Hi,
The answer is:
A) P45+
B) Sony A7rII
C) Sony Alpha 900
There were 20 votes (I did a vote of my own to test the polling - on "Neither is P45+")
So we could see that the P45+ got four votes to be P45+, the Sony A7rII got six and the Sony Alpha 8.
I am not sure all the votes were placed for the right reason. This was intended as a colour demo.
I am thankful for all good comments.
Now, a few reflections of my own.
The major reason of choice of cameras was that I own all three, but there were other factors.
- The P45+ is known to have tricky color, would it show up?
- The P45+ is medium format, it is often said that there is a medium format color. Also, it has been said on these forums that Hasselblad X1D has Medium Format Color while the Fuji GFX has DSLR color. Would observers be able to discern that MFD color in something that has some elements of a controlled comparison?
- The P45+ is probably said to have a CCD look.
- The P45+ was released 2007 and the A900 2008, so they are similar generation.
- Some experts on color regard the Alpha 900 to have the best compromis in CFA design in commercially available cameras.
- The Alpha 900 was taken for P45+ most frequently. That may be because for good or different color. Don't know!
- The sampled colours were generally well rendered, with some deviations on the red chilly peppers.
- The lime fruit was not affected by high near IR reflection spectra, kit reproduced extremely well with all sensors.
It would be nice to include like thing like human skin in test scene, but that is nothing I can buy in a grocery store, thanks god for that...
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
If I understand the nature of your topic and efforts to put it to test in a scientific methodology, I think this essay, as presented, could only be but a dead end road for various reasons.
First we'd had to define colour accuracy and once defined for the all chain involved and not just camera sensors; in wich scenarios such coulour accuracy will influence or not the par photographer/photographic tools.
Is there such thing as absolute coulour accuracy? considering that the camera sensor and color science is only a small part of the chain in which we have to consider displays, lightning sources, printing/viewing but also retouching within the nature of the work ( Museum reproduction has very little to do with fashion photography) and the psychologic nature of mankind.
It is all about interpretation and mind is conditionned.
As mind is conditionned from the very roots, perception is therefore altered by the programming within the limitations of the human apparel.
The conditionned perception alters the way engineers consider colour accuracy as correct and for a certain purpose and within a determined space and time. (Cultural codes, learned values etc...)
One little alteration in all the chain, such as displays calibrations, will break accuracy.
And accuracy is also linked to the nature of the work. Where this accuracy matters? Skin tones? But who shoots skin tones?
If black people were rulling the industrial world and were the onces making gear, skin tone references will be something very different than what is being accepted as "pleasing". The sensation that a skin tone remains pleasing to our eyes is completly conditionned by the dominant societies.
As a matter of fact what we have are as many colour sciences as brands, targetting a specific consummer.
Instead of accuracy, we can merely talk about "optimized for".
So there are of course no magic MF coulour the same way as there aren't magic dslrs colours either.
All what people see are illusions.
Being able to perceive differences in a blind test between colours is doable for everyone but does not bring any sort of conclusion in a way or another.
Then we have the question if it influences the choice of a system when it comes to invest money in.
As we are talking about systems and costs, there are so many different parameters that come into consideration before colour and even resolution.
Disponible cash is one of them.
Pro service, flash system implementation performances, electronic aspects, AF, lenses etc...that we could consider practical facts (a tank built camera or a consummer one are facts. AF, flash capabilities, and costs are facts). Then, there are those more volatile concepts, interpretations and preferences such as colour, handling, photographic style, and something as simple as falling in love with a gear can make one perceive more goodies than there really are. (Same with relashionships).
And more importantly. Nobody ever decides anything here. You do not decide to be Erik. You are this Erik despite yourself. You never decided to be an engineer oriented. It just happened. There has never been a will, a complete consciousness about the fact that you became interested in images and photography more than in geology or litterature. There is no decision on colour tastes either. It happens despite yourself and evolves with datas. Datas are conditionning, information is conditionning. It transforms perception, ideas, beleifs and so on.
Nobody ever controls anything. We just have the sensation that there is a chooser, but there is no such thing as a chooser in the sense generaly accepted.
Pizza or pasta?
Red wine or white wine?
Nike or Adidas?
Phase one or Hasselblad or Nikon? Nobody can even tell scientificaly how this ends to be once's tool more than this other. Some people loves Hasselblad and think that the Fuji is crappy dslr overdone colour. Other see exactly the opposite. Why? It happens by itself. There is no thruth whatsoever.
So one do researches, test gear, try to find a rational explaination in order to "choose" this upon this other.
A choice is made apparently based on this investigation. But the choice was already made before all that happened.
All the ruminations are a parade, a show of the choice itself. In other words, the conclusion comes first (but we don't know it), then apoears the argumentation, and finaly the conclusion is presented again in consciousness as the result.
This is the big illusion. This is only a play.
Will science irrupts to erradicate the human factor and bring datas on the table so we can rely on absolute facts instead? That is relevant for the camera and software maker. Then, the camera brand will alter this celestial order using the very same engineering because they are targetting a specific client. Therefore, we are in marketing.
Colour matrixes, complex science will be involved in order to alter the look and have a signature that others do not.
Objects are not what they are because this is what they are but because of a choice of an intention.
Therefore, everything is distortionned and nothing is accurate as such.
Anything that people say you mentionned is right nor wrong.
All there is are interpretations of the same play.
I tend not to like Sony colour science. Each time I have a Sony image I say "I don't like the files!"
Is there a rational reason why I like Nikon and not Sony? Nope. It happens.
I can not come to the conclusion that Sony is crap and Nikon is best. It would be absurd.
I don't like Sony the same way I don't feel atrracted by this striking blonde other guy find attractive.
May I extract complex argumentation in order to explain my point of view, someone would bring the antitesis
With a no less valuable argumentation.
This is a dead end road, not because the way you did the test, but because
There can not be an answer reliable enough.
Best regards.
Poll
