06-12-2010, 08:38 PM
It's an interesting comparison ... I would never have actually thought of doing something like that.
In brief I'd say that most digital cameras of 35mm sensor or less, given the exact same lighting, more or less the same focal length and aperture, would produce fairly similar results. Even a Nikon DX3 or a Canon 1D is capable of producing crappy pictures, given the 'right' circumstances.
However, a good photographer with a good camera and lens (and maybe some extra lighting) would be able to select the optimal focal length, aperture, pose (it's important to know what to do with your subject) and lighting to make a fantastic group portrait, even in this fairly ordinary setting.
So ... your question is actually back to front: it should be about what the photographer can make out of a situation, regardless of the price of the camera - otherwise you are simply comparing the effect of light on different sensor/lens combinations.
In brief I'd say that most digital cameras of 35mm sensor or less, given the exact same lighting, more or less the same focal length and aperture, would produce fairly similar results. Even a Nikon DX3 or a Canon 1D is capable of producing crappy pictures, given the 'right' circumstances.
However, a good photographer with a good camera and lens (and maybe some extra lighting) would be able to select the optimal focal length, aperture, pose (it's important to know what to do with your subject) and lighting to make a fantastic group portrait, even in this fairly ordinary setting.
So ... your question is actually back to front: it should be about what the photographer can make out of a situation, regardless of the price of the camera - otherwise you are simply comparing the effect of light on different sensor/lens combinations.