Very fun, but its pretty much a 'spot the noise' game, I might be completely wrong, but the challenge for me is calling the Fuji from the Canon which is either #1 or #3.
Be that as it may, if #2 is the micro 4/3, at this point more participants were not able to identify it than those that did.
Playing by the rules (looking at rendering and not trying to reason based on noise or colour profiles)...
The second shot looks like full frame, slightly more relaxed look, slightly more pleasing. The other two are the smaller formats, but the change in composition is hindering comparing them a bit, but I'll go with mFT first:
Jman13 wrote:
But telephoto compression is based ENTIRELY on camera to subject distance and has nothing to do with sensor size.
The compression also has to do with FL, one can get same FOV as a wider lens by using a longer lens and stepping back, but then the perspective changes. #1 looks a bit compressed to me.
Yes, it changes because you stepped back not because you're using a longer lens. Perspective distortion and telephoto compression art only dependent on the distance to subject.
Jman13 wrote:
Yes, it changes because you stepped back not because you're using a longer lens. Perspective distortion and telephoto compression art only dependent on the distance to subject.
If FL stays same, and you move back then perspective changes. But so does FOV.
If you use a longer lens and move back then FOV might be the similar, but perspective changes too.
But the perspective changes solely because of the distance. If you shoot from the same spot with a P&S with an 85mm FOV, then, in the same spot, with a full frame camera and an 85mm lens, the perspective and compression will be identical. If you take a head and shoulders shot with a 100mm lens, then switch to a 40mm lens and don't move, then crop the image, the perspective will be identical.
The key thing in there is this: "Note that perspective distortion is caused by distance, not by the lens per se – two shots of the same scene from the same distance will exhibit identical perspective distortion, regardless of lens used. However, since wide-angle lenses have a wider field of view, they are generally used from closer, while telephoto lenses have a narrower field of view and are generally used from farther away."
As to the voting, let me just say that the results are very interesting so far. I will reveal the images later today...
I agree, strictly speaking, perspective changes solely because of the distance.
So if you step back and use a longer lens, then the perspective changes because of distance, but the FOV may be similar because of the longer lens.
This is what I meant by telephoto compression.
Jman13 wrote:
But the perspective changes solely because of the distance. If you shoot from the same spot with a P&S with an 85mm FOV, then, in the same spot, with a full frame camera and an 85mm lens, the perspective and compression will be identical. If you take a head and shoulders shot with a 100mm lens, then switch to a 40mm lens and don't move, then crop the image, the perspective will be identical.
The key thing in there is this: "Note that perspective distortion is caused by distance, not by the lens per se � two shots of the same scene from the same distance will exhibit identical perspective distortion, regardless of lens used. However, since wide-angle lenses have a wider field of view, they are generally used from closer, while telephoto lenses have a narrower field of view and are generally used from farther away."...Show more →
Right...in this example, though, remember that all the images were taken from roughly the same spot, with minor adjustments due to slight variations in field of view between the three normals.
Jman13 wrote:
Right...in this example, though, remember that all the images were taken from roughly the same spot, with minor adjustments due to slight variations in field of view between the three normals.
Yep, perspective may not play a significant part as all lenses are ~50mm equivalent lenses, with camera at roughly same distance...
I went with 43/135/APS-C. (Okay, I voted for 43/APS-C/135, but now I've changed my mind. That's just how confident I am about this.)
I think the pictures well show that sensor format doesn't make a difference when the rest of the camera equipment is equivalent. The differences between formats show up at their extremes, when finding equivalents becomes absurd, not in their common ground. So I stopped playing "spot the format" and started playing "spot the lens."
The first image shows far more coma than the others (compare strands of hair in the upper right corner, where the first image has radial lines being less distinct than tangential), which is consistent with the Leica lens being shot wide open. The third image has a squared-off coma (note the highlights in the shirt) and stronger background double-lined blur (hair to the left), consistent with the Fuji lens. The second image has the strongest central sharpness (shirt texture detail near subject's right shoulder), consistent with a good lens at f/2.8 relative to f/1.4 and f/2. Originally, I had attributed this sharpness to the Fuji sensor, but on reflection I think the aperture choice makes a larger difference at this granularity of detail.
So, I think the lenses are the Leica at f/1.4, Sigma at f/2.8, and Fuji at f/2, corresponding to the 43/135/APS-C formats.
Edit: doesn't this also go to show how good we photographers have it? We have a veritable treasure trove to pick from when we choose our gear, and it is becoming increasingly hard to make a bad selection.
I'm thinking #2 is the M43 because of the slight overexposure. My E-M5 tends toward blowing highlights, and that behavior looks pretty familiar. It also looks slightly more oversharpened, which M43 also does. The other two I'm less sure about. I voted APS-C->M43->FF, but I'm not terribly confident.
