Sheesh! Go back to bed and get up again on the other side.
Chuck Norcutt
AG Schnozz wrote:
> Pi**y Moose ranted:
>> Custom WB was done on each body before doing the test. If that
>> doesn't correct for lens differences, you don't want the camera
>> anyway.
>
> Oh, but this is where we disagree, o buddy o pal. How is the WB
> determined? Is it averaged out from the full-spectrum response
> curves of the sensor system or is it from a mid-tone response? Let's
> think of film, for example: When you balanced out the midtones on
> Portra 160NC, the shadows stay neutral. However, with NPS, the
> shadows would get a color cast. But wait a second, weren't they both
> equivelently white-balanced? Yes! How about Provia vs Astia? You
> can WB them both, but the images will look different--and not just
> from saturation. If this type of difference is present in
> high-quality professional films, what makes us think that sensor
> systems would be any different?
>
> You see, we are so blasted concerned about pixel-counts, resolution
> and other characteristics that absolutely NOBODY is asking to see the
> response curves of the sensor sytems in these cameras! I might be an
> anomoly, but I have the response charts of every film I use printed
> out. I can tell you the sensitivity and density ranges of each of
> those films. I can even tell you about the toe/shoulder curves of
> them. But can we get even a smidgen of that data from the digital
> camera suppliers? NO! If we did, we would know what's going on
> between the 5D and the 1DsM2.
>
> We get around all this by shooting RAW and post-processing. Olympus,
> with the E-1, Fuji with the S2 and Canon with the 5D obviously spent
> the extra effort to get the curves "right". They are different from
> other cameras. Just as different as shooting Provia vs Astia. Why
> can't we get it through our thick skulls that a sensor system is
> "digital film" and we DEMAND from the manufacturers the data we need
> in regards to spectral and sensitivity response curves? There are
> many professional photographers using Nikons that swear that their
> D2H cameras produce a far better skintone than the D2X or D200. How
> can THAT be?
>
>> The real shame is that they don't, it would be a real asset for
>> 4/3. The second real shame is which third party maker does do 4/3
>> lenses.
>
> Absolutely. This was the key reason why I didn't want to go with the
> 4/3 system in the first place. I really like the Tokina AT-X lenses.
>
>> So why fret? You know what your camera can do and how to use it to
>> best advantage.
>
> In a closed-circuit world, there is no reason to fret. In fact, my
> 5MP E-1 would be sufficient for a zillion years. But when the
> clients read this kind of nonesense that the 5D is the
> king-of-the-hill in skintones, and that the E-1 wasn't even included
> in the test (obviously because it's substandard), that they may not
> want to do business with you because you don't have a 5D.
>
> I am NOT discounting the quality and value of the 5D. It is a very
> good camera. But when a highly publicized comparison like that one
> is used without scientific background (I want to know WHY it looks
> better, not just that it does) and is limited in such a way as it
> was, it is not doing the professional photography community any good.
>
> I can be pi**y to.
>
> AG
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
> in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
> http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|