures,
and watching the technology develop.
Better staging would have helped the photo. The alternative to not backlighting is not blowing out the bride's dress through overexposure on the front.
The squinting bit is fair, but again, the alternative to backlighting is not sun in your eyes, it's partial shade, or using diffusers, etc.
--
I refuse to wed myself to any of these vendors. I'm just having fun taking pictures,
and watching the technology develop.
dko22
Leading Member
hi, Jim, I think we're actually on the same wavelength. I don't take issue with most of your sensible points. For a photojournalist, wedding photographer, sports/action, esp. low light photographer, there is no dispute that a FF DSLR is better. For studio portraits at the moment we rely on non m43 lenses but that will surely change soon.What I was trying to say and probably failed is that in reasonable lighting I can't see the difference and that in poorer lighting, the G1 copes better than expected, provided there is not much movement. To adequately deal with that we need more fast lenses because then the workarounds are likely to fail. As a mainly outdoors hillwalking/travel/street photographer, the deficiencies of the G1 sensor don't often manifest themselves. And in 2-3 years the m43 sensors will probably be close to the D700 now. By then of course FF sensors will also have improved but you reach a stage when you don't need more improvement. For me and many others, the D700 has already reached that.
However I do disagree with one thing. With the honourable exception of one of two cameras like the LX-3/G11, P&S still provide fairly horrible IQ even at screen viewing never mind pixel peeping. That, the fact they generally don't do RAW and the fact you have to compose at arm's length completely rule them out for me.
However I do disagree with one thing. With the honourable exception of one of two cameras like the LX-3/G11, P&S still provide fairly horrible IQ even at screen viewing never mind pixel peeping. That, the fact they generally don't do RAW and the fact you have to compose at arm's length completely rule them out for me.
dko22
Leading Member
Hi PerL, thanks for your reply.
David
No problem at all!
Have never used a canikon kit lens so don't know
A GOOD P&S and ideal conditions are a rare combination but fair enough
correct
agree --m43 still lacks enough fast lenses for many uses
I've done that quite a bit. I would say the D700 has up to 3 stops better in some of these tests, whereas in half reasonable light when you don't push shadows, it is 1-2. (it appears that the DxO results showing that the D700 marked ISO is c. 1/3 stop too high and the G1 1/3 too low is borne out from my own tests so direct ISO comparisons flatter the Nikon) It's maybe partly a question of how much you really want to force shadows --to me they are part of the photo usually.
This is a difficult one and I would like to see examples as the difference is not what i'd expected. To a large extent it also depends on the lens of course
Agreed, apart from the AF which is virtually flawless on the G1. Maybe you mean CAF which I haven't tested and I'm sure you're right because of the generally faster response.
Exactly -- so probably we're pretty well in agreement. Perhaps I simply don't need the FF system's advantages often enough to justify keeping it.... At least I got everything used!
David
Exposure, fill flash, and PP aside, if I were the father of the bride, I would choose YouDidntDidYou's photo for my desk.
First, YDDY's photo caught a warmer moment. The entire wedding party is smiling. The bride and groom look especially happy. In addition, the bride is the center and focus point of the picture.
Second, YDDY's photo has less background confusion. Both backgrounds are busy, but in YDDY's the bride and her wedding party seem to be in front of the background, not melted into it.
Third, the news journalist included an additional soldier. Even without the leather gloves and metal epaulets, this guy is studly. By including this paragon of manly virtue, everyone else looks older, shorter, and flabby. Even the bride is overshadowed. (BIG mistake. Remember - never photograph your wife with a supermodel)
Perhaps the journalist included the buildings to highlight the wedding party's location. Perhaps he included the extra soldier as part of the groom's remarkable story. Still, his picture looks like a snapshot. YDDY's photo looks like a wedding portrait. Good composition is a powerful trump card.
Tom
First, YDDY's photo caught a warmer moment. The entire wedding party is smiling. The bride and groom look especially happy. In addition, the bride is the center and focus point of the picture.
Second, YDDY's photo has less background confusion. Both backgrounds are busy, but in YDDY's the bride and her wedding party seem to be in front of the background, not melted into it.
Third, the news journalist included an additional soldier. Even without the leather gloves and metal epaulets, this guy is studly. By including this paragon of manly virtue, everyone else looks older, shorter, and flabby. Even the bride is overshadowed. (BIG mistake. Remember - never photograph your wife with a supermodel)
Perhaps the journalist included the buildings to highlight the wedding party's location. Perhaps he included the extra soldier as part of the groom's remarkable story. Still, his picture looks like a snapshot. YDDY's photo looks like a wedding portrait. Good composition is a powerful trump card.
Tom
YouDidntDidYou
Veteran Member
my shot that I posted was fair from my best shot of the day, I posted it to be fairer to the Nikon D3 newspaper reporter's photo (taken at almost same time, thus same lighting conditions).
1 I chose a slightly lower viewpoint to lose the buildings in the background.
2 I didn't over exposure the picture
3 I didn't use flash (lighting (sun) was coming in from the right so wasn't backlit) on this shot so got truer colours.
4 Got better facial expressions even though I wasn't using burst mode ( I suspect he was, either that or he was bracketing but then that doesn't explain why he submitted an over exposured picture)
5. I done tighter framing to lose more distractions from the background.
People hate smiling at a photographer who has a big camera and flash gun in front of their face it feels weird. With my L10 or GH1 I can use live view, slow lower the camera and smile over the camera at the subject thus getting a more natural better smile back....
The GH1 is fine upto ISO 1600 not exactly sure when you need to go above that, perhaps someone can post some examples?
http://youdidntdidyou.com/
--
'the rule of 4 thirds'
1 I chose a slightly lower viewpoint to lose the buildings in the background.
2 I didn't over exposure the picture
3 I didn't use flash (lighting (sun) was coming in from the right so wasn't backlit) on this shot so got truer colours.
4 Got better facial expressions even though I wasn't using burst mode ( I suspect he was, either that or he was bracketing but then that doesn't explain why he submitted an over exposured picture)
5. I done tighter framing to lose more distractions from the background.
People hate smiling at a photographer who has a big camera and flash gun in front of their face it feels weird. With my L10 or GH1 I can use live view, slow lower the camera and smile over the camera at the subject thus getting a more natural better smile back....
The GH1 is fine upto ISO 1600 not exactly sure when you need to go above that, perhaps someone can post some examples?
http://youdidntdidyou.com/
--
'the rule of 4 thirds'
Nikon 3D is one of the bestcams out there when it comes to picture quality. m4/3 clearly is not. Of course it is possible to shoot an awfull pic with any camera, this proves nothing.
A better contest would be a test where IQ is not the only thing, but portability is important also. So you have to go to city and shoot at least 100 buildings that are miles from each other. You have to at least shoot 50% with a focal length > 100 mm. Or something like that. Now than the portability becomes a factor.
But IQ comparisons between these camera's, to me, are useless. Only in controlled tests we can see how big the difference is. And it is big.
A better contest would be a test where IQ is not the only thing, but portability is important also. So you have to go to city and shoot at least 100 buildings that are miles from each other. You have to at least shoot 50% with a focal length > 100 mm. Or something like that. Now than the portability becomes a factor.
But IQ comparisons between these camera's, to me, are useless. Only in controlled tests we can see how big the difference is. And it is big.
YouDidntDidYou
Veteran Member
yes the point was that you can take bad photos with a good camera, I don't really care which is better the GH1 or the D3 but likewise the GH1 is good enough for wedding photography.
--
'the rule of 4 thirds'
--
'the rule of 4 thirds'
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum