Shootout « 360Photography

RSS

Posts Tagged ‘Shootout’

Monolight Shootout: Profoto B1X vs Godox AD600 Pro vs Broncolor Siros 800 L

27 Mar

The Godox AD600 Pro, Broncolor Siros 800 L, and Profoto B1X all fall into the same category: they’re battery powered monolights that pack studio quality and power into a portable package you can take with you on location. So why would you purchase one over the others? In this video, photographer Robert Hall answers just that, breaking down all of these strobes’ pros and cons in glorious detail.

First things first (even though Hall saved this for last), there is a big difference in price here. By Hall’s calculations, the Godox AD600 Pro will run you $ 968 for one light and one trigger, while the Broncolor Siros 800 L and Profoto B1X cost $ 2,349 and $ 2,514, respectively, for the same thing. So right away, you can spot the one question that most viewers want Hall to answer: can the Godox play with the more expensive name-brand lights?

And the answer, gladly, is absolutely it can. But that’s not to say the Godox is the best choice for everyone. Hall tested a ton of categories in impressive detail—everything from color accuracy and consistency, to battery life, to build quality, modeling lamps, trigger design, bust capability, and more—and no one strobe came out on top (or bottom) in every category.

In the ‘modifier’ category, the Profoto B1X gets Hall’s vote because of its ability to focus modifiers, and Profoto’s convenient OCF gels and grids.

When it comes to modifiers, Profoto’s OCF gels and grids get a nod from Hall; when it comes to sheer power output, the Siros L is the clear winner; when it comes to value, it’s impossible to beat the Godox. In the end, each strobe has its pros and cons, and the best way to make this decision is to look at your own use case, and see how each strobe’s strengths and weaknesses (cost included) factor into what you need.

Which is pretty much what Hall says in his “non-Conclusion.” He gives viewers the classic “it depends” answer, because that’s the only answer that makes sense:

I can’t peg any light as the best since they all win different categories that photographers will place emphasis on depending on their needs. If you value output the most the Siros is the best option. The controller experience or modifier control may have you choose the Profoto B1X. If you are trying to get very capable lighting without spending a ton, the Godox AD600 Pro fits the bill.

Hall’s test results for each of the three strobes. Click to enlarge.

Finally, beyond all of this, Hall is wise to point out that you must consider the system you’re buying into if any of these are your first strobe purchase. In other words: the AD600 Pro sits near the top of Godox’s lineup, while the B1X and Siros L sit close to the bottom of Profoto’s and Broncolor’s. They are very different companies that ultimately server a very different subset of photographers.

Keep all of this in mind as you watch the full review, which you should definitely do if you want to dive deep on each of the categories mentioned above and find out why you might want to buy into one system instead of the other two. And if you like Robert’s lighting breakdown, subscribe to his YouTube channel or head over to his website and education blog to see more of his reviews and work

Photos, video, and test results by Robert Hall and used with permission.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

A strange shootout: $5,000 Zeiss Otus 28mm F1.4 vs $4,250 Leica Q

31 Jan

PhotoShelter founder and CEO Allen Murabayashi recently decided to pit two unlikely competitors against each other. In a short, unscientific comparison review, Murabayashi wanted to see how the $ 5,000 Zeiss Otus 28mm F1.4 lens stacked up against the almost-as-expensive $ 4,250 Leica Q, which sports a fixed 28mm F1.7 lens.

When you consider the identical focal lengths and “must have deep pockets” price tags, the shootout almost makes sense—so Allen slapped the Otus on a Nikon D850 and went out shooting with both cameras. And despite the fact that Allen admits “it’s impossible to make a straight apples to apples comparison” when it comes to image quality—given the D850’s 45MP resolution compared to the 24MP Leica Q—he was still able to draw a pithy conclusion about who the Otus is made for, and why you might choose the Leica Q instead:

You can certainly make the argument that a 45MP sensor needs great glass, and in this regard, the Otus delivers the goods. But the slow operation of the lens turns a pretty great digital camera into something more like a large format camera.

If you like “slow” photography and have deep pockets, the Otus might be for you. If you just have deep pockets (and a bad back), stick with the Leica.

For a bit more depth, or if you want to check out some side-by-side comparison shots from PhotoShelter’s testing, watch the video above or check out the full written comparison on the PhotoShelter Blog.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

PowerShot Shootout: Canon’s G1 X III vs G7 X II

27 Jan

G1 X III versus G7 X II shootout

Introduction

In our review of the Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III, we made some pretty bold claims. Namely, that the lens on the G1 X III makes such a compromise in terms of maximum aperture in an effort to keep the size of the camera down, that much of the theoretical advantage of the large APS-C sensor is basically moot.

Specifically, the lenses on cameras with smaller 1″-type sensors are so much faster in some cases that they have the potential to offer both better control over depth of field, as well as better noise performance in low light. The specs do tell us, though, that the G1 X III should offer better dynamic range at base ISO.

