Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 46 of 46

Thread: Someone had to do it

  1. #1
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Someone had to do it

    Disclaimer: this was for purposes of my own curiosity. I don't consider it scientific enough to prove anything at all. I am aware of the non-prefect technical aspects of the experiment and I do know that this is comparing apples to oranges but

    a) I like fruit
    b) Sometimes I want to know if the apple will be more satisfying than the orange

    First off, developed in LR4. No howls of protest from either side, I will be doing C1 later.

    All shots on a Gitzo three, Cube, MUP and remote release.

    The D800 using a Leica 50 Cron at F8, ISO 50 and 1.6 seconds
    The IQ180 on Phase DF with Phase 80MM standard lens @ ISO 50, F8 and 1.6 seconds

    The Phase file came out a tiny touch lighter, but showed clipping warnings in the blacks and a touch in the whites. Maybe the lenses have different T stops or maybe the nominal versus actual ISOs differ. The Nikon file had fewer warnings at both ends (none in the whites other than in the bright window ledge on right, which is not shown in the Phase file because of the slightly different aspect ratio and FOV).

    This is intended to show nothing about resolution: it can't because the focal lengths of the lenses are different so the DOF varies widely between the two. I chose these differing focal lengths because the both 'normalise' to about the same FOV - they are both 'standard'.

    I did the test purely to test my suspicion that I was getting cleaner shadow detail from the Nikon files than I had ever seen elsewhere, at my normalised printing resolutions of 200DPI.

    That is a long-edge print from an un-cropped Nikon file of a touch over 36 inches, which at this aspect ratio is 24" on the width - the largest print that almost anyone can make at home or even in their professional studios without having to outsource.

    The most relevant crops are prepared as follows: the Nikon files are reduced to 1:2 and the Phase files to 1:3 so that they both approximate to a 36 inch print on the long side for the Nikon and 34 inches for the Phase.

    These downresing ratios clearly favour the Phase files, but are a good representation of how I print from both cameras.

    Right, just been called to lunch. Images coming soon thereafter....
    Last edited by tashley; 29th April 2012 at 15:31.

  2. #2
    Senior Member viablex1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,462
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    looking forward to it!!!

  3. #3
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    First, the scene as captured and uncropped.


    NIKON FILES FIRST THROUGHOUT






    Now crops at 100% for each file. Focus was manual in both cases: the D800E using LV and the Phase using iterative eye/review. Focus was intended to be on the neck of the thin glass flask centre.




  4. #4
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Now some crops with the shadows lifted to +100 and the exposure lifted 1.5 stops.

    A torture test to be sure, and both cameras pass with flying colours... and this is a not totally unrealistic ask when trying to get maximum detail from a file. Well, not until the last year or so...

    Be clear though: these following crops are with the D800E at 1:2 and the IQ180 at 1:3 to give very similar print sizes.




  5. #5
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it




  6. #6
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it




  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    565
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Thanks for sticking your head above the parapet Tim. I'm not too bothered by the difference in resolution - there is so much more to IQ than simply how many bloody pixels there are. Just as with other comparisons that are appearing, its obvious that the D800 has an amazing ability to capture clean shadow detail, easily out performing everything else, including the IQ180, by a country mile. Amazing. You can see the noise in the IQ file in your last set of images, whilst the D800 is as clean as a whistle. With the D800 it's now possible to hold extreme highlights and still have clean shadows. This is nothing short of astonishing - especially given the sensor size of the D800 (and remembering also that it costs 7.5% of the cost of an IQ180).

    Jim

    P.S. I had to check the exif data to make sure the Nikon files were first - they're that good!

    P.P.S. Not sure you've nailed focus with the IQ180 - either that, or the increased DOF of the smaller sensor on the D800 makes it look that way.

  8. #8
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    And here are the more challenging crops in C1... again with the Nikon to 1:2 and the Phase to 1:3 and with +1.5 stops exposure and with the shadows slider hard to the right on both. Otherwise default settings for everything APART from there were a lot of single pixel faults in the Phase file so I gave it full single pixel correction.




  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    The Nikon pic gives me a slighty cramped feeling. The Phase is more graceful from highlight to midtone, where the Nikon obviously has better definition in the shadows. Clearly, the D800 will be a milestone, like the first 5D was years ago.

  10. #10
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Quote Originally Posted by f8orbust View Post
    Thanks for sticking your head above the parapet Tim.
    My.....errr... pleasure!

    Quote Originally Posted by f8orbust View Post
    I'm not too bothered by the difference in resolution - there is so much more to IQ than simply how many bloody pixels there are. Just as with other comparisons that are appearing, its obvious that the D800 has an amazing ability to capture clean shadow detail, easily out performing everything else, including the IQ180, by a country mile. Amazing. You can see the noise in the IQ file in your last set of images, whilst the D800 is as clean as a whistle. With the D800 it's now possible to hold extreme highlights and still have clean shadows. This is nothing short of astonishing - especially given the sensor size of the D800 (and remembering also that it costs 7.5% of the cost of an IQ180).

    Jim
    There are other factors of course: some people might prefer the colour rendition of the 180 and the way the format allows for gradations of colour, tone and focus...

    Quote Originally Posted by f8orbust View Post
    P.S. I had to check the exif data to make sure the Nikon files were first - they're that good!
    Me too, several times, and then it clicked...



    Quote Originally Posted by f8orbust View Post
    P.P.S. Not sure you've nailed focus with the IQ180 - either that, or the increased DOF of the smaller sensor on the D800 makes it look that way.
    I know - I learned one side-lesson from this test: the LV on the D800E might look crunchy compared to zoom view on the IQ review, but it is the ability to go past and back to focus several times whilst still looking that lets you nail it. Maybe a loupe on the IQ would help but you really need to see your tweaks in real time. That IQ shot was the best focussed for four, with iterative method, and looked damn sharp at 100% review...

  11. #11
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Karma View Post
    The Nikon pic gives me a slighty cramped feeling. The Phase is more graceful from highlight to midtone, where the Nikon obviously has better definition in the shadows. Clearly, the D800 will be a milestone, like the first 5D was years ago.

    I'm currently uploading the files to a dropbox account so people can play with them themselves: the Nikon file can be opened up and tweaked endlessly to have that same continuous smooth gradation look. The whole scene shots I posted here were, apart from WB, 'out of the can' which is fair to neither, merely a way of showing the scene and the relative FOV.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Joe Colson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,908
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    36

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Tim,

    Thanks for performing the test and posting these images. Well, I'm definitely impressed by the clean shadow detail from the D800. And like Jim, I wouldn't have guessed that the Nikon files were first!

    Joe
    _________________________________
    Joe Colson Photography

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    ..... looking forward to it, thanks!

  14. #14
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    I would caution mildly, though I am sure you all already know this, that noise is easier to 'read' in OOF areas because there is no other detail for the eye to chew.

  15. #15
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Been doing these tests a lot myself where the Nikon lacks is mid tone contrast. Try a little clarity on the Nikon when your processing. Better yet apply it at 100 percent and watch it being applied . I found about 15 to be pretty nice. And yes it's a little tough telling them apart. The big difference right now is the tech cam just kills the Nikon in usage as the Nikons can't get close on the wide end of the world with shift, swing and tilt. So the beauty for me is having both.

    Of course the Nikon smokes the tech cam in other areas. Freaking can't win need both systems. Lol
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  16. #16
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Here are the links to the full files but please only download them if you're truly interested otherwise I'll blow my monthly dropbox limit!

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/76366907/_DSC0510.NEF

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/76366907/CF001872.IIQ
    Last edited by tashley; 29th April 2012 at 09:21.

  17. #17
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Been doing these tests a lot myself where the Nikon lacks is mid tone contrast. Try a little clarity on the Nikon when your processing. Better yet apply it at 100 percent and watch it being applied . I found about 15 to be pretty nice. And yes it's a little tough telling them apart. The big difference right now is the tech cam just kills the Nikon in usage as the Nikons can't get close on the wide end of the world with shift, swing and tilt. So the beauty for me is having both.

    Of course the Nikon smokes the tech cam in other areas. Freaking can't win need both systems. Lol
    I know. Damned expensive need hey?


  18. #18
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Killing me. Lol
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  19. #19
    Senior Member johnnygoesdigital's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,579
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Tim,

    Your dedication to this is commendable because these sort of environments are more "uncontrolled", in terms of lighting, so I think the results of your photographs are extremely useful. Very surprised that the detail in almost every Nikon capture is cleaner than the IQ. Proficiency with post production technique will undoubtedly create even more stunning detail... No IQ for me, thank you!

  20. #20
    Senior Member Joe Colson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,908
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    36

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Killing me. Lol
    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    I know. Damned expensive need hey?
    Guy & Tim,

    Simple solution: just "offload" your D800E to one of us who is waiting patiently for an order to be fulfilled. Problem solved.

    Joe
    _________________________________
    Joe Colson Photography

  21. #21
    Senior Member Joe Colson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,908
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    36

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Tim,

    Your NEF file is a different scene than the IIQ file. I'm pretty sure you meant to link to both kitchen scenes.

    Joe
    _________________________________
    Joe Colson Photography

  22. #22
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Colson View Post
    Tim,

    Your NEF file is a different scene than the IIQ file. I'm pretty sure you meant to link to both kitchen scenes.

    Joe

    Thanks Joe, I've fixed it now: another forum member had asked me for that other NEF file and I got confused. The link in my post has been amended and now goes to the correct file.

  23. #23
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Colson View Post
    Guy & Tim,

    Simple solution: just "offload" your D800E to one of us who is waiting patiently for an order to be fulfilled. Problem solved.

    Joe
    Well I might be selling a very low mileage D800 this week... I am certainly keeping the E though!
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  24. #24
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    That is a long-edge print from an un-cropped Nikon file of a touch over 36 inches, which at this aspect ratio is 24" on the width - the largest print that almost anyone can make at home or even in their professional studios without having to outsource.
    ??? I have a 44" printer in my studio. It is a pretty common size--Canon, HP, and Epson have been making them for a long time. Paper rolls up to 44" are also common. Anything over that needs to be outsourced as there are no consumer printers available.

  25. #25
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    ??? I have a 44" printer in my studio. It is a pretty common size--Canon, HP, and Epson have been making them for a long time. Paper rolls up to 44" are also common. Anything over that needs to be outsourced as there are no consumer printers available.
    Oh i know you can get them, I considered one myself, but the vast majority of people I know with large format printers have the 24" version and outsource anything larger... I've got a Canon 6300 and had an HPZ3100 before that.

    Let's have a poll on it!

  26. #26
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Tim

    First ..you have to be brave to post tests like this ! Several things keep coming up .

    1. The plane of focus needs to be exactly the same and it does not appear to be in the test . Looking at the blue and white bowl and the pattern on it ...you can see that the focus of the Q180 is slightly back or the D800 . This makes comparisons of items in front of the clear vase inconsistent . To avoid this you need a set up where you absolutely can see the plane of focus ..which means a focus point and some detail in front and back of the target . The area just in front and just in back of the target should look “equally sharp” .

    2. Each image should have the same exposure and white balance . This looks pretty good but if I was using camera calibration ..I want those color charts as close as I can get . This is a point for debate ...but achievement of a finished file includes both in camera and post processing . I take it one step further myself and try to match the overall scene contrast and sharpen to optimum.

    You can debate ..straight out of the camera ..but a good S2 file has a linear contrast curve ..and no life until I apply a preset . I believe this is to preserve the absolute maximum DR out of the camera . Sharpening corrects for the any blur caused by glass between the lens and the sensor ...minimal on MF ..not sure on the D800E .

    3. The subject should include organic items ...glass,plastic etc have few tones . Skin of course is a good example but some fruits work . If the target is a single tone ..I can t see anything. This is the only way to see tone range a key factor in MF IQ.

