Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       end
  

Archive 2015 · Cameras with special rendering

  
 
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #1 · p.4 #1 · Cameras with special rendering


Mescalamba wrote:
Its on sensor chip squeezes 14-bits from sensor to 12-bit output. Left side of histogram isnt too happy about it sometimes (and due non-negotiable NR you can get bit of color splotches now and then). CFA in that camera is amazing (one of best, if not best), but rest had tiny issues. Not that any camera is perfect.. there isnt "the perfect one".

If someone nailed exposure, didnt do funny things in post-processing, didnt need perfect per-pixel detail (actually few people removed AA from A900) and had no need for LV, it was as good as it gets.

I would take that
...Show more

I never experienced any issue at all with color splotches or NR with the a900 (shot at ISO 160. Maybe at higher ISO's...). Some of the cleanest color I have seen short of MF. The 14bit vs 12bit was brought up many, many times over the years. I don't know where those threads are now but the conclusions reached at the time were that anything above 12 bits does not matter.

"Curiously, most 14-bit cameras on the market (as of this writing) do not merit 14-bit recording. The noise is more than four levels in 14-bit units on the Nikon D3/D300, Canon 1D3/1Ds3 and 40D. The additional two bits are randomly fluctuating, since the levels are randomly fluctuating by +/- four levels or more. Twelve bits are perfectly adequate to record the image data without any loss of image quality, for any of these cameras (though the D3 comes quite close to warranting a 13th bit)."

From here:
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html#bitdepth



May 12, 2015 at 06:28 PM
eSchwab
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #2 · p.4 #2 · Cameras with special rendering


The Canon 1DS and the Nikon D200 had the best color rendering. Those cameras nailed it. Of course they also had poor high ISO.


May 12, 2015 at 06:38 PM
GRM
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #3 · p.4 #3 · Cameras with special rendering


Sigma DP2
Leica XV
Ricoh GR, for B&W. Actually, the best black and white output I've ever seen from a digital camera.



May 12, 2015 at 06:51 PM
freaklikeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #4 · p.4 #4 · Cameras with special rendering


Mescalamba wrote:
Its on sensor chip squeezes 14-bits from sensor to 12-bit output. Left side of histogram isnt too happy about it sometimes (and due non-negotiable NR you can get bit of color splotches now and then). CFA in that camera is amazing (one of best, if not best), but rest had tiny issues. Not that any camera is perfect.. there isnt "the perfect one".

If someone nailed exposure, didnt do funny things in post-processing, didnt need perfect per-pixel detail (actually few people removed AA from A900) and had no need for LV, it was as good as it gets.


From ISO 100-400, I agree. Beyond that, things changed dramatically. Of course, that's true for many of the cameras mentioned in this thread.

Mescalamba wrote:
I would take that 1Ds MK3 tho..


I went the other way and sold my DsIII for an a900, a decision I never regretted. But I wouldn't want to go back to either of them. The 645D isn't so much bigger than the DsIII, no AA, much more resolution, better OOC color than either, and a noise profile at ISO 800 that's better than Sony's and lacks the Canon's banding. It's also got a better OVF, in my opinion. I don't own any of them anymore, but if I had to choose one to go back to, I'd go with the Pentax all the way.



May 12, 2015 at 06:59 PM
michael49
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #5 · p.4 #5 · Cameras with special rendering


I find it interesting that this topic has come up here as I recently purchased a Canon 1D mark II to shoot action. I mostly shoot with a Sony A7 but I was looking for something with better AF and fps and couldn't pass up a 1d II for a little over $300 on the B/S here.

The 1D mark II AF and fps is amazing, but the color difference compared with the A7 surprised me. The A7 files are more punchy, vibrant and contrasty, whereas the 1D II files are a generally more subdued, warmer and.....dare I say.... at times feel a bit more "natural".




For example.....

A7.....
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/Other/2015/i-qHFdbV6/0/XL/DSC09063-100-XL.jpg


1D mark II...
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/Other/2015/i-4Dwv286/0/XL/HL0V3547-101-XL.jpg



May 12, 2015 at 07:08 PM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #6 · p.4 #6 · Cameras with special rendering


Tariq Gibran wrote:
I never experienced any issue at all with color splotches or NR with the a900 (shot at ISO 160. Maybe at higher ISO's...). Some of the cleanest color I have seen short of MF. The 14bit vs 12bit was brought up many, many times over the years. I don't know where those threads are now but the conclusions reached at the time were that anything above 12 bits does not matter.

"Curiously, most 14-bit cameras on the market (as of this writing) do not merit 14-bit recording. The noise is more than four levels in 14-bit units on the Nikon
...Show more

The A900 shadow thing was talked about a lot when it was new. I think I even posted comparisons between ISO 200 and 320, at one point several years ago. To quote the author of RawPhotoProcessor, Andrey:

"Regarding ISO 320 - just make a shot at ISO 200 and 320 with good colored shadow details and process them identically in IDC f.e. Shadows will be different and at ISO below 320 they can get weird tint like greenish or purplish and also they'll get clipped."

Ultimately, with ISO 320, you trade a little bit more noise in the shadows to alleviate the odd color issues.




May 13, 2015 at 01:22 AM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #7 · p.4 #7 · Cameras with special rendering


douglasf13 wrote:
The A900 shadow thing was talked about a lot when it was new. I think I even posted comparisons between ISO 200 and 320, at one point several years ago. To quote the author of RawPhotoProcessor, Andrey:

"Regarding ISO 320 - just make a shot at ISO 200 and 320 with good colored shadow details and process them identically in IDC f.e. Shadows will be different and at ISO below 320 they can get weird tint like greenish or purplish and also they'll get clipped."

Ultimately, with ISO 320, you trade a little bit more noise in the shadows
...Show more

I just never saw at at ISO 160 using ACR (if I remember correctly). That's the ISO I found to be the cleanest after testing for myself, though I remember the debate where many said 320 was the best.

Here was our discussion about this a while back with input by theSuede (you, me, Edward, Phillip, etc.), which was a "re-hash" itself of the subject.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1077866/0




May 13, 2015 at 05:42 AM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #8 · p.4 #8 · Cameras with special rendering


Tariq Gibran wrote:
I just never saw at at ISO 160 using ACR (if I remember correctly). That's the ISO I found to be the cleanest after testing for myself, though I remember the debate where many said 320 was the best.

Here was our discussion about this a while back with input by theSuede (you, me, Edward, Phillip, etc.), which was a "re-hash" itself of the subject.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1077866/0



Yeah, I remember that thread. I wish I still had the comparison images that I did between ISO 200 and 320 that I did in 2009 and posted on get dpi. I also think Andrey posted some pics, and it show that, while the lower ISOs had more DR, technically, there were weird color shifts in shadows below ISO 320, so, depending on how you plan on adjusting your raw file, ISO 320 may be the better option. You gain a little noise in the shadows, but loose the color weirdness. Both guys who built RPP used to talk about it a lot.

No bother. I don't have the camera any more, so it's all good, either way, and I really liked that camera. It's probably still the camera I'd buy, if I went back to DSLR.



May 15, 2015 at 12:11 PM
peterv
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #9 · p.4 #9 · Cameras with special rendering


Hi Douglas, I remember those discussions on GetDPI quite well. I enjoyed shooting the A900 with Zeiss glass a lot. I also liked the files I got out of my M8 with Leica pre-ASPH lenses. Nowadays, it's just me and my S2-P with the S 24, 70 and 120mm with which I do my serious work and I'm very content with the results I get. I feel that I could work with this 2009-tech S2-P at least another five years without thinking my images are not up to modern quality standards.


May 16, 2015 at 05:32 AM
Oberheim
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #10 · p.4 #10 · Cameras with special rendering


Canon 1DS and Ricoh GR


May 16, 2015 at 05:24 PM
1       2       3      
4
       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.