LensEquivalentApertures([“Equivalent focal length (mm)”,”Canon G7 X II”,”Canon G1 X III”], [[24,4.90909090909091,”Canon G7 X II at 24mm: F4.9″,4.5170606663860564,”Canon G1 X III at 24mm: F4.5″],[26,null,””,5.1623550472983508,”Canon G1 X III at 26mm: F5.2″],[29,null,””,5.646325832982571,”Canon G1 X III at 29mm: F5.6″],[32,6.0000000000000009,”Canon G7 X II at 32mm: F6.0″,6.4529438091229379,”Canon G1 X III at 32mm: F6.5″],[37,null,””,7.2595617852633048,”Canon G1 X III at 37mm: F7.3″],[39,6.8181818181818183,”Canon G7 X II at 39mm: F6.8″,null,””],[45,null,””,8.0661797614036725,”Canon G1 X III at 45mm: F8.1″],[54,7.6363636363636367,”Canon G7 X II at 54mm: F7.6″,null,””],[57,null,””,9.0341213327721128,”Canon G1 X III at 57mm: F9.0″],[72,null,””,9.0341213327721128,”Canon G1 X III at 72mm: F9.0″],[100,7.6363636363636367,”Canon G7 X II at 100mm: F7.6″,null,””]], {“isMobile”:false})

At 24mm, the G1 X III has a slight advantage over depth of field control compared to the the G7 X II, but either matches it or falls behind its smaller-sensored sibling elsewhere in the zoom range.

This is a pretty big deal. After all, the G1 X III is Canon’s flagship compact, and is the only camera currently on the market with an APS-C sensor and a zoom lens (it also fits in your pocket). On the other hand, the G7 X II is nearly half the price, is more compact, and its smaller 1″-type sensor is potentially offset by a much faster zoom lens with greater reach.

Of course, this discussion is so far based on specification alone, and those specifications can’t necessarily take into account real-world sensor and lens performance. So, let’s check our theory, and see how these two cameras compare.

Bright landscape

This is the main situation in which you’d expect the G1X III to have an advantage. Assuming comparable sensor performance, we’d expect the G1X III’s larger sensor to have greater dynamic range advantage, tolerating more light before clipping and thus allowing more exposure, which should give slightly cleaner tones throughout the image.


G1 X Mark III ISO 100 F7.1 (F11.5 equiv) 1/320th	G7 X Mark II ISO 125 F4 (F10.9 equiv) 1/1250th

For this scene, we set both cameras on the same tripod, and exposed the scene to just barely clip the highlights of the sun’s reflection on the building at center; though the exposure settings differ, both cameras received roughly the same amount of light at each of their respective base ISO values.

It’s clear to see that in this sort of scene, the G1 X III exhibits less noise in the lifted shadow areas than its smaller-sensored sibling, and there are areas, particularly in the trees, where fine detail is rendered a tad better.

We should note that these sorts of bright daylight scenes (where you’re not light-limited and can use base ISO), are where the G1 X III will really pull ahead of the G7 X II. In scenes with even more contrast than this, the difference will become even more apparent.

Close-range indoors

By 28mm equiv, the graph shows that both cameras sensor/lens combinations are offering the same equivalent focal length and roughly the same equivalent aperture. Which means, in principle, that they should receive the same amount of total light, when shot wide open at the same shutter speed (and whatever ISO is necessary). The only differences should stem from differences in sensor performance and lens characteristics.


G1 X Mark III ISO 500 F3.2 (F5.2 equiv) 1/30th	G7 X Mark II ISO 160 F2 (F5.5 equiv) 1/30th

Click through to see for yourself how each camera renders the background highlights – there is a bit of an ‘onion-ring’ effect from the G7 X II, though the G1 X III image looks just slightly noisier. This is indicative of a slightly less efficient sensor design compared to the backside-illuminated (BSI) unit in the G7 X II.

Low light, casual portrait

This sort of situation is usually where people expect to see the benefits of a larger sensor, but this is only true if you can give it enough light. Here’s a shot from the long end of the G1X III’s lens in a situation where you’d need to shoot wide-open. As can be seen from the graph at the top of the page, the G7 X II has a wider equivalent aperture at this point. Let’s see what that means.


G1 X Mark III ISO 12,800 F5.6 (F9.3 equiv) 1/60th	G7 X Mark II ISO 5000 F2.8 (F7.6 equiv) 1/60th

Both cameras were zoomed to ~72mm, and I kept my shutter speed at 1/60 sec to account for any slight subject movement. Because the G1 X III’s lens only opens to F5.6 at its maximum zoom, the ISO value hit the maximum value I’d chosen of 12800, while the G7 X II, at F2.8, called for an ISO value of 5000.

After checking the difference in exposure value for both cameras, the G1 X III required an additional 0.64 EV boost in Adobe Camera Raw, which is effectively like shooting at ISO 20000. So in this situation, the G7 X II’s image is cleaner and offers slightly blurrier out-of-focus highlights in the background. Overall, the advantage of the larger sensor is essentially canceled out by the slower lens.

Maximum zoom portrait

So that’s how the two cameras compare within the range that both lenses cover. But now, let’s look at how the G7 X II at 100mm of equivalent reach compares to the G1 X III at its maximum of 72mm.


G1 X Mark III ISO 400 F5.6 (F9.3 equiv) 1/125th	G7 X Mark II ISO 125 F2.8 (F7.6 equiv) 1/125th

Here, you can see just how much of a difference the extra reach on the G7 X II’s lens can make. Both images were taken from the same location moments apart, with each lens shot wide open.

To us, this really exemplifies that, though the 24-72mm focal range of the G1 X III is indeed quite versatile, the extra zoom range on the G7 X II can really be a big advantage for those looking for a small camera for casual portraiture. Of course, if you’re into artificial lighting, the G1 X III’s hot-shoe will allow you far more creative options than the G7 X II, which has a built-in flash and no other flash synchronization options.

Takeaways

This comparison is, of course, purposely limited to the image quality impact of the lenses and sensors on these two cameras. There’s a lot of other features that separate the G1 X III and G7 X II, including that the former offers better dynamic range, weather sealing, an electronic viewfinder, a flash hot shoe, a fully articulating screen, and Dual Pixel AF (and, disappointingly, Canon hasn’t updated its G5 X model, which would have been a closer match to the G7 X II in the first place).

If all those other aspects of the G1 X III are worth the price premium to you, by all means, pick up a G1 X III. It’s a lovely camera, with excellent handling and is capable of great image quality under a wide variety of scenarios.

Here comes the ‘but’ though… if you’re looking for (in our opinion) a better value, or you’re looking for an even smaller camera, or you shoot in low or marginal light more often than bright daylight, the G7 X II is almost certain to be a better fit, at a cheaper price. And this is why we just weren’t blown away by the G1 X III in our review; you greatly reduce the benefits of such a large and expensive sensor if you restrict its access to light to squeeze it into such a compact body.

But what about you? Have you used one or both of these cameras? Let us know what you think of our comparisons in the comments.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

Film vs Digital: Fashion photography shootout

20 Jan

Photographer Anita Sadowska likes to set up “challenges” on her YouTube channel, and when she sent us her most recent one, we knew we’d want to share it. Unlike most of her challenges, where you get to compare different photographers, in this one you’re comparing different mediums: Anita shot with her Canon 5D Mark IV, while her challengee Alex Hutchinson shot on either a Pentax 67 or Nikon N80.

Anita shared the final shots with us (and you) for comparison, and you’ll be able to browse through them in the gallery below, but the most interesting part of the video for us was not actually the resulting images. The most interesting part was to see how differently Anita and Alex approached the shoot.

Alex—because he was shooting 120 film that cost him about 8 Euro (~$ 9.75 USD) per roll— was taking several light measurements, fixing all of the minute styling issues he could see, and snapping only a couple of shots per pose. Anita, meanwhile, had as many frames as she could possibly want, and post-processing to fall back on for all the stray hairs and other minor tweaks that might need to be done.

To mix things up, after the first round of photos, Anita covered up her LCD screen, limited herself to just 10 shots, and began shooting all manual focus as well—imposing the same challenges on her digital workflow that Alex was already dealing with shooting analog.

Here’s a look at all of the poses they shot, first on film, and then on digital:

$ (document).ready(function() { SampleGalleryV2({“containerId”:”embeddedSampleGallery_4980416082″,”galleryId”:”4980416082″,”isEmbeddedWidget”:true,”selectedImageIndex”:0,”isMobile”:false}) });

It really is a fascinating comparison, and one of the better shootouts we’ve seen. Check out the final video up top, scroll through the final images in the gallery above, and then let us know what you think in the comments.

Do you take the same approach as Alex, shooting film to occasionally “slow yourself down,” or do you embrace the freedom of shooting all digital all the time?

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5S vs Sony a7S II low light shootout

11 Jan

We shot the Panasonic GH5S against the Sony a7S II to see whether the video-centric Lumix can wrest the low-light crown away from its full frame rival. We’ll let you draw your own conclusions, but our initial assessment is that the Panasonic comes closer than we expected, and outperforms the Sony when you need to maintain a certain depth-of-field or when you shoot in Log.

Click here to download a ProRes version of the video (8.0GB)

Notes:

We shot both cameras side-by-side, which explains the slight perspective difference. The GH5S’s oversized ‘multi aspect’ ratio sensor means it also offers a wider field of view even when using equivalent focal lengths.

We shot at a range of ISOs in both the camera’s REC709 modes and their respective Log gamma modes, then matched the footage up alongside one another. We’ve kept all post-processing to a minimum, with only very minor color and brightness adjustments applied to provide consistency between the two cameras.

We felt Panasonic’s noise reduction is significantly more effective than Sony’s

Most sequences were shot so that both cameras had the same exposure settings. These are marked as ‘Exposure Matched’ in the video. However, there are times when you need to achieve a certain depth-of-field. These clips, which required us to stop the Sony down by two stops, are indicated as ‘Depth-of-Field Matched.’

We felt Panasonic’s noise reduction is significantly more effective than Sony’s and, especially when combined with its ability to shoot 10-bit 4:2:2 footage, helps it perform well when compared with the Sony, especially below ISO 12,800 and when shooting in Log. However, it’s also worth noting the yellow blocking that can infest high ISO footage from the GH5S.

For a more detailed assessment, head to our first impressions review.

Read our Panasonic Lumix DC GH5S
First Impressions Review

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

14 Dec

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Like it or not, 2017 is the year that background-blurring Portrait Modes gained major traction in smartphone photography. Apple and Google both offer improved versions of the mode in their latest devices, making for better-looking results all around. But the two manufacturers take somewhat different approaches to the process, each with different limitations and strengths. Take a look some side-by-side shots to see how they square up, and learn about some of the underlying technologies in the accompanying text.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/60sec 4.459mm ISO 382

Because the Pixel 2 back cameras use both a depth map (stereo) generated from the split pixels as well as ‘segmentation’ (which uses machine learning to identify people / faces vs. background), both subjects in this photo are largely in focus. This is a result one wouldn’t expect from real optics, since the person behind should also be blurred. This doesn’t always happen with the Pixel 2, but sometimes it does if the subjects are close to one another and both identified as people / faces. Sometimes it’s actually desirable, but at other times it can feel unnatural.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/40sec 4.459mm ISO 400

Because of the F1.8 lens and HDR+ noise averaging (with alignment of images), the Pixel 2 can take photos of even slightly moving subjects in low light. Again note the progressive blur here: the back of the baby seat is only slightly blurred as are the switches in the background but the trees against the sky very far away are far more blurred.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

iPhone 8 Plus
F2.8 1/120 6.6mm ISO 80

Here the iPhone’s longer – albeit slower (F2.8 vs. F1.8) – lens renders the background blurrier than the similar Pixel 2 shot. Note the odd dark/light patterns in the out-of-focus highlights though. This is commonly seen in out-of-focus highlights on iPhone shots, but not on the Pixel’s shots.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/209sec 4.459mm ISO 50

The background is a bit less blurred vs. the iPhone shot, probably largely because of the shorter focal length. Note the algorithm has mistook the bike’s steerer tube as part of the background (or foreground). Note the slightly darker centers in the out-of-focus highlights. More on this in the next photo…

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/209sec 4.459mm ISO 50

Lenses in smartphones have complex aspherical elements in them, which can lead to somewhat unpleasant disc-shaped blur that lends itself to things like donut-hole and generally ‘busy’ bokeh. Portrait mode helps mitigate this effect by blurring background and foreground pixels enough that these odd effects are essentially ‘evened out’. But not perfectly: the pixels in the dark rings in the center of each OOF highlight are still replaced by translucent (larger) discs of the same color, meaning there will still be some dark translucent circles in those areas. It’s subtle, since most of the pixels in those OOF highlights are light, not dark, but it’s still there if you look for it (in the previous photo).

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

iPhone 8 Plus
F2.8 1/120sec 6.6mm ISO 320

Two things of note in this iPhone shot here: (1) note the patterning within the out-of-focus highlights (it’s not a uniform disc) and (2) the blown highlights on the wood since HDR is shy to activate in Portrait Mode. Often tapping on the bright overexposed portion in your preview will darken the image enough to force the iPhone to turn on its HDR mode, but results can be inconsistent. The Pixel 2 cameras in comparison are always operating in HDR+ mode, even in Portrait mode, and are less prone to this.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/120sec 4.459mm ISO 89

Note the far better exposure vs. the iPhone: HDR+ ensured the wood in Portrait mode shot did not blow out.

Also, note the brightest out-of-focus highlight, just to the left of the plant. It does *not* have a darker middle as we saw in the bike shot. This is because in the original shot (next photo), this highlight is completely blown, so the algorithm isn’t starting with the donut-hole disc we saw in the out-of-focus yellow lights in the bike shot. Completely blown out-of-focus highlights will look smooth and uniform – more so than with the iPhone 8.*

*It’s important to keep in mind that since the blurs are largely algorithms, some aspects of the bokeh may be updated simply by software updates. The comments we’re making throughout here are only really applicable for the software versions we shot the images with.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/120sec 4.459mm ISO 89

Note the three major out-of-focus highlights just to the left of the plant. The darker ones show donut-hole bokeh but are dim enough that they get completely blurred into surrounding pixels in the Portrait mode shot (previous photo). The blown out-of-focus highlight to the left of them gets blurred to a pleasing uniform disc, without a dark center (which was not the case in the yellow out-of-focus highlights in the bike shot, which had slightly darker centers).

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/120sec 4.459mm ISO 218

Sometimes, with very close-up objects, we’ve noticed the Pixel 2 cameras do not blur the background much, if at all. Compare this Portrait image to the original image (next photo).

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/120sec 4.459mm ISO 218

Non blurred version of previous image. It’s not much different. We haven’t noticed this issue with the iPhone.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

iPhone 8 Plus
F2.8 1/120sec 6.6mm ISO 200

The sprouts in the back cause artifacts in this image (see next image for comparison). This can happen with dual camera setups, since the two cameras often see very shifted stereo pairs for close objects. If the two cameras see two different things at what it thinks is the same location in the shot, this can cause artifacts not as easily caused from less separated stereo pairs (although lower separation comes with its share of issues as well).

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/120sec 4.459mm ISO 127

The Pixel 2 cameras’ stereo pair viewpoints are less than 1mm apart (roughly the diameter of the lens), and appear to have fewer issues with artifacts when shooting close-up objects against farther backgrounds. Since overall stereo disparity in the pair isn’t drastic, there’s less of a chance that the two perspectives see different things at the same image location. Note the sprouts here don’t get blurred oddly as in the iPhone image.

Also note the progressive blur in the bread, with the closer parts of the bread less blurred than the further parts. This is because Google uses the stereo pair of images to generate an actual depth map. The subject in focus shows no stereo disparity, objects progressively behind show more and more disparity while objects in front show more disparity but in the *opposite* direction. This is how the algorithms can generate essentially a ‘heat map’ of further and further behind the subject (or in front) from which it decides how much blur to apply to each pixel.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

iPhone 8 Plus
F2.8 1/60sec 6.6mm ISO 320

The iPhone version of this shot has more blown highlights than the Pixel 2 version, presumably because HDR did not kick on automatically.

Also, there are more depth map errors around the subject’s hair, again possibly because of how close to the camera she is (where the two cameras are likely to see different things at the same image location).

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/120sec 4.459mm ISO 147

The Pixel 2 version of this shot has far fewer depth map errors around our subject, particularly her hair.

Also, since HDR+ is always active on Pixel 2 cameras, the captured dynamic range is far higher.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

iPhone 8 Plus
F2.8 1/120sec 6.6mm ISO 32

We found the iPhone to struggle a little more with autofocus in backlight and low light, but it did nail focus here for the most part.

Interestingly, the iPhone appears to preserve more of the out-of-focus highlights in the background than the Pixel 2 (next photo).

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/867sec 4.459mm ISO 50

The Pixel 2 appeared to struggle less with autofocus than the iPhone 8 Plus, nailing it here.

Of note though is that the Pixel 2 appears to have preserved fewer of the out-of-focus highlights (‘bokeh balls’ as we call them here around the office), or at least dimmed them compared to the more obvious ones in the iPhone shot. We wonder if this has something to do with the HDR+ algorithm, but are purely speculating.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

iPhone 8 Plus
F2.8 1/60sec 6.6mm ISO 250

Often, the iPhone 8 Plus in Portrait Mode would overexpose high contrast scenes, instead of activating HDR mode. HDR seemed reticent to activate in Portrait mode, leading to the blown highlights on faces here.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

iPhone 8 Plus
F2.8 1/120sec 6.6mm ISO 160

Tapping on the blown highlights resets dims the exposure and often forces HDR mode to activate. The Pixel 2 phones don’t have this issue, as they’re always operating in HDR+ mode.

Once exposure is adjusted though, the result is a very well-lit image with nice colors and convincing background blur.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/120sec 4.459mm ISO 52

Since the Pixel 2 cameras are always operating in HDR+ mode, blown highlights are well-controlled here resulting in a well-exposed image. Sometimes with very high contrast scenes, though, HDR+ images can start looking a bit ‘crunchy’ (the same thing happens in HDR merging software depending on the ‘radius’ setting).

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

iPhone 8 Plus
F2.8 1/120sec 6.6mm ISO 25

Here the iPhone 8 Plus produces a more pleasing result, with fewer depth map artifacts. It also preserves the warm tone of the sunset scene. Auto White Balance was generally stable and produced desirable results across many different shooting scenarios on the iPhone 8 Plus.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/1560sec 4.459mm ISO 86

The Pixel 2 cameras often show rather extreme variation in White Balance from shot to shot. Quite often, it neutralizes color casts too much: for example, here, it should have chosen a white balance closer to Daylight instead of neutralizing the warm sunset tones.

Also, when tones in the background and foreground are very similar, depth map errors can result. Note the errors around the hair of our subject, which might have been hard to distinguish from the dark trees in the background.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/1560sec 4.459mm ISO 61

Another example of depth map errors due to objects possibly appearing to similar to one another. Look at the artifacts around the hair on the right side of our subject and around her sunglasses. Next, look at how these regions might appear similar to one another in a lower resolution depth map by comparing to the un-blurred image (next photo)

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/1560sec 4.459mm ISO 61

You can see the areas of the blurred photo (previous) that contained artifacts are regions where the foreground and background (the hair vs. tree branches; the sunglasses vs. the dark background) might appear indistinguishable as you try and build a lower resolution depth map.

Another possibility is errors in segmentation, the process of identifying the entire foreground subject using machine learning.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/120sec 4.459mm ISO 281

For such a complex scene, the Pixel 2 did remarkably well, choosing to blur more than the iPhone in this case (next photo).

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

iPhone 8 Plus
F2.8 1/60sec 6.6mm ISO 800

The iPhone also does well, but here keeps more foreground leaves in focus before extremely defocusing the farther background.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/120sec 4.459mm ISO 281

Note the progressive blur: objects further in the background are blurred more than objects closer. This is because the depth map is generated from actual stereo measurements of how far an object is from the focus plane.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

iPhone 8 Plus
F2.8 1/60sec 6.6mm ISO 500

Apple quoted with the iPhone 7 that it calculates 9 different layers when making its depth map. It presumably does so by a process of precalibration, where certain stereo disparities from the focus plane correlate with certain distances from it. We wonder if this might be why sometimes the subject looks somewhat cut-out from a far away background, if there aren’t enough objects behind the subject that fall within those 8 layers (or however many Apple is now using) before that 9th (hyperfocal or infinity) one.

Either that or the masking in this photo makes the subject look somewhat cut-out (see around the hair).

It’s impressive though that the arm rest in front of our subject is properly blurred.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/120sec 4.459mm ISO 207

The blur in this image looks more natural and progressive to us. The colors leave a bit to be desired though, with somewhat desaturated, greenish skintones.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/120sec 4.459mm ISO 159

This looks more natural to us than the ‘cut-out’ look of the iPhone image, interestingly. However, what’s odd is the color tuning, which is different from the front-facing camera (next photo).

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

iPhone 8 Plus
F2.8 1/60sec 6.6mm ISO 400

We can’t help but feel our subject appears more ‘cut out’ against the background here. We wonder if this has something to do with the number of layers of depth mapping, or a suboptimal masking process (around the hair particularly).

Skintones are more pleasing than with the Pixel 2 image, though.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F2.4 1/60sec 3.38mm ISO 149

The front facing camera oddly has a different color tuning than the back camera and, arguably, a bit more pleasing. Skintones are more magenta as opposed to the cool, sometimes greenish skintones with the rear camera.

It’s worth noting the iPhone 8’s front camera cannot do Portrait mode. The Pixel 2’s front camera does not have a dual-pixel sensor on its front camera, so performs this blur simply through a process of segmentation. That’s where machine learning comes in. Google trained a ‘convolutional neural network’ with nearly a million images of people (‘and their hats, sunglasses, and ice cream cones’ according to Principal Engineer Marc Levoy) to learn which pixels belong to people vs. not.

And impressive result, given the lack of a depth map. You won’t get the progressive gradual blur you get with the real camera, but for selfies this is probably ‘good enough’.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/60sec 4.459mm ISO 382

I’ve included this here because I just wouldn’t have expected a smartphone to generate an image like this if you were to ask me just a year or two ago. In low light, dual-pixel AF got focus (it’s a little soft because Portrait mode uses a digital crop, then upscales), and foreground and background blur are both well controlled. Look at the progressive foreground blur on the right side of the plastic food table.

The image remains clean thanks to multi-image averaging, while using 1/60s indoors to ensure at least some sharp shots of even a toddler.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

iPhone 8 Plus
F2.8 1/60sec 6.6mm ISO 1250

The iPhone’s F2.8 aperture in Portrait mode (and smaller sensor), and likely the lack of the 9-frame image averaging HDR+ uses on the Pixel 2 results in many unusable Portrait mode images in low light. Compare this shot to the Pixel 2 one next…

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/60sec 4.459mm ISO 258

The use of a faster aperture (and likely larger sensor even after the digital crop) and 9-frame image averaging of HDR+ generally yields far more pleasing low light portraits on the Pixel 2 than on the iPhone 8 Plus.

HDR+ uses intelligent tile-based image alignment that can keep even moving subjects sharp by selecting appropriate ’tiles’ from the sharper images of the subject within the 9-frame buffer used for a single shot. That’s right, the camera is constantly shooting 9 full-resolution images at a minimum of 60 times a second – which also ensures zero shutter lag.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2
F1.8 1/60sec 4.442mm ISO 213

We’ve found some depth map errors can occur around high contrast edges. Note the dark rails surrounded by light backgrounds can cause problems. Still, this is a heck of a pleasing image of constantly moving toddler… taken indoors on a smartphone.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/3344sec 4.459mm ISO 51

Running toddler. Focused (well enough). Isolated from the background. Taken on a smartphone.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

iPhone 8 Plus
F2.8 1/294sec 6.6mm ISO 20

This is a good example of progressive blur with the iPhone 8 Plus. Note how the grass only a bit behind the subject is less blurred than the grass far behind the subject.

Furthermore, in this scenario, HDR did kick in in Portrait mode quite often, resulting in even exposures.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/5848sec 4.459mm ISO 61

This is another good example of the progressive blur thanks to the depth map on the Pixel 2: while all the grass and the background looked pretty much in focus in the original, the grass nearer to the subject is blurred less than the grass further away.

There are some artifacts around the subject’s hair, but that’s not surprising considering she was running toward me while I was running backward. The Pixel 2’s superior Dual Pixel AF allowed me to get the right moment more easily – it’s often as fast and responsive as a high-end ILC – while the iPhone 8 Plus would often experience a re-focusing lag after pressing the shutter button.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

iPhone 8 Plus
F2.8 1/585sec 6.6mm ISO 20

The extra telephoto reach of the iPhone is useful for further compressing foreground and background (and magnifying the background), which can be useful. The iPhone 8 Plus also tended to render more pleasing blue sky tones, and saturation generally.

And remember, since you’re shooting HEIF, you get extra storage space savings, and the advantages of 10-bit files with support for more colors thanks to the wide gamut P3 capture. Encoding in P3 gives the cameras a wider color palette to work with after Raw capture.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/2342sec 4.459mm ISO 51

Naturally there’s less compression with the Pixel phones due to their wider angle camera used in Portrait mode, but I quite like wide-angle portraiture.

Note the overall lower saturation, and somewhat bland skies. This is up to personal preference, but one thing to note is the Pixel cameras only output sRGB images. This means the color palette with which the camera can ‘draw’ is limited compared to recent iPhones. Google probably chose this method for now because sRGB is a good standard for most people, and Google doesn’t have a key advantage Apple has: a proper ecosystem. Apple is implementing P3 displays in all its devices, from its iPads to its Macbook Pros to its iMacs. That means you’ll actually be able to enjoy those extra colors in those P3 images – if they’re there – across all Apple devices.

The movie industry has already accepted P3 as the new standard (think of it like Adobe RGB but with more saturated reds, yellows and greens, but a little less cyan-green and cyan saturation). The video industry is eventually aiming for an even larger gamut: Rec.2020, which is only a bit smaller than ProPhoto RGB, and it’s great to see Apple pushing the stills industry to adopt it as well.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Sony a7R II
F1.8 1/4000sec 55mm ISO 100

Just for fun, we’ve included this full frame 55/1.8 shot. On a high resolution screen, or viewed at 1:1, the quality is obviously far above what either smartphone can produce. But flip to the next image and view it at an image level. For many people, the Pixel 2’s result is good enough. Especially for a device you have on you at all times that requires just one button press to take a well exposed, focused photo.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/4673sec 4.459mm ISO 62

Compared to the full-frame F1.8 previous shot, for many people this result will be good enough. Especially for a one button-press device you always have on you. Just be careful: don’t pixel peep.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

iPhone 8 Plus
F2.8 1/168sec 6.6mm ISO 20

The iPhone’s result is smudgier with more artifacts around the hair, but the blur and colors are quite pleasing.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/252sec 4.459mm ISO 51

Compared to the iPhone 8 Plus shot of this same scene, the Pixel 2 retains far more detail than the iPhone shot. This is likely due to its HDR+ mode that is always using multi-image averaging, therefore requiring less noise reduction. The iPhone shot (next) in comparison looks like it’s had a lot of noise reduction applied to it, at the cost of detail.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

iPhone 8 Plus
F2.8 1/120sec 6.6mm ISO 160

The smaller aperture on the iPhone combined with the less (or none at all) multi-frame image averaging in Portrait mode than the Pixel 2’s 9 shots means the iPhone 8 Plus uses more noise reduction than the Pixel 2. The result: a far smudgier image under the same (yet bright) conditions with far less detail.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/17sec 4.459mm ISO 413

In low light, HDR+ on the Pixel 2 ensures decent noise levels by aligning and averaging multiple images.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

iPhone 8 Plus
F2.8 1/60sec 6.6mm ISO 1250

The combination of F2.8 and the requirement of 1/60s to avoid camera shake (no OIS on the telephoto lens), and possibly not as advanced multi-frame noise averaging as the Pixel 2 leaves a lot to be desired in low-light portraits on the iPhone.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

iPhone 5c
F2.4 1/20sec 4.12mm ISO 50

This is in here to remind us of how far smartphone cameras have come. Compare this iPhone 5c image to the Pixel 2 image (next)…

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/120sec 4.459mm ISO 215

Indoors, but only what should be blurred is blurred! The subject is sharp and in focus, with a blurred background, thanks to a fast shutter speed, HDR+ multi-image averaging with alignment so not much noise reduction is required, and a proper depth map to gradually blur subjects further from the focus plane.

And having this sort of a camera in your pocket at all times means you can capture fleeting moments like when your daughter doesn’t want you to leave for work.

Imagine what’s to come…

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

iPhone X
F2.4 1/60s ISO 320

We’ll leave you with one final comparison to whet your appetite for our next shootout: the iPhone X vs. Pixel 2. This is an iPhone X shot and it’s immediately obvious that the camera on the X does a better job at ‘cutting around’ hair, people and objects than the 8 Plus. Our best guess as to why is that perhaps it generates a higher resolution depth map, but that’s pure speculation. It’s repeatably better, though, at making heads look less cut out from the background.

Compared to the 8 Plus, OIS and F2.4 (compared to F2.8) on the telephoto lens both help Portrait mode on the X. Compared to the Pixel 2 shot of the same scene (next slide), the out-of-focus highlights are rendered more specular, and the colors are more pleasing.

Portrait mode shootout: iPhone 8 Plus vs Google Pixel 2

Pixel 2 XL
F1.8 1/60sec ISO 233

The Google Pixel 2 XL shot of the same scene results in a far more candid portrait. Not only is the image sharper with more detail than the similar iPhone X shot, it’s closer to the shot I wanted. I was able to capture this fleeting hug instantaneously due to the fast autofocus. The previous iPhone X shot looks more posed and less candid because inside the Apple Store here, lighting was dim enough that the iPhone X was often slower at acquiring focus.

To our knowledge, Apple’s ‘Dual PDAF’ technology only dedicates roughly ~4% of its sensor’s pixels to AF. The Pixel 2’s Dual Pixel AF technology uses most of its sensor for AF, pixel binning to read out a low resolution, but also low noise, set of ‘left-looking’ vs ‘right-looking’ images. The 9-frame HDR+ buffer also helps reduce the noise for these sets of images, making autofocus in challenging situations vastly superior to any other smartphone we’ve tested.

The colors, on the other hand, leave a lot to be desired, with greenish skintones. The out-of-focus highlights are also not as specular as the iPhone’s result.

Stay tuned for an in-depth shootout of the Pixel 2 vs. the iPhone X…

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

Astrophotography lens shootout: Samyang 14mm F2.4 vs Sigma 14mm F1.8

02 Dec

If you’re thinking of picking up a great ultra-wide astrophotography lens, chances are good you’ve looked at the three 14mm primes featured in this video. The old Samyang 14mm F2.8 is a classic and affordable choice; the updated Samyang 14mm F2.4 is faster, higher quality, and not prohibitively expensive; and the Sigma 14mm F1.8 Art is a lens astrophotographers have been drooling over ever since it was announced in February.

So which do you pick, and why?

NatureTTL’s Matthew Saville took all three lenses into the middle of the desert to shoot some nightscapes and compare the performance of these extremely popular choices.

You’ll definitely want to check out the full video if you’re deeply uncertain about which to choose—there are some great side-by-side sharpness comparisons that should satisfy the pixel peepers out there—but Saville manages to break the trio down into a very neat categories:

The Sigma 14mm F1.8 Art is your choice if you absolutely need the extra light over the F2.4 and don’t mind spending a bunch more money to get it. It’s extremely sharp, and will deliver exceptional results… even wide open… even in the corners.

The Samyang 14mm F2.4 is hard to beat as an overall choice when you look at performance-to-price ratio. To his eye, it’s a tiny bit sharper in the corners wide open than the Sigma—even when you stop the Sigma down to F2.4—and it’ll cost you half as much. You are, of course, sacrificing AutoFocus over the Sigma, but many nightscape and night sky photographers shoot in manual focus all the time anyway.

The Samyang 14mm F2.8 is by far the most affordable of the bunch. This classic lens will cost you as little as $ 250 on sale, making it less than half as much as the Samyang 14mm F2.4, which was already half the price of the Sigma 14mm. But that drop in price comes with a significant drop in performance. Saville labels it a great choice for those just getting into nightscape photography, as a time-lapse lens if you’ll be displaying your footage in 1080p, or as a solid backup that is so cheap it would be silly not to own one.

Check out the full video up top to hear all of Saville’s thoughts on these three popular 14mm primes. And if you want to find out more about why the Sigma 14mm F1.8 Art lens just might be worth spending that bundle of money on, click on the big blue button below to read about why DPReview’s Dale Baskin named it his Gear of the Year 2017.

Gear of the Year 2017 – Dale’s choice: Sigma 14mm F1.8 Art

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

$80,000 vs $3,000: Arri Alexa vs Canon 80D video shootout

26 Sep

These days, capturing professional-looking video no longer requires Hollywood-sized budgets. But does that mean that there’s no longer much advantage to Hollywood-quality gear? Let’s find out. Gene of the YouTube channel Potato Jet pegged his Canon 80D setup against an Arri Alexa setup that costs upwards of $ 80,000 and filmed several scenes with both cameras rigged up side-by-side.

Unlike his previous (very popuplar) iPhone 7 vs Arri Alexa video, this one is a bit more of a fair fight—the sensor area used to shoot most formats on the Arri is much closer in size to the 80D sensor than the iPhone, and one of the cameras isn’t a freaking smartphone.

Of course, the difference between the footage is still immediately obvious—who would have guessed an $ 80K setup would shoot better footage than a $ 3,000 setup?—but the side-by-side comparison is fun and interesting to watch all the same. That’s because Gene doesn’t just point out the differences in the dynamic range and quality of the video from the two cameras, he outlines the pros and cons of using a small light-weight DSLR like the 80D vs a cinematic powerhouse like the Arri Alexa.

Check out the full comparison for yourself up top, and if you want to see more from Gene or consider yourself an amateur filmmaker, definitely subscribe to Potato Jet.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

Blind portrait shootout: Sony a9 vs Canon 1DX Mark II vs Nikon D5

23 Aug

Photographer Michael Andrew of YouTube channel Michael the Maven has put together a ‘Flagship Epic Shootout Review’ video comparing the Sony a9, Nikon D5 and Canon 1DX Mark II. The full video is genuinely worth your time, but if you don’t have 44 minutes to spend watching the full review, one section in particular is both fun and frustrating: the blind portrait test.

Like it or not, we all have implicit biases when it comes to comparing cameras—it’s hard not to when you’ve spent thousands (or tens of thousands) on your kit. But is the camera you say you like best, the one that produces the images you like most? When it comes down to the camera, by itself, using its own color engine, do you prefer Nikon, Canon, or Sony?

That’s what Andrew wants to help you figure out, bias-free, in this blind portrait shootout. He shot 12 identical portraits using all three flagship cameras, and he challenges you to rank them before you know which camera shot which portrait. The game is simple: grab a pice of paper and list it from 1 to 12, and then draw three columns labeled A, B, and C at the top. As the images pop up on screen, give your favorite a score of 3, your second favorite a score of 2, and your least favorite a score of 1.

“At the end, we’ll add the scores to discover which camera’s color science you prefer most,” he says. “Don’t give it too much thought […] I did my very best to take a picture of the same model, in the same lighting conditions, with the same white balance, with the same exposure settings.”

Which do you prefer?

It’s a fun little game that can turn a bit sour at the end when you add up the final score… especially if you’ve ranked your personal favorite brand dead last. This has already happened to two of our staff here at DPReview, and it will probably happen to a few of you as well. And before you jump in with a “just shoot Raw” argument, our Technical Editor Rishi has a message for you:

While shooting Raw helps poor white balance issues, it’s not a panacea for a disagreeable color engine. Putting aside for a moment the convenience of using straight-out-of-camera JPEGs, Raw converters like Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) include camera-specific profiles that emulate the manufacturer’s various color modes, so if they’re not to your taste to begin with, the Raw conversions are also unlikely to be palatable.

Furthermore, ACR can’t emulate the multitude of non-linear, scene-dependent adjustments camera JPEG engines perform. Even the same colors are not necessarily processed in the same manner in a landscape as it is in a portrait. It’s hard for Raw converters to emulate these complex adjustments unless the manufacturer works directly with them to directly share what they’ve learned over decades of color research.

So jump in, take the test, and let us know your scores (and whether or not you betrayed your go-to camera brand) in the comments.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

Vintage lens shootout: three lenses, one model

09 Aug

Vintage lens enthusiast Mathieu Stern took a break from coughing up fake blood in the name of dispelling lens myths this week to compare some of his favorite vintage lenses in a shootout. Stern went out for a single photo shoot with one model and three vintage lenses: the Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 S.S.C., the Soligor 21mm f/3.8, and the Helios 103 53mm f/1.8 (modified for tilt focusing).

The video is the first in a new video series that will help highlight the unique qualities of vintage glass by comparing three lenses at a time.

Definitely don’t expect ultra-sharp photos that’ll compare with the best (technically speaking) glass of today. But you should expect unique and interesting looking photos that might just inspire you to pick up some of these cheap old lenses on eBay and have some fun. Here’s a sample photo captured with each lens:

$ (document).ready(function() { SampleGalleryV2({“containerId”:”embeddedSampleGallery_9952767520″,”galleryId”:”9952767520″,”isEmbeddedWidget”:true,”standalone”:false,”selectedImageIndex”:0,”startInCommentsView”:false,”isMobile”:false}) });

If you’re into the vintage look, the nice thing about these lenses is that they usually don’t cost you much to try out for yourself. Just do a quick eBay search and you’ll see that you can grab a Helios 103 53mm f/1.8 for less than $ 40, a Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 S.S.C. for about $ 80, and the most expensive of the bunch, the Soligor 21mm f/3.8, for $ 275.

For more vintage lens reviews and other oddball videos, check out Mathieu’s YouTube Channel.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized