Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Guess the Format  (Read 1135 times)
JV
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 550


« on: December 08, 2013, 06:35:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Given that it is a snow day anyway and venturing outside is not too much of an option: FF, APS-C, FT or compact?
http://guesstheformat.com/photo
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7252


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2013, 06:42:43 PM »
ReplyReply

I missed almost all, but some really good pictures!

Best regards
Erik
Logged

Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2359


« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2013, 03:06:46 AM »
ReplyReply

I got around 60% but I quit after some 60 shots. Difficult to see at some times especially at this size.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7765



WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2013, 05:16:06 AM »
ReplyReply

It can be real hard. I have some casual portrait images shot with the nikon 32mm f1.2 at f1.2 on the V2 that many would mistake for FF images.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
JV
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 550


« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2013, 06:48:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I got around 60% but I quit after some 60 shots. Difficult to see at some times especially at this size.

Between 50% and 60% when I quit, in line with the stats I guess.  I didn't find it easy.
Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 566


« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2013, 08:01:29 AM »
ReplyReply

I guessed most right, but it's only meaningful with some obvious shots (aka DOF)
And then mostly portraits, because even a small sensor has small ish DOF for close up shots.

At those sizes even a compact can look good
Thus not particularly useful, fun possibly for some but I don't remember anyone saying you can't take some great shots with a FF, APS-C, m 4/3, compact or whatever camera you have.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3227



WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2013, 08:13:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Most of the shots I saw were such that they looked like either [or in fact any] camera could have taken them, depending on settings.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
MrSmith27
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2013, 03:18:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Pointless.

How could anyone tell from tiny, compressed pictures if they were from a four thirds or an APS-C?
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2372



WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2013, 01:51:48 AM »
ReplyReply

That was fun.  I started out really well  - in the 80's but dang I can't tell the difference between the APS and 4/3rds that much especially with some of the images that have been altered or are blurry.   

What I noticed was the few full frame shots I missed and guess they were APS-c … they were all from Nikon full frame.  Shocked  And the few I thought were full frame but weren't were all the Olympus OM-D     
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
JV
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 550


« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2013, 06:09:04 PM »
ReplyReply

That was fun.  I started out really well  - in the 80's but dang I can't tell the difference between the APS and 4/3rds that much especially with some of the images that have been altered or are blurry.   

What I noticed was the few full frame shots I missed and guess they were APS-c … they were all from Nikon full frame.  Shocked  And the few I thought were full frame but weren't were all the Olympus OM-D     

I have been thinking about giving m43 a new try.

I looked into it a few years ago with the Panasonic GF1 and GH2 but I was not entirely convinced.

I have the impression with the E-M5 and E-M1 the image quality has significantly improved.

Pointless.

How could anyone tell from tiny, compressed pictures if they were from a four thirds or an APS-C?

Not entirely IMO.  I invested in Medium Format Digital gear about 4 years ago.

I am pretty sure that at that time the differences between the formats was still more noticeable, as was the case for film.

Nowadays these differences are getting smaller and smaller every day is my impression with the best of each format offering image quality that is sufficient for most professional uses.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7252


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2013, 06:25:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

What this site demonstrates that it is not possible to judge image quality of 8-36 MP systems based on 0.5 MP web images. Sometimes it is possible to guess based on DoF as small formats have very wide DoF.

Colour rendition may be possible to judge, if the images are tagged with correct color space, etc…

Best regards
Erik

Given that it is a snow day anyway and venturing outside is not too much of an option: FF, APS-C, FT or compact?
http://guesstheformat.com/photo
Logged

Ed Blagden
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 13, 2013, 02:05:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

What this site demonstrates that it is not possible to judge image quality of 8-36 MP systems based on 0.5 MP web images. Sometimes it is possible to guess based on DoF as small formats have very wide DoF.

Colour rendition may be possible to judge, if the images are tagged with correct color space, etc…

Best regards
Erik


Exactly, although I did notice the iq on some (not all) of the compact shots was noticeably worse.  Something to do with the tiny pixels I think.  The only giveaway was DOF.

I found myself able to reliably identify the compact and FF shots, but really there is no appreciable difference between APS-C and 4/3.
Logged

Visit my Flickr page
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad