Sorry for misspelling artificial. What I meant about the Jpeg straight from my current Canon EOS 5D, they are not what I am looking for. In my eyes these images are artificial. I don't know how it is with the D800, because I don't know anybody who has one. And so I cannot compare my EOS 5D Jpeg's with the ones of the D800.
I was just wondering if a higher DR would benefit me, because in a lot of photographs with my good old EOS 5D the shadows are quite dark. Of course I can PP that in LR4(which i own), but like I said I have a back problem and cannot sit very long. So, the least I have to PP, the easier it will be for me. Nothing to that I don't like PP like Brightcolors suggested. Just trying to find a way to reduce "pp-time".
[quote name='Reinier' timestamp='1360183195' post='21831']
What I meant about the Jpeg straight from my current Canon EOS 5D, they are not what I am looking for. In my eyes these images are artificial.
[/quote]
One thing, one shouldn't forget when using Jpg ooc from the 5D1 ... this is an old camera,
and one area where you really notice this, is the in-camera raw-converter and the jpg-engine ...
they are simply not state of the art any more. You immediately notice the difference when
comparing an ooc-jpg (even one with "all-settings-right") with a jpg derived from a raw-conversion
with an actual raw-converter.
While the 5D is still a very fine camera for me (since I know about (and can live with) its drawbacks)
I do nearly never use ooc-jpgs for the reason mentioned.
Just a thought ... Rainer
02-06-2013, 09:58 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-06-2013, 10:01 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='Reinier' timestamp='1360183195' post='21831']
Sorry for misspelling artificial. What I meant about the Jpeg straight from my current Canon EOS 5D, they are not what I am looking for. In my eyes these images are artificial. I don't know how it is with the D800, because I don't know anybody who has one. And so I cannot compare my EOS 5D Jpeg's with the ones of the D800.
I was just wondering if a higher DR would benefit me, because in a lot of photographs with my good old EOS 5D the shadows are quite dark. Of course I can PP that in LR4(which i own), but like I said I have a back problem and cannot sit very long. So, the least I have to PP, the easier it will be for me. Nothing to that I don't like PP like Brightcolors suggested. Just trying to find a way to reduce "pp-time".
[/quote]
As I said before.... the bigger DR is HIDDEN in the RAW data, you do not get the huge DR hidden in RAW data from normal camera output.
Both Nikon and Canon give special function settings (called D-lighting with a Nikon, and I do not remember with a Canon) that can give a bit more room DR wise in JPEG, but neither will give great results (seeing you do not even like standard JPEG output).
So, the best advice I can give you is to turn down the contrast when needed (you can make a custom lower contrast setting with the 5D mk II on its mode dial for instance).
To take advantage of the bigger DR at base ISO of the D600 and D800, you will need to put more effort in PP. The bigger DR simply is not something one gets with a normal tonal curve.
And as I mentioned before, also the Canon DSLRs have a lot of headroom DR wise, so when you want to bring back more RD at the top and/or bottom end in a RAW converter (like Lightroom) and/or post processing, you can do so with a 5D mk II too (and even with your 5D).
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1360187931' post='21835']
...To take advantage of the bigger DR at base ISO of the D600 and D800, you will need to put more effort in PP. The bigger DR simply is not something one gets with a normal tonal curve.
And as I mentioned before, also the Canon DSLRs have a lot of headroom DR wise, so when you want to bring back more RD at the top and/or bottom end in a RAW converter (like Lightroom) and/or post processing, you can do so with a 5D mk II too (and even with your 5D).
[/quote]
At base ISO the advantage of the D600/D800 ranges from 2.5 to 3,2 stops of dynamic range. This is a huge advantage. From about ISO 1600 both Nikon and Canon (5DMk 2 and 3) are equally. (see here: http://home.comcast.net/~nikond70/Charts/PDR.htm#EOS%205D%20Mark%20II,EOS%205D%20Mark%20III,D800,D600)
So of course the DR advantage in RAW is very obvious. You have much more headroom in your RAW files to recover your highlights or shadows.
But if you only shoot in jpg mode you are giving away this advantage. But honestly who is shooting only jpgs with these cameras?
[quote name='Claus' timestamp='1360194601' post='21836']
At base ISO the advantage of the D600/D800 ranges from 2.5 to 3,2 stops of dynamic range. This is a huge advantage. From about ISO 1600 both Nikon and Canon (5DMk 2 and 3) are equally. (see here: http://home.comcast.net/~nikond70/Charts/PDR.htm#EOS%205D%20Mark%20II,EOS%205D%20Mark%20III,D800,D600)
So of course the DR advantage in RAW is very obvious. You have much more headroom in your RAW files to recover your highlights or shadows.
But if you only shoot in jpg mode you are giving away this advantage. But honestly who is shooting only jpgs with these cameras?
[/quote]
It will help if you read what is written through the thread.....
[quote name='Reinier' timestamp='1360183195' post='21831']
Sorry for misspelling artificial. What I meant about the Jpeg straight from my current Canon EOS 5D, they are not what I am looking for. In my eyes these images are artificial. I don't know how it is with the D800, because I don't know anybody who has one. And so I cannot compare my EOS 5D Jpeg's with the ones of the D800.
I was just wondering if a higher DR would benefit me, because in a lot of photographs with my good old EOS 5D the shadows are quite dark. Of course I can PP that in LR4(which i own), but like I said I have a back problem and cannot sit very long. So, the least I have to PP, the easier it will be for me. Nothing to that I don't like PP like Brightcolors suggested. Just trying to find a way to reduce "pp-time".
[/quote]
Regarding the option to set output to jpeg in Nikon DSLRs, I would suggest you turn on ADL (normal or low), because it is meant to be used with jpeg outputs incase of (arguable) higher DR needs. And also the IQ should be set to "fine". Because "jpeg basic" uses quite higher compression ratios. What you call artificial might be because of the high compression ratio of the jpeg output.
Coming back to raw outputs: I believe before focusing on DR characteristics, achieving correct metering is essential. In case of D800, two options (maybe also two of them at the same time) can be considered:
1) Using UniWB in the camera's WB setting. There a few UniWB files for the D800 on the net. I assume there will be more in the near future. The UniWB setting basicly cancels the in camera tweak of the RGB channel settings. Consequently, if you know what you're doing, based on the scene you get more leeway during PP in terms of tonal range and DR. So if you are meticulous about exposure, DR and TR, UniWB is something that can be considered. But of course in your case, I wouldn't suggest it easily, because time needed for PP is considerably longer (change WB and tint to match with the natural colors for instance). And also if you use UniWB, the image you see on your camera's LCD would be greenish (you have to check the histogramm to evaluate the photograph, which Nikon can make you do it in a quite easy way).
2) In case of D800 (at least mine is so ![[Image: smile.gif]](http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) />), underexposure of 0.7EV in average can be applied. Especially when used with manual focus lenses & matrix metering, my D800 (also my old D700) tend to overexpose. And lost highlights are simply lost, and there's no recovery. Until I got used to check histogramm instead of checking the image itself on LCD, I shot a lot of overexposed images with my camera. It's so simple with nikon to check the luminance histogramm and check the histogramms for all 3 channels, and it is simply useful and effective. Because the image itself on LCD (which is a jpeg format by the way) does not tell a lot.
So, if the aim is to decrease PP time, I would suggest (with D800):
- use the correct metering option based on the scene. Matrix metering works quite well on D800 but on some specific cases you have to be careful and not count on the very intelligent matrix algorithms.
- underexpose a bit (based on the scene DR)
- check histogramm right after the shot and avoid hightlights (especially red channel)
You see if you want to do less during PP, you have to do more before the shot />...
Serkan
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1360222778' post='21837']
It will help if you read what is written through the thread.....
[/quote]
Then, please, read carefully what I wrote.
[quote name='Reinier' timestamp='1360183195' post='21831']
....What I meant about the Jpeg straight from my current Canon EOS 5D, they are not what I am looking for. In my eyes these images are artificial. I don't know how it is with the D800, because I don't know anybody who has one. And so I cannot compare my EOS 5D Jpeg's with the ones of the D800.....
[/quote]
....well, wouldn't like to be seen pushing one brand over another now :-) …. but if you have a 5D now the logical progression would be to a 5D3, no? don't you already have the lenses? - have you tried buying a decent set of new lenses lately?
….a friend who had a 5D and now has the 5D3 is making excellent pictures with it with little or no post, especially in difficult rushed and dark situations and he's using jpegs, for me his pictures are noticeably better now and are really nice and natural (of course output jpegs depend largely on your camera settings so just be careful if using the in-camera NR) + the camera has what is one of the very best autofocus systems around …. i've been at an event using my 7D/70-300 and was offered by another friend "here hold my 800/70-300 take some shots with it"…..well while i stood there looking throughout its nice ff v/f and watching it find focus i could have taken a complete burst of not missed shots with my old 7D, so for me it was no contest, i gave it back, thanks for the look ....but he makes lovely pictures from it
+ have you tried buying a set of lenses for a new system lately - miscentered lenses, lenses that break, soft lenses that are 'within specs' from whoever etc etc - for me, buying a lens that i'm happy with has been a problem, i have to be really careful although maybe it's just me....i hope
…. not trying to influence anyone or anything mind you, just a personal point of view
[quote name='soLong' timestamp='1360265307' post='21840']
...i've been at an event using my 7D/70-300 and was offered by another friend "here hold my 800/70-300 take some shots with it"…..well while i stood there looking throughout its nice ff v/f and watching it find focus i could have taken a complete burst of not missed shots with my old 7D...
[/quote]
Cool, so in your opinion the AF of the D800 is not worth a penny, heh?
Even an old 7D will beat it?
Maybe the old 5D or still better.... the old 300D will beat it, heh?
Sorry, but some people here are really funny.
[quote name='Claus' timestamp='1360271874' post='21842']
Cool, so in your opinion the AF of the D800 is not worth a penny, heh?
Even an old 7D will beat it?
Maybe the old 5D or still better.... the old 300D will beat it, heh?
Sorry, but some people here are really funny.
[/quote]
..... excuse me? .... let me make myself quite clear to those of a tad poor understanding ability who might look in here from time to time....and make things up.....
1. yes, in my very own hands, with my very own eyes, at the very same time, taking quickly the very same types of pictures with both my 7D/70-300 and my friends 800/70-300 - the autofocus on the 7D/70-300 (which has been surpassed apparently by the 5D3) eats the 800/70-300 combo, no doubt about it - and as you've brought up the comparison, my friend said in passing that he has had to replace his 70-300 lens regularly due to failure, not so me with the 70-300L
.....the "D800's autofocus not worth a penny" are your words not mine, thank you
2. i don't know, and never said i did know, about the 5D1 or the 300D, although i do know that my canon friend who i trust and who also had the 5D says that in his opinion the 5D3 is a lovely camera, also in difficult situations, and the comparison of his previous and current jpeg pictures prove it
.....i do know that in my nikon friends opinion his 800 is superior to his old 200 in dark noise, if that's helpful for you....and he does make lovely pictures with the 800 (he works from raw)
3. yes i do try to make light hearted comments, even this one, so thank you for your complement - but while doing this i do also try to make sense and be accurate with my words and not talk nonsense even in my lighter vein, so.....kool.....don't be sorry....
.....and ahem, i do believe if i can recall, that the theme of my previous post was the changing of brands which would no doubt require a new set of lenses the acquiring of which i personally have found to be a very tiresome ordeal due to apparent QC problems on the part of every manufacturer no matter how grand - well, maybe the pros are better looked after, but again i don't know this re. stills work
[color="#2E8B57"]EDIT: 8 Feb 2.40p euro time -
just a few thoughts re. the two messages from Pv and Bc below -
1. why is this edit here? …. so my few extra words don't appear again at the top of the daily list
2. who me a troll? …. well 'fraid any message from me goes through quite a few edits due to fear that my jokes will be misunderstood - so sorry everyone missed the first draft
3. what dear Reinier can afford? …. yep sorry again, just that as soon as the 800 was mentioned i forgot $$$, although the 5D3 is even more money - so 600 maybe? (but plus lenses = $$$)
4. and at last back to the original post topic …. well methinks that the jpegs i've seen from 5D3 are really quite nice, but all depends on the camera settings - and ahem, i'm sure that the 800's jpegs would be peachy too - but the $$$ no matter how well designed are always a worry…..:-([/color]
|