    Separate point on Guy s observation about mid tones on the D800. There has been speculation since the D3 that Nikon compressed the mid tones to allow for head room in the highlights and depth in the shadows . I have observed this in a major way with the D3 in sports on players shirts and on shooting cars . A good preset probably tones down the saturation(maybe luminosity). and adds clarity . The D3X was way better than the D3 as it had more DR to work with . I have no idea if this is fact but it is the way the files appear to me.

  27. #27
    Senior Member Joe Colson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,908
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    36

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Roger,

    Wasn't Tim's disclaimer enough for you? It's difficult to disagree with your points, but Tim clearly stated that his comparison was not "scientific enough to prove anything". Even so, I thought the comparison was interesting.

    Joe

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    Disclaimer: this was for purposes of my own curiosity. I don't consider it scientific enough to prove anything at all. I am aware of the non-prefect technical aspects of the experiment and I do know that this is comparing apples to oranges...
    _________________________________
    Joe Colson Photography

  28. #28
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    Tim

    First ..you have to be brave to post tests like this ! Several things keep coming up .

    1. The plane of focus needs to be exactly the same and it does not appear to be in the test . Looking at the blue and white bowl and the pattern on it ...you can see that the focus of the Q180 is slightly back or the D800 . This makes comparisons of items in front of the clear vase inconsistent . To avoid this you need a set up where you absolutely can see the plane of focus ..which means a focus point and some detail in front and back of the target . The area just in front and just in back of the target should look “equally sharp” .

    2. Each image should have the same exposure and white balance . This looks pretty good but if I was using camera calibration ..I want those color charts as close as I can get . This is a point for debate ...but achievement of a finished file includes both in camera and post processing . I take it one step further myself and try to match the overall scene contrast and sharpen to optimum.

    You can debate ..straight out of the camera ..but a good S2 file has a linear contrast curve ..and no life until I apply a preset . I believe this is to preserve the absolute maximum DR out of the camera . Sharpening corrects for the any blur caused by glass between the lens and the sensor ...minimal on MF ..not sure on the D800E .

    3. The subject should include organic items ...glass,plastic etc have few tones . Skin of course is a good example but some fruits work . If the target is a single tone ..I can t see anything. This is the only way to see tone range a key factor in MF IQ.

    Separate point on Guy s observation about mid tones on the D800. There has been speculation since the D3 that Nikon compressed the mid tones to allow for head room in the highlights and depth in the shadows . I have observed this in a major way with the D3 in sports on players shirts and on shooting cars . A good preset probably tones down the saturation(maybe luminosity). and adds clarity . The D3X was way better than the D3 as it had more DR to work with . I have no idea if this is fact but it is the way the files appear to me.
    Hi Roger,

    For all the above reasons, I only ever do these tests for my own curiosity and then share the results, including RAW files, for other people to play with if they think that'll be useful. I was only testing for shadow detail and noise here and though equal planes of sharpness, which with sensors of different sizes you will only get (assuming the same FOV) with a flat target (there are almost no flat targets in real life) would have been useful, they don't change the particular part of the results I was looking at.

    As it happens I was indeed trying to get focus on the neck of the most central thin glass vase and, true to my real world approach, I gave it one go on the D800E in live view and four goes on the Phase and in any event I wasn't doing a test for detail at all. Merely for shadow depth.

    As for PP, that is very much season to taste and wasn't the point here, nor was the mid-range tonal expression, which can easily be tweaked in LR.

    Per WB, all were WB'd off the chart and beyond that, it's purely up to the RAW converters and their various profiles. I have shown to my own satisfaction (and I think that Guy agrees) that the home brewed Xrite profiles are less useful than the canned ones: but again this was not about colour fidelity...

    As you say, you have to be brave. Or stupid. Or both!


  29. #29
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Colson View Post
    Roger,

    Wasn't Tim's disclaimer enough for you? It's difficult to disagree with your points, but Tim clearly stated that his comparison was not "scientific enough to prove anything". Even so, I thought the comparison was interesting.

    Joe

    Thanks Joe. I agree. You don't need a Large Hadron Collider to show that it's dark inside a poorly lit big tube...

  30. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Looking at both files in LR4 the difference is like looking at a .tif or .psd (Phase) versus a compressed .jpeg (Nikon).

    I do like the more organic feel of the Phase better, .... which comes at a price in money and handling.

    The test is fair under the given circumstances altough it would be great to compare skin tones and organic stuff as well.

    ..... thanks a bunch for sharing this.

  31. #31
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Karma View Post
    Looking at both files in LR4 the difference is like looking at a .tif or .psd (Phase) versus a compressed .jpeg (Nikon).

    I do like the more organic feel of the Phase better, .... which comes at a price in money and handling.

    The test is fair under the given circumstances altough it would be great to compare skin tones and organic stuff as well.

    ..... thanks a bunch for sharing this.
    It's a pleasure - each to make of it what (s)he will - but I can't say that my experience of looking at the files in LR matches yours! I prefer the D800E file, but then I have spent a lot more time developing D800E files in LR than I have Phase files, which I always do in C1...

  32. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Tim,

    Just not be misunderstood: The Nikon file allows more exposure of the shadows, but once that is done, the overall appearance is somewhat is flatter.

    Expressed in painting technique it is like comparing oil technique to acrylics, ..... well at least a bit.

    But I confess I am not a professional with LR4 (yet).

  33. #33
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,594
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    You don't need a Large Hadron Collider to show that it's dark inside a poorly lit big tube...


    ..but as a never ending thread proves, sometimes, things are not as clear as black and white.

  34. #34
    Senior Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,306
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    The Nikon shot has too much red in the WB.
    The Nikon shot is a little underexposed.
    The lens on the Nikon has more veiling flare.

    Fix the WB by pulling down the red channel 3-4 points (e.g. PS curves, red channel, set a point with input 4, output 0) and it looks like a slightly murky (veiled) and underexposed version of the IQ shot.

    The detail levels where focus coincides between the two look fairly similar.

  35. #35
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Quote Originally Posted by Jan Brittenson View Post
    The Nikon shot has too much red in the WB.
    The Nikon shot is a little underexposed.
    The lens on the Nikon has more veiling flare.

    Fix the WB by pulling down the red channel 3-4 points (e.g. PS curves, red channel, set a point with input 4, output 0) and it looks like a slightly murky (veiled) and underexposed version of the IQ shot.

    The detail levels where focus coincides between the two look fairly similar.
    This is a test for nothing but shadow noise...

  36. #36
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Karma View Post
    Tim,

    Just not be misunderstood: The Nikon file allows more exposure of the shadows, but once that is done, the overall appearance is somewhat is flatter.

    Expressed in painting technique it is like comparing oil technique to acrylics, ..... well at least a bit.

    But I confess I am not a professional with LR4 (yet).
    Hiya,

    If you haven't already, try using Camera Neutral as the starting point for the NEF file: my version was Camera Standard, and if you downloaded the NEF and opened it in LR, it will have defaulted to Adobe Standard, which is not great and which does cramp the upper mid tones...unless you told it to do otherwise...

  37. #37
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Tim you should try bringing them both in C1 now. My bet you'll like the Nikon even better.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  38. #38
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Tim you should try bringing them both in C1 now. My bet you'll like the Nikon even better.
    Thanks Guy - the last set I posted (dark bowl crops) are C1 but despite having processed a zillion Phase files in it, I never feel as confident as I do in LR. But the colours are better straight off the bat and I must say that when I compare the Xrite patches to the screen representations of these files on C1, they look more accurate. C1 is also more accurate about histograms and clipping.

