carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.42 #17 · Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread | |
denoir wrote:
Hehe, nice try Joe but DR is one of the things that rules out the M9 for me. It has 7 stops of usable dynamic range while my 5DII has 9 stops.
The 5D2 may have 9 stops of useful information in a test (or several), but using it (I have one on loan right now), I find that the highlights burn out quickly, and the shadows are prone to noise, not to mention the low-ISO banding so often mentioned, the latter of which I admit I haven't seen personally, but it has been well documented. The highlights burning out quickly is something I am really struggling with. I see it in many shots which I would normally have exposed well. I started by exposing as metered. After a day, I moved to -1/3. Now I am using -2/3 and I still see it often. None of these are issues with my D3 or M8.2. There is some kind of discontinuity between what we can measure and what we perceive (and feel).
I also don't like the reds produced by the 5D2. I took a carefully exposed shot of my daughter's brand-new fire-engine-red pushbike (Laufrad), and the red came out somehow luminous, more orange or perhaps pink somehow, and too bright. I find that reds burn out very quickly with the 5D2, and it was the same with the 5D that I used to own. My D3 tends to have flat greens if I am not careful, but I think I am more emotional about reds, so I prefer the D3. If the 5D2 really had 9 stops of pleasant-looking information, I could just underexpose everything and get my highlights and reds back, but then the noise comes into the shadows, so something doesn't compute.
The skintones on the 5D2 look really good, on the other hand. I am not sure if it is related to the exaggerated reds, but I find it easier to get nice skin tones with the 5D2 than with the D3. Ultimately I am not unhappy with the D3 in this aspect, but clearly there is some room for improvement there.
Another point: the 5D2 has much more resolution, I can see it in every shot, and it has been measured in tests. Still, when I look at the pixel level (verboten, I know), I see something which I don't like. There is a fakeness there, a kind of aquarel feel to the rendering, an overly processed look. The pixels don't feel real. When I zoom in on the D3, and especially on the M8.2, I feel more of a positive connection with what I see. There are less pixels, but somehow they are more direct and not so vaguely representing the world. This is also something I have seen with my old 5D, and didn't really like.
I cannot properly justify any of this, so don't get upset if you don't see it or agree, just my opinion.
One day when the prices come down a bit (after the D4x is released?), I will pick up a D3x to complement my D3, and I think at that point, I will be done with camera purchases for quite some time. I am already very happy with the D3 and M8.2, the only missing aspect being greater resolution, and perhaps more dynamic range.
|
