Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

[tashley]

Please, before you shoot, note the use of the word unscientific in the title

I had a spare ten minutes. I banged the Sigma 35mm F1.4 ART lens (my fourth and best copy, known by me to be talented by difficult) on a D800E. I packed the RX-1, and I used an M240 with 35 Lux FLE which lens then got put onto an A7R with a Novoflex adaptor.

I set each camera to ISO 200 (the lowest common denominator) and, having shot a couple of tests, settled on Manual mode with 1/800th (1/750th for the M240, which doesn't have a 1/800th setting) and aperture at F5.6

I then imported each RAW file into LR RC5.3 and set WB to Daylight, profile to Adobe Standard and sharpening to 60/0.7/70/20. I then exported each file to Zenfolio at 92% quality 100% size JPEG.

The results raise more questions than any answers provided but are at least of cursory interest. Please excuse the dark patch bottom right of the A7R file: I think the strap might have blown over it and it is too late to re-shoot.

I have my own thoughts. What do others think, if interested?

BTW please note that the files look differently bright, due to some differences in T stop versus F stop, degree of vignetting, actual versus nominal ISO and accuracy of shutter speeds but none has any blown areas.

Tim Ashley Photography | A7R M240 D800 RX1 | _DSC2694

 

[Ron Pfister]

Interesting - thanks for posting these! I'm surprised to see such a strong color cast on the RX-1. Would have been interesting to see the Sigma on the A7R.

 

[Mark Gowin]

Tim, thank you for doing this quick test. Although unscientific as you say, it is still usefull for me since I pretty much never make scientific photos. All kidding aside, the subject matter you have chosen is perfect for me - wide angle, infinity focus, with lots of trees in the distance to reveal detail rendering. Also, I am mainly a landscape shooter.

Unfortunately, I am viewing in an iPad for now and can't seem to figure out how to view the full size images on a web browser. Perhaps I need to see if there is a Zenfolio app that will let me see the full size images. Otherwise, I will have to wait until I get home this evening to view on my computer.

 

[iiiNelson]

Thanks for the pictures. What it tells me is that all four cameras can make very good pictures yet each have their own signature which I suspect can be worked to a desired "look." Looking at the Sony's I'd probably tone down the exposure slightly. The M240 looks pretty good out the camera. The D800 seems to pull the reds out a bit more. Again - all seem "fixable" in PP.

 

[tashley]

I agree - though the D800E file really shows how tricky the Sigma is and the files shot on the 35 Lux FLE compared to the other two lenses show the way the field curvature differs. But they pretty much any photographer would be very lucky to have any of these combinations, though the colour shifts might sometimes prove a bit more than some people would happily accept.

 

[Paratom]

Here I prefer the sky color of the D800.
The A7 and Leica skye look too red to me, and the A7 image shows also too much vignetting IMO.
The Leica image shows a good "depth" IMO, what ever that means

I can not see much difference in detail between all 4 at this size

From the color point here I prefer:
#1 D800+Sigma
#2 RX1
#3 Leica M+35/1.4 FLE
#4 A7r

I first rated and then looked which camera is which

 

[jonoslack]

HI Tim
Did you shoot AWB on the cameras? In my experience setting it to daylight in LR isn't quite the same thing. I've long since concluded that it's best to set WB in the camera to daylight (assuming it is daylight) which gives a consistency which shooting AWB just doesn't manage.

Whatever, it's interesting, but personally I thought that the colour stinks on all four of them! Which is strange in that I think that both the A7r and the M have good colour.

 

[tashley]

Hi Jono, answering this here though we just discussed it on the phone, in case other people want the answer:

My cameras are always set to either AWB or Daylight and honestly, given that I intended to set them all to Daylight in post so as to level the playing field (given that they were all shot in mid day light) and was shooting RAW, I didn't bother to check which was set to which.

But you raised an interesting question on the phone: I have always assumed that shooting RAW means that it doesn't really matter what you set the camera WB to since you can always then get it 'right' in post (whether by eye or by shooting a WiBal frame) but you feel that the camera's WB setting fundamentally alters the way the file is written to card in a way that can't be undone in post. I have, honestly, never considered this but at some point soon I will test it. It strikes me that given that the M240 and RX-1 are performing some colour shading corrections in camera, that it might be true for them. I would be really surprised if it were true for the others, but I do want to find out!

 

[Shashin]

The color temperature should not impact the RAW, but a shading profile or such might. And those should be separate. I know the shading comp on my RX-1 is a disaster and I have turned it off permanently. The natural color cast is so much easier to deal with and correct.

I have played with AWB and specific WB on my Pentax 645D and RX-1. I have seem no difference in post with what I have set in camera. I use AWB when the color should be neutral and I use the AWB setting as a reference in post. I go over to a preset WB when I am shooting scenes that have an extreme color I want to see in my camera, such as a sunset.

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Jono, answering this here though we just discussed it on the phone, in case other people want the answer:

My cameras are always set to either AWB or Daylight and honestly, given that I intended to set them all to Daylight in post so as to level the playing field (given that they were all shot in mid day light) and was shooting RAW, I didn't bother to check which was set to which.

But you raised an interesting question on the phone: I have always assumed that shooting RAW means that it doesn't really matter what you set the camera WB to since you can always then get it 'right' in post (whether by eye or by shooting a WiBal frame) but you feel that the camera's WB setting fundamentally alters the way the file is written to card in a way that can't be undone in post. I have, honestly, never considered this but at some point soon I will test it. It strikes me that given that the M240 and RX-1 are performing some colour shading corrections in camera, that it might be true for them. I would be really surprised if it were true for the others, but I do want to find out!

HI Tim
Good to talk
That isn't quite what I meant (that the setting fundamentally alters the file) although I guess it is the case when there are colour shading corrections).

What I mean is that that the when you choose a particular WB setting in your post processing software, then what's done depends on what AWB (or whatever) did in the camera. i.e. not that there are necessarily irrevocable changes made to the raw file, but that there is an effect of one upon the other.

This is entirely experiential - nothing to do with any scientific knowledge, and it may be that it varies from one processing program to another. It may also be that I'm completely wrong!

I just prefer to stick to 'daylight' in daylight, and then I'm sure that I have a level playing field.

 

[Shashin]

Whatever, it's interesting, but personally I thought that the colour stinks on all four of them! Which is strange in that I think that both the A7r and the M have good colour.

That could just be the wonderful English climate…

 

[Shashin]

HI Tim
Good to talk
That isn't quite what I meant (that the setting fundamentally alters the file) although I guess it is the case when there are colour shading corrections).

What I mean is that that the when you choose a particular WB setting in your post processing software, then what's done depends on what AWB (or whatever) did in the camera. i.e. not that there are necessarily irrevocable changes made to the raw file, but that there is an effect of one upon the other.

This is entirely experiential - nothing to do with any scientific knowledge, and it may be that it varies from one processing program to another. It may also be that I'm completely wrong!

I just prefer to stick to 'daylight' in daylight, and then I'm sure that I have a level playing field.

I notice that my Raw processing software and the camera manufacture's definition of a particular color temperature/condition like "daylight" and "tungsten" are not the same, either for the temp or tint sliders.

 

[jonoslack]

That could just be the wonderful English climate…

HI Will
:ROTFL:
I know it too well - but I don't think that's it in this case. . . .

of course, it could be LR - which I also think stinks :chug:

 

[Ario Arioldi]

To the best of my knowledge the in camera WB information are written on the raw file just as a metadata which can be used or not, depending on the settings, by the raw converter.

 

[jonoslack]

I notice that my Raw processing software and the camera manufacture's definition of a particular color temperature/condition like "daylight" and "tungsten" are not the same, either for the temp or tint sliders.

Exactly - and I suspect they are applied independently - especially the tint - so that what you select in the camera has an effect on what you do in processing.

Which means that if you choose AWB in camera, and the tint varies all over the place from shot to shot . . . then applying a preset in post will vary from shot to shot too.

To the best of my knowledge the in camera WB information are written on the raw file just as a metadata which can be used or not, depending on the settings, by the raw converter.

Yes, indeed, but my feeling is that it is used . . . . .and then added to if you choose a preset - again, I could be wrong.

 

[k-hawinkler]

I get better results doing raw conversion in a camera manufacturers' native software, then export a tiff file and use CS6 and Nik with 16 Bit/Channel and ProPhoto RGB. Of course, if not already done so in camera, I also disable noise reduction and sharpening before the raw conversion.

 

[Shashin]

Exactly - and I suspect they are applied independently - especially the tint - so that what you select in the camera has an effect on what you do in processing.

Which means that if you choose AWB in camera, and the tint varies all over the place from shot to shot . . . then applying a preset in post will vary from shot to shot too.



Yes, indeed, but my feeling is that it is used . . . . .and then added to if you choose a preset - again, I could be wrong.

I have not done this in sometime so this could be aging brain cells, but I (think I) noticed if I set my camera to "daylight" and then brought the RAW file into ACR, the "as shot" and ACR "daylight" preset would give different cold temp and tint settings.

 

[tashley]

Let's get testing, guys

 

[alwang]

Unfortunately, I am viewing in an iPad for now and can't seem to figure out how to view the full size images on a web browser. Perhaps I need to see if there is a Zenfolio app that will let me see the full size images. Otherwise, I will have to wait until I get home this evening to view on my computer.

Apologies for being dense, but I also can't seem to figure out how to access the full-sized images, even from a web browser. Can someone enlighten me?

 

[tashley]

mouse over the medium sized ones and a menu appears at top left of the image, one of the options is Download Original...