    BTW Am I the only person who finds that the clipping warning on the D800 and E kick in waaay to soon? It's a problem because in most scenes with bright sky and indirectly lit foreground, the camera overexposes. I set -1/3rd to -2/3rds stop quite often but using the clipping warning in camera isn't useful. I do get sharper shots though, cos it means faster shutter speeds ;-)

    And why can't the camera meter properly? Everyone else seems to think it does apart from me but my 800 and my E are the same. The matrix metering might have 60,000 scenes in memory but none of them seem to involve a bright sky and a moderately lit foreground!
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  39. #39
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Mine seems to underexpose a little. The D800 that is, I may just put in a little exp. comp. in, Also i agree it does indicate blown highlights when they are not. My guess only a guess but like anything else Nikon/Canon/Sony the OEMS do this on purpose. Given the numbers of units worldwide they want protect people from blown highlights. This is nothing new been going on for years. It's the same PR nightmare that they would deal with on Moire if they did not call out a disclaimer. Again imagine the numbers of complaints or forums of folks ranting how they have blown highlights. I have come to expect this kind of customer protection over the years and much more so than with Phase,Hassy, Leaf, Leica and so on as they know more experienced users are using there gear. At least this is the theory I have had for years on this stuff. I think I'm on to something since we see it a lot. That's okay though us experienced users can read into that more. I have had very few blow outs with the D800 metering setup.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  40. #40
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Funny mine under exposes and yours over exposes. I think the reason is I am dealing with really bright light and in most cases your shooting either in more diffused light or more cloudy skies. It's tring to bring up the values on you is my guess.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  41. #41
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Someone had to do it

    You can change the metering pattern also in the menus. Might be worth looking at.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  42. #42
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    I think that's right Guy. In the South of France last week, well-lit daylight scenes were ok. It's medium cloudy days that screw it up. Also I think that LR tends to skew the histo a liitle to the left and you can be clipped in a channel without seeing it.

  43. #43
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Colson View Post
    Roger,

    Wasn't Tim's disclaimer enough for you? It's difficult to disagree with your points, but Tim clearly stated that his comparison was not "scientific enough to prove anything". Even so, I thought the comparison was interesting.

    Joe
    Oh I see sorry ...I misunderstood that the intent was only to check noise in the shadows .

  44. #44
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    I know this is an old post now, but I wanted to add something I'm surprised nobody's mentioned yet.

    Most IQ180 owners say that they slightly overexpose to "push the histogram to the right" which appears to be the opposite of what you've done here. I bet if you tried it the other way then you'll find your shadow noise much much better when you boost it like in those sample pics. I suspect it has something to do with the natural ISO being 50 on the IQ, maybe?

  45. #45
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Been doing these tests a lot myself where the Nikon lacks is mid tone contrast. Try a little clarity on the Nikon when your processing. Better yet apply it at 100 percent and watch it being applied . I found about 15 to be pretty nice. And yes it's a little tough telling them apart. The big difference right now is the tech cam just kills the Nikon in usage as the Nikons can't get close on the wide end of the world with shift, swing and tilt. So the beauty for me is having both.

    Of course the Nikon smokes the tech cam in other areas. Freaking can't win need both systems. Lol
    On the nikon forums it is generally understood that Nikon maps the tones to emphasize picking up detail in the shadows . This comes at the expense of compressing the midtones . This of course gives the Nikon files better high ISO performance at the expense of mid tone separation . This can be seen in any situation where Nikon shares a sensor with Sony . Same sensor different in camera processing .

  46. #46
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Someone had to do it

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    On the nikon forums it is generally understood that Nikon maps the tones to emphasize picking up detail in the shadows . This comes at the expense of compressing the midtones . This of course gives the Nikon files better high ISO performance at the expense of mid tone separation . This can be seen in any situation where Nikon shares a sensor with Sony . Same sensor different in camera processing .
    I agree, having used the 24 meg D3X and A900 side-by-side with their respective 24-70 lenses. Midtone response and subsequent color separation of the Sony was clearly better than the Nikon in most shooting conditions, but at the expense of the higher ISO performance where the D3X smoked the Sony. The 24 meg A99 improved the ISO performance by around 1 to 2 stops but managed to keep the midtone response fairly consistent with the A900 (I shoot both together at weddings)

    It'll be interesting to see how Sony will handle the A7R in camera processing verses the D800. I also suspect the A99 replacement will be 36 meg or greater.

    - Marc

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •