Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: marcmccalmont on May 12, 2012, 04:55:50 pm
-
After a few days with the Nikon D800E I can say it is "Finally Good Enough". It's human nature to want and want more and want better. When I was making a living with my loudspeaker business I noticed most people were "audiohaulics" just churning their equipment not necessarily making things sound better, human nature. I took pride in setting up systems that sounded so good that the cycle ended and people started spending more time listening and spending money on CD's and LP's not equipment. Well the D800E is just that, "good enough" that I'm not searching for better or greater, just looking forward to going for a walk with my camera, it's "Finally Good Enough". I think DSLR's have left adolescence and matured into adulthood.
Marc
-
I feel similarly. I liked my D700 when it was released but moving from medium format film the resolution was lacking and I was stitching many frames together to compensate as well as exposure blending to get better DR/improve shadow noise, now these techniques can be mostly relics for the majority of situations.
-
After a few days with the Nikon D800E I can say it is "Finally Good Enough".
Until you buy that super duper, not-yet-announced, 36"wide, high gamut, ink-economical printer. ;D
-
I hit that point with Canon 5d; it was 35mm, it had excellent colors and resolution and quality wise, I had no real need for something better. I still don't; it equals medium format film in resolution, it has DR of color negative combined with colors of the best slide film, and all that in 35mm format. I recently bought Olympus E-PL1 which has very similar resolution, to complement it when 35mm is too heavy, and its 12MP resolution is just fine, I don't realistically need more, and when I do want a really huge print, I can do it by stitching a panorama. These days I'm more into lenses and good processing software than I am into cameras.
-
hese days I'm more into lenses and good processing software than I am into cameras.
I have been waiting for the day that the imperfections of sensors are reduced to the point that I can choose a digital camera system primarily by the suitability of the lens system and format to my photographic goals ... the way we could with film choices, uncoupled from camera choices.
Are we almost there?
-
I have been waiting for the day that the imperfections of sensors are reduced to the point that I can choose a digital camera system primarily by the suitability of the lens system and format to my photographic goals ... the way we could with film choices, uncoupled from camera choices.
Are we almost there?
I think we've been there for a while, but we keep revising our expectations upwards. :)
-
I think most of us haves reached that point before the D800. In fact, most of us are probably fine with the various m4/3 and other mirrorless cameras on the market. I sold my A900 after using NEX for a while, because I just couldn't legitimize the weight and expense of my A900 system when I'm looking at my prints...and that was with the old NEX-5. With the NEX-7, my prints are virtually indistinguishable from my A900 prints. I kind of wish that I still had my A900 simply so that I could do a test to see just how big of a print that it would take to separate it from my NEX-7.
Of course, there are other reasons, like AF, to shoot a DSLR, but, in terms of image quality, I'm fine with a mirrorless camera, unless I decide to become a very large format printer. Getting near medium format film resolution in a small digital camera is pretty darn awesome.
-
I think most of us haves reached that point before the D800.
Definitely! Most people seem quite satisfied with their P&S cameras or iPhone cameras. It's only the relatively few who are passionate about photography, who continually want something better.
Many years ago when I was shooting 35mm film, the image quality of Medium Format was a source of envy, but that envy was offset by the additional price of such equipment and the additional inconvenience of the increased bulk and weight of MF equipment.
That we can now buy a 35mm DSLR for less than the inflation-adjusted price of an MF film camera from a previous era, and which DSLR has significantly better dynamic range and significantly better resolution, and in color, than the finest B&W film used on those MF film cameras (not to mention the significantly better high ISO capability), is something to be very pleased about.
I get a sense that real and significant progress has been made.
Whether or not the 36mp of the D800 is finally sufficient, is another matter. The latest cropped-format cameras are 24mp, which translates to 54mp for full frame.
If I were to see a useful advantage in a 24mp DX format, compared with a 16mp D7000, for example, then such advantage would be transferred to a 54mp full-frame of equal quality, and I might decide at some future stage that the 54mp DSLR would be a useful upgrade to my 36mp D800E. ;)
-
It's only the relatively few who are passionate about photography, who continually want something better.
I think that it is possible to be really quite keen on photography without continually wanting a new camera. As for "passionate", I think it is one of the most over-used and hence devalued words in the english language. When people declare themselves to be passionate about brands of shoes or flavours of ice cream then I need a different word to express my attitude to photography.
-
Definitely! Most people seem quite satisfied with their P&S cameras or iPhone cameras. It's only the relatively few who are passionate about photography, who continually want something better.
Implying that being satisfied with camera gear is left to P&S camera owners is disingenuous, and continually wanting something better is not intrinsically tied to passion about photography. In fact, I'd say that many of the successful photographers that I've been around only pay attention to new gear with only a fleeting interest.
Either way, it comes down to how large you print, for the most part.
-
Definitely! Most people seem quite satisfied with their P&S cameras or iPhone cameras. It's only the relatively few who are passionate about photography, who continually want something better.
I would disagree with that statement. This no longer has much to do with photography, as I don't see what I would gain, photographically, by D800E over 5d, other than slightly better detail when printing over a meter in width. It doesn't change depth of field, it doesn't change color, it doesn't do much for dynamic range except replace 11EV with 13EV, where 10EV is enough. Photographically, those two instruments would, at least for me, produce almost identical results, and whoever thinks he can easily distinguish between prints made by those two, at B2 size, is probably wrong.
So it's not about passion for photography, which at this point is satisfied by going out and taking pictures, but passion for acquiring new and expensive gear in order to have bragging rights. That's how I see it. Whoever says he *needs* D800, and isn't already shooting with a medium format back or large format film, is probably deluding himself. I myself am a 35mm film shooter who went digital. I occasionally flirt with medium format film, but it has no resolution advantage over my digital gear, that I can feel in any way.
So it's all a matter of "how big am I going to print". More is not necessarily better; more can mean more storage, CPU and RAM for managing files that are too big for my realistic needs, and I never printed bigger than B2.
-
So it's not about passion for photography, which at this point is satisfied by going out and taking pictures, but passion for acquiring new and expensive gear in order to have bragging rights. That's how I see it. Whoever says he *needs* D800, and isn't already shooting with a medium format back or large format film, is probably deluding himself. I myself am a 35mm film shooter who went digital.
How about the possibility that some photographers enjoy reaching higher levels of technical perfection in their work?
Why was Hansel Adams shooting 8x10 when 4x5 was so much easier?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I can't do this with my 5DII!
Marc
-
I would disagree with that statement.
In my opinion it's quite normal and to be expected that those who are passionate about golf would want to use the best golf club that may give them an advantage in the game, and those who are passionate about tennis would want to use the best tennis raquette that would give them an advantage.
My passion for photography is not satisfied merely by going out and taking pictures, although that's a big part of it. It's finally satisfied by processing my RAW images in various ways, sometimes years later, exploring the possibilities of different types of processing, and eventually achieving a result, or a number of different results from the same image, which satisfies me. If the camera has produced noisy shadows or blown highlights because the scene was too contrasty and the camera didn't have sufficient DR, and it wasn't possible to bracket shots because of subject movement etc, then I'm not satisfied.
So it's all a matter of "how big am I going to print".
It's about a whole range of qualities, including tonal range, noise in the midtones and noise in the shadows, high-ISO performance, frame rates, autobracketing flexibility etc etc, as well as maximum print size that can withstand close scrutiny.
It's also about cropping flexibility. The high resolution sensor allows one to make a reasonably sized, sharp print, say A4, from a significantly cropped area in the image which might be of particular interest.
More is not necessarily better; more can mean more storage, CPU and RAM for managing files that are too big for my realistic needs, and I never printed bigger than B2.
C'mon! Don't you know that RAM and external storage are now dirt cheap compared with a good camera? I think my 2TB Western Digital external hard drive with USB3.0 connectivity, cost $129.
If you are really genuine in thinking this is a problem, perhaps you shouldn't be buying a new DSLR at all. It sounds as though you might not be able to afford it.
Whoever says he *needs* D800, and isn't already shooting with a medium format back or large format film, is probably deluding himself. I myself am a 35mm film shooter who went digital
I don't know what needs have to do with it. I think they would be rare occasions when someone chose a new camera as a result of a need. However you do need to use a camera in order to take a photograph.
I always find as a general rule that I get more satisfaction from the use of equipment which is sufficiently light and flexible for my purposes, yet delivers the maximum quality within the limitations of the format. I never limit myself to maximum print sizes. My printer takes 30 metre rolls.
By the way, Sharp has produced an 85" display with 16x the resolution of the current HD standard. It displays 36mp images and the pixels on the display are so small they cannot be seen however close you peer at the screen. The future.
-
Until the next 60MP camera for under $2000...
-
In my opinion it's quite normal and to be expected that those who are passionate about golf would want to use the best golf club that may give them an advantage in the game, and those who are passionate about tennis would want to use the best tennis raquette that would give them an advantage.
You keep saying "passionate about...", but you keep describing people who are, if anything, "passionate" about collecting equipment and not about doing things with it. You talk about things such as tonal gradations and resolution, but I see no problem with either, in cameras over five years old. I've seen many problems with previous generations of equipment, but that was then. At one point, and for me that point was 5d, I found that the quality of the camera is such that I can simply forget about it and just do my stuff. It's good enough. It does what I ask it do do, and until it dies I'm not sure I'll need a replacement.
Right now, I can process its files on my 13" Air. If I buy a 36MP monster, what happens then? I might obsolete my entire workflow just to get bigger files from a single shot. Do I need it? Maybe, here and there. I don't need it all the time, or for all kinds of photography. For landscapes, yes, but not for portraits or macro. And for landscape, I am consistently producing very good panoramas by stitching. Can I afford it? It's a silly question. Of course I can afford a camera that costs as much as a car. Already having a car I obviously can afford something in this price range. The question is, is it worth the expense. For me, the answer at this point is no. And I am not an undemanding casual photographer. I just don't believe that upgrades of equipment universally produce improvement in the end result. If anything, I have observed that people who invest in very expensive gear almost always display a decline in the quality of their work, because they become obsessed with microscopic detail while on the other hand failing to see how their pictures fall short of their former standards. They can print them bigger, but do they deserve to be printed bigger?
-
I think that it is possible to be really quite keen on photography without continually wanting a new camera. As for "passionate", I think it is one of the most over-used and hence devalued words in the english language. When people declare themselves to be passionate about brands of shoes or flavours of ice cream then I need a different word to express my attitude to photography.
Then tell us what the different word is or could be, so we can assess whether it's more appropriate.
-
How about the possibility that some photographers enjoy reaching higher levels of technical perfection in their work?
Why was Hansel Adams shooting 8x10 when 4x5 was so much easier?
With all due respect, I don't see all that many Ansel Adamses going around complaining that their D700 is limiting their photography. If anything, there are many people who are deluded thinking that technical ability to produce extremely big prints will somehow improve their photography. In most cases, switching to such an extremely high res device will promote obsession with photographic minutia at the expense of everything that matters.
Don't get me wrong, I did live on the digital bleeding edge for a while, buying the best and newest as it appeared, but there came a point where I concluded that the camera is no longer limiting my photography, and I happily went on doing my stuff. That point was when I saw 5d files along medium format velvia scans and saw that the differences are negligible.
Right now, I can produce files that equal sharp medium format film scans. I might at one point want more resolution, but honestly, right now it's not among my biggest concerns.
-
Then tell us what the different word is or could be, so we can assess whether it's more appropriate.
For me, "passion" is emotion of highest intensity, an all-encompassing single-minded focus. Most people either never feel it at all, or they feel it about a person whom they want to spend the rest of their lives with, or a major spiritual conviction worth living and dying for.
With photography, I could agree it's a passion on par with any other purpose of one's life - for some people. For most, it's a hobby, a form of entertainment, a pastime, a creative outlet.
"Strong interest and care" is the highest ranking I could give it, and that is not even close to "passion".
-
How about the possibility that some photographers enjoy reaching higher levels of technical perfection in their work?
Why was Hansel Adams shooting 8x10 when 4x5 was so much easier?
A dodgy example: as technology progressed, Ansel Adams mostly moved to 4x5, and then started doing a lot with medium format too, not to mention using 35mm (a Contax rangefinder) for the sort of photography that it suited better.
Surely there are some for whom progress in technical features like resolution and dynamic range are truly relevant (e.g. anyone who has been doing a lot of stitching of HDR blending). Then again, there are others for whom the new improved headline specs are of as little practical relevance as the deep diving abilities of a Rolex Submariner that never goes more than a few feet under water, a heavy duty luxury 4WD complete with winch and snorkel that never leaves the smoothly paved road, or a super lightweight titanium framed racing bike whose rider is carrying as much extra weight around his belly as the entire bike weighs.
-
You keep saying "passionate about...", but you keep describing people who are, if anything, "passionate" about collecting equipment and not about doing things with it.
Really! You must have different experiences to me. I don't know any people who simply collect golfing equipment but rarely play golf, or people who mainly collect tennis raquettes but rarely play tennis. But I wouldn't be surprised if such people exist. There are all sorts in the world. A female colleague in the office, before I retired, once confided in me that she was a bit worried about her husband who had a habit of buying the latest cameras, whether Nikon, Canon or Minolta, but never (or rarely) took any photos. He just seemed fascinated by the technology and would occasionaly play with the cameras.
I'm afraid I couldn't help her. I'm just the opposite. I'm motivated to buy new equipment only as a result of certain, specific disappointments in the results of some of my photos as I attempt to process them. It's easy to distinguish between technical deficiences and artistic deficiencies.
For example, if you are photographing wildlife with a long lens, you are likely to need a fast shutter speed for a sharp result. This will entail using a high ISO. If your camera does not produce relatively clean and sharp images at high ISO, as my first DSLR didn't, one can err on the side of a shutter speed which is too slow, as a result of the difficult choice between a rock and a hard place.
My second DSLR, the Canon 20D was a significant improvement in this respect. It produced images at ISO 1600 which were technically as good, and perhaps better in respect of color saturation, than my D60 produced at ISO 400.
My third DSLR, the Canon 5D was great except for its noise and banding in the shadows. I returned the first unit as a result of great displeasure at the sight of such noise. The seond unit seem to have at least marginally less banding, so I accepted the camera, but the banding and noise in the deep shadows occasionally raised their ugly heads.
New equipment inspires me to go out and try to take technically better photos. A sharp image of a fuzzy concept is better than a fuzzy image of a fuzzy concept.
-
The interesting thing about photography is that such a wide range of personality types pursue it. We've got artists using photography as just a small part of their mixed media, fine art works all the way up to scientific minded shooters who shoot realistic photos for documentation or reference books, and, as you go from one end of that equation to the other, technical quality seems to become more important. Most of us fall somewhere in between.
-
New equipment inspires me to go out and try to take technically better photos. A sharp image of a fuzzy concept is better than a fuzzy image of a fuzzy concept.
Ray, you gotta be joking!
The fuzzy fuzz gives the fuzzy concept room to hide; the sharp fuzzy concept reveals its fuzzy nudity to the entire world!
Actually, I do believe that dturina is absolutely correct. During the years I've surfed the Internet I have concluded more and more firmly that the old photographs taken by the old masters of the 30s - 90s are a hell of a lot more interesting than much that's come later. I am absolutely certain that people are now obsessed with sharpness at the cost of content. Never have so many crisp images of nothing much been on display. I don't think it matters a hell of a lot how much DR, how many pixels or even which processing system people use - if the pictures are crap they are always crap, however crisp, colourful or gigantically they may be reproduced. One would hope they would not be reproduced at all, but there you go.
Super equipment in the hands of a non-pro has not a lot to do with photography and everything to do with ego and wallet. That's also okay, but does not mean that it justisfies the pursuit of this extravagant stuff per se, a pursuit which is inevitably self-destructive as most of the 'work' it produces proves here, over and over again.
As far as shooting pictures goes, unless you are a specialist in something where you need specialist tools, you could all do worse than listen to Keith Laban: go out and make pictures with what you have and give up on the agonizing! Of course, it could be the agonizing that's the ultimate appeal for some.
;-)
Rob C
-
A sharp image of a fuzzy concept is better than a fuzzy image of a fuzzy concept.
Ray, you are missing the important artistic concept of "selective focus", aka "selective fuzziness".
-
Then tell us what the different word is or could be, so we can assess whether it's more appropriate.
Read my post again, preferably with your sense of humour turned on. It contains an ironic take on the "different word". More generally, what you seem to be doing is asserting that your particular approach to photography and photographic equipment is the only legitimate one. Your feel a need to constantly improve your equipment. Good luck to you - I have no problem with that and respect the fact that for you, improving your equipment is an important way of improving your photography - that, as you say, "new equipment inspires me...". But to assert that anyone who doesn't feel the same way as you do about equipment is necessarily less "passionate" about photography is simply nonsense. Look around you, on and off this site, and you will find plenty of people who are just as keen on photography as you are but less interested in new equipment.
-
Ray, you gotta be joking!
The fuzzy fuzz gives the fuzzy concept room to hide; the sharp fuzzy concept reveals its fuzzy nudity to the entire world!
Actually, I do believe that dturina is absolutely correct. During the years I've surfed the Internet I have concluded more and more firmly that the old photographs taken by the old masters of the 30s - 90s are a hell of a lot more interesting than much that's come later. I am absolutely certain that people are now obsessed with sharpness at the cost of content. Never have so many crisp images of nothing much been on display. I don't think it matters a hell of a lot how much DR, how many pixels or even which processing system people use - if the pictures are crap they are always crap, however crisp, colourful or gigantically they may be reproduced. One would hope they would not be reproduced at all, but there you go.
Super equipment in the hands of a non-pro has not a lot to do with photography and everything to do with ego and wallet. That's also okay, but does not mean that it justisfies the pursuit of this extravagant stuff per se, a pursuit which is inevitably self-destructive as most of the 'work' it produces proves here, over and over again.
As far as shooting pictures goes, unless you are a specialist in something where you need specialist tools, you could all do worse than listen to Keith Laban: go out and make pictures with what you have and give up on the agonizing! Of course, it could be the agonizing that's the ultimate appeal for some.
;-)
Rob C
Rob,
I hope you are not getting confused in your old age and falling into the trap of claiming that things are not as good nowadays as they were in the olden times. ;D Of course old photographs taken by the old masters are more interesting than much that's come later. That's why they're called masters. Such masters also generally used the best equipment available. The camera used by Frank Meadow Sutcliffe in the late 19th century was a large mahogany beast with brass fittings, which took whole plate glass negatives 6.5" x 8.5".
Below is a photo taken over 100 years ago, by him, of 'fisher folk', which I scanned myself about 15 years ago on my first 'photo quality' flatbed scanner. I would do a better job if I were to scan the photo today, but I no longer have the original. The scan is 308MB in 8bit.
My experience during many years as an amateur photographer, is that years ago when the general public were using 35mm film cameras, long before autofocussing and autoexposure were available, and getting the film and prints developed by mass-produced processes, the photos that I were often shown in people's albums, generally looked out-of-focus, and/or blurred due to subject movement, or had blocked-up shadows or totally blown white skies devoid of any detail etc etc, not to mention abysmal composition.
Even though the subjects might not have been particularly interesting, because they were often basically snapshots which evoked memories only in the people who took the shots or who were in the shots, I always felt it a great pity that such images were almost always so technically poor.
If an image is sharp and detailed, correctly exposed with no blown highlights or blocked-up shadows, even though the concept might be fuzzy there's can be the possibility of improvement through judicious cropping. If the DoF is good and the sensor or film is high resolution, one can sometimes generate new concepts during the processing; perhaps discovering things in the scene that one didn't even notice at the time of shooting, such as an interesting tuft of grass at the foot of a tree, or some shy girl hiding in the shadows in a doorway, who might be lost forever if she were drowned in 5D noise and banding.
This is why I claim that a sharp image of a fuzzy concept is preferable to a fuzzy image of a fuzzy concept.
.. you could all do worse than listen to Keith Laban: go out and make pictures with what you have and give up on the agonizing!
Rob, surely you are aware that it's not possible to go out and make pictures with what you haven't got, unless you're a magician. ;D Whatever one's state of agony, one always has to take and make the picture with whatever equipment one has, whether such equipment is cheap or expensive, modern or antiquated.
Agonizing is part and parcel of being an artist.
-
Ray, you are missing the important artistic concept of "selective focus", aka "selective fuzziness".
Those are not fuzzy, they are bokehful. :)
-
With all due respect,... complaining that their D700 is limiting their photography.
My D700 is definitely limiting my photography. That's because it's so bl00dy heavy that it spends most of its time time at home. Which is why I just bought an Olympus OMD.
Roy
-
My D700 is definitely limiting my photography. That's because it's so bl00dy heavy that it spends most of its time time at home. Which is why I just bought an Olympus OMD.
Roy
Well, that's a different matter and the implication is that image quality is good enough, and practicality and portability are the next big issues. This is a very important milestone, as digital, so far, seemed to be a race for quality - does it beat film, is it good enough. Right now, for all but an insignificant few, the answer is "yes". We have medium format film quality in m43 and large format quality in 35mm. Digibacks usually exceed large format.
So now the issue is practicality.
-
For me, "passion" is emotion of highest intensity, an all-encompassing single-minded focus. Most people either never feel it at all, or they feel it about a person whom they want to spend the rest of their lives with, or a major spiritual conviction worth living and dying for.
Sorry to say that meaning is fading - current corporate-speak insists "passion" is now a requirement for stacking shelves in a supermarket.
-
Sorry to say that meaning is fading - current corporate-speak insists "passion" is now a requirement for stacking shelves in a supermarket.
Yes, "passion" seems to have become a check box on a job application form.
-
Ray -
I simply can’t buy into your new philosophy that crisp crap is better than fuzzy crap. Crap is crap, period. I have no interest in finding that ‘shy girl in the shadow of a doorway’ – she’s probably better just hiding there until the camera’s gone: much safer and unlikely to have her branded as some sort of ‘object’ by her sisters.
Also, I can think of no time when I felt tempted to dig deeply into other people’s happy snaps looking for the minutiae of their lives or, at the very least, of the moment they were immortalised in silver! Frankly, I have usually dreaded the moment when the album comes out. It usually coincides with that pressing engagement I’d forgotten, and thanks for reminding me!
So really, I’m afraid that before my jury, your case for the sharper fuzz fails with the evidence presented.
Suffering and art. Oh dear – here we go again: is photography art? And even if it were, why should suffering have any habitual part in the deal? Suffering is only present in those cases where the practitioner is either strapped for cash, lives in the wrong part of the world for the genre that appeals to him or, perhaps, he’s just no damned good at it and has blown all his money on classes that have left him as hopelessly untalented as he began, but measurably the poorer and – with luck - enlightened enough to know he just ain’t got it and that the lottery is a better form of entertainment.
Making pictures with or without the available camera equipment. Now that’s an interesting one: sometimes, the available equipment if just perfect but the spark is lacking, the juices refuse to flow and the repeated humping of the existing equipment onto and then off the shoulders, with no shot fired in anger in between, becomes a bore. Possibly, that could be considered one of the perfect times for the introduction of a little artistic angst? On your concerns about gear: often the ideal but missing equipment is the perfect solution to many problems, the perfect face-saver: I would have and I could have, but I didn’t have.
Oh the misery of late nights at the mill.
Rob C
-
Yes, "passion" seems to have become a check box on a job application form.
Very true.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ray -
I simply can’t buy into your new philosophy that crisp crap is better than fuzzy crap.
The implied premise is that technical quality of the medium always increases the value of a photo.
If that were so, there would be no "lomography", there would be no BW photography because color would always have more value because it reproduces more than just luminance, etc.
I'm not far from that line of thought, actually. I do think that it's better to have technical quality than not to have it, and if you get to produce crap, at least you can't blame the camera. But "technical quality" is not a simple matter. The way I see it, you have resolution, dynamic range, colors, ability to control depth of field, bokeh rendering, and control of artifacts such as flare, vignetting, CA and corner fuzziness.
For some kinds of photography some of those things matter more than others but it is basically better to have those parameters within certain margins where it's all qualified as "good" or "excellent". This is the point where they don't get in your way when you take pictures or when you attempt to make prints. But after a certain point you have to look for technical flaws with an increasingly stronger loupe, and when you start using microscopes you know you lost perspective.
The way I see it, with modern 12MP sensors and good lenses, I need to look at a B2 sized print with a loupe to find flaws. At a width of one meter, something might be visible but you really need to look for it. This is the point where I start asking myself if I'll make better photos by getting that extra 10% of fine detail at a huge print, or by buying a smaller camera that I can carry with me more often.
-
Ray -
I simply can’t buy into your new philosophy that crisp crap is better than fuzzy crap. Crap is crap, period.
Rob,
The only crap that is crap, period, is the literal crap sometimes known as feces or poop. I'm sure that the scientists who study fossilized dinosaur poop would not be at all interested in fuzzy pictures of their coprolites. ;D
However, using the term in its metaphorical and pejorative sense as you intended, what may appear crap to one person, may not appear crap to another. In fact, sometimes just the opposite. There are people in the 'art' world who have become very rich selling what some people would consider as total crap, as I'm sure you are aware.
Also, I can think of no time when I felt tempted to dig deeply into other people’s happy snaps looking for the minutiae of their lives or, at the very least, of the moment they were immortalised in silver! Frankly, I have usually dreaded the moment when the album comes out. It usually coincides with that pressing engagement I’d forgotten, and thanks for reminding me!
Would that also apply in the case of the happy snaps of you as a young kid, or your parents as teenagers, or your grandparents and great grandparents.? Or perhaps your forebears didn't use cameras.
Would that also apply if the happy snaps were razor sharp, large prints taken with a D800, instead of fuzzy postcards processed in an automated fashion at KMart? Even if the composition were crap, would you not recognize in a sharp image, perhaps a certain face in a group, or a puppy on someone's lap with an interesting expression, that might make a reasonable A4 size portrait after cropping and contrast enhancement etc?
I suscribe to the view that most images can be improved by some judicious cropping and Photoshop processing. The sharper and more detailed the original image is, whether film or digital, the greater the possibilities of improvement.
I'm reminded of the first time I came across The Luminous Landscape site. The great controversal discussion at that time was the performance of Canon's first DSLR, the 3mp D30. Michael had just written a review of the camera claiming that it produced better and more pleasing results than 35mm film. Such a claim was 'over the top' for many people. How could a mere 3mp of picture information rival 35mm film.
Well, it was later confirmed by other sources that at least up to A4 size, the 3mp DSLR produced better results than 35mm film. At A3 print size, 35mm film might have begun to show a resolution edge, but the D30 would still have retained that smoothness due to a lack of grain that one associates with MF film.
Now all those who keep repeating that they never print at a size that would benefit from 36mp, seem to me to be a bit myopic. A Nikon D800 pixel is certainly better than the old Canon D30 pixel, so whatever quality at A4 size that was produced by that ancient 3mp D30, would be exceeded in some respects by a 3mp crop from the D800, depending on lens quality.
Let's consider the implications for someone who never prints larger than A4. What happens when we make a 3mp crop from the centre of a D800 image? We effectively get the equivalent of a 3mp cropped-format camera, but with a greater crop factor than the 1.6x of the D30. A bit of simple maths reveals that the crop factor would be 3.5x.
The implications are, a top quality 100mm prime on a D800 can double up as a medium quality 350mm telephoto zoom, producing results sufficient for A4 size prints. Wow!
-
However, using the term in its metaphorical and pejorative sense as you intended, what may appear crap to one person, may not appear crap to another. In fact, sometimes just the opposite. There are people in the 'art' world who have become very rich selling what some people would consider as total crap, as I'm sure you are aware.
It's all in the eye of the beholder. Like gynaecological examination; if someone, aliens or whatever, did that to a woman against her will, she'd be seeing shrinks for the rest of her life trying to recover from psychological trauma, and yet they even pay for it. :) It's the same with some "art". If someone poops on your carpet you'll sue him, but when he does that in a museum they pay him a million dollars.
-
The implied premise is that technical quality of the medium always increases the value of a photo.
Not quite. We have to define what 'value' means. Value is not price. Value is always in the eye of the beholder. Price is the monetary value which may or may not correspond with the buyers personal sense of value. In which case, he/she doesn't buy, unless she is foolish.
In my view, which is an eminently sensible view, the technical quality of the medium increases the potential usefulness of the image. If you value potential usefulness, for whatever purpose, artistic or advertising, or scientific, then it must be true that the technical quality of the medium increases the value of a photo.
Regarding your other point about file size, storage and processing problems, I have to thank you for inspiring me to delve into 12-year old scans recorded to CD. (I mentioned that the Sutcliffe Fisher Folk scan was done about 15 years ago. In fact it was probably closer to 12 years ago because it appears that the Epson 1200 Photo flatbed scanner which I used, was not available till 1999 or 2000.)
I'm now transferring those two-images-per-CD scans to hard drive. They're all readable, due to my impeccable skill with the recording process. (Heck! I'm not always totally modest ;D )
Below is one of my favourite Sutcliffe images. Not sure of the precise date, but I guess it was taken about 130 years ago at Whitby in the UK.
Sutcliffe was a world-famous photographer in the late 19th century. He was an artist-turned-photographer.
Once those 300-400MB scans have been transferred to my hard drive, they open in photoshop instantly. All delays are due to the slow-reading of the CD medium. You need have no fears about 36mp files, or 54mp files, or 80mp files. By the time 200mp files are commonplace, the computers of the day will handle them with aplomb.
-
Not quite. We have to define what 'value' means. Value is not price.
Of course not. Price is one possible way of determining value, but not always applicable. For instance, for a comparison of lens sharpness, a photo made with good and precise technique has greater value than the one taken casually, although value may exist only in the context of such comparison and the photo might otherwise have no value whatsoever.
"Value", in this context, is synonymous with "merit" - a positive quantitative measure of worth.
-
Yes, "passion" seems to have become a check box on a job application form.
Sadly, this is a fact. I remember when the word awesome had a special meaning. No longer. For photography, it seems to mean that areas not in sharp focus are out of sharp focus. We know that as boke. Awesome boke, is the ultimate compliment for a photograph for many. Even more so than tack sharp. Not sure if this applies to paintings, but that's a different story. My wife has always passionately talked about me being boke, but she has yet to use the word awesome with it.
Sorry, back to the regularly scheduled program.
-
Sadly, this is a fact. I remember when the word awesome had a special meaning. No longer.
Yes, language seems to have been perverted into some strange newspeak dialect in which not even the ordinary superlatives seem to be enough, but need to be enhanced by copious quantities of Red Bull, in a world that eternally shifts between suicidal depression and adrenaline rush.
-
Yes, language seems to have been perverted into some strange newspeak dialect in which not even the ordinary superlatives seem to be enough, but need to be enhanced by copious quantities of Red Bull, in a world that eternally shifts between suicidal depression and adrenaline rush.
Blame it on the Valley.
Rob C
-
Yes, language seems to have been perverted into some strange newspeak dialect in which not even the ordinary superlatives seem to be enough, but need to be enhanced by copious quantities of Red Bull, in a world that eternally shifts between suicidal depression and adrenaline rush.
Sorry! That's not my world. When I say 'cool', I mean the temperature is neither cold nor warm, but somewhere in between. ;D
-
Sorry! That's not my world. When I say 'cool', I mean the temperature is neither cold nor warm, but somewhere in between. ;D
Oh, I speak the jargon, but I always feel silly and that episode of South Park with the Marklar aliens comes to my mind. You know, the ones from Marklar, who refer to all people, places and things as Marklar. :)
-
dturina, I feel you are carrying some misconceptions forth into normative claims.
You suggest that the 5D matched medium format resolution. Even the 5DII and the D3x are only really marginally there, just marginally. You go on to suggest that the only benefit of more resolution is to /print bigger/. Of course there is an element of enhanced MTF when downsampling from a high resolution capture that preserves an added level of detail comfortably in the upper frequencies of your target sample space. With a native 12MP sensor, the AA filter and artifacts from bayer demosaicking take away from your 12MP sample space in the upper frequencies. In fact, that's one of the biggest reasons for using a D800. There is obvious benefit from its resolution in web-sized images. Try it yourself. A lot has happened in 5 years.
-
You suggest that the 5D matched medium format resolution.
Yes, and that is exactly true. In fact, I couldn't make 645 scans that are even close, not with my scanner, and I searched the net and found out that the best possible drum scans give a very slight advantage to 645, but only with Velvia. I don't understand why this is even a matter of dispute.
-
Yes, and that is exactly true. In fact, I couldn't make 645 scans that are even close, not with my scanner, and I searched the net and found out that the best possible drum scans give a very slight advantage to 645, but only with Velvia. I don't understand why this is even a matter of dispute.
Hi,
Maybe because others got much better results than you suggest to have gotten? The actually measured MTF curve (http://bvdwolf.home.xs4all.nl/main/foto/Imatest/SFR_DSE5400_GD.png)'s Nyquist frequency (106.3 cy/mm) of the 5400 PPI scanner I used for 35mm film when combined with the MTF of film, resolved some 85 cycles/mm, which was still significantly more than the Nyquist frequency of a 5D (60.67 cy/mm).
It wasn't until the Canon 1Ds Mark II (Nyquist frequency at 69.4 cy/mm) that the difference with film scans (with their lower MTF response at lower spatial frequencies) became small enough (and without graininess, and with a better workflow for the 1Ds2) made me decide to switch to Digital capture. The film scans of medium format film still had a 1.6-1.8x advantage, due to their lower output magnification (but only if the camera kept the film flat, and both lens and technique were top notch) and thus higher resolution and more compact graininess.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
Maybe because others got much better results than you suggest to have gotten?
This is not really relevant to me; first, because the results other people got with different equipment don't have much relevance for my own experience and workflow. Second, because I am highly skeptical when someone reports results so far from what I am used to seeing.
The fact is, only the large format seems to hold its ground against 35mm dSLRs. Medium format isn't worse, it's just much harder to get the results. You need to have a Nikon 9000, and then you need to keep the film flat, and recently it's even difficult to get proper processing for E6. So, from what I saw, I'd have to invest in an Imacon or a Coolscan 9000 to really get the kind of sharpness and clarity I'm routinely getting from digital. And the thing is, I don't think the film is better. I am actually getting better landscape colors from digital, I prefer the end result. For portraits, I must admit I sometimes prefer slide film, but not by much, and I only find E100G to really be in the game for me.
As I said, when everything is just perfect, medium format film has a slight edge over my digital equipment, but it's only slight, which means invisible in print, but it is so much easier for me to get good results with digital, I find the additional investment of time and work just unacceptable. I have no problem working hard for the results if they are worth the trouble, but in the case of film, I don't feel they are. For instance, I recently ordered prints made from my 645 Reala negatives, from the only remaining E6 lab in Zagreb. I ordered A3 prints. The results were in every way inferior to the A3 prints I made with 5d. And I mean in every way - colors, detail, tonal gradations, general impression of the image, everything. It's not just a matter of some tiny fraction of resolution, but the tonality of the digital image looked vastly superior. OK, someone will say Reala is crap but I don't really think so, it's actually rather good for landscapes, as C41 films go. I could get better colors from E100G, E100VS, Provia or Velvia, but the dynamic range would be so thin it would be difficult, if not impossible, to shoehorn the scene inside it.
I did at one point feel that film is superior in colors and tonal gradations to digital, but that was when "digital" was an old generation small sensor digicam. With Olympus E-1 I stopped shooting film for all intents and purposes, because it was the same or very close in tonality and for smaller prints, up to A3, the difference in resolution that still favored 35mm film just wasn't significant. But with 5d I don't feel the lack of resolution even in B2 prints, which is the largest that I actually printed. The prints came out very detailed, clean and with perfect colors, and this is the point where I think I finally made my mind about film, even large format. The thing is, I don't feel I'm sacrificing quality by not shooting film. I'm consistently getting the colors I want, and I'm getting results printable in very high quality in sizes as big as I find practical.
So yes, I believe one could shoot a frame of 645 Velvia and expensively scan it on a drum scan and show that it outresolves a 35mm dSLR, but this workflow is not even practical for big studios, and certainly not for me. I have a 4990 Epson and could, if need arises, go out and scan something really important on a drum scanner, if the graphical studios who used them didn't switch to digital in the meantime, but the reality of what I am seeing is much greater difficulty of getting the results that are often not even there.
-
I don't see where the claim requires that the film be scanned. To put it another way, we're not comparing a digital photograph with a digital photograph of a piece of film, we're comparing a digital photograph with a piece of film.
Where I see the difference is in the high-frequency content of the film, and its native MTF, as compared with a native 12MP capture. The 5D (or the D3/D700 for that matter) uses an OLPF and a bayer array, and the MTF rolls off very sharply in the high frequencies. The native 12MP capture does not have a response that extends smoothly out to the Nyquist limit.
I see the deficiencies of the 12MP capture in the common headshot format, in the detail in hair, skin, and clothing. I see the benefits of shooting at 36MP even at web size. It isn't just for larger prints.
The best I can say is try it.
-
I don't see where the claim requires that the film be scanned. To put it another way, we're not comparing a digital photograph with a digital photograph of a piece of film, we're comparing a digital photograph with a piece of film.
Absolutely. And this where so many of these film / digital comparisons fall flat on their faces. You should always be comparing prints of the same size, with the film one being made in a wet darkroom on a chemical print from the original negative. Then you are looking, as Luke says, for tonality especially in the upper mids and highlight zones. And if such a comparison is done correctly, by definition there is no way that you can make it over the Internet.
Most folks' recent experience of film is in fact a sort of bastard child, neither truly chemical nor truly digital.
John
-
I don't see where the claim requires that the film be scanned. To put it another way, we're not comparing a digital photograph with a digital photograph of a piece of film, we're comparing a digital photograph with a piece of film.
This is a strange position, because eventually you'll want to do something with that information on film, and when you do, the only place where it makes sense to see film as the end product is projecting a slide on the wall. In all other cases you want either a file or a print, where all the comparisons make sense.
Also, I am yet to see a person who will consistently tell which file originated from film, digital back or a dSLR from a web sized resolution. AFAIR this has in fact been tested and it has been proved that even very skilled photographers can't tell the difference and all the talk about "that special quality which can be seen" don't live up to scrutiny. I like to think I'm very good at things such as colors and fine detail and occasionally I couldn't tell a difference between film and digital, or digiback and 4/3 sensor, from web sized pics.
My problem with film isn't the lack of potential quality, it's the amount of extra work needed to get the results I get with three clicks with digital. Developing E6 is an issue, in especially in anything bigger than 35mm, because the one remaining lab in my town doesn't conform to qlab standards, and you can no longer find good scanners around. It's become a specialty item, at a premium price, and even if I was willing to pay it, I don't see the benefits compared to digital. It's just more difficult, more expensive and I can't do everything myself, meaning I have to depend on manufacturers of film and chemistry, availability of labs and availability of scanners. And I really like doing it all at home - except printing, I do that at a professional studio and have the prints mounted on kapafix and protected by a foil; can't really do it at home.
From where I see it, the differences in resolution between 645, today's m43 cameras and today's top dSLR cameras are increasingly less relevant, something like the difference between iPad 2 and iPad3. Yes it has better resolution screen but it's not like it was a huge problem on the old one, to begin with. Of course I would buy the high res version if they're similarly priced, but if the small incremental difference adds several times the price, bulk and trouble, my decision to upgrade becomes less likely.
-
Because one person has personal resource/services problems does not in any way affect the ultimate argument about superiority of which medium.
Hell, I can't even get realistic/good E6 processing on the island where I live anymore - film has to be sent to Barcelona and paid for through the nose. Much of my favourite transparency material has vanished form the face of Earth, but having said that, were I able to have my old 500 'blad stuff back again, I'd use it now in place of anything else I have left in the photo department. Oh yes, I'd also need a good 120 scanner... It isn't really all about digital or film; it's also about the pleasure and certainty associated with the tools.
At least, that's my take on life these days.
Rob C
-
Because one person has personal resource/services problems does not in any way affect the ultimate argument about superiority of which medium.
Hell, I can't even get realistic/good E6 processing on the island where I live anymore - film has to be sent to Barcelona and paid for through the nose. Much of my favourite transparency material has vanished form the face of Earth, but having said that, were I able to have my old 500 'blad stuff back again, I'd use it now in place of anything else I have left in the photo department. Oh yes, I'd also need a good 120 scanner... It isn't really all about digital or film; it's also about the pleasure and certainty associated with the tools.
At least, that's my take on life these days.
Rob C
That's all fine, but the realities of supply and workflow remain; if I can't have a reasonably priced medium format scanner that is critically sharp and can extract the information from the film, it all remains a matter of theoretical, not practical performance. I did shoot film when it was practical, which meant I could get qlab processed E6 in my neighbourhood, and I had a very good 35mm scanner (Minolta Dual IV). But I sold the Minolta years ago, the qlab closed and the remaining options are highly impractical, especially since the digital is advanced enough that the advantages of film remain theoretical.
The fact is, I made more keepers with digital in one year than I ever did with film, so I'm not really ready to lament over its demise. I'm certainly not filmophobic, in fact my fridge door is full of it, but I see frequency of use as a good indicator of my opinion of quality. If I don't use it then it's obvious that I don't see a good reason.
One of the main reasons why I stopped shooting the chromes is deterioration of E6 processing here. The labs don't have enough customers and they attempt to make the process more economical ba stretching the life of the chemicals, and some of the rolls I had processed looked like they were developed in stale piss and bleach. Definitely not the Provia I remember from the old qlab days, I can tell you that.
-
Daniel, returning to my most important point.
Compare a digital capture from a native 12MP sensor with a capture from a 36MP sensor downsampled to 12MP. The downsampled capture will show a higher MTF in the upper frequencies, and show more detail to the naked eye. You will see this even at web size.
Among the reasons for this are (i) the strong OLPF in a 12MP sensor, along with (ii) bayer demosaicking artifacts, both of which cause the native 12MP sensor to roll off in the upper frequencies, well short of what the 12MP sample space could accommodate. By contrast, the 36MP capture when judiciously downsampled will exhibit more information in the upper frequencies of the 12MP sample space. Differences will still be evident even at web size.
-
Daniel, returning to my most important point.
Compare a digital capture from a native 12MP sensor with a capture from a 36MP sensor downsampled to 12MP. The downsampled capture will show a higher MTF in the upper frequencies, and show more detail to the naked eye. You will see this even at web size.
Among the reasons for this are (i) the strong OLPF in a 12MP sensor, along with (ii) bayer demosaicking artifacts, both of which cause the native 12MP sensor to roll off in the upper frequencies, well short of what the 12MP sample space could accommodate. By contrast, the 36MP capture when judiciously downsampled will exhibit more information in the upper frequencies of the 12MP sample space. Differences will still be evident even at web size.
This doesn't happen. How can I claim that with such certainty? Because I've done it with 5MP files from Olympus E-1, 12MP files from Canon 5d and 12MP files from Olympus E-PL1. Reduced to 1680x1050 native resolution of my monitor, nobody can tell which is which. My wife can never tell which camera I used unless she knows the picture beforehand. I tested this with several people and they can differentiate between stronger and milder sharpening and that's it. So none of what you're saying holds water.
-
This doesn't happen. How can I claim that with such certainty? Because I've done it with 5MP files from Olympus E-1, 12MP files from Canon 5d and 12MP files from Olympus E-PL1. Reduced to 1680x1050 native resolution of my monitor, nobody can tell which is which. My wife can never tell which camera I used unless she knows the picture beforehand. I tested this with several people and they can differentiate between stronger and milder sharpening and that's it. So none of what you're saying holds water.
If you'd like, put up the same image shot with the E1, the 5D, and ... well, the D3x, and the D800? I'll wager that I can tell the difference right away. Until the D3x came along, I might have been skeptical, but that changed. Why not just go rent a D800 and then tell us what you think it's good for or not? It merits something other than a summary dismissal.
-
If you'd like, put up the same image shot with the E1, the 5D, and ... well, the D3x, and the D800? I'll wager that I can tell the difference right away. Until the D3x came along, I might have been skeptical, but that changed. Why not just go rent a D800 and then tell us what you think it's good for or not? It merits something other than a summary dismissal.
Well as far as I can tell your challenge has already been answered several years ago here. If my memory serves me correctly, someone made a slideshow with random photos from digibacks and dSLRs and people could vote which they thought was which. To put it short, it was all random guessing, nobody could tell the difference, so all that stuff about Nyquist and MTF and whatever on smaller images, it doesn't really exist. You can't tell a digiback from a Canon 300d on a web resolution.
-
Well as far as I can tell your challenge has already been answered several years ago here. If my memory serves me correctly, someone made a slideshow with random photos from digibacks and dSLRs and people could vote which they thought was which. To put it short, it was all random guessing, nobody could tell the difference, so all that stuff about Nyquist and MTF and whatever on smaller images, it doesn't really exist. You can't tell a digiback from a Canon 300d on a web resolution.
If you have a source, then cite it; otherwise your vague recollections have no authority. The challenge stands. We're talking about things that are obvious to anyone who uses a D3X/A900 or D800 after a couple of frames.
Have you ever used a DSLR with a full-frame sensor with more than 12MP? Or any camera with more than 12MP?
-
@LKaven,
Usually, the positive claim of a discernable difference is the one that needs evidence; "no difference" is the null hypothesis to be rejected or corroborated by the data. This is even more relevant when there are other clearly discernable differences in cost, weight, the quality and choice of tools available for composition, and so on.
So can you post or link to evidence of discernable differences in web resolution images?
Two rules:
- No avoidable DOF differences: adjust f-stop in proportion to focal length and linear format size to the extent possible.
- No avoidable blown highlights: these are a common but completely avoidable defect with some images taken with smaller formats.
On DOF: with small enough formats, DOF matching is sometimes impossible, and when so, that is a legitimate difference in look. But this is rarely or never the case between 35mm and MF.
On highlight handling: if one wishes to present dynamic range or handling of high subject brightness range as a difference between formats visible in web-sized images, then comparisons with exposure chosen to hold highlights in all cases should reveal any such differences through differences in shadow handling, tonal gradations and such.
-
There was some discussion of this a while back amongst us:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=60585.0
There are a variety of positive claims going around, including Daniel's. But here I'm saying that I've heated water to 100C degrees and observed boiling, whereas Daniel is saying "I've never heated water and I wouldn't, because it could never boil. This was covered /somewhere/ a long time ago to the best of my recollection." You might say that whether I've truly observed boiling or not is subject to further confirmation, but one should say that there was honest inquiry.
-
There was some discussion of this a while back amongst us:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=60585.0
I think that two different claims are being confused (at least by me):
1) With Bayer CFA sensors of A and B pixels, A>B, the files that you get by downsampling from the A pixel sensor image to a B pixel file with values for all three colors at each pixel (like JPEG or TIFF) can have higher resolution and greater image quality than those from the B pixel Bayer CFA sensor.
2) Some difference is still visible with both files are down-sampled to a web or screen resolution of C pixels, where C is far less than either A or B.
Claim 1 makes sense to me, for reasons I gave in that discussion you link to. The data in that thread seem to deal with A=24MP, B=12MP, with no data on downsampling further, for example to C=2MP as for comparing at screen resolution.
It is claim 2 that I am skeptical of, and where I would like to see evidence.
-
There was some discussion of this a while back amongst us:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=60585.0
There are a variety of positive claims going around, including Daniel's. But here I'm saying that I've heated water to 100C degrees and observed boiling, whereas Daniel is saying "I've never heated water and I wouldn't, because it could never boil. This was covered /somewhere/ a long time ago to the best of my recollection." You might say that whether I've truly observed boiling or not is subject to further confirmation, but one should say that there was honest inquiry.
This is a gross misrepresentation of my position. A more accurate analogy would be that you said you've seen water boil in your room at 24C, and I said it's possible in very reduced air pressure but I doubt you had that in your room or you wouldn't be talking here.
-
If you have a source, then cite it; otherwise your vague recollections have no authority. The challenge stands.
No, it doesn't.
Others who keep better records of what was posted and when might find you an archived article. I went through that blind test and I know what the result was, and you can either believe me or not, but if you don't, I'll find it ridiculous and I'll probably laugh.
The issue you're talking about was a matter of some contention a while ago but it was resolved and nobody really brings it up since.
-
As something rather recent I recommend this:
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/IREPORT/09/22/phoneorslr.quiz.irpt/index.html
Can you tell a difference between a picture taken with a phone and one taken with a dSLR? On web size?
I know nobody can tell which camera I used for this without looking at the exif:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6130661353/download/1906149
-
So Daniel, you've never used the D800 or the D3X? I have to say these are wonderful cameras. I can't get over the skin, hair, and fabric textures, around f/8, at web size.
-
I know nobody can tell which camera I used for this without looking at the exif:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6130661353/download/1906149
For the record, I guessed either compact or phone. Not to say that it isn't a nice picture.
The fine detail is sharp, but not antialiased. The oversampling of the 36MP sensor gives you a very smooth rendering in a reduced print, almost CGI-like in its smoothness sometimes.
-
So Daniel, you've never used the D800 or the D3X? I have to say these are wonderful cameras. I can't get over the skin, hair, and fabric textures, around f/8, at web size.
So basically what you're saying is that if I didn't drive a formula 1 car, I can't really claim it won't beat a Ford Focus around town?
BTW you should see skin, hair, and fabric textures from Olympus E-1, on 1024x768 size. I could pass it as a digital Hasselblad to anyone. So yes, those are wonderful cameras but you can see a difference only if you print big. On screen or on a small print, almost everything can give them a run for their money.
-
For the record, I guessed either compact or phone. Not to say that it isn't a nice picture.
Not knowing, I would probably bet on a Canon G9 or a similar high-end compact, and looking carefully the shadows show noise patterns specific to compacts or phones, but the tonality on the clouds is as good as a dSLR. The detail doesn't really show anything other than my choice of sharpening in gimp. There is something a bit cartoonish about the colors that would tend to exclude a really big sensor but I could attribute this to stronger saturation.
It's an iPhone 4s. My wife couldn't tell. She could tell it's not 5d because the palette is slightly different but she couldn't tell which camera I used. When I told her she almost stumbled on her jaw.