Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Comparison Shots - P45+, D800e, 5DII  (Read 3777 times)

Richard Osbourne

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
    • Richard Osbourne Art Images
Comparison Shots - P45+, D800e, 5DII
« on: August 24, 2012, 06:02:33 am »

I had to find out what all the fuss about the D800 was so a couple of weeks ago I went up to Warehouse Express and compared a D800e with my 5dII and Cambo DS with P45+ back.

This was a quick and dirty interior test so didn't reveal as much as shooting a landscape might. I used the 17-40 on the 5DII (as I said, quick and dirty), 14-24 and 24-70 on the D800e, and Schneider 24XL and 35XL on the Cambo.

Quick summary of results:

D800 has great dynamic range, pretty much up there with the P45+. Resolution, even with the D800e and 14-24 is noticeably less than P45+/Schneiders but still significantly higher than the 5DII, as you would expect. The 14-24 is a beautiful lens - big and heavy though.
Biggest surprise was just how inaccurate the colours of both the Canon and the D800 were - they simply didn't accurately reproduce what I saw. I'm looking back at the last 10 years of shooting with Canon digital gear, and slightly weeping at the thought of how the colours were never quite right, despite a lot of struggles in post. And even stitching to 100+MP using the 50 1.2L, the images aren't as crisp as the Cambo.

The 3 files can be seen here - just click on the right and note the titles at the bottom:
http://www.richardosbourne.com/p10272531/h2bea0d69#h2bea0d69

Points to note:
My 24XL has a problem on the right hand side which Cambo should be sorting for me soon.
Look at the colour of the floor - it's only correct on the P45 file, the other two are too yellow. Also, look at the 'blue' hanging signs, rendered as purplish on the Canikons.
All processing done with my regular settings in C1 - sharpening of 130/1.3/1 and I've just equalised exposure (imperfectly) between the 3 files.

Hope these are useful to some of you. I can't see myself getting a D800, simply because of the colours. Perhaps they could be improved with profiling but I'm waiting for Canon's (hoped for / expected) big MP whopper - if the colours are one step up from the D800. The convenience and high ISO performance of 35mm still has its place in my work.

Here is a link to download full res JPEG12s of the 3 files.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10489236/D800%20TEST.zip

fredjeang

  • Guest
Re: Comparison Shots - P45+, D800e, 5DII
« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2012, 07:19:04 am »

I'm sorry to irrupt in this thread as A buzz breaker,

But I still don't get what people are trying to
Demostrate.

Those comparaisons have been on air since
Digital imagery, permanently updated each
Time a new magic device is released by our
Friendly manufacturers.

Obviously, if we have to judge hollyday pics, fences,
Roofs doors and charts, the only thing that stands still
Is a microscopic approach of the dots ( I think they are called
Pixels no?...)  and some tonal estimations as there is
Nothing more to see.

Post prod allows to get the exact look we want from any
Device and there are currently no bad camera in any
Format. Whatever you uses a p45, o d800 or an old 1d, it
Would do the job.

I don't see any good or bad cameras, just good or bad
Photographers, good or bad muas, good or bad lightning, good
Or bad stylists, good or bad pre-production, good or bad
Creativity. But cameras? What is that...
« Last Edit: August 24, 2012, 07:26:13 am by fredjeang »
Logged

jeremypayne

  • Guest
Re: Comparison Shots - P45+, D800e, 5DII
« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2012, 07:40:17 am »

But you are allowed to do the same with video, right?

Lighten up, Fred.
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: Comparison Shots - P45+, D800e, 5DII
« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2012, 07:47:33 am »

I still don't get what people are trying to
Demostrate.

Tests of gear is a sort of entertainment too, don't spoil the fun for us that like it :-).

Interesting note about colour rendition, I was myself interested in a P45+ but after seeing its color rendition (and measurements of it) I got cold feet and got a Dalsa sensor-based Aptus instead, which indeed calibrated very well. The P45+ has one of the worst metamerism indexes at DxoMark (not the greatest measurement to draw conclusions from, but a low value raises suspicion), and if you look for example at this test:

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html

you can see that while IQ180 and Sony A900 (known for good color, and indeed also measures well, the A900 the best) have very similar colors the P45+ has its own response. One may find it pleasing though, but if you really need accurate colors I think P45+ is the wrong choice. With metamerism it is so that it will depend on what colours that are in the scene how off it will be, so it may have performed well in your scene. (The danger with the dxomark number is that you don't know which colours that are off, if skin tones are great and some less important ones are off it can be a great choice anyway.)
« Last Edit: August 24, 2012, 07:59:35 am by torger »
Logged

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4066
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: Comparison Shots - P45+, D800e, 5DII
« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2012, 09:09:52 am »

Richard

Thanks for taking the time to post the results.  It's always interesting to see different views. 

I when I tested the D800, I found it's DR to be about the best I have ever seen.  I base that on the ability to expose a shot with complex highlights and shadows and still
get all the image in one frame.  By exposing for the highlights, you still can pull up the shadow details almost 4 stops.  This is something I never was able to do with a P45+
In fact the P45+ drove me a bit crazy since all I ever heard about it was the "great' dynamic range.  I found that my P45+ was very very unforgiving on highlights, in that
if you over exposed them at all, such that you got a warning on the LCD they were blown.  Most of my work with the P45+ was done in 3 shot brackets.  I also found that
pushing shadows on the P45+ was not really possible.  They either showed way too much noise or they took on a blotchy look.   The D800 to me has amazing range.  I also
agree with Torger, that the Dasla chips in the P65+ and IQ backs give much more DR than then older Kodak chips. It's very easy to push a 160 file and not have a lot of shadow
noise.   The noise in the D800 shadows at iso 100 to 200 when pushed is very nominal, Fred Miranda's original testing showed this.   The other thing that has surprised me is that the D800's noise levels at iso 1600 to 3600 are very useable, something I had taken for granted. 

Your comments on color were interesting.  When I first switched to the IQ160, I had real trouble coming from the P45+, but I quickly found that I preferred the color, look
feel of the 160.  Plus Capture One seems to work much better with the IQ160 files. 

I totally agree on the 5D MII, in fact I feel the MKIII is about the same.  I never saw much difference between the two sensors.  Both showed about the same amounts of
color noise.

My P45+ files were much improved after my back was sent back to Phase to have the controller card changed out.  I was not able to upgrade the back's firmware to the level
that allowed the longer exposures up to 1 hour.  Before I sent the back in, I really had only iso 50 to 200 (200 was a push).  With the fixed back, I had a very good 200 and
totally useable 400.  800 became possible.  The single biggest thing was how Phase was able to keep the colors much more accurate with the higher iso's where as before
the files looked very flat and showed a lot of lack of life. 

Paul

Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

fredjeang

  • Guest
Re: Comparison Shots - P45+, D800e, 5DII
« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2012, 09:14:37 am »

But you are allowed to do the same with video, right?

Lighten up, Fred.


Jeremy,

My main interest in what motion cameras are concerned is about the usability-cost effectiveness because the impact on post-prod, and the costs of a video prod have nothing to do with still.
Each time I talk about sensors output themselves is with a tint of irony in mind. I don't know if I transmit it always because I'm not native english, but I've never beleived a second about putting the cameras
video or still, in the center of the question when it comes to imagery, static or motion, except in handling, ease of use and monetary investment-return.

The only electronic parameters I've been deeply concerned was the color depth as unfortunatly working in video is very much like working with bad jpegs and yes in heavily post-produced imagery it has a
dramatic detorioration effect with serious cost and time consequences that isn't the case in still photography; and then the bank account because everything is much much more expensive to reach the
same level of the imagery we got in stills.

What I wrote in this thread is valid for video also and I admit of course that I've falled into this trap (camera) more than once from time to time. But it's not because I've been trapped that I was happy with me when it happened and what I expressed here are my most honest thoughts on the subject, included if it means to rectify some of my own writings.

Then, (you're an old member here and you know perfectly the predictible scenario), in those sort of thread, it won't take long before posters will not agree about the testing conditions settings and it will turn into circles without reaching any conclusion, because IMO there are no conclusions to reach as any test is subjective and subject of interpretation, technical level of the tester etc...I include of course the video testings.
How many times I've seen footage of a cam in higher isos with some conclusions, and using the cam it was very very different, or color cast reputation that in the end were only justified because of the lack of knowledge from the testers etc...

I've been writing posts here in Lu-La than I wouldn't write again because I lacked practise and knowledge at that time and had strange beleifs about the cams. We all do that because I beleive it's a process of trial and errors and learning from them. And learning from errors means to be able to rectify when we grow and have more experience. If I said similar things in motion, then I was wrong. 

Cheers from Madrid
« Last Edit: August 24, 2012, 09:37:05 am by fredjeang »
Logged

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
Re: Comparison Shots - P45+, D800e, 5DII
« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2012, 09:17:03 am »

D800 has great dynamic range, pretty much up there with the P45+. Resolution, even with the D800e and 14-24 is noticeably less than P45+/Schneiders but still significantly higher than the 5DII, as you would expect. The 14-24 is a beautiful lens - big and heavy though.
Biggest surprise was just how inaccurate the colours of both the Canon and the D800 were - they simply didn't accurately reproduce what I saw.

The illumination in the store is florescent and the CRI of the lamps is likely low. Hardly a good situation to judge color accuracy, especially without a custom profile.

Bill
Logged

Richard Osbourne

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
    • Richard Osbourne Art Images
Re: Comparison Shots - P45+, D800e, 5DII
« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2012, 09:35:24 am »

As I said, quick and dirty. It can show something of use, but not everything everyone might want to look at. For me, without doing too much to any of the files, I was able to see that the colours from the Canon and D800 weren't bad, but they didn't show the actual colours. I'm being excessively fussy perhaps. I tried playing with white balance, colour balance in PS...nothing worked. So, Bill, perhaps a custom colour profile will work - though I did see one test with a colour chart in and, even corrected with a profile, the D800 couldn't match a MFDB (I forget which back it was).
Paul, agree with you about the P45+ and blown highlights. I'm very new to MFDB so I have a lot to learn, but this has already caused a few problems. And I'm having to bracket as much if not more than the Canons just for this. I bought a MFDB to lessen my workflow... this has not worked out so far!
And Mr.Torger...thanks, very useful info. I can see that my camera consideration is far from over.
Pages: [1]   Go Up