The photosites with low sensitivity in a super CCD sensor extend the highlight range with a considerable amount, I don't know exactly how much. To capture the same DR with a conventional CMOS sensor, you will need to underexpose quite a bit. With respect to noise, that is effectively increasing the ISO, in addition to getting amp/conversion noise in the shadows. I guess this is what makes it difficult to get the same look. Other than that, the tone curve from one camera could be mapped similar to another. There could also be some smart algorithms in the Fuji cameras adjusting local contrast around highlights.
This example illustrates nicely that dynamic range matters in digital imaging. Usually, when some of us complain about limited dynamic range, we are met with reactions that we must learn to expose properly, or accept that the shadows map to black etc.
wickerprints said: "The whole feminist theory of phallic symbolism really has more to do with the propensity of males to use various proxies to compare themselves against other men because human males in modern society generally don't walk around with their manhood on full display. Their sexual fitness, therefore, is to be judged on the basis of substitute symbols, be it an expensive camera lens or a sports car. It is an economic and sociological expression of the evolutionary biology of sexual dimorphism."
You can speak for yourself but some of us can't help but be on full display, clothed for winter or summer. Saves money on sports cars, for sure, but I need long lenses to make pitchers of far away thingies.....
I like how GDanMitchell follows your post, wickerprint, with his comparison of bananas and oranges, don't you? I'm almost certain that without your prior imagery he'd been likely to compare apples and oranges as is the custom in such statements.
See what you've done? You've taken us off topic again.
n0b0 wrote:
Don't you guys have anything better to do? Like watching the World Cup or something?
Please don't worry. I use tabs, and one of my six tabs is FM. So while it may look like I'm always here it also looks like I'm always in five other sites even while the truth might be that I'm actually in a hospital 30 miles away having a catscan of my brain taken. OK?
I'm not worried at all. I just think there's too much talk and not enough substance in this thread. How about a little less talk and a bit more comparison photos aye?
n0b0 wrote:
I'm not worried at all. I just think there's too much talk and not enough substance in this thread. How about a little less talk and a bit more comparison photos aye?
+1
I'd really like to see posters website links, and also a summary of their real experience with a particular camera's files to give some weight to their opinions.
I'd really like to see posters website links, and also a summary of their real experience with a particular camera's files to give some weight to their opinions.
n0b0 wrote:
I'm not worried at all. I just think there's too much talk and not enough substance in this thread. How about a little less talk and a bit more comparison photos aye?
It may just have to get filed under "faith". I know I see a difference but in fact I'm too busy shooting to piddle around with some contrived setup. I do confess that for most things I am finding the MkII to be an eminently capable camera with better than average highlight range. I shot an abstract yesterday two industrial sized aluminum ventilators on a tin roof against a bright Texas sky with the rusty side of the building in shade. The ventilators had a reflection strip that was 2 stops over. Without using recovery (which I use sparingly or not at all) I was able to dodge the "blown" highlight down with full detail - absolutely no clipping! And I was able to bring up the side of the building with no noise. Wow. Astonishing performance, great megapixel count, all around fantastic camera. I don't even necessarily prefer the look of my 5D MkI - but it is in fact different and quite beautiful. I will say that I notice it with a nice bokeh - a certain "creaminess" that is above and beyond the lens used. Perhaps someday if I ever get bored I will setup a "test".
As mentioned, hundreds of thousands on the 5D (I've owned 3) and 75k-100k on the 5DII (owned 2)
Quit trying to advertise your website already!! There is absolutely nothing from there to show the difference between 5D and 5D2, as you said you are a pro shooting thousands of frames a week, then you sure could have simply pick one sample from 5D2, and another from 5D to show us the difference, instead of beating around the bush and trying to lure people into visiting your website/business.
yauyi wrote:
Quit trying to advertise your website already!! There is absolutely nothing from there to show the difference between 5D and 5D2, as you said you are a pro shooting thousands of frames a week, then you sure could have simply pick one sample from 5D2, and another from 5D to show us the difference, instead of beating around the bush and trying to lure people into visiting your website/business.
Uh huh, The Canon forums is how I draw in wedding clients hand over fist. With FM, who even needs an advertising budget?
Don't be ridiculous and confrontational. I answered his specific question.
jeremy_clay wrote:
Uh huh, The Canon forums is how I draw in wedding clients hand over fist. With FM, who even needs an advertising budget?
Don't be ridiculous and confrontational. I answered his specific question.
Nobody is going to dispute your shooting techniques or post processing skill, but MOST(the key word here) of those photos from your gallery could have been done with a Rebel. Showing off your work is one thing, but it's a far stretch to claim how the 5D look more "organic" than 5D2...
michael49 wrote:
OK, now 7 pages and still no side by side photographic comparison.
And saying that I will see it in print, but not on my monitor, is a load of BS in my opinion.
Exactly, I guess it's safe to summarize this "Organic" BS is just a load of nonsense, it simply can not be seen nor can it be quantify or measurable like ISO noise or Dynamic range. It's a Magic that can only be realize by a few chosen and gifted Professionals who shot hundred of thousands of frames between the two cameras. Unfortunately Non-professional like you and I will never have a chance to appreciate those kind of out-of-body experience....
yauyi wrote:
Nobody is going to dispute your shooting techniques or post processing skill, but MOST(the key word here) of those photos from your gallery could have been done with a Rebel. Showing off your work is one thing, but it's a far stretch to claim how the 5D look more "organic" than 5D2...
Exactly, I guess it's safe to summarize this "Organic" BS is just a load of nonsense, it simply can not be seen nor can it be quantify or measurable like ISO noise or Dynamic range. It's a Magic that can only be realize by a few chosen and gifted Professionals who shot hundred of thousands of frames between the two cameras. Unfortunately Non-professional like you and I will never have a chance to appreciate those kind of out-of-body experience.... ...Show more →
Jeez you wake up and hit the a**hole button by mistake?
BubbaJon wrote:
Jeez you wake up and hit the a**hole button by mistake?
nah, just glad i "woke up", almost got duped into believing the organic nonsense is all.
jeremy_clay wrote:
+1 to the above, why did you even bother to ask if your mind was already made up?
Actually you helped made up my mind this morning, when this thread hit page 7 and non of you professional have anything to backup your claim, except a failed attempt to keep redirecting us to your website so you can show off your shooting technique and post processing skill, this is when I realize the 5D being more organic is a bogus claim.
honestly, even though this thread has gotten a little funny, it is way more interesting than another "WOW, just got my 35L/85L/135L and am totally blown away!" or "Is this lens front focusing" thread.
n0b0 wrote:
I'm not worried at all. I just think there's too much talk and not enough substance in this thread. How about a little less talk and a bit more comparison photos aye?
yauyi wrote:
nah, just glad i "woke up", almost got dupe into believing the organic nonsense is all.
Actually you helped made up my mind this morning, when this thread hit page 7 and non of you professional have anything to backup your claim, except a failed attempt to keep redirecting us to your website so you can show off your shooting technique and post processing skill, this is when I realize the 5D being more organic is a bogus claim.
You're right. The professionals seeing the difference are crazy, HATE to see people upgrade their cams and are using the topic as a redirect smokescreen for other FMers to view their work. THAT, sir, is our (or at least my) true goal - finally, someone who sees through this charade! Now that you have undone my diabolical plan, run - not walk - to your nearest Canon dealer for the 5DII you were almost deceived out of purchasing!
Jeremy, if you see a difference post-processing 5D and 5DII files I completely believe you. Can't imagine you having a reason to lie about it. I haven't seen it myself but haven't worked as intensively with both cameras at the same time (for instance, shooting both during the same wedding) as you have. Whether the 5D is more "organic" or "film-like" is up for debate, both being digital, but I think you only stated that there were differences between the two? Lovely website by the way, wonderful images.
Oh and a hearty +1 to what Jon said. Alas, threads like these are wonderful for updating the "hide me" list when people start to get abusive
Most professionals don't care about subtle imaging properties, they don't have time to get attached to any of their images, they just have to keep shooting and keep the money rolling in...
Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist for someone else, so calling it BS is just rude. I don't beleive in God, but I don't go around starting arguments about it with those that do... I just step away when the subject comes up... maybe you should do the same...
>>Exactly, I guess it's safe to summarize this "Organic" BS is just a load of nonsense, it simply can not be seen nor can it be quantify or measurable like ISO noise or Dynamic range. It's a Magic that can only be realize by a few chosen and gifted Professionals who shot hundred of thousands of frames between the two cameras. Unfortunately Non-professional like you and I will never have a chance to appreciate those kind of out-of-body experience....
Saves money on sports cars, for sure, but I need long lenses to make pitchers of far away thingies.....
I know I see a difference but in fact I'm too busy shooting to piddle around with some contrived setup. I do confess that for most things I am finding the MkII to be an eminently capable camera with better than average highlight range. I shot an abstract yesterday two industrial sized aluminum ventilators on a tin roof against a bright Texas sky with the rusty side of the building in shade. The ventilators had a reflection strip that was 2 stops over. Without using recovery (which I use sparingly or not at all) I was able to dodge the "blown" highlight down with full detail - absolutely no clipping! And I was able to bring up the side of the building with no noise. Wow. Astonishing performance, great megapixel count, all around fantastic camera. I don't even necessarily prefer the look of my 5D MkI - but it is in fact different and quite beautiful. I will say that I notice it with a nice bokeh - a certain "creaminess" that is above and beyond the lens used. Perhaps someday if I ever get bored I will setup a "test". 
