p.3 #1 · Old Digic colors. Sensor or profiles? Or both
garyvot wrote:
OMG, yes! I think I might still have PTSD from my 50D.
Edit: I just realized I have probably made way too many comments on this thread, haha.
I have heard about the 50D and the IQ. From what I can see on flickr it seems to be doing very good from a color perspective but I guess it's more noise related. There seems to be quite a push in the blue channel so that might be one of the reasons, who knows. But with todays noise reduction and AI perhaps it might be worth checking out again. The 50D is not more expensive than a lunch these days (or soon a gallon of gas).
Then, after the honeymoon, it would probably end up in my big box of many old cameras :-)
p.3 #2 · Old Digic colors. Sensor or profiles? Or both
FWIW I noticed back in the day a difference between the 1D II and the 1D III I upgraded to. Despite the exact same profiles in DPP, files from the 1D2 felt like they had more latitude for processing and files from the 1D3 felt more pre-cooked.
No, this isn't something I could just pull out one example of. It's the impression I got after running thousands of photos.
p.3 #3 · Old Digic colors. Sensor or profiles? Or both
boldcolors wrote:
But with todays noise reduction and AI perhaps it might be worth checking out again.
I haven't looked at any files for a long while, but my recollection is similar to Peter's: the noise signature was very rough and un-filmlike. But you are probably right that AI noise reduction would do wonders.
I'd be more inclined to pick up a 60D if you are looking at that vintage. Probably won't be much more price wise.
On a positive note, the 50D was the first xxD camera body to get autofocus microadjust, which was a significant benefit over the (otherwise excellent) 40D.
p.3 #4 · Old Digic colors. Sensor or profiles? Or both
garyvot wrote:
I haven't looked at any files for a long while, but my recollection is similar to Peter's: the noise signature was very rough and un-filmlike. But you are probably right that AI noise reduction would do wonders.
I'd be more inclined to pick up a 60D if you are looking at that vintage. Probably won't be much more price wise.
On a positive note, the 50D was the first xxD camera body to get autofocus microadjust, which was a significant benefit over the (otherwise excellent) 40D.
I actually have the 60D. It's in my old school collection: 30D, 40D, 60D and EOS 5D "Classic". All of them render colors in a much nicer way compared to my modern R cameras. Or at least...they have "nicer" profiles in ACR but I think there is slightly more to it than just that.
p.3 #5 · Old Digic colors. Sensor or profiles? Or both
boldcolors wrote:
All of them render colors in a much nicer way compared to my modern R cameras. Or at least...they have "nicer" profiles in ACR but I think there is slightly more to it than just that.
Yes, there was a recent discussion of this on another thread.
I think if you were to open the files in Digital Photo Professional and normalize the settings across them, you will find that they render very similarly.
Also, using Adobe's "Camera Standard" profile in Lightroom or ACR will also provide much closer matches between cameras of different generations.
For whatever reason, there are wide variances using "Adobe Standard" and "Adobe Color", but I don't think that accurately reflects the sensor characteristics.
p.3 #7 · Old Digic colors. Sensor or profiles? Or both
artsupreme wrote:
Thanks. Very interesting. For sure Canon did change their colors, it is not just the RAW processor and/or profiles. And I prefer the 5DII colors in every single image. The R6 III is too yellow. The 5D2 is also warm but in a more pleasing, natural way. According to my taste at least.
p.3 #8 · Old Digic colors. Sensor or profiles? Or both
It would be interesting to try the Cobalt Images ‘Canon Vintage’ color profiles for Lightroom or capture one and see how closely one could get an R5/R6 to match the old 5D/1DsIII/5DII/1DIV colors. I might have to shell out for it.
p.3 #9 · Old Digic colors. Sensor or profiles? Or both
Did a quick experiment to see what results I would get if I edited both a 5D mark II and an R6 mark II independently of each other, both using the same EF 35mm f1.4 L lens, and I’m happy to say I prefer the results of the R6II in this case. 5DII edited in DPP, R6II edited in lightroom, both using landscape camera profiles. Files resized in Adobe express to fit the 1.4mb site limit.
p.3 #10 · Old Digic colors. Sensor or profiles? Or both
If all the settings were the same besides the aperture, I see more noise in the R6II. I prefer the 5DII images for the color & smoother background. YMMV
Jim
p.3 #12 · Old Digic colors. Sensor or profiles? Or both
FramesPerSecond wrote:
I added grain on the R6II photos but not the 5DII 🤦♂️
You should repost with the same grain treatment (or lack thereof) for both cameras; otherwise, it's not a camera-to-camera comparison; it's something else.
p.3 #13 · Old Digic colors. Sensor or profiles? Or both
I don't have any comparisons, but lately I've been editing lots of old RAW images from my 10D (2003) through 5D MK II (2008). Color is similar to my newer R series cameras but with less dynamic range and more noise. Deep shadows are the only area where color is noticeably worse in these old cameras (strong color shift). The 5D MK II files look as good as R6 MK II RAW if you go light on shadow lifts. If shadows are lifted more than a stop, besides color shift, 5D MK II RAW exhibits a grid-like noise pattern.
5D MK II and EF 24-105 4L IS USM | MacKerricher Park CA (2011)
10D and EF 24-85 3.5-4.5 USM | Fort Worden Park WA (2004)
p.3 #14 · Old Digic colors. Sensor or profiles? Or both
boldcolors wrote:
Thanks. Very interesting. For sure Canon did change their colors, it is not just the RAW processor and/or profiles. And I prefer the 5DII colors in every single image. The R6 III is too yellow. The 5D2 is also warm but in a more pleasing, natural way. According to my taste at least.
It's true the SOOC JPEGs from the R6 III trend a bit more yellow in some scenes, but they also have more dynamic range and more shadow and highlight detail. It's not a slam dunk for the older camera, to me.
It's also worth pointing out that Canon has offered a Picture Style editor tool for years that lets you fine tune the color response to your liking, if shooting JPEGs is important. So, you could dial in your SOOC color to your preference.
In terms of the RAW comparisons, I think this video makes it clear that Lightroom's 'Camera Standard' profile is the worst match for the default Canon look of any of the other RAW tools, at least for the R6 III. DPP, Capture One, and DXO all rendered the R6 Mark III images more true to the look of the SOOC JPEG.
However, it is also possible to fine tune the color response of the Camera Standard profile in ACR and then save that as a preset. I have done exactly this in the past with certain cameras when I felt the Adobe look was off.
So there again, you mitigate most of the differences in RAW processing if you need to.
p.3 #15 · Old Digic colors. Sensor or profiles? Or both
Maybe I'm the odd one out here, but when I look at my old 8 and 10MP images, i just see a lot of bad white balance, noisy ISO 800+ and blown highlights. Was able to work around it and get a lot of good shots, but to say they look better than the stuff from the new cameras is crazy talk to me.
If I had to guess, I bet it's mostly down to comparing shots with perfect light from 20 years ago vs boring test images from today.
