Email Iliah Borg. You can find his email at libraw.org or dpreview. I'm no expert in this field, and he can give you any specific testing info you need.
You are the one saying all these things about transparency and metamerism and all that as if they are established facts, and given your own kind reply that you are well versed in everything that is posted (elsewhere) on this topic, prompted me to ask that.
The point is simple. No data to quantify the claims, no basis.
As I have stated many a times, I am no fan of dp revs.
With due respect to this site, I will put an end to my posts related to this topic as it is already way out of topic.
If you prefer the output from a Sony A900, all the more power to you.. . . . added to which, whether the explanation is correct or not, most of us with the A900 have noticed the subtle colour roll-off (and the more obvious noise).
If one prefers the output from Sony A700 over that of a Nikon D300, that is fine as well.
p.s. in regards to this forum, fwiw, I believe that Olympus uses relatively strong color filters, too, but I don't remember for certain.
Following some clarifications as there came up lot of speculations why, when, etc:
1) the only reason I would want to replace my Hasselblad is to get the S2. This one is smaller, better suited for my needs as landscape photographer and I found out myself - which BTW no one was able to tell me - that 40MP are more than sufficient for even 3 x 2 meter size prints. And if you stitch which I do quite often then even better!
I also know from a very good friend who had the H3D50 and then added the S2, that he finally preferred the S2, namely because of the great glass and the IQ results and finally sold off all H gear! Please no discussion which is better H or S, this is not the point, the issue is which one better suits your needs!
2) DSLR - I shot Canon, Sony Olympus and Nikon - currently D700 - because opposed to Jono and some others here I did NOT like the colors coming from the A900 and always had to correct them - obviously opposite to the taste of Jono and the likes who prefer the Sony look. This is fine but it shows we should never draw conclusions from our own preferences to the preferences of others.
I fully agree that the A900 (A850) are the cheapest and highest res FF DSLRs. What I am missing are high speed primes (1.4, 1.2) which seem never to happen - Nikon was very late, but for me they have now a very good lineup.
I also bought into Sony because of the legendary Zeiss glass - do not tell me how good Zeiss glass is (or could be), I shot it on Contax SLR, Hasselblad and Contax 645. Now this humble belief unfortunately screwed me with the Zeiss glass for A900. I was NOT happy (I compared to Nikkor's) as it was not better, sometimes had more flaws than the comparable Nikkor's and the handling of the Sony/Zeiss haptic design is simply not working well for me - say I prefer to touch Nikkor glass. Again my subjective feeling, but this is the way it is.
Now see one difference here - I do not tell Jono that he is wrong that he prefers Sony - I am just stating that I like something else more. For now!
3) E5 and 43. I loved my E1, simply sold it because they took too long for increasing MPs. And yes, I needed more than just 5MP. Then I went back into 43 with the E3, I was really burned with my E3 because I had constant AF problems. And I was the bad guy in these times because I was told nobody else had these problems. Well go onto the Oly forums today and you will find several threads reporting the out of focus AF from E3 in combination with some Zuiko's. This is also the reason why Oly finally introduced AF adjustment in the E30 and now the E5. Surprised? Ask me, I unvoluntarily went through all that stuff.
Now is the E5 good? I think so from what I have seen. Is it good for me? Depends on my preferences and camera setup and if I stay with H or buy S and sell all Nikon and add E5 instead. If the E system works, then I know I can expect fines results.
4) I think that I am even not as bad WRT to being a gear slut as Jono - Jono you are shooting M9, X1, A900, you had E3, M43, Sony NEX, Nikon etc. and now you are playing with Pentax ???? How does that fit into "only 1 or 2 systems forever ..." credo? Be honest it does not!
We are all trying to find the right gear for what we think is right for us. And we are all in different phases of our photographic life. As long as we pay that all from our own money (be it private or professional) this is perfectly ok. Even if we just start buying and selling equipment for simply owning it and playing around this is ok.
But one thing we should try to keep up is dignity. Let other's have fun and think what they think without jumping too much on them. Finally all we discuss here is about equipment which is all perfect, has all its usual flaws and id pretty close if compared. No need to get into religious fights or try to "understand" another person, as most of the decisions and likes here are just personal views of the photographic world and many of us do not even have to make a living form this.
So lets have fun!
