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
==============================================
|