Thanks for your explanation. The flash used is the in-built flash?It means 3-4 FEET ... (1-meter) ... fill-flash range in SUN-light.
Note that by sunlight fill-flash I mean a situation where where the sun is behind someone, or they are wearing a hat and their face is shadowed (dark).
A leaf-shutter camera (bridge like FZ1000-II or RX10-IV) can allow sunlight fill-flash up to 7 meters, (20 FEET).
WITHOUT fill-flash
WITH FILL-FLASH
Notice how DARK it is UNDER-ROOF
Notice the CAR under-roof is now MORE VISIBLE
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Versatility vs. IQ vs. Size.
- Thread starter Ozzie SD
- Start date
It could be my eyes are better. I also use a very good monitor.
To show the difference, I cut out the same part of both images. Try to read the text "The Tiffen Company, 2000" in the left top corner. The upper image is from the Fuji, the lower one is the Sony. Both are a 100% crop. I definitely can see that the lower text from the Sony is way sharper than the text from the Fuji.
Guy Parsons
Forum Pro
Good examples of fill flash vs no flash, PhotoTeach2.
Lazy me rarely reaches for the flash and endures fixing shadows in post process, but OP be warned, that can lead to horrible noise and colour shifts in shadow areas if taken too far. Always using raw files makes those post process adjustments work better.
Often in film days when there was no instant on-screen feedback, I would simply use reflectors to bounce some light back up onto faces to lessen the shadows, nothing fancy, a newspaper will do the job if kept just out of frame.
Also photographing someone near a window, the side facing the window will be properly lit but the side facing back into the room will be under-exposed to varying degrees. Again a reflector makes life easy to get reasonable balance between the window light and the other side.
Our vision system in our brain sees a different result to what a camera achieves, shadows always are darker in photos than we remember in real life so fill flash or reflectors help fix that problem.
Lazy me rarely reaches for the flash and endures fixing shadows in post process, but OP be warned, that can lead to horrible noise and colour shifts in shadow areas if taken too far. Always using raw files makes those post process adjustments work better.
Often in film days when there was no instant on-screen feedback, I would simply use reflectors to bounce some light back up onto faces to lessen the shadows, nothing fancy, a newspaper will do the job if kept just out of frame.
Also photographing someone near a window, the side facing the window will be properly lit but the side facing back into the room will be under-exposed to varying degrees. Again a reflector makes life easy to get reasonable balance between the window light and the other side.
Our vision system in our brain sees a different result to what a camera achieves, shadows always are darker in photos than we remember in real life so fill flash or reflectors help fix that problem.
Guy Parsons
Forum Pro
It all gets a bit ridiculous when you pixel peep at 100% on a screen looking for faults and differences.
That's more or less like having your nose up against a 1.5 metre wide print and seeing "faults".
Observe images at full screen or no further than maybe 50% view to get a better idea of how they may look for huge prints.
That's more or less like having your nose up against a 1.5 metre wide print and seeing "faults".
Observe images at full screen or no further than maybe 50% view to get a better idea of how they may look for huge prints.
I like to look at my pictures at 100%. I am not looking for faults. I am looking for differences.
I am not even sure of what I am seeing. Is this an out of focus issue perhaps? Or is this a result of (default) sharpening settings within the camera? Or ... and that is what I am curious of ... are FF cameras in general way sharper than APS-C?
Someone here adviced me to watch pictures from a camera model on Flickr.com. I searched for the Sony A7C and I found this one. I think it looks very nice. Nice colors, sharp, nice details. I wish I was able to make a picture like that one day.
Click twice on the picture to fully zoom in. I really like it.
Click twice on the picture to fully zoom in. I really like it.
Guy Parsons
Forum Pro
A combination of pixel count and pixel size and noise reduction can have an effect on the result. Edit: And ISO setting of course.
If chasing pixel peeping perfection then more MP does make a difference. Here's a few random sensor sizes and how that text looks.....
Last edited:
Interesting. The Sony a7R gives the best result. The RX100 is small but okay. The Olympus Tough is smudged. That is a very visible difference. And the Pen seems out of focus.A combination of pixel count and pixel size and noise reduction can have an effect on the result.
If chasing pixel peeping perfection then more MP does make a difference. Here's a few random sensor sizes and how that text looks.....
But I wonder what happens in the comparison picture I showed you. The Fuji seems unsharp and I wonder if it could be because of wrong focussing perhaps.
Guy Parsons
Forum Pro
Eeeep, lots of those shots are horribly oversharpened, so look awful at 100% but OK full screen.
PhotoTeach2
Forum Pro
Yes, that is with a low-power built-in strobe.Thanks for your explanation. The flash used is the in-built flash?It means 3-4 FEET ... (1-meter) ... fill-flash range in SUN-light.
Note that by sunlight fill-flash I mean a situation where where the sun is behind someone, or they are wearing a hat and their face is shadowed (dark).
A leaf-shutter camera (bridge like FZ1000-II or RX10-IV) can allow sunlight fill-flash up to 7 meters, (20 FEET).
WITHOUT fill-flash
WITH FILL-FLASH
Notice how DARK it is UNDER-ROOF
Notice the CAR under-roof is now MORE VISIBLE
BTW ... ignore everything that Guy wrote ... he was referring to HSS which is a totally different subject and not applicable to any of the cameras you are considering.
It was a kludge-technology to allow "using" flash at higher shutter-speeds, but does not give any additional range, and has only a couple of very-limited applications. (It would NOT ALLOW the photos above shot with FZ1000.)
It will soon be totally extinct as the (new) global-shutters have eliminated their (kludge) need.
The ONLY thing you need to remember is that NO camera with interchangeable lens allows SUN-light fill-flash beyond 1-meter, (maybe 2 in some situations).
But "bridge" cameras (with fixed super-zoom lens), do have the "leaf" shutters that do allow greater SUN-light fill-flash. (FZ1000-II & RX10-IV)
And only the FZ1000-II has the FAS screen that allows flip/tilting-out and reversible (for "selfies") for more unique/original shooting positions.
***************************************
Since the thread has MAXED out (@ 149) ... I will add a couple of final points here ...
1.) With reference to the "focus/sharpness" post ... resolution-charts can only be trusted in the CENTER of the image, as all LENSES have different focus-planes and thus the top/bottom/edges are a DIFFERENT DISTANCE from the "center". So that explains why there were some contradictory results.
2.) The A7C is a FF, and they indeed would have an inherent resolution & IQ advantage, (especially with a PRIME lens), if that was your ONLY priority.
But I suggest that is not the only consideration as I have stated before, I prefer an image that DOES EXIST over a possibly sharper image that does NOT exist.
So I value the speed & convenience & versatility over ultimate sharpness/IQ, (that may not even be possible in real-world conditions with typical lenses).
The lenses of the FZ1000 are LEICA, (one of the most famous lens manufacturers in the world).
3.) If you want more information of the FZ1000-II, I suggest you ask of other owners in the "Panasonic Compact Camera Forum" ....
4.) .. Here is another NIGHT shot ... (not taken by me) ...
3.)
PhotoTeach2
Forum Pro
Thank You ...
Yes ... reflectors were all we had back then, (in film days), but it takes two or three extra people to hold them, (and the SUN/subjects must be in the right position).
Fill-flash is quicker and with fewer limitations.
... that too many folks overestimate the importance of IQ, particularly lately when the tech has improved to the point where even smaller formats are able to produce prints that look amazing. I've been using m43 gear and as small as that sensor is in comparison with others, the IQ is really great and even blown up to fairly large it can hold a lot of detail... and more so if you use the high res-mode that lots of cameras have (though I've never even experimented with that on my Pen F). In rare instances, I feel like I could use more dynamic range, but even then from waht I understand is that FF only gets a bit better as far as that goes. Meanwhile, I have a camera that's compact, has a huge choice of lenses, has very compact lenses and isn't nearly as expensive as some larger format alternatives. A friend of mine who has owned lots of cameras in all differnt formats has settled on an Olympus EM-1 mkII as his favorite saying that it lacks nothing as far as image quality and is so much more compact than a FF rig.
If I really felt that I could use a larger format, I probably would go for Fiji before something in the FF format as from what I see there's only very subtle differences between it and FF, and the gear is lighter and cheaper too, particularly the lenses... and apparently there are some nice, but very inexpensive 3rd party lens options.
We might talk ourselves into a bigger format system by thinking that we may as well get the highest IQ system that we can afford, but what if the IQ isn't noticeably better for how we use the camera, the lenses we want aren't affordable and the bulk of it means that we're taking the camera out less than we would otherwise? The best camera is the one that we're most likely to use...
If I really felt that I could use a larger format, I probably would go for Fiji before something in the FF format as from what I see there's only very subtle differences between it and FF, and the gear is lighter and cheaper too, particularly the lenses... and apparently there are some nice, but very inexpensive 3rd party lens options.
We might talk ourselves into a bigger format system by thinking that we may as well get the highest IQ system that we can afford, but what if the IQ isn't noticeably better for how we use the camera, the lenses we want aren't affordable and the bulk of it means that we're taking the camera out less than we would otherwise? The best camera is the one that we're most likely to use...
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum