Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 57 of 57

Thread: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    446
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    Peter, don't judge it until you see it shot with a native FE lens and a better raw developer... If you want close to MF quality in a briefcase, the a7r and the Rx1 are the only games in town IMHO.
    Thanks, Tim. Got the camera yesterday with the 35 FE. Putzed about a bit, determined to be unscientific as per the topic. The 35 will probably go back because it is very nice, but I am a 50 sort of guy. Appears that my Biogon 35/2 beats the FE at center but then turns to utter rot as you go outwards. I guess this is the sort of thing many others have observed. My own theory is that microlenses are a two-edged sword. If the ray paths hit them appropriately, they work well. If not (rays either too obtuse or too straight) the mircolenses degrade the image. IOW, telecentricity may not be an entirely good thing. If this theory is valid, the chip will be temperamental.

    What gobsmacked me was a tired old mid '60s Summicron R f2 - sort of like watching grannie enter a break dance contest.

    Here's an image of the front yard, with a crop from the top right corner. Just your recommended sharpening and clarity 20. What's neat is that the ISO is 1000.
    Last edited by cunim; 5th January 2014 at 20:13.

  2. #52
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Quote Originally Posted by cunim View Post
    Thanks, Tim. Got the camera yesterday with the 35 FE. Putzed about a bit, determined to be unscientific as per the topic. The 35 will probably go back because it is very nice, but I am a 50 sort of guy. Appears that my Biogon 35/2 beats the FE at center but then turns to utter rot as you go outwards. I guess this is the sort of thing many others have observed. My own theory is that microlenses are a two-edged sword. If the ray paths hit them appropriately, they work well. If not (rays either too obtuse or too straight) the mircolenses degrade the image. IOW, telecentricity may not be an entirely good thing. If this theory is valid, the chip will be temperamental.

    What gobsmacked me was a tired old mid '60s Summicron R f2 - sort of like watching grannie enter a break dance contest.

    Here's an image of the front yard, with a crop from the top right corner. Just your recommended sharpening and clarity 20. What's neat is that the ISO is 1000.
    Man can your granny shake it!

  3. #53
    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: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Quote Originally Posted by Floyd Davidson View Post
    I can't speak to all cameras, but specifically the Nikon D800 (as do all Nikon DSLR's) uses and entirely different sensor for metering, and it is never adjusted for White Balance or any of the other configuration options for producing a JPEG image.

    I think it is safe to assume that is true for other DSLR cameras by other manufacturers.
    I think that is right.

    What can be tricky is what an overly warm, lower light image that appears well exposed does when you WB in post. Suddenly it looks under-exposed, sometimes badly under.

    - Marc

  4. #54
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,594
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Quote Originally Posted by Floyd Davidson View Post
    I can't speak to all cameras, but specifically the Nikon D800 (as do all Nikon DSLR's) uses and entirely different sensor for metering, and it is never adjusted for White Balance or any of the other configuration options for producing a JPEG image.

    I think it is safe to assume that is true for other DSLR cameras by other manufacturers.
    It is also true for the M in the "classic mode".

  5. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    413
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor Sherman View Post
    I'm pretty sure that's not the case. If all the shots really do require basically the same WB (EG, it is a proper application to create one WB in LR on the first shot then apply it to all of them), then it doesn't matter what the camera-applied WB was. At all. The WB is just applying to the RAW images, and ignoring the camera's WB setting that's embedded in there.

    In other words, LR is not applying a "correction" to the in-camera WB. It is applying the full WB algorithm to the original sensor detections.
    Iím sorry if my post created confusion, but hereís what I see happening in LR:

    If Iíve shot on one location in consistent light with AWB in the camera the colours (WB-values) are going to be a bit different from shot to shot. Now when I use the white balance selector tool on one image and than sync other images, the numbers of the WB of the image I used the eyedropper tool on, are applied to all other images Iíve selected, the value stays the same.

    When I apply an auto white balance in LR and than sync all the shots on that location, the colors (WB-values) are going to be different from shot to shot. LR will come up with somewhat different values, although the shots are taken in very similar light circumstances. Just like the AWB in a camera is not consistent.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  6. #56
    New Member Floyd Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Barrow Alaska
    Posts
    11
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Quote Originally Posted by peterv View Post
    When I apply an auto white balance in LR and than sync all the shots on that location, the colors (WB-values) are going to be different from shot to shot. LR will come up with somewhat different values, although the shots are taken in very similar light circumstances. Just like the AWB in a camera is not consistent.
    Isn't that just about exactly what should be expected?

    Essentially what an auto white balance function does, whether it is in the camera, in a raw converter or in an image editor is the same. It basically blurs the entire picture to such a degree that it becomes all one color, and then it adjusts the RGB channel multipliers to make that color neutral gray. That is only slightly over simpllified...

    The over all effect is that if the scene is illuminated by a more reddish light, the red channel will be reduced and the blue channel increase. But, alas the same thing will happen if 75% of the image is a solid read wall! Ouch.

    The practical effect is that every time the camera is framed even slightly differently the AWB (in the camera or in your software) is going to see a slightly different average color, and will generate a slightly different set of channel multipliers.

    Incidentally, none of them are "correct". The "correct" WB is whatever you, the photographer, happen to decide to use. And that is true even if the next person thinks you are color blind for having picked it. It's your picture and your choice.

  7. #57
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Unscientific but interesting: AR7, RX1, D800, M240

    Quote Originally Posted by Floyd Davidson View Post
    When shooting in RAW it makes absolutely no difference at all. None. Zilch. Zip.

    The raw sensor data is exactly the same regardless of how the White Balance is set.
    To set the record completely straight: The raw data is the same regardless, but your histogram is not and associated exposure may be off if you impart a large WB change after the fact. So you can end up with some channels going from in bounds to completely clipped with a large WB change in post.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

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
  •