Reply With Quote#1 & #2 Canon, #3 Sony... Just a guess based on the different depth of field I suppose, both are great. Oh, and I did check whether I got them right with an Exif viewer, sorry but I'm that impatient
which is with my $2500 canon rig and which is with my $600 Sony pocket camera ?
look at color saturation,contrast,sharpness,etc,etc
#1
.
#2
.
#3
#1 & #2 Canon, #3 Sony... Just a guess based on the different depth of field I suppose, both are great. Oh, and I did check whether I got them right with an Exif viewer, sorry but I'm that impatient
thats cheating ! not fair,delete your post !Originally Posted by Philip
.. Just a guess based on the different depth of field I suppose, both are great. Oh, and I did check whether I got them right with an Exif viewer, sorry but I'm that impatient
btw ! they all 3 have a shallow DOF
Sorry, couldn't resist
I know they both do, just that the dof looks slightly different to me. The Sony color seems more vivid (post-processing by its software?), and the image a bit sharper.
yes,#3 from the sony has no other post processing,just the saturation & sharpness bumped up a little in the camera.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks