But once that pixel signal is converted and amplified, it is all about technology and then new usually beats old.
D750 vs X-T1
- Thread starter AC016
- Start date
But once that pixel signal is converted and amplified, it is all about technology and then new usually beats old.
I'm thinking unless we knew the lenses, distances, settings, etc, the best guess would still be a guess.
@J-see and/or @Horoscope Fish are you meaning low light or less exposure? I can see where large pixels have the advantage when cutting stops, but not sure the big boys do when maintaining exposure value.
@J-see and/or @Horoscope Fish are you meaning low light or less exposure? I can see where large pixels have the advantage when cutting stops, but not sure the big boys do when maintaining exposure value.
It's about low light. Actually it's about light in general but it plays little role unless light is lower. The accuracy of a signal measured is directly proportional to the size of the signal measured. Larger pixels = more area = more photon count = less noise.
Underexposed affects the SNR since lowering the incoming light increases the % noise which explains why overexposing is always the better method.
To add: increasing ISO does not count as overexposing in this context.
Last edited:
sonicbuffalo_RIP
Senior Member
The one on the left....the picture just looks overall sharper. That being said, they are both excellent images. I would like to have seen a larger picture comparison though.
AC016
Senior Member
Well, yes, a guess is a guess. When you are flipping through magazines or going through photos on the internet, do all of those photos have EXIF data for you to look at? It goes back to what Ted said.
Excellent thought. When I'm looking at photos anywhere, including here where EXIF abounds, I'm seldom concerned with what camera was used.
Ah, caught by the DX depth of field advantage... Not so sure you'll be the wiener this time around.
Of course I'm only playing around with this thing Ted. I don't even give a hoot if I'm right or wrong. It's still just a picture of an old fruit with either camera.Ah, caught by the DX depth of field advantage... Not so sure you'll be the wiener this time around.
I vote with #1 being shot with one camera, with #2 being shot with the other.
...and that's all I'm going to say about the subject.
I will say this, though. I firmly believe that in situations with plenty of light, I think it would be extremely difficult to eyeball the difference without pixel peeping. Go low light, unedited, and I think the two would start differentiating themselves a bit more. 90% of the quality difference, with sensors these days, boils down to the control nut (read: the nut in control).
...and that's all I'm going to say about the subject.
I will say this, though. I firmly believe that in situations with plenty of light, I think it would be extremely difficult to eyeball the difference without pixel peeping. Go low light, unedited, and I think the two would start differentiating themselves a bit more. 90% of the quality difference, with sensors these days, boils down to the control nut (read: the nut in control).
For all that matters, they could be two shots taken with the same cam. It's impossible to say since no cam has specific markers in their shots identifying them. I based my decision purely on the DoF under the assumption both shots are taken with identical settings and at the required distance.
101% agree this is a pointless exercise.
singlerosa_RIP
Senior Member
Same lens on both bodies? probably not. makes the comparison more difficult than it already is when you're comparing 2 2X2" photos.
AC016
Senior Member
EOD for me, so here we go. I should have started out with this in the first place to give credit for the photo, but then it would have given the answer away: X-T1 vs Nikon D750 for Macro - comparison shot - X-T1 Forum - Fuji X Forum. So no, the photos were not taken by me and i don't own either camera. Mind you, the sensor in the X-Pro1 is more or less the same as that in the X-T1.
Marcel was right, the photo on the left is from the Nikon camera and the one on the right, from the Fuji camera.
It just happened that the forum member owns a D750, so this was really not about picking on one particular model Nikon camera. Could have just as easily been a D600.
Anyhow, when i came across the post, i thought it was interesting. Both photos are so similar, it really is hard to tell the difference if you don't have a discerning eye. Certainly, one does not scream full frame.
Again, this was for a bit of fun to see if our eyes could pick out any nuances in the photos that would lead us to an answer/guess. It also shows us how negligible the differences are.
Sorry if i ruffled any feathers. But hey, you don't have to participate if you see it as futile.
Marcel was right, the photo on the left is from the Nikon camera and the one on the right, from the Fuji camera.
It just happened that the forum member owns a D750, so this was really not about picking on one particular model Nikon camera. Could have just as easily been a D600.
Anyhow, when i came across the post, i thought it was interesting. Both photos are so similar, it really is hard to tell the difference if you don't have a discerning eye. Certainly, one does not scream full frame.
Again, this was for a bit of fun to see if our eyes could pick out any nuances in the photos that would lead us to an answer/guess. It also shows us how negligible the differences are.
Sorry if i ruffled any feathers. But hey, you don't have to participate if you see it as futile.
Re: *facepalm*
I know I don't.
You don't have to, but other people may want to. It's just a bit of fun
I know I don't.