Bayer - Foveon comparison

Started Nov 23, 2008 | Discussions
jonny1976 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,270
Re: Bayer - Foveon comparison

i take the sigma raw...made a tiff of 6000 pixel and then cr a little portion of the image in jpeg. i add some contrast to match canon jpeg, and some sharpen.

clearly i expect the canon 15 million pixel o have more res against an littler sensor, but my crop compares far better than yours

considering the lens used i'm not impressed by canon 50d.

dpreview didn0t bashed it for lower res, but for overall image quality, and we are not talking about res only. IQ is resolution contrast color perpixel crispness. the canon is beter for resolution, it has more pixel, but in the rest is worst.

DMillier wrote:
Pretty different interpretation from mine.

These sorts of differences in opinion continue to amaze me - and I'm
not claiming any special skill in judgement here - but it seems to me
that you are plain wrong!

Clearly there is a big colour difference - who can say which is
accurate but this could be eliminated or reduced with processing.

But the big shock is the huge resolution advantage of the canon -
quite different to the Kodak 14nx vs Sd14 test and quite startling
for me.

Rather than argue with words, here's some evidence.

Try this:

  • equalize the file sizes (I used bicubic to 6000px just so both

files went through the process)

  • add some substantial sharpening to bring out the differences.

-Compare at 100%

Crops:

SD14 (textured surface):

Canon

Sd14 (foliage - where SD is reputed to be good):

Canon

To my eyes the difference is about as great as the difference between
a 6MP and 12MP camera.

Personally, i'd want to verify this with other shots, as the
difference is surprisingly out of step with what I'd expect but from
what I'm seeing here, I'd have to question DPreview's critcisms of
the 50D - in resolution at least, it looks to be in a different class.

I wonder how big a print you would need to show this.

SigmaChrome wrote:

Pretty much what I would have expected.

Foveon: Rich, full and ripe colour and tones. Sigma: Really need to
nail the exposure accurately. In this case, it seems pretty good.

Bayer: Acceptable but flat colour and tones. Canon: Really need to
nail the exposure accurately.

Did I say the same thing about exposure for both Canon and Sigma...
Well... I did too. Have a look at the rendition of the sky in the
Canon 50D shot: Flat, dull and boring - But it's a 14bit, 15MP file
(in RAW) - so there is plenty more information that can still be
recovered. The SD14 picked up all that info - and more without having
to look for it.

That's MHO, for what it's worth.
--
Regards,

Vitée

http://www.pbase.com/vitee/galleries

-- hide signature --
 jonny1976's gear list:jonny1976's gear list
Nikon D2X
Lin Evans
Lin Evans Forum Pro • Posts: 17,606
Resolution versus detail......

There is no question that the 50D produces considerably more resolution than the SD14. The foliage, in this particular case is not a good read for either because of wind and subject motion, so to be more precise let's look at immobile areas of interest and to avoid color issues let's convert both to greyscale.

The interesting thing to me is that this image reveals the differences in "resolution" and "detail revealed". We commonly thing of resolution and detail as more or less the same beast but they really are not.

When you look at the images below, I think you will see what I mean. The 50D has very smooth curves and edges because of the huge pixel count difference but the bayer smoothing effect has robbed the image of a great deal of detail which is revealed in the SD14 crop.

First - the SD14 image was interpolated using Photoshop bicubic smoother to the same pixel dimensions as the 50D then both were converted to greyscale. No matter what level of "sharpness" I apply to the 50D image I can't see the details rendered by the SD14 even though the "resolution" is by any measure obviously greater.

Does aliasing play a role? Undoubtedly. But with the SD14 capture I can absolutely determine that on the right side of the image there is chain-link fencing. I would only know this from the 50D capture because of a small amount of visible hint along the top of the chain link frame. Likewise with the detail on the welded seam on the huge wheel. It's hardly discernable in the 50D capture but rather obvious in the SD14.

I suspect that the greater color resolution uniformity of the SD14 plays a role here and perhaps better dynamic range even thought the 50D has very good DR. The differences are quite apparent to me. Better resolution from the 50D, more revealed detail from the SD14. For forensic work the SD14 wins in my estimation. For clean lines and higher resolution the 50D wins.

Lin

DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 21,157
Re: Resolution versus detail......

Hi Lin

We are in serious pixel peeping territory here to say the least, but carrying on regardless...

Following Sandy's comment about using the Sd14 jpeg, I downloaded the X3 raw and converted in 2.5. The raw is better than the embedded jpeg.

I got the Canon raw as well but I can't open in it in Bibble or C1 v4 so I used the jpeg.

This obviously gives a theoretical advantage to the Sigma. You also need to take into account that the Sigma frame is somewhat more "magnified" because of the higher crop factor. It doesn't sound much but it makes quite a noticeable field of view difference.

The first thing I did is made A3 prints from the two files.

What I see:

  • There is an obvious colour difference, even after some basic balancing; Sigma is pleasantly warm. The Sigma shadows are also more open - whether caused by superior DR, different lighting or exposure I can't say.

  • Even in a modest A3 print, the Canon renders the foliage more convincingly right across the frame: left side, middle, right side and background. As you comment, it could be movement so I leave that one open.

  • Detail on the superstructure is very similar: I edge it to the Canon (just) but only under utmost scrutiny; effectively a draw.

  • jaggies are quite noticeable on some of the cables from the Sd14 - you have to look closely with the naked eye but once spotted they jump out even in an A3.

  • the warmth and open shadows of the Sigma is attractive in the print and SPP does this effortlessly which is nice. Overall, though, even the Canon's jpeg looks that little fraction more 'natural' to me in an A3 print. But not a big difference; many would consider them much of a muchness.

The second thing I did for even more pixel peeping was enlarged both files to 10,000 pixels wide. At this ridiculous enlargement the SD14's jaggies and other aliasing really show up. I still thing that if Sigma can build a higher res sensor in future it would benefit from a weak AA filter. The aliasing/jaggies are an irritatiion even if they do produce some extra "texture" sometimes.

Lin Evans wrote:

There is no question that the 50D produces considerably more
resolution than the SD14. The foliage, in this particular case is not
a good read for either because of wind and subject motion, so to be
more precise let's look at immobile areas of interest and to avoid
color issues let's convert both to greyscale.

The interesting thing to me is that this image reveals the
differences in "resolution" and "detail revealed". We commonly thing
of resolution and detail as more or less the same beast but they
really are not.

When you look at the images below, I think you will see what I mean.
The 50D has very smooth curves and edges because of the huge pixel
count difference but the bayer smoothing effect has robbed the image
of a great deal of detail which is revealed in the SD14 crop.

First - the SD14 image was interpolated using Photoshop bicubic
smoother to the same pixel dimensions as the 50D then both were
converted to greyscale. No matter what level of "sharpness" I apply
to the 50D image I can't see the details rendered by the SD14 even
though the "resolution" is by any measure obviously greater.

Does aliasing play a role? Undoubtedly. But with the SD14 capture I
can absolutely determine that on the right side of the image there is
chain-link fencing. I would only know this from the 50D capture
because of a small amount of visible hint along the top of the chain
link frame. Likewise with the detail on the welded seam on the huge
wheel. It's hardly discernable in the 50D capture but rather obvious
in the SD14.

I suspect that the greater color resolution uniformity of the SD14
plays a role here and perhaps better dynamic range even thought the
50D has very good DR. The differences are quite apparent to me.
Better resolution from the 50D, more revealed detail from the SD14.
For forensic work the SD14 wins in my estimation. For clean lines and
higher resolution the 50D wins.

Lin

-- hide signature --
mike earussi Veteran Member • Posts: 8,219
Re: Resolution versus detail......

Using raw and then uprezzing the SD14 using Photozoom instead of bicubic renders the SD14 image as good if not better than the 50D.

http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/image/106268420

http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/image/106267514

Especially look at the details in the upper part of the concrete tower.

Lin Evans
Lin Evans Forum Pro • Posts: 17,606
Re: Resolution versus detail......

Hi David,

As you can see in Mikes interpolation there is really not a great deal of difference in "Jaggies" when the best interpolation algorithms are employed. Resolution is still a bit higher as one would expect with the 50D but very close. You might try printing Mikes interpolated version but do some leveling on it first to get shadow detail. Obviously, the distracting (unregistered version) messages detract but actual resolution is less apparent than in my bicubic smoother which doesn't fill in the jaggies nearly as well as the Photozoom interpolation does. With the Photozoom interpolation, even when enlarged further in Photoshop I see little difference in jaggies so will be interested in whether you can see them in the print from that version.

I'm seeing the same DR or shadow detail differences as you see. Whether it's DR or just better overall color resolution the shadow detail is better with the SD14 image. I wouldn't make too much of the differences one way or the other, but as I've always said, if proper interpolation is done on Foveon captures there are very few problems with "jaggies" as evidenced by our huge A0 prints displayed at PMA, etc.

Best regards,

Lin

DMillier wrote:
Hi Lin

We are in serious pixel peeping territory here to say the least, but
carrying on regardless...

Following Sandy's comment about using the Sd14 jpeg, I downloaded the
X3 raw and converted in 2.5. The raw is better than the embedded jpeg.

I got the Canon raw as well but I can't open in it in Bibble or C1 v4
so I used the jpeg.

This obviously gives a theoretical advantage to the Sigma. You also
need to take into account that the Sigma frame is somewhat more
"magnified" because of the higher crop factor. It doesn't sound much
but it makes quite a noticeable field of view difference.

The first thing I did is made A3 prints from the two files.

What I see:

  • There is an obvious colour difference, even after some basic

balancing; Sigma is pleasantly warm. The Sigma shadows are also more
open - whether caused by superior DR, different lighting or exposure
I can't say.

  • Even in a modest A3 print, the Canon renders the foliage more

convincingly right across the frame: left side, middle, right side
and background. As you comment, it could be movement so I leave that
one open.

  • Detail on the superstructure is very similar: I edge it to the

Canon (just) but only under utmost scrutiny; effectively a draw.

  • jaggies are quite noticeable on some of the cables from the Sd14 -

you have to look closely with the naked eye but once spotted they
jump out even in an A3.

  • the warmth and open shadows of the Sigma is attractive in the print

and SPP does this effortlessly which is nice. Overall, though, even
the Canon's jpeg looks that little fraction more 'natural' to me in
an A3 print. But not a big difference; many would consider them much
of a muchness.

The second thing I did for even more pixel peeping was enlarged both
files to 10,000 pixels wide. At this ridiculous enlargement the
SD14's jaggies and other aliasing really show up. I still thing that
if Sigma can build a higher res sensor in future it would benefit
from a weak AA filter. The aliasing/jaggies are an irritatiion even
if they do produce some extra "texture" sometimes.

Lin Evans wrote:

There is no question that the 50D produces considerably more
resolution than the SD14. The foliage, in this particular case is not
a good read for either because of wind and subject motion, so to be
more precise let's look at immobile areas of interest and to avoid
color issues let's convert both to greyscale.

The interesting thing to me is that this image reveals the
differences in "resolution" and "detail revealed". We commonly thing
of resolution and detail as more or less the same beast but they
really are not.

When you look at the images below, I think you will see what I mean.
The 50D has very smooth curves and edges because of the huge pixel
count difference but the bayer smoothing effect has robbed the image
of a great deal of detail which is revealed in the SD14 crop.

First - the SD14 image was interpolated using Photoshop bicubic
smoother to the same pixel dimensions as the 50D then both were
converted to greyscale. No matter what level of "sharpness" I apply
to the 50D image I can't see the details rendered by the SD14 even
though the "resolution" is by any measure obviously greater.

Does aliasing play a role? Undoubtedly. But with the SD14 capture I
can absolutely determine that on the right side of the image there is
chain-link fencing. I would only know this from the 50D capture
because of a small amount of visible hint along the top of the chain
link frame. Likewise with the detail on the welded seam on the huge
wheel. It's hardly discernable in the 50D capture but rather obvious
in the SD14.

I suspect that the greater color resolution uniformity of the SD14
plays a role here and perhaps better dynamic range even thought the
50D has very good DR. The differences are quite apparent to me.
Better resolution from the 50D, more revealed detail from the SD14.
For forensic work the SD14 wins in my estimation. For clean lines and
higher resolution the 50D wins.

Lin

carlos roncatti
carlos roncatti Senior Member • Posts: 2,668
JUST curious...

why so many efforts from DMiller whenever theres a comparison between sigma and other brand? Did he ( or you if you are reading) come with anything other than that to Sigma forums?
--
self portrait:

Carlos Roncatti Bomfim

miketuthill Veteran Member • Posts: 3,228
Inferiority Complex

All these bayer vs. foveon comparisons over the years have lead me to believe that some foveon shooters suffer from inferiority complexes with regards to their dslr choice much as the Nikon vs. Canon vs. Olympus vs. Sony vs. Pentax....well maybe not Pentax as nobody bothers to compare to Pentax.....comparators (is that a word???) exhibit.

IMO, both shots look ok and both would stand up to a normal sized printing and only a pixel peeper would give a cats ass about the differences.
--
http://www.pbase.com/miketuthill

 miketuthill's gear list:miketuthill's gear list
Sony a7 II Sony a77 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro +14 more
Lin Evans
Lin Evans Forum Pro • Posts: 17,606
Re: JUST curious...

Hi Carlos,

Not to answer for David, but he is interested in the resolution and detail aspects of Bayer versus Foveon and in cooperation with others has done lots of valuable comparisons which help shed light on these similarities and differences.

We all have our particular interests. Probably if you counted all the comments on resolution, jaggies, detail and such over the times since the SD9 was introduced you would find several of us who comment frequently on this aspect, myself included.

Best regards,

Lin

carlos roncatti wrote:

why so many efforts from DMiller whenever theres a comparison between
sigma and other brand? Did he ( or you if you are reading) come with
anything other than that to Sigma forums?
--
self portrait:

Carlos Roncatti Bomfim

Lin Evans
Lin Evans Forum Pro • Posts: 17,606
Re: Inferiority Complex

While that may be said of "any" user of about any brand, I don't believe that the term "inferiority complex" applies any more than "superiority complex" LOL.

Some of us use about every brand of dSLR and we still like to compare Foveon and bayer because they each have unique qualities and problems.

Best regards,

Lin

miketuthill wrote:

All these bayer vs. foveon comparisons over the years have lead me to
believe that some foveon shooters suffer from inferiority complexes
with regards to their dslr choice much as the Nikon vs. Canon vs.
Olympus vs. Sony vs. Pentax....well maybe not Pentax as nobody
bothers to compare to Pentax.....comparators (is that a word???)
exhibit.

IMO, both shots look ok and both would stand up to a normal sized
printing and only a pixel peeper would give a cats ass about the
differences.
--
http://www.pbase.com/miketuthill

DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 21,157
Re: Resolution versus detail......

Hi Lin

I printed mike's version. It has made a difference.

I'd say that the jaggies are still there but "filled in" as you say to the point they are effectively not visible (unless you had the bicubic print to know where they are).

The foliage also looks a little more convincing than in my versions.

It just goes to show that software and processing technique can make a significant contribution when we are looking at the last percentage points of image quality. Actually, that fact kind of invalidates DPR's testing methodology. Serious photographers are going to push the limits of the hardware and the results they get can easily surpass the "default setting" output.

I'd be quite happy with this image now. Relieved that the reworked version are in line with what I see in Erik 'Chromelight's test prints! I think I can stick with my view that all the better than 6MP class cameras seem to offer excellent quality at least to A3 size prints. Deciding which is best is almost a pointless exercise in that they all have pros and cons and personal preferences play a big part...

Lin Evans wrote:

Hi David,

As you can see in Mikes interpolation there is really not a great
deal of difference in "Jaggies" when the best interpolation
algorithms are employed. Resolution is still a bit higher as one
would expect with the 50D but very close. You might try printing
Mikes interpolated version but do some leveling on it first to get
shadow detail. Obviously, the distracting (unregistered version)
messages detract but actual resolution is less apparent than in my
bicubic smoother which doesn't fill in the jaggies nearly as well as
the Photozoom interpolation does. With the Photozoom interpolation,
even when enlarged further in Photoshop I see little difference in
jaggies so will be interested in whether you can see them in the
print from that version.

I'm seeing the same DR or shadow detail differences as you see.
Whether it's DR or just better overall color resolution the shadow
detail is better with the SD14 image. I wouldn't make too much of the
differences one way or the other, but as I've always said, if proper
interpolation is done on Foveon captures there are very few problems
with "jaggies" as evidenced by our huge A0 prints displayed at PMA,
etc.

Best regards,

Lin

Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

-- hide signature --
DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 21,157
Re: Inferiority Complex

No doubt there are lots of motivations - inferiority battling superiority all the time

My view is a bit similar to yours these days: DSLRs are all getting good. At the print sizes I use, almost anything would do fine.

miketuthill wrote:

All these bayer vs. foveon comparisons over the years have lead me to
believe that some foveon shooters suffer from inferiority complexes
with regards to their dslr choice much as the Nikon vs. Canon vs.
Olympus vs. Sony vs. Pentax....well maybe not Pentax as nobody
bothers to compare to Pentax.....comparators (is that a word???)
exhibit.

IMO, both shots look ok and both would stand up to a normal sized
printing and only a pixel peeper would give a cats ass about the
differences.
--
http://www.pbase.com/miketuthill

-- hide signature --
carlos roncatti
carlos roncatti Senior Member • Posts: 2,668
Re: JUST curious...

I understand Lin. We all have our preferences. I shoot both Sigma and Nikon and just bought a GX200 (didnt arrive it yet). Sometimes i prefer one over the other. I have no loyalty for any brand. I simply use what fits my needs. But i think (reading his previous posts) that its not the case to every time enter a discussion (in a passionated way like does) in a Brands forum to convince everyone that his arguments are the right ones ( clearly his was mistaken in this thread, doing a poor upsize conversion just on the SD14 image). So is my understanding that theres an addiction ( not only his , but from many around these forums) to get in a endless discuusion that leads to nowhere. In the end if you are happy with your gear theres no need to convince everyone else that your gear is what everyone should use.
Best regards.

Lin Evans wrote:

Hi Carlos,

Not to answer for David, but he is interested in the resolution and
detail aspects of Bayer versus Foveon and in cooperation with others
has done lots of valuable comparisons which help shed light on these
similarities and differences.

We all have our particular interests. Probably if you counted all the
comments on resolution, jaggies, detail and such over the times since
the SD9 was introduced you would find several of us who comment
frequently on this aspect, myself included.

Best regards,

Lin

-- hide signature --

self portrait:

Carlos Roncatti Bomfim

DaSigmaGuy Forum Pro • Posts: 12,308
Re: Bayer - Foveon comparison

mike earussi wrote:

Standard conclusion:

Foveon is prettier and more dimensional, Bayer has higher resolution.
Now if Sigma would just make a FF chip...

Alas that may never happen because Sigma's recent purchase of Foveon may have been nothing more than a way to guarentee a supply of 1.7x crop sensors for the upcoming SD15 and DP2...If Foveon had simply declared themselves bankrupt Sigma would have lost their only supply of Foveon sensors and the SD15 and DP2 projects would have been doomed.

Now they have shored up their sensor supply line its very unlikely that Sigma will be prepared to shell out further multiple millions to develop a bigger sensor knowing that the returns, if any, may be very slim.

Perhaps in another 5 years or so we may hear something but until then Sigma will be fully committed to production of the SD15 and DP2.
--
DSG
--

-- hide signature --
 DaSigmaGuy's gear list:DaSigmaGuy's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F660EXR Sigma SD10 Sigma SD14 Samsung Galaxy S7 Samsung Galaxy S9 +25 more
DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 21,157
Re: JUST curious...

Two points:

I didn't do a poor conversion, I printed the samples supplied by the OP.

And for the record, I own a SD9.

carlos roncatti wrote:
I understand Lin. We all have our preferences. I shoot both Sigma and
Nikon and just bought a GX200 (didnt arrive it yet). Sometimes i
prefer one over the other. I have no loyalty for any brand. I simply
use what fits my needs. But i think (reading his previous posts) that
its not the case to every time enter a discussion (in a passionated
way like does) in a Brands forum to convince everyone that his
arguments are the right ones ( clearly his was mistaken in this
thread, doing a poor upsize conversion just on the SD14 image). So is
my understanding that theres an addiction ( not only his , but from
many around these forums) to get in a endless discuusion that leads
to nowhere. In the end if you are happy with your gear theres no need
to convince everyone else that your gear is what everyone should use.
Best regards.

Lin Evans wrote:

Hi Carlos,

Not to answer for David, but he is interested in the resolution and
detail aspects of Bayer versus Foveon and in cooperation with others
has done lots of valuable comparisons which help shed light on these
similarities and differences.

We all have our particular interests. Probably if you counted all the
comments on resolution, jaggies, detail and such over the times since
the SD9 was introduced you would find several of us who comment
frequently on this aspect, myself included.

Best regards,

Lin

-- hide signature --
mike earussi Veteran Member • Posts: 8,219
Re: Inferiority Complex

Comparisons are fun, that's why we do them.

NarrBL Veteran Member • Posts: 6,137
Re: Bayer - Foveon comparison

Thanks, Arky, for posting some good material. Will play a bit when have the time.

My eyes do seem to confirm what I feel I like ;). Interesting other comments, after color shifting etc.. If I look at the bridge abutment even in your small online jpegs, it seems the usual differences are there, at least to taste here.

Best regards,
Clive

richard stone Veteran Member • Posts: 3,108
Re: Bayer - Foveon comparison

Simple creature that I am, and as I often say, easily confused, when I look at these tests, time and time again, the Foveon images look crisper and clearer to me. No blurring. Each photo-site is reporting, spatially, exactly what it registered. And it's not just the lack of blurring, it's no interpolation at all. Color is a different issue. Some color issues can be corrected. Blurry images can be sharpened, it's true, but the result is often an unreal sharpness.

The Foveon image seems more photographic, more of an accurate report of what the lens provided as information and put on the sensor.

Is this going to show up in a print? I think the answer is yes, and unless we are talking 4x6 inches, the Foveon will be better. But most people don't care, and those that might care may not be looking for or even notice the crispness and clarity that I believe is present.

Early tests on the Outback site reported that Foveon sensors did better on color images than Bayer, and the real world is in color. Mike Chaney found the same thing. Yet when we get to these tests, the tests generally come down to comparing non-colored lines against a non-colored background, or very slightly colored tests. It's ok. I just look at the images as posted and go, yep, the Foveon one is crisper. I don't need to make it wall size to see that.

Thank you for posting your pictures and for doing this test.

Richard
--
My small gallery: http://www.pbase.com/richard44/inbox

 richard stone's gear list:richard stone's gear list
Sigma sd Quattro Sigma SD10 Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Sigma 30mm F1.4 DC HSM Art
Erik Magnuson Forum Pro • Posts: 12,247
Too many sharpening artifacts

mike earussi wrote:

http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/image/106268420
Especially look at the details in the upper part of the concrete tower.

Do you really think so? If so, then this shows that preference/taste also plays a large part in this. Personally I think your version shows some serious artifacts.

Here is simple SPP 2.3 large size output vs. Photozoom
and 50D JPEG vs. 50D Canon DPP

IMO, the 50D and the SD14 aren't much different for this image when comparing RAWs processed with the in-the-box converters. You really have to peep past 100% of 50D size. However, I think this shot may be limited by atmospheric distortions, particularly near the water. You can see that some of the lines are not straight on the ladder down to water level. Interesting, each of these images has one color error:

  • the SD14 image blows out the red navigation light to orange

  • the 50D image does not resolve the yellow paint on a pole near the water line (the demosaicking doesn't trust this detail as real and somewhat desaturates it.)

-- hide signature --

Erik

derek324 Regular Member • Posts: 254
Some creatures are even simpler

Some creatures are simpler and even easier to confuse. I tried, and tried, and tried again, with exactly opposite conclusion.

BTW, as an electronics engineer I would always argue that better 'registration of data' should be expected from sensors placed next to each other, as opposed to 3 layers of sensors underneath each other, no metter what the sensors are supposed to 'catch'. I just do not believe in technology being able to offer total transparency between the layers, zero reflections, and lack of interference... but this is of course flogging a dead horse and was discussed many, many times.

Just shows that different perspectives do exists

richard stone wrote:

Simple creature that I am, and as I often say, easily confused, when
I look at these tests, time and time again, the Foveon images look
crisper and clearer to me. No blurring. Each photo-site is
reporting, spatially, exactly what it registered.

...

miketuthill Veteran Member • Posts: 3,228
Re: Inferiority Complex

It's fun the first 656 times. By the 657th it starts to get a little tired.

mike earussi wrote:

Comparisons are fun, that's why we do them.

 miketuthill's gear list:miketuthill's gear list
Sony a7 II Sony a77 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro +14 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads