Our studio is in love with our D800's. We recently switched every shooter to it and it's literally amazing in every aspect. I truly feel the colours are a million times better than the D700+D3's we'd had previously.
This is mighty impressive and I've still been tossing images this far gone but maybe I'll have to play!
deepbluejh wrote:
You do realize that an underexposed, then pushed shot will ALWAYS look worse than something natively shot at a higher ISO and exposed correctly - right?
D800 is almost iso less up to 1600iso, the difference between shooting at 1600iso and "expose correctly" or underexpose with 4 stops is small because of the short analog signal way to digitalization ,column wise ADC at the sensor edge and later correction of the digital signal in the raw converter. You can not do the same with a Canon because of longer analog signal path way and amplifier steps
Scott Clark wrote:
Very interesting...the Nikon shot has considerably less contrast than the Canon shot.
On the colors, if you haven't ever used a Colorchecker to make a custom profile for your Canon bodies you might want to give it a try...it made my 1Ds look like an entirely different camera. On a 40D the result was more subtle, but still very noticeable (mostly in the red and blue rendition). Well worth the hundred bucks.
First of all , you can not compare two cameras with out using the same profile, there are different contrast curves
etc etc. Try a Adobe Standard and Camera Neutral you se what I mean.
Regarding colors from Canon or Nikon, the profile decides most of the colors, Canon has a lighter color filter CFA
with little bit different colors and is better suited for lower color temperature 2800K, Nikon has a thicker/ steeper color filter and works better around day light 5500K
There are "more work" for the raw converter to correct the Canons colors in day light and vice versa , more work with Nikons colors and steeper CFA in 2800K
And if you are going to generate a own profile I suggest qp-card www.qpcard.com , easier, faster and better results regarding colors
So, without reading the whole thread (I just went through the first page)...
Things (finally) go into the direction where the photographer is more important than the camera for customer. 5-10 years ago, good equipment was a primary condition to getting decent results. Back then, it was DSLRs vs old film cameras and point&shoots. Amateurs could not get anything near a decent photo (strictly technically speaking) when conditions were poor. Customers wanted nice looking images that were sharp, with good color, without too much noise, etc. These days, with this technology, anybody can get a technically decent image, even if the original exposure was not ok.
I am really hoping that we will get to the point where catching the right moment, with the right composition and framing will mater the most. Where vision will be more important than the technical capabilities of the equipment to produce a nice, sharp and noise-free image.
sboerup wrote:
Not to hijack the thread, but just to post an example of what I found very interesting with the D800. My initial thought of added DR over the 5D3 was shadow/highlight detail. But actually (this might not even be DR), the gradations in skin tones and mid tones is much smoother. I've always battled Canon files because of too much contrast sometimes.
Oh, and 'recovery' in LR actually does something with D800 files, not to mention the amazing shadow detail as posted in the OP.
Mind you the color is very different SOOC, but, they can both be processed similarly for WB and saturation. I have found that the D800 has quite a bit more color depth and breadth vs the 5D3. They look much more "true to scene", and very much like what I expect out of a MFDB.
