supra28 wrote:
Good point. Either way, the S5's pictures studio or not, hardly needs post processing on my part.
I agree, that's the point why I'm using old tech cameras novadays. Kodak's slogan for photography was You Press the Button, We Do the Rest. And I genuinely don't understand why out of the sudden most digital camera manufactures decided that every photographer needs to be a color/postprocessing artist too, to achieve a pleasing look in their pictures.
supra28 wrote:
Those pictures from your friends XT4 looks exquisite BTW.
Thanks, I'll tell him your kind words. But they are what they are because of his hard work building custom color profile for his camera. The work that manufacturer of the camera supposed to do. Especially the one with such a heritage in color sciense department as FujiFilm.
Damnit! I just had to pick up another Camera system because of this thread. Couldn't find an Olympus E-1, so settled with an E-500. The Cool Color by Default sensor addiction is real.
Yep, the D200 is the highest end CCD body you will find in a Nikon mount. That was the year their proline switched to CMOS and MOSFET or something like that, based sensors.
Dexter75 wrote:
Not familiar with Nikon at all really. One of the only brand of camera I havent owned. Looking for an older, cheap CCD sensor Nikon DSLR and a Nifty Fifty. Looking at the D3000 and for the lens, I guess its the AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D? Thanks
Actually, if you want the best CCD Image Sensor you can probably buy, it is in the Pentax 645D.
amci4 wrote:
Actually, if you want the best CCD Image Sensor you can probably buy, it is in the Pentax 645D.
That’s one of the 44x33 Kodak CCDs, right? There are bigger versions of that with either 39mp or 50mp in some Hasselblad cameras (H3D-39ii, H4D-50) or Phase One backs (P45+). And then there are also the full size Dalsa sensors like in the P65+, IQ160 etc
The advantage of the Pentax is that lenses are relatively affordable. Hasselblad H is getting a bit better on the used market though.
amci4 wrote:
Yep, the D200 is the highest end CCD body you will find in a Nikon mount. That was the year their proline switched to CMOS and MOSFET or something like that, based sensors.
Recently sold the one that I bought but just grabbed a newly listed one quickly off Ebay for $50. Its got some scuffs and wear but as long as its under 100k on the shutter, I'll be happy. Thats less than I paid for my little Nikon CoolPix P7100 😃
You can get almost identical D200 look in the D700 using Nikon's D2X picture control profiles, which are bundled in Nikon's Picture Control Utility 2. You can transfer the three D2X profiled to a CF card and then load them from the card to your D700. The D700 offers much better low light performance.
atnpro wrote:
You can get almost identical D200 look in the D700 using Nikon's D2X picture control profiles, which are bundled in Nikon's Picture Control Utility 2. You can transfer the three D2X profiled to a CF card and then load them from the card to your D700. The D700 offers much better low light performance.
I had the D700 and sold it, not the same look and that sounds like a hassle really and most the time, picture profiles and LR presets look like a copy of the real thing. Would rather just shoot the D200 😉
Dexter75 wrote:
I had the D700 and sold it, not the same look and that sounds like a hassle really and most the time, picture profiles and LR presets look like a copy of the real thing. Would rather just shoot the D200 😉
I shoot jpeg. To my eyes, the D2X picture control profiles on the D700 produce close enough results. The downside of the D200 is that its max native ISO is rather limited at 1600.
atnpro wrote:
I shoot jpeg. To my eyes, the D2X picture control profiles on the D700 produce close enough results. The downside of the D200 is that its max native ISO is rather limited at 1600.
Ah nice. I shoot JPG as well. I shoot portraits with fast primes and I rarely shoot above ISO 200. Dont think Ive ever shot above ISO 400 in 18 years, so thats never an issue for me.
atnpro wrote:
You can get almost identical D200 look in the D700 using Nikon's D2X picture control profiles, which are bundled in Nikon's Picture Control Utility 2. You can transfer the three D2X profiled to a CF card and then load them from the card to your D700.
D2X picture control profiles aren't even close to real non-picture control profiles output. Not to mention that there are five modes (Mode I/II/III/Ia/IIIa) with several tone compensation and saturation parameters each. And each combination gives different output, suitable for different scenes. Even in theory you can't emulate original non-picture control system with just three profiles. And those D2X profiles in Adobe products are just plain horrible even for cameras that support non-picture control profiles natively.
I have shot some portrait tests using D200, D700 and D750. D200 wins hands down comparing to other two for ease of obtaining pleasing results from RAW files just inside Nikon's own converters. For other two I've tried Nikon Capture NX-D with native and custom picture controls, ACR (with Canon cross-profiles), RawTherapee with quite sophisticated transformations in curves (and curves in RawTherapee are quite sophisticated thing on itself), C1 with native and custom mathlab generated profiles, DxO, RPP and DPI. No matter how hard I tried to replicate the look of D200 output, results weren't even close.
My main point of struggle in picture control cameras was caucasian skin tone, especially in natural light, especially when there are unwanted reflexes, from green foliage, for example. It was easier for me to achieve acceptable results from D750 for other type of scenes, landscapes, for example. That wastly higher DR of D750's sensor was quite handy in such applications. But skintones were always my eternal struggle with D750 files until I eventually sold that camera.
The best results in portrait applications with D750 (applicable to all picture control cameras also) I was able to achieve using cross-profiles from Canon cameras in Adobe products (ACR/LR). They were noticeable better that results from any picture control in Nikon Capture (both custom and standard). Sometimes "Canon 5D M2" PC worked even in Capture NX-D, but those times were quite easy scenes with sudio lighting. I have some files from D750 that weren't published in my Flickrs literally for years because I wasn't been able to get the look I would be satisfied with. And all that time I was constantly making some tweaks in them until eventually got acceptable results or just gave up. That was never an issue with files from D200: Nikon's own converter, maybe some minor tweaks in the same program or ACR and that's it. And I own D200 for 12 years already and D750 was in active duty for about a year, than another year as a secondary camera to Canon 5D Mark II and then I gave up and sold it.
Well, CCD has the same issue as actual film: its getting harder and harder to get.
Fortunately Nikon has made some amazing CMOS DSLRs which also have very filmic output: the D700, D4, D4s and Df. They are not yet in the "getting hard to get" category, though the D700 is starting to get there.
Sauseschritt wrote:
Well, CCD has the same issue as actual film: its getting harder and harder to get.
Well, at least for me there is no problem for getting either for now. Last year I've bought Nikon D40 in mint condition with around 11k clicks, and just got Nikon D80 in mint condition with 9k clicks last month as an addition to my small collection of Nikon's cameras. Next target is D2x/D2xs. And my current favorite films, Kodak Ektar and Kodak Portra, are usually in stock in Poland
Sauseschritt wrote:
Fortunately Nikon has made some amazing CMOS DSLRs which also have very filmic output: the D700, D4, D4s and Df. They are not yet in the "getting hard to get" category, though the D700 is starting to get there.
Nikon Df is probably the only "picture control" Nikon camera I plan to eventually get. I just love it's retro exterior, small footprint as for FF DSLR and it's sensor's low light abilities. But I'm preparing for quite a lot of work getting pleasing colors out of it. Just number of tools to create good custom profile for it can set me back for around 2/3 of Df's current price on used market:
1. Color Checker SG - 400EUR
2. Lumariver Profile Designer Repro Edition - 223 EUR
3. 3D LUT Creator Professional Edition - 300 EUR
923 EUR total.
And who knows what tools will be required along the way. And on top of that a lot of time dedicated to learn how to do and actualy craft my own custom profile for Df. The work that manufacturer should have done, not me. And I'm not sure that even such an investment will get me results from Df that are comparable to ones that could be obtained right from the Nikon Studio with D200 RAW files.
I haven't been able to achieve results from my D750 that gave me "WOW" impression whole time I owned it. It just wasn't been able to produce "dense" colors without being "acidic" (don't know how to describe this correctly in English, hope you know what I mean ). The baseline colors are so muted comparing to colors from D200 that cranking up contrast was never enough if I sometimes needed to get the saturation levels I wanted to make the particular image POP. But then cranking up saturation itself quickly leads to those infamous "acidic" colors.
Are this because of less discriminating CFA or different profile system or both, I don't know. First step in my plan to find out the answer to that question is to get D2x and compare it's output to D200. If they match, then next step will be all that hastle with Df and custom profiling. If not, than I'll give up on CMOS and just continue to use CCD cameras and film. I rarely shoot with not enough light, so usually I'm fine with ISO400 and below. And for that both D200 and film are just fine tools.
Below a recent example of what I mean by "POP" and "WOW". I know, all have different taste, but for me that image gave me that "WOW" I haven't been able to get from D750 no matter how hard I tried. But that struggle with D750 gave me a lot of knowledge in post processing, color correction, devices calibration, camera profiling, theory of color etc. So files from D200 benefitted from that knowledge also and I'm greateful to D750 for that .
Nikon D200 + AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G @ ƒ/2.0, 1/3200, ISO100 (Nikon Studio + PS) D200_012511_NST_PS by Yarilo, on Flickr
YariloUA wrote:
D2X picture control profiles aren't even close to real non-picture control profiles output. Not to mention that there are five modes (Mode I/II/III/Ia/IIIa) with several tone compensation and saturation parameters each.
Nikon made only three D2X picture control profiles for the D700, which you were able to download from them in the past. Now they're available in the NX Studio.
The D2XI gives very pleasant skin tones, and the D2XII is kind of Neutral profile whereas the D2XIII is Vivid.
As a jpeg shooter, I have never used raw converters you mentioned. One thing, to me, is that the D700 has the best color rendition among all Nikon CMOS DSLRs.
And that one was made long time ago with Nikon D50. I had ZERO knowledge in post processing and color correction back then. I already had IPS monitor, but it hasn't been calibrated (and my current monitors are, I own X-Rite i1 Display Pro colorimeter now). But manufacturer cared about the output back then and all I needed to do to get pleasing results were just some minor tweaks. The colors were already there right from the start. Skin blur on that one is too aggressive, I would have done it more delicately novadays, but nevertheless I like that one. And that skintone is something I never was able to get from D750. It was sand-like at best or with orange, brown and yellowish casts. More so, palms sometimes were having pink color (with face having sand-like face color at the same WB settings) that I was forced to correct locally. The issue I yet to face with my D200.
Nikon D50 + AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 @ ƒ/2.8, 1/800, ISO200 (Capture NX2 + Nik Color Efex plugin) D050_010951_CNX by Yarilo, on Flickr
