Be Careful Of Camera Comparisons

JPEG straight out of the camera.  The camera's settings for JPEG just happen to compliment this particular image. (click to enlarge)
Fujifilm X-T2; 16-55mm f/2.8 lens @ 33mm; 1/750th sec. @ f/8; ISO 200

I very seldom watch or read online comparisons of cameras or lenses mostly because the people who are presenting them interject their opinions as to how good a particular camera or lens is or which one they judge as better.  In the past I've written about my problem with their opinions as many or them opine only from the point of view of how a particular piece of gear fits his or her individual needs and don't speak to a general audience of photographers with many, many different needs.  If a camera doesn't have certain features, number of pixels, a sensor size of which they approve or can't instantly focus on an eye 100 yards away, then it is no good.  I hear many trash f/1.8 lenses as too slow.  Poppycock!  But I digress.  If I do watch a comparison, it is only for the specifications of a camera or a lens.  I'll make up my own mind as to whether or not a piece of gear meets my standards and fits my needs.  

That said, also I find it interesting (curious) when watching one of these Internet or YouTube comparison presentations that often times the person making the presentation will show RAW files or JPEG files straight out of the camera (SOOC) then make comments about how good or bad they are or even judge which is better.  What I don't understand is why the presenters do that?  

Another JPEG straight out of the same camera.  If you were shown these and told they came from different cameras, you would pick the top camera as the better camera.  The JPEG settings for this particular image didn't really compliment the subject.  It all has to do with the camera's settings. (click to enlarge)
Fujifilm X-T2; 16-55mm f/2.8 lens @ 42mm; 1/25th sec. @ f/8; ISO 640

Take RAW files for example.  Do you or do you know anyone who prints or posts RAW files straight out of the camera?  I don't.  RAW files straight out of the camera usually look really, really bad.  Also, you really aren't looking at RAW data, you are looking at a JPEG of that data.  RAW data can't be viewed.  What you see depends upon your camera's settings or the default settings in your image editing software.  How can you judge anything by that?  But they do.

I really don't care what RAW files look like directly out of my cameras.  I care about what I can do with them in editing.  Can I bring out detail in deep shadows?  Can I bring down the highlights to show subtle gradations?  How well do they sharpen?  Is there banding when I make major color adjustments?  I find it mostly meaningless as to how they look directly out of the camera.  I would find much more meaning if the presenter showed me how malleable the RAW files are and how well they can be edited into a final form.

RAW image file straight out of the camera.  Looks pretty dull.  This was made with Fujifilm's Eterna film simulation.  It is designed to be low contrast and low saturation. (click to enlarge)
Fujifilm X-T2; 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens + 1.4x tele-converter @ 560mm; 1/3200th sec. @ f/ll; ISO 3200

Exact same image but with the Velvia film simulation applied.  If you thought these two came from different cameras,
you might think this is the better camera than the image above. (click to enlarge)

As far as JPEG files are concerned, when the YouTube or Internet presenters tell me that camera A's JPEGs have more contrast that camera B's or that the sharpness of the JPEGs from camera B are sharper than those from camera A, or there is less digital noise in camera B's JPEG files, that too is pretty meaningless to me.  Look at your camera's menu.  Does it allow you to adjust many image parameters?  Every digital camera I've own allows me to make many adjustments to how the camera records JPEGs.  I can make a JPEG image look pretty much any way I want.  I can decrease the contrast or increase it.  I can apply no in-camera sharpening or quite a bit.  I can add saturation or decrease saturation.  Add to that, even when all of your camera's controls are zeroed out, the manufacturer has already decided what a "default" JPEG should look like.  One manufacturer may think automatic in-camera noise reduction is appropriate while another may not.  One camera company may, unbeknownst to you, add mid-tone sharpening as default while others do not.  Comparing two JPEG files straight out of the camera really doesn't tell me anything more than what the manufacturer sets for defaults or how you have set the camera.  They give you the controls to adjust the files to your liking.

The other aspect of judging files straight out of the camera, whether RAW or JPEG has to do with what profile you have set in your camera.  Fujifilm calls them Film Simulations, Canon calls them Photo Styles (?), Nikon calls them Picture Controls, etc.  Depending upon which one you employ, your files can look ugly, dull and flat or contrasty (think Fujifilm Eterna and Nikon Flat), oversaturated (think Vivid or Velvia) and crispy sharp or anywhere in between.  When importing those RAW files into Lightroom Classic, for example, Lightroom Classic can automatically apply your camera's profile, apply a profile within Lightroom (such as Adobe Color) or apply a custom profile you made such as one based upon the X-Rite Colorchecker Passport's standardized colors.  Mostly, you aren't seeing a file that hasn't been manipulated in some way.  So how can you judge or compare them accurately?

Now, to top off what I've just written consider the fact that most cameras and image editing software applies even more changes to either your RAW file and sometimes to your JPEG files as well.  For example, many cameras have controls to turn on corrections for lens vignetting (shading) and distortion.  Also, many lens corrections are automatically applied in Lightroom (if not in your camera) and you can't disable them.  Additionally, one has to take into account the default sharpening and noise reduction settings that may apply to all imported images in your editing software.  

As far as lenses are concerned, I've touched on the fact that many correction factors are applied in-camera and, only through some special software, can you view an uncorrected version of the image file.  Its hard to tell how a particular lens renders subjects by what you see in editing software.  Image edges are sharpened, vignetting is removed, chromatic aberrations are corrected.  Lots of automatic corrections are provided by the manufacturers so we are happier customers.

It just gets more  and more complicated trying to determine what a unaltered RAW capture or JPEG files actually looks like.

My point is that there are many variables in both RAW and JPEG capture that a) the manufacturer sets as defaults, b) are set by you, c) are set in-camera that can't be turned off or d) in the case of RAW files, is only a JPEG rendition you see anyway.  Trying to objectively judge quality is an exercise in futility, in my opinion.  This is another reason to not accept the judgement of others and apply it to your situation, but make your own judgments based upon your own research and your own experience.

My recommendation is to download the original RAW comparison files if possible, then see if you can edit them to your liking.  See if you can massage those files, bring up the shadows, bring down the highlights, handle the dynamic range of what you typically photograph and don't just take someone's word as to if a particular camera or lens  is better than another.  As far as JPEGs, well, you get to make them look any way you want.  

Join me over at my website, www.dennismook.com.  

Thanks for looking. Enjoy!  

Dennis A. Mook  

All content on this blog is © 2013-2020 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.