And you all could just setup a bet which will be my next system - no one knows, not even myself
Last edited by ptomsu; 22nd November 2010 at 20:06.
Well - I must immediately apologise - I didn't mean to get at you.
In my defence, I've always acknowledged that my feelings about Nikon colour are just that (my feelings).
. . and I NEVER accused you of being a gear slut (how could I).
My quest is (and has been) to find something smaller with decent IQ and AF as a carry about - at least I've fallen for the new Sony sensor, (in K5 D7000 and A55). Now I have to decide between the K5 and A55 (or perhaps it's big brother).
I look forwards to hearing how you get on with an S2 - I'd be going there too, but I certainly can't afford it
Anyway - please accept apologies for 'getting at you' to which I guess I have to plead guilty as charged.
all the best
Just this guy you know
what about the origin of the bayer layer?
Riley, If I am not mistaken, Olympus gets a sensor module from Panasonic.
The question of Bayer color dyes is rather complicated.
There are few claims (claims, let me repeat that) of folks having removed the Bayer dyes from DSLR camera sensors and one (AFAIC) demonstration of that (removal) from a tiny P&S sensor on the web.
Now, I do not have any qualms with people not disclosing the nitty gritty of the Bayer removal as I do very well know how difficult it is. It is also a topic of great interest for a few very technical applications.
Can anyone measure the strength of these dyes and make claims that Olympus (or Panasonic) put dyes with greater or lesser strength? I would say it is not possible. If Douglas or anyone has any information (real information and no conjectures and extrapolations), I would like to know the details and would applaud them for making an impossible possible.
Joseph S Wisniewski was one who wrote a piece on removing bayer layers
the question of dyes arises b/se bayer layers are absorptive filters. It has been widely believed that one of the tricks to high ISO performance and higher resolution is to reduce the dye strength. By example two manufactures exhibit both these facets
"Widely believed"- very apt.
If one would ignore (or assume that they remain constant) what other factors might affect this enhanced sensitivity, this tale takes shape.
Vivek Im well familiar with the capacity to debunk theories, something you havent actually done yet. But you see Joseph state that
If all the pixels were used only to detect light, rather than go
through a CFA filter and Bayer interpolation, wouldn't today's
sensors make higher resolution, sharper sensors? Is there such a
Joseph S. Wisniewski wrote:
Yes, the resolution increases dramatically. A 6mp Nikon D100
converted to monochrome produces more detailed images than a 12mp
in the above dpr thread
With statements like that and the knowledge that bayer layers absorb 2/3 of the light, I think the ramifications for thinner dyes are obvious, while ymmv I think you are the one that would have to prove that
"a Bayer mask absorbs a high proportion (about 2/3) of the light falling on each CCD pixel."
Last edited by Riley; 22nd November 2010 at 23:01. Reason: additions
And I know these are good discussions - at least it make me think twice about jumping into 43 again and for now I will stay out.
So I actually owe you a drink or so
WRT S2 - as I found I cannot sell the Hassi for a reasonable price I will keep it and so have no money for an S2. But it would be my favorite. As long as Sony and Nikon are not out with a higher res DSLR at least.
I am a gear slut and I am proud of it
Riley, You are quoting a piece of a conversation from somewhere in some context and are still saying that ("strength of Bayer dyes") as the cause.
If you only have Bayer dyes and ignore all the rest (I only know a few factors related to hardware and that makes it way too many variables) that makes up a sensor, you are on the right track of reasoning. Unfortunately, that is not the reality. There are many layers of "stuff" on a photo site. They differ from manufacturer to manufacturer and from a model to another.
If in doubt, you can always check with whomever you believe. If I am incorrect, please do point it to me.
This is what I exactly posted earlier #114.
"Fortunately, the only cameras that don't have AA filters are
-Leica rangefinders - where being shot handheld typically gives you enough added blur from camera shake to reduce aliasing
-Medium format cameras - which are typically shot at too small apertures, with no regard for diffraction."
It's good to know for my M8 that the Germans designed the shaking hand into the image quality equation.
As opposed to DSLRs, where we all now the hand-shake is much weaker, so the AA filter must be put in (how about tripod pictures though??).
Thanks for the review Nugat. I really like the way you are trying to get the most from some of the best photo equipment out there. It really helps Olympus users compare to the others.