One of the major problem when comparing lens or digital sensor is the control factor. I have thought about this problem for months now even before the M8 came out. I have came up with the solution but still need sometimes to get the adapter be made.
From my own pass experiences, I have done tests for lots of lens. I even took the time to graph the resolution charts for the lens. Even as much as I have done to demonstrate the resolving power of the Zeiss lens superior to the Canon lens, they want me to proove the image in real life. Of course Lesong would provided them with some images taken somewhere and immediately they make their conclusions on the test and its significant. The problem is that they do not understand the fact that you cannot judge an image from another photographer since he is adapting some adapter that is too thick to bring out the optimal performance of the Zeiss lens as I prooved in my study of adapter thickness and its siginificant to lens performance . One of the person even disk the information and the Zeiss lens and only finding himself reacquiring the Distagon 21 mm F2.8. The point of my story here is that folks are lack of understanding the proper methodlogy to carry out the proper comparision. Even those that understood what needs to be done still cannot carry it out properly due to the lack of tools to do so. Thus, doing these comparison take alot of efforts and resources to do so and I can understand why lots of folks cannot achieve the comparision as they desire. Guy Mancuso is no exception here in that he does not have the extra cash flow to carry an experiment that you request that may not be in his area of work and explained the lack of tool.
The irony of the whole story based on my own experiences and those that are shared by Guy is that the more you do the more you come closer to the crucifix. Despite these negativity and unreasonable demands I still believe in the timeline only the truth come out and your study and report are valuable to those that appreciate the informations and even to those that crucify you as well. Thus, my highest hope for this community is to keep the spirit in a positive note and it is the good conradeship spirit of sharing and helping each other will determined our humanity.
-Son
Edited by Pham Minh Son on Dec 13, 2006 at 03:15 PM GMT
carstenw wrote:
Pondria, if you want to spend more time with your raw converter than with your lenses, you are absolutely right. Personally, I love taking pictures, and I merely tolerate processing, for the most part. Therefore, spending more money on getting the right picture in the camera makes total sense for me.
Yes, I agree. That's what everyone should do.
My point was merely that RAW converters have so much leverage that it doesn't make much sense to emphasize the subtle color differences that certain lens+body make.
I have no idea what color you would be looking at from my RAW file once it has gone through your RAW converter with your setting and displayed on your monitor. I can only hope that the picture somehow carries the message that I intended to capture and convey to the viewers.
While RAW convertors can make big ( or small ) changes to contrast, colour etc what they can't do is create the subtle and important tonal and colour variations that go in to making something like skin look realistic or sky at dusk look convincing. This has to come from the sensor and I have no doubt that the M8 and DMR blow the doors off any other DSLR in this area. If you are looking for a capture device to convincingly represent fine detail on big prints then these cameras - M8/DMR/5D/1DS2 are all equaly inferior when compared to large format film and high mp MF digital - you don't need tests to prove that - or maybe someone would like to show us the difference between 10mp and 39mp?
shirozina wrote:
While RAW convertors can make big ( or small ) changes to contrast, colour etc what they can't do is create the subtle and important tonal and colour variations that go in to making something like skin look realistic or sky at dusk look convincing
I did aknowledge that lens makes color difference. My only point was about the scale of the magnitude. Raw converters have much larger impact. The knobs and bottons that we have on the RAW converters are infinitely more powerful than what the lens does in subtle way.
Yes, yes, I agree that we don't need any proof on this either way .
carstenw wrote:
So far my 5D does better skin tones than the M8. I don't expect this situation to last, but it does remain to be seen.
I'm not picking on what you said. However, it's not 5D that creates the skin tone. It's your raw converter setting.
With some calibration, I made my ACR create accurate colors for MY 1DsII. If you use ACR, take photos of the MacBeth chart and email it to me. I'll do the calbration for your M8. I already have the s/w setup, so it doesn't take long for me to do the calibration.
My offer extends to anyone. Send me the MacBeth chart raw file. I'll run the calibration and email you back the ACR XMP file. Just simple instruction - make it well evenly lit without localized glare. And have the chart in the middle cell, when you divide the whole frame into 3x3, 9 cells.
But a RAW convertor can't generate subtle differences of colour if the camera blends them into one colour during capture - rubbish in is rubbish out. Just like a graphic equalizer or tone controls on a hi-fi amplifier or mixing desk can't seperate out musical detail if it's been badly recorded. I've run various camera calibration software aplications on the 5D/1Ds2 using a Gretag macbeth colour chart and although it can correct the rendering of some of the stronger colours it doesn't do much for skin tone in my experience. The best skin tone I get on Canon DSLR's is using the latest version of DPP or adding +25 to both the saturation and hue red sliders in ACR. M8 and DMR files I have opened seem to get skin to just look right.
While not my first choice for this type of shot, the M8 does do a credible job. Tough to focus in low light (this was shot at dusk) resulting in far more images trashed than kept.
Pondria wrote:
So, I keep hearing the feedback that it's easier to hand-hold an RF than an SLR. Do you guys actually feel it ? Is it because the Mirror vibration ?
Pondria - I was very surprised how I could get sharp hand-held images from the M8 at shutter speeds of 1/15 or 1/25. I kept commenting on it to the guys - it was surreal to me. I don't know what it is - no mirror, weight and grip of the body, how it fits in the hand and rests against your head when shooting, etc. Whatever it is, it works.
Even if they are pelicans.
.
