Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: AndreasH on June 19, 2014, 04:05:20 pm
-
Hi,
this is my first post in this forum, I actually registered to write it after reading Michael's A7s review.
At the current point in time, my main camera is an OM-D EM5. I changed to FT/MFT a while ago, at that time mainly driven by the ergonomics of the E-3 and the excellent price/performance ratio of the lenses, and since I was fallen in love with the L1 (still my backup body, with the great 12-50mm Leica zoom). But back to the OM-D... it's great and it's small, which is something I really like, but from time to time (mainly when shooting at night from a tripod) I want to use a "real" camera, with a real viewfinder and somewhat larger buttons, and then I borrow my wife's D700.
After my first sessions with the D700, I had the impression that it's pictures had a different look, much more "analog" than the ones out of my OM-D. I very much liked it, and it even reminded me a bit of some of those pictures taken by medium format cameras. And since I was thinking about buying a full frame camera anyway, I searched on the web for other oppinions about this, mainly explanations, but regardless of the search terms I used, I did not find anything. I thought that the larger pixels of the D700 are the reason for this look, but I had the impression that I was the only one on this planet thinking about this. When I heard about the 12MP Sony, I was looking forward to seeing the first reviews, hoping that someone might comment on something different than noise, pixel count or whatever seems to be the most important topics these days. You can imagine how happy I was, when I read Michael’s review, stating exactly what I was hoping to read.
So what’s the forums view on this, am I just exaggerating, is this something you usually just create by a special Photoshop filter (don't think so), or does it make a real difference for you as well? And do you know any other camera (apart from medium format), that creates this special look? My other candidate was the DF, since it has only 16MB, but I haven't read anything about the look its creating.
Andreas
-
12MP, well, you can only do so much with that, if you are after prints. So many just want it on the web, and never worry about a print.
The 12Mp A7s, may look like MFD, but I don't believe that there is any magic yet that will get a print from it to the same look as a 60MP or 80MP back at 24 x 36 or even 20 x 30. There may be, I just haven't found it yet.
This camera will shine for video and that is what Sony intended it for.
No doubt the A7 family are a great lineup.
Paul
-
12MP, well, you can only do so much with that, if you are after prints.
How quickly we forget that not so long ago 12mp was the state of the art and we drooled over the prints... and before that people made wonderful prints with 8mp cameras... and before that...
Stop. What am I thinking, of course 12mp is waaaay too limiting.
-
So what’s the forums view on this, am I just exaggerating, is this something you usually just create by a special Photoshop filter (don't think so), or does it make a real difference for you as well? And do you know any other camera (apart from medium format), that creates this special look? My other candidate was the DF, since it has only 16MB, but I haven't read anything about the look its creating.
Andreas
Personally for me digital beats film, for me anyway. My Canon 20D and 5D, Panasonic G1 and GX7 and Sony A7 all produce images that surpass anything I got from film and I've never had anyone say "That image is way to digital." I never used MF though, just 35mm.
-
How quickly we forget that not so long ago 12mp was the state of the art and we drooled over the prints... and before that people made wonderful prints with 8mp cameras... and before that...
Stop. What am I thinking, of course 12mp is waaaay too limiting.
Yes, waaaaay to limiting for sure.
Paul
-
What also looks very interesting to me about the 7s is that Steve Huff is reporting that it does not produce edge colour shifts with problematic WA lenses such as the Voigtlander 15mm.
-
does anyone care…? Srusly…?
I sure "care" (about many things in fact), but now we are talking about D700 images looking like MF…?
Hard to know what you're asking about. The a7s is about the most interesting thing out of Sony since the RX-1 for me. I love available light pics so it is downright fascinating. . But I would be very surprised if someone thinks it looks like MF.
-
12MP, well, you can only do so much with that,
This camera will shine for video and that is what Sony intended it for.
Paul
Oh… Riiiight...
-
I personally don't see any medium format look to the A7s photos out there. Looks like a FF camera output to me. The pixel size should help with the high ISO and translates to less processing with 4K video. For some reason, test sites have A7R scoring higher with dynamic range, I did not expect that.
-
Hi,
What DxO mark shows is relatively low DR at low ISO and pretty good DR at higher ISOs, a bit like Canon, but different. I don't have the slightest idea why and how.
I am skeptical about that MF look. I shoot MF and I don't see that MF look, really.
Of course, fat pixels will always look sharper at actual pixels than smaller pixels.
I also assume that the A7s has a decent level of OLP filtering, which MFD does not have.
Best regards
Erik
I personally don't see any medium format look to the A7s photos out there. Looks like a FF camera output to me. The pixel size should help with the high ISO and translates to less processing with 4K video. For some reason, test sites have A7R scoring higher with dynamic range, I did not expect that.
-
Well ...
I own quite a lot of gear from APS-C to MF and in Nikon line I have the D700 and the D800. The D700 is unique in his rendering and the files are printing very good even in A0 cropped in 3:4... Actually if I want to sell a body, it would be the D800.
12 MP, correctly framed, will give plenty to any photographers. It is a different approach of the picture, more focused on the composition, contrasts and colors than the details.
So the A7s might be a real gem for a lot of photographers.
I personally do not like A7 series because of the lack of lenses for now. It would be very cool from Nikon to make a D700 body with the A7s sensor... D700s
-
The D700 is unique in his rendering
Can you expand on that? In what way is it unique? What sets it apart?
I think that will help answer the OP's question, and return the discussion to his/her concerns.
-
I personally do not like A7 series because of the lack of lenses for now.
The lens roadmap does look impressive though.
I am also not considering the A7 series for the same reason right now but this could change very quickly...
-
Hi,
I have made a lot of really good images with 12 MP APS-C and I was also quite happy with A2 size prints. So, yes I feel 12 MP is good enough for A2.
Best regards
Erik
Well ...
I own quite a lot of gear from APS-C to MF and in Nikon line I have the D700 and the D800. The D700 is unique in his rendering and the files are printing very good even in A0 cropped in 3:4... Actually if I want to sell a body, it would be the D800.
12 MP, correctly framed, will give plenty to any photographers. It is a different approach of the picture, more focused on the composition, contrasts and colors than the details.
So the A7s might be a real gem for a lot of photographers.
I personally do not like A7 series because of the lack of lenses for now. It would be very cool from Nikon to make a D700 body with the A7s sensor... D700s
-
Can you expand on that? In what way is it unique? What sets it apart?
I think that will help answer the OP's question, and return the discussion to his/her concerns.
Yes of course !
It is unique because it is one of the few existing 12 Mp 24x36 sensor who still run today. Physically speaking, the sensor have big photo sites and micro lenses. I think the micro lenses have a good impact on the texture of the photography. In the example you will find HERE (http://www.hulyssbowman.com/tempo/test.jpg), just check at 100 % above the shoulders. You will notice a sort of "grain" which is really like film. This have nothing to do with the lens used. This is the visible pattern of the sensor. It is why 12 MP (or 10 Mp from Canon) are very CCD like, in term of final IQ.
-
In the example you will find HERE (http://www.hulyssbowman.com/tempo/test.jpg), just check at 100 % above the shoulders. You will notice a sort of "grain" which is really like film. This have nothing to do with the lens used. This is the visible pattern of the sensor.
of simply parameters of your raw conversion (NR & sharpening)... you might want to illustrate 6 stops of DR advantage MF look ("visible pattern of the sensor"... I saw examples of banding when shadows pushed with some cameras or artefacts from PDAF modified toppings or from "sensor stitching" - but to call what that JPG shows "above shoulders" a sensor pattern ?) w/ a raw file that can be checked using software like rawdigger or RPP
-
The sensor pattern, is a sort of translucent grain on top of the picture. Any D700 Nef have it whatever settings in ViewNX. It as nothing to do with noise or banding.
-
Yes of course !
It is unique because it is one of the few existing 12 Mp 24x36 sensor who still run today. Physically speaking, the sensor have big photo sites and micro lenses. I think the micro lenses have a good impact on the texture of the photography. In the example you will find HERE (http://www.hulyssbowman.com/tempo/test.jpg), just check at 100 % above the shoulders. You will notice a sort of "grain" which is really like film. This have nothing to do with the lens used. This is the visible pattern of the sensor. It is why 12 MP (or 10 Mp from Canon) are very CCD like, in term of final IQ.
Are you saying you like pixelation on your images? All you have to do is downsample. I do not associate low resolution with "CCD like" rendering. Maybe you can restate what you are trying to say. It seems like a vague idea that falls apart when written down. We all have those. It helps us get to deeper understanding.
-
In the example you will find HERE (http://www.hulyssbowman.com/tempo/test.jpg), just check at 100 % above the shoulders. You will notice a sort of "grain" which is really like film.
Looks more like a digital file to me.
How you process an image determines how 'film like' it will be, I find.
-
Ok... before this post goes the usual way of people shouting at each other, simply because they don't understand the meaning of a certain statement or just fundamentally disagree, I'd like to state that Hulyss describes exactly what I was thinking (and thanks to KirbyKrieger for picking this up while I was travelling). There is something in the "look" of the D700 pictures which sets them apart from the others, and I honestly don't care about the reason, since I have no intentions of building an own camera. And I'd never dared to compare it to MF (since this is holy land:-), if someone like Michael hadn't written this. So I will take a look at the 7s once it's around and take it from there.
Btw, I recently did some very nice looking A2 prints for my wife, so 12MP are ok, as far as I am concerned.
Andreas
-
There is something in the "look" of the D700 pictures which sets them apart from the others
you can simply show us using raw files available from http://www.imaging-resource.com ::) ... just you know take some cut from the white patch on the whibal card present in those shots (it is usually exposed very good, no readout noise affecting that part of the image), for both D700 and some other FF camera and we are all attention to see that "look" in that crop (same parameters of raw conversion in ACR for example - all NR and sharpening sliders to zero)... it is a repeatable thing, isn't it... so it is easy to show, isn't it... that mythical "visible pattern of the sensor" ;D
-
Are you saying you like pixelation on your images? All you have to do is downsample. I do not associate low resolution with "CCD like" rendering. Maybe you can restate what you are trying to say. It seems like a vague idea that falls apart when written down. We all have those. It helps us get to deeper understanding.
Yes, because it render very nice on print. Might be part of the magic.
-
I'm very interested to see more about this.
I'm rarely happy with the colour from a lot of cameras, both for stills and video, so if the A7S has some mojo there that'd be great.
-
I shoot B&W film in 6x9 and 4x5 and I have never reproduced B&W from digital like I get from my film. Tonal range and the beautiful slow transition to saturation just is not reproducible with digital.
Personally for me digital beats film, for me anyway. My Canon 20D and 5D, Panasonic G1 and GX7 and Sony A7 all produce images that surpass anything I got from film and I've never had anyone say "That image is way to digital." I never used MF though, just 35mm.
-
Tonal range and the beautiful slow transition to saturation just is not reproducible with digital.
But of course it is possible to reproduce the same tonecurve, by adjusting the linear tonecurve to a film-like response. Depending on the required tonecurve, it may also be necessary to adjust the exposure of the Raw file.
One could even create a camera profile for that purpose by feeding a manipulated input file to the profile building application. Boost highlight contrast of the target, and the profile creation process will compensate for that with a shoulder roll-off to neutralize.
One could even go as far as introducing graininess (http://www.grubbasoftware.com/) and color sensitivity of Black and White film in addition to the tonecurve, to match the original film characteristics.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I'm late to the party, but based on my experience (over 30 years with Nikon & Olympus 35mm, Pentax 67, extensive 4x5, Olympus E-1 to E-30, now Nikon D800E) skip the Sony an go straight to a D800. It won't disappoint! It's like having 4x5 IQ in a system I can canoe and backpack around. I am not using the expensive wonder-lenses (e.g. 24/1.4), only D lenses and the IQ is still there.
-
I shoot B&W film in 6x9 and 4x5 and I have never reproduced B&W from digital like I get from my film. Tonal range and the beautiful slow transition to saturation just is not reproducible with digital.
Yeah, sure.
$200 old Rebel, $100 50mm AF lens, my yellow box 400 ISO profile.
Second one is 1Ds3 (ok, we're in a different price range here)
E.
-
I'm talking about printed images, not some limited jpegs on a screen.
Yeah, sure.
$200 old Rebel, $100 50mm AF lens, my yellow box 400 ISO profile.
Second one is 1Ds3 (ok, we're in a different price range here)
E.
-
I'm talking about printed images
printed how ?
-
I print both with my large format printer at home as well as have some printed using darkroom techniques from a lab in Toronto. These prints ( both my own and lab ) are better from film images than from images I get with my 5D2 and A7R...for B&W.
printed how ?
-
I print both with my large format printer at home as well as have some printed using darkroom techniques from a lab in Toronto. These prints ( both my own and lab ) are better from film images than from images I get with my 5D2 and A7R...for B&W.
