Can you see a difference (2)?

[GardenersHelper]

Following on from this thread, here are some more examples (this time with five rather than ten shots with each camera).

This album at Flickr contains two more scenes, the same two invertebrates as before. These were captured using a tripod to try to get consistency from shot to shot. Camera 1 did really badly with this - even though I was using a tripod and got focus confirmation every time, every one of the images was extremely soft. I did these two scenes again and the posted images for Camera 1 are from this re-take.

This album at Flickr contains four scenes. The first two are the same two invertebrates, hand-held, so these are new attempts at the original two scenes. The last two are coins, also hand-held.

Do you think one or other of these cameras came out best from these latest tests?

 

[Orangecroc]

Did camera 1 in the first of the albums have IS switched on?

 

[GardenersHelper]

Did camera 1 in the first of the albums have IS switched on?

Yes, they both had IS turned on, for all three albums. As I was using flash, with an effective shutter speed of shorter than 1/2000 sec, and flash was the dominant source of illumination, I wouldn't have thought that having the IS on could affect image quality.

btw I know that around 1/2000 is the longest flash duration because when I use that flash unit with my FZ330 I can use a shutter speed of 1/2000 sec. (The FZ330 has a leaf shutter not a focal plane shutter.) It is only when the shutter speed is faster than that that the light from the flash begins to dim, meaning the flash duration is longer than the shutter opening.

 

[Nawty]

For me this is clearer, which means I was wrong last time but camera 2 has much more fine detail, it's easy to see in the iridescence in the wings in the fly of the first link and the coins where they are focussed properly.

I say easy to see, you need to be at 100% to tell so you may argue what's the worry?

 

[Orangecroc]

Yes, they both had IS turned on, for all three albums. As I was using flash, with an effective shutter speed of shorter than 1/2000 sec, and flash was the dominant source of illumination, I wouldn't have thought that having the IS on could affect image quality.

btw I know that around 1/2000 is the longest flash duration because when I use that flash unit with my FZ330 I can use a shutter speed of 1/2000 sec. (The FZ330 has a leaf shutter not a focal plane shutter.) It is only when the shutter speed is faster than that that the light from the flash begins to dim, meaning the flash duration is longer than the shutter opening.

It's possible that the IS is trying to adjust for movements that aren't there because of the tripod and causing softness. This happens with my VR nikon lens when on a tripod.

 

[GardenersHelper]

For me this is clearer, which means I was wrong last time but camera 2 has much more fine detail, it's easy to see in the iridescence in the wings in the fly of the first link and the coins where they are focussed properly.

Good observation. Would this mean you were wrong last time, or that you were right both times and a different camera was better in the first and second link/group?

Genuine, open, question. Not trying to nudge you one way or another.

I say easy to see, you need to be at 100% to tell so you may argue what's the worry?

That is interesting. What do you mean by 100%? My thinking is that I prepared them for viewing 1300 pixels high (my usual routine). So looking at them 100% would be looking at them "as is", assuming your screen is more than 1300 pixels high. The differences you point out look pretty clear to me at normal viewing size (i.e. with the whole image showing on my 1440 pixel high screen).

 

[GardenersHelper]

It's possible that the IS is trying to adjust for movements that aren't there because of the tripod and causing softness. This happens with my VR nikon lens when on a tripod.

It may be trying to adjust it, but the effective shutter speed (1/2000 sec or faster) is too brief for that to matter I would have thought.

That is just a theory though, so I should test it and not just assume it is true.

 

[Nawty]

Good observation. Would this mean you were wrong last time, or that you were right both times and a different camera was better in the first and second link/group?

Genuine, open, question. Not trying to nudge you one way or another.



That is interesting. What do you mean by 100%? My thinking is that I prepared them for viewing 1300 pixels high (my usual routine). So looking at them 100% would be looking at them "as is", assuming your screen is more than 1300 pixels high. The differences you point out look pretty clear to me at normal viewing size (i.e. with the whole image showing on my 1440 pixel high screen).

Probably I was wrong last time, the differences are clearer this time and I am ascribing them to the bigger sensor, rightly or wrongly. Also there aren't any harsh highlights in these which can be a sign so that removes that, the eye of the fly is more detailed with less noise on camera 2 though.

Alternatively diffraction could be playing silly sods, or neither focus is exactly matched, exposures are slightly different or a number of other things and on this screen I can't view side by side so it might just be me.

By 100% I mean I am pressing 'z' to zoom on flickr and having a proper look (I'm on a 12" laptop) so that is your x1300 but that provides quite a bit of detail.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Probably I was wrong last time, the differences are clearer this time and I am ascribing them to the bigger sensor, rightly or wrongly. Also there aren't any harsh highlights in these which can be a sign so that removes that, the eye of the fly is more detailed with less noise on camera 2 though.

Alternatively diffraction could be playing silly sods, or neither focus is exactly matched, exposures are slightly different or a number of other things

This is what I have found previously - these comparisons can sometimes turn out to be really complicated, so many factors, ifs and buts, and can leave me none the wiser. Perhaps this is one of those.

I still don't want to say which is which yet. I might think up some more comparisons, try to get something with less randomness built in.

and on this screen I can't view side by side so it might just be me.

It will be good if we get some more views about this. (Another reason for not saying which is which yet.)

By 100% I mean I am pressing 'z' to zoom on flickr and having a proper look (I'm on a 12" laptop) so that is your x1300 but that provides quite a bit of detail.

Ah, good. That is the intended size, and with no third party resizing to complicate the issues.