MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

When going through the archives late at night looking at a variety of images taken with a variety of digital cameras I was struck by the difference in basic looks… Different color science of diff. Brands and different resolutions with diff. Lenses are recipes for totally diff. looks… I sometimes tire of looking at the high resolution, contrasty, color in your face, of some digital. Some of my humble captures at 8 MP or less with diff. Lenses such as Zeiss etc… seem to give a more Natural look for lack of a better word. I am also an audio buff and I guess like audio and components, when you get that certain synergy of camera, lens, and subject matter everything comes into focus ( pardon the pun ). I guess thats why I am always broke supporting multiple wives with names like Canon, Olympus, Sony and Sigma… They all have diff. Kitchen skills. What do you all think ? Reflecting on what I was trying to say in my above rambling, do you think certain combos are better suited to certain types of subject matter or am I out in the weeds again ? Thanks for taking the time to read and reflect... Bob

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

And these comparisons are all with SOOC images with similar camera settings?
I know my little Sony bridge camera makes greens stand out more than my Canon DSLR.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

When you edit with a common set of software, say all in Adobe Lightroom, the differences go away as your output begins to reflect your vision, edited to a consistency of output regardless of input. Then, you really get down to the absolute sharpness of the lenses against the pixel resolution of the sensor. The camera differences then exhibit their usage characteristics that are mostly external to the images, maybe only enabling certain images, but not really something you 'see' inside the image.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

You said a real mouthful in one paragraph Paul... I will have to put another pot of coffee on and start digesting and thinking about what you are saying... thanks for responding.

User ID

Absolutely makes sense to me. I read so many comments about various lenses imparting “character” to images, and about preference for a camera brand for its “color” and much other stuff about what gear makes images look what way ... and I cannot fathom what those users are all on about !

My mix of gear includes five brands of color science, lenses from all around the world with optical tech spanning several decades. And yet, recently reviewing a retrospective collection of many of my own favorite works I see none of that “lens character”, no variations of “color science”, etc etc. All I see is *me* !

All my works are verrrrrry unready sooc and are then brought to life in post. So, as you’ve mentioned, this approach will nullify real or supposed characteristics of lenses, sensors, imaging engines, etc and completely impose my visual preferences onto all my images.

You won’t see influences of Schacht or Voigtlander or Canon or Sony or CCD or CMOS when viewing my work. You will see only my own personal characteristic imaging in my finished work.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I shoot only Canon lenses, both ancient FD and some of Canon's newest EF lenses. Canon prides their ability to maintain consistency across the entire product line. For the most part, my lenses differ almost exclusively on focal length and max aperture and the sharpness is indistinguishable, as are the colors.

That said, there are a few outliers. The old non IS 70-200 f/4L has a bit of a pastel look to the colors. The EF 24-70 f/2.8L II has an overall sharpness to most all lenses, and a color rendering that is more subtle than the 70-200, but still able to unique identify. The 135L also has a 'look' that I don't get from any of multiple L-lenses that cover 135mm. The FD 85 f/1.2L is as sharp (or sharper) than any of his EF cousins. You really have to shoot these lenses all the time and have a wealth of images spanning apertures to say (you think) you can point to tangible differences aka unique 'character'.

User ID

And I’ve become convinced that if I were using your lens kit, I would pretty much obliterate those differences while editing.

Differences in imaging do NOT escape my perception. It’s been my job to see them. Unlike certain unnamed Hogsters, I don’t weave my resume into my posts, so just suffice it to say, if my eyes tell me I’ve eliminated the influences of optics and electronics, then those influences are six feet under.

User ID

One night when playing around with a few old rf lenses, I compared them using decent looking sooc settings. I was looking for that mystical “old lens with character”. And I definitely found one. Experimenting further but always sooc, it was decidedly there. To what degree ? Noticeable even to my skeptical self mean plainly noticeable.

But I assure you, images from that lens would not stand out as different if it were in my lens kit for my regular use. After editing, there’s no Leitz, no Taylor Cook, no 50’s Nikkor, no ancient Voigtlander ... there’s only *me* !!! If some may call that heavy handed, I’ll always take that as a powerful compliment.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Just like anyone can see an image that is unsharp / less sharp, you can see a lens that sharper than his brethren. You can see the differences in the Zeiss lenses vs Canon, for example. You don't even have to be shooting lines on charts to see the difference in the results. Now, if you want hobble the potential via editing, that's your own personal choice.

User ID

There’s lens sharpness, and there’s real world picture sharpness. They are loosely related, but are not in lock step, not like meshed gears.

Admittedly, if one does shoot to promote ultimate sharpness, low iso, at very best aperture, etc, the “Zeiss difference” can sometimes be fairly plain.

While almost no one intentionally wants to destroy sharpness, working to promote ultimate sharpness is not the nature of real world general use. Aperture choice has other purposes, iso is typically higher than ideal, etc etc. Yet remarkable photos result. Not anal compulsive technically pristine show pieces, but terrific very real photographs.

Basically, in well executed photos, if most viewers sense a difference between your kit lens and your Zeiss primes, then your pix must be really boring. Fellow hogs are clearly not “most viewers”. UHH member viewers are more comparable to a bunch of dermatologists at a stripper joint.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I've written before describing my experience as a volunteer at our local arboretum. One of the benefits of doing so was getting to observe and visit with our guests. Photographers were in one or the other of two groups...those who photographed the flowers, and those who took pictures of people among the flowers. Almost without exception, the first group used Nikons, and the second group used Canons. When I was doing this, from about fifteen years ago to about ten years ago, very few people shot with anything else.

I was shooting with a D200 then, and I generally had it with me while on duty, so it opened up many conversations along the way. Camera image controls provided much less capability than is available today, both in terms of range of adjustment and fineness of available adjustment steps. Post processing software also provided less capability and usability than is available today.

So yes...there was a time when camera output was much more identifiably different than today, there was less that could be done about it, and most folks cared less about doing much about it anyway. That, plus an identifiable underlying difference between Canon and Nikon shooters led to an identifiable difference in final visible results.

Today, however, with a much wider range of options available for picture control settings and in post processing software, and with a greater range of post processing options, and with more people skillfully doing post processing, inherent camera differences are much less important. In my my experienve, most of the difference is because of increased post processing, because I have found very few other people who have taken the time to learn how to use picture control adjustments.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

I’m not a dermatologist, clearly I need to do some more research 😈

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Oh I need more coffee... I will OD before I digest the replies. Thank you for taking the time to comment on just my observation one night looking at SOOC pics from an 8 mb Sony with Zeiss lens and a 20 mb Olympus with a top shelf, sharp lens.... Colors are diff; Sony more dreamy and poetic; Olympus much more contrasty and DIGITAL. I guess this is what I was getting at when I was thinking the OLY with it's properties would be better suited to architectural captures where the more " dreamy " Zeiss might do a flower a little better. So anyhow, I will get out of the weeds and appreciate each on its own merits. Thanks again for all the comments.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

With most digital cameras, the user has some control over saturation, contrast, white balance, exposure, etc. Obviously, not every one will be using the exact same settings.

User ID

Your explanation about whether specific gear puts its own identifiable imprint on results, involving about 15 yrs technical evolution, makes a whole lotta sense. And your remarks about Canon people shooters and Nikon flower shooters is kinda remarkable. Much thanks for the interesting observations.