Zeke4351 Loc: Kentucky

This might have been discussed somewhere before but I can’t find it. I spend a lot of time looking at pictures taken with various lenses and cameras. I use Nikon but look at pictures made with anything. I think most will agree that different lenses render pictures different and some produce a quality of color, contrast and depth very different than others. Now for my observation about flagship camera images. From what I see there is a special quality with pictures that come from both Cannon and Nikon flagship cameras that is not matched with the cheaper larger sensor cameras. The best way I describe what I see is that the entire picture from foreground to background looks more like real life no matter the depth of field. These cameras seem to produce a picture look of a different quality than any of the other cameras. I first thought I was crazy but after looking at thousands of pictures I am convinced they are producing a very different image. Is this something everybody else already knew and I just noticed? Other cameras take beautiful pictures but to me have more of an artificial look to them. I am guessing there is more to pixel pitch and megapixel count than ever gets discussed. The flagships specs were maxed out years ago for lots of reasons it seems to me. I can look on Flickr and other places and pick out pictures taken with a flagship camera. I own a D500 and a D850 and they take wonderful pictures but I think there is more to the ridiculous price of those flagship cameras than just being fast and tough. They have image quality that is closer to reality of the the scene or image with color and contrast that is unique compared to all other pictures. Have I lost my mind or am I on to something that is new to me and never discussed?

Zeke4351 Loc: Kentucky

I posted in classified by mistake

twowindsbear

I think there is a bit of time to 'adjust' the section where a post is actually posted. Or, you can point click drag to copy your entire post and re-post it into another section or category. And, the moderator may - will - change it for you.

mrpentaxk5ii

No I don't think you have lost your mind, but I would say that what your seeing has more to do with the lens than the camera along with the post processing used on the file.

kfcam Loc: Fort Myers Florida

Yes, the reason why photographers are paying the high prizes for these cameras. I realized that, a few years ago when I paid the price for my D810. These cameras are advanced in all sort of ways, and do give you a better quality picture. Having said that, skill, and learning about your specific brand of camera helps tremendously. I believe the old adage "You pay for what you get". Good luck.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Are you referring to the camera image processor JPEGs the cameras produce or images processed from the camera's raw files?

Have you shot two cameras side by side -- same subject -- for a comparison? You probably need to do that.

repleo Loc: Boston

What do you mean by 'cheaper larger sensor cameras'?
I am a Sony boy, but I admit I do think Canons give some lovely color rendering.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Recently bought a D2x from a member - presently have several very good digital Nikons, but haven't had a true Pro Nikon since film days (still have all but the F6). There is a difference in rendering the image. Wouldn't have thought that before using that obsolete Pro digital exclusively for a couple of weeks. I wouldn't choose it for everything, but it can do a great deal of what I need, and for some photos might produce a more interesting image than my more modern Pro-sumer Nikons. Actually considering trading / selling a few things and getting a D4s. One outstanding aspect of the D2x, beyond intriguing color rendition, is the variety of controls, menu and physical - more even than my DF.

Zeke4351 Loc: Kentucky

Semi Pro

Zeke4351 Loc: Kentucky

JPEG and Raw and yes I have compared side by side with same lens.

Zeke4351 Loc: Kentucky

Yeah I already eliminated all the various possibilities before I ever developed my thoughts because I figured if what I was seeing was true I would have read about it somewhere. If this is true and becomes common knowledge think what would happen to sales of the supposedly latest and greatest cameras coming out each year. This means it doesn’t get any better above 20 megapixel sensors and processing development that peaked a few years back that is used in the high priced flagship cameras. Flagship camera specs don’t change but very little and when it did (D3X) it changes back to where it was.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

It's an interesting question. When you do a comparison you still know which camera created which image and it's always possible to be swayed by that knowledge. Here's some fun and everyone can play -- a truly blind test. I didn't move the tripod but the cameras all mounted a little higher or lower so there's minor variation. Should be close enough.

I don't want to give too much away but one of those cameras is a FF 20 megapixel camera similar to what you mention above. Maybe you can find what it is you're seeing in one of these photos and point it out to us. Or just sort the images to their price rank as in the cheaper cameras you mentioned. I won't say it's the FF 20 megapixel camera but one of those is a $6000.00 camera and the others not so much.

I'm curious if you see something that makes one of them stand out.

blind test 1

(Download)

blind test 2

(Download)

blind test 3

(Download)

rit z Loc: Upstate New York

No. 2 has the sharpest detail

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Honestly, I see barely any difference between the three examples. At least not enough such that any of them stands out as notably superior than the others. If you had said they were all generated by the very same camera, I would have no reason to question it.

steve33 Loc: Yarmouth MA

I like # 3