Chuck, I hope you are right with the stage lights. For the ISO, didn't we
expect the 5D II shall do at least two stops better than a E-thing?
Actually, I have another ISO2000 shot without boost in post, same background
darkness and tone.
For Ken's comment, I didn't refer to the color difference, I didn't expect
good natural skin tone under such complex lighting. What I concern is the
tone and totally missing of shadow details in the 5D II shot. For the E-520
shot, I see dark blue "sky" in the background at the right side, some dark
monitors may not see it but the blue values of 30-40 shall be visible with a
reasonable good monitor.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Norcutt"
>I think the E-520 image shows much more white spotlight which also
> extends into the background. Note the white drape. Given the two stops
> difference in ISO and, despite that, the brighter E-520 image the
> spotlighting had to be much more brilliant when the 520 image was shot.
>
> You can send me your 5DII. I'll even pay the shipping! :-)
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> C.H.Ling wrote:
>> Ken, you are really bad, if our Disneyland had not changed the lighting
>> setup I have to buy another E-thing now and throw away the 5D II. The two
>> shots were made at different date, both straightly output from RAW:
>>
>> E-520 ISO 800, no NR.
>>
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/PC190478_M2.jpg
>>
>> 5D II ISO 2000, develop +0.67 stop (ISO3200 equ), no NR.
>>
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_6716.JPG
>>
>> C.H.Ling
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ken Norton"
>>> The E-1's biggest issue is chroma noise. The luma noise is actually
>>> quite
>>> pleasant, the but the chroma noise reminds me of elcheepo ISO 400 print
>>> film
>>> processed in an uncalibrated minilab. Fortunately, chroma noise is
>>> easily
>>> whacked and when doing so it does not do ANY softening.
>>>
>>> I suppose that I'm not too worried about the E-1 at ISO 800. I've
>>> developed
>>> a few tricks of the trade when shooting it there and have shot it very
>>> extensively indoors for both recreational shooting and professional
>>> shooting.
>>>
>>> It isn't stupid-clean like the Nikon D3, but unlike most digital cameras
>>> it
>>> doesn't lose tonal separation at higher ISOs. The noise floor increases,
>>> but
>>> the assignment of tones to the proper zones is maintained. The common
>>> fault
>>> with digital cameras at higher ISOs is that to counter the raising noise
>>> floor, the camera reduces the effective dynamic range of the picture to
>>> keep
>>> the noise below the threshold. The problem with this is that the
>>> remaining
>>> dynamic range is squeezed into a reduced scale. It passes DPReview's
>>> tests
>>> with flying colors (or non-colors in this case), but then the grousing
>>> is
>>> that the high ISO images are "flat".
>>>
>>> No free lunches either way.
>>>
>>> AG
>>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
