There's much better definition in Chloe's dress and hair on your Canon shot. And the lighting and skin tone is more natural looking too.

At first glance the iPhone's not bad though.

The problem here is that your subject is so attractive that the problems with the iphone photo just get ignored. Ahhh, the lovely Miss C!

On topic, I found the differences pretty obvious. The iphone image has poorer colour balance, the short focal length has distorted parts of the image (the light shade, for example), and for similar reasons MC herself has her legs out of proportion. Narrower depth of field with the 5D, due to the wider aperture used, which can be a plus or minus, but in his case de-emphasises the background detail.

There's much better definition in Chloe's dress and hair on your Canon shot. And the lighting and skin tone is more natural looking too.

 

At first glance the iPhone's not bad though.

I wouldn't pay much attention to the colour cast as I deliberately left the cool tones on the iPhone shot. Colour balance in the iPhone shot is actually more truthful as the real colour cast in the room was greenish blue. I processed the Canon with a warmer colour balance as an alternative.

Yes you've spotted the differences well. However people looking through profiles on PG aren't likely to notice I'll bet.

The problem here is that your subject is so attractive that the problems with the iphone photo just get ignored. Ahhh, the lovely Miss C!

On topic, I found the differences pretty obvious. The iphone image has poorer colour balance, the short focal length has distorted parts of the image (the light shade, for example), and for similar reasons MC herself has her legs out of proportion. Narrower depth of field with the 5D, due to the wider aperture used, which can be a plus or minus, but in his case de-emphasises the background detail.

 

 

My comment to mymuse about colour balance applies. The camera, be it Canon or iPhone just records what it sees (different to what our eyes, or more accurately brain) perceives. Some details : the iPhone lens is f2.4 while the Canon shot was taken at f1.6 at 50mm. The distortion is mostly to do with my position from her leg.

Mate

You need to get with the times. Both pieces of equipment are antiques. Get yourself the mark3 and a 4S.

Oh did I mention I would be happy to buy the marke 2 of you?

:-)

Mate

 

You need to get with the times. Both pieces of equipment are antiques. Get yourself the mark3 and a 4S.

 

Haha! Aww go easy on YP. He has a great eye - money cant buy that.

Blundie is after my 5DMkII. I do have some glass I want to sell however.

Haha! Aww go easy on YP. He has a great eye - money cant buy that.

Difficult to make a fair comparison between the iPhone and Pro Camera. If we were to compare apples and canons, you needed to take a step back on the top photo. Her leg and foot are enormous.

Ignoring the different composition,

I think the depth of field was too short on the Canon lens (anyway) for the purpose this pic would be used, as you say 'private girls' website .

YP, are you offering a less expensive option to the private girls?

BYO iPhone to your YP photo shoot

or the more expensive......

Get shot by YP's Canon.

Difficult to make a fair comparison between the iPhone and Pro Camera. If we were to compare apples and canons, you needed to take a step back on the top photo. Her leg and foot are enormous.

 

Ignoring the different composition,

I think the depth of field was too short on the Canon lens (anyway) for the purpose this pic would be used, you say 'private girls' website .

 

YP, are you offering a less expensive option to the private girls?

 

BYO iPhone to your YP photo shoot

or the more expensive......

Get shot by YP's Canon.

Umm you don't think I was trying to make a serious scientific comparison between the two did you? Otherwise I might just sell my 5DMkII to Blundie as he has been suggesting.

I'm happy with the DOF on the Canon shot. I don't own fast lenses so I can stop down. Everything doesn't sharp or in focus, just the important bits. Every shot is a compromise between the trinity of exposure variables. Can you see a reason why there might have been an advantage to the shallow DOF here? I can. There's absolutely no reason why either could not be used on PG. Most punters seem to be satisfied with any pictures of tits are arses anyway, just look at the responses on the PP galleries.

The point with the iPhone was to show that even with a crappy camera phone, you don't need to be taking horribly posed and lit pics.

That is an interesting marketing idea. However whether I shoot with an iPhone or Canon, it takes a similar amount of time.