I recall a discussion on here a few years back on this very subject. I added a few B+Ws of my own for feedback and the film guys said they showed showed exactly what they meant as the pics has a certain something that digital lacked.
The kicker - the pics were not only digital, but taken on my pocket camera.
Another thought, maybe you haven't mastered digital B+W to the standard you can do film B+W. I've seen amazing B+W from digital sources [and some ropey stuff].
-
I print both with my large format printer at home
and that's digital... 0s and 1s... it does not matter that the source was film... granted some B/W films in a large formats you mentioned is still quite competetive vs sensors in digital cameras in some aspects.
-
and that's digital... 0s and 1s... it does not matter that the source was film... granted some B/W films in a large formats you mentioned is still quite competetive vs sensors in digital cameras in some aspects.
Ummm, you conveniently left out the darkroom prints.
-
I recall a discussion on here a few years back on this very subject. I added a few B+Ws of my own for feedback and the film guys said they showed showed exactly what they meant as the pics has a certain something that digital lacked.
The kicker - the pics were not only digital, but taken on my pocket camera.
Another thought, maybe you haven't mastered digital B+W to the standard you can do film B+W. I've seen amazing B+W from digital sources [and some ropey stuff].
How were these prints presented? Were they scanned, a photo take or some other digital form converted to a JPEG. This whole digitization of a print is a big equalizer. I would think it would be a total crap shoot telling anything apart once JPEG'd onto the net.
-
How were these prints presented? Were they scanned, a photo take or some other digital form converted to a JPEG. This whole digitization of a print is a big equalizer. I would think it would be a total crap shoot telling anything apart once JPEG'd onto the net.
Try reading a post more carefully before replying. I was talking about a thread on LuLa, so there's hardly likely to be any physical prints involved is there?
Also note the fans of film photography were the ones claiming my digitally originated images had something that digitally supposedly lacked. The fact that they were presented as jpegs online is irrelevant.
-
Ummm, you conveniently left out the darkroom prints.
intentionally - for as long as nothing is "digitized" at some point in the workflow I do agree that there might be some "magic" that you might see "in person only" (and not through some images posted)... it is like DxO FilmPack - I am not sure about the current situation but they used to keep a library of scanned actual films inside their software to use them to imitate a particular grain... so it is not like just the math - it is using the same "grain" that you see once you make anything digital in your workflow at any moment.
-
intentionally - for as long as nothing is "digitized" at some point in the workflow I do agree that there might be some "magic" that you might see "in person only"
The only 'magic' is that wielded by the person behind the camera. Muggles did crap work even when shooting on film. :D
-
But of course it is possible to reproduce the same tonecurve, by adjusting the linear tonecurve to a film-like response. Depending on the required tonecurve, it may also be necessary to adjust the exposure of the Raw file.
One could even create a camera profile for that purpose by feeding a manipulated input file to the profile building application. Boost highlight contrast of the target, and the profile creation process will compensate for that with a shoulder roll-off to neutralize.
One could even go as far as introducing graininess (http://www.grubbasoftware.com/) and color sensitivity of Black and White film in addition to the tonecurve, to match the original film characteristics.
Cheers,
Bart
Or, one can simply shoot film! (Taken with Leitz 350mm Telyt-R on Leicaflex SL2, on Fuji Pro 400 film). This is the kind of "nature" photography that I like.
-
Also late to the party.... I'm thinking that because of that age of this thread, most of it has been solved, but I own the D800 and the A7s.. (originally bought because I shoot video as well as stills).. the A7s has opened up more creativity to my shooting primarily for its small size and weight. Comparing it to a D800 defeats the purpose really of having a small full frame mirrorless camera. I like to shoot with my D800 when I need high res, and use the A7s for pretty much everything else.
Shooting events/concerts for clients at high ISO, and being able to send them 4 megapixel versions for their social media live straight from the WIFI in the camera is invaluable, and the images it produces are in fact amazing.
-
I am using a D3 (same sensor as D700) and a Sony a7. At the beginning I had the same feeling, pictures taken with the D3 just had a different look, soft and crisp details at the same time and very nice colours. After using the Sony a7 more and more my lightroom-skills adopted a bit and today I would prefere the more modern sensors. In my opinion they have a more "clinic" look but this can easily been changed if one is using raw.