Previous news story    Next news story

A sneak peek at our forthcoming camera test scene

By dpreview staff on Oct 9, 2012 at 23:59 GMT

As part of the development of connect.dpreview.com we've created a more advanced, more detailed test scene, which will be launched on dpreview.com soon. The new scene is roughly eight times larger (in area) than the existing test, allowing us to test to even higher resolutions than before. A larger scene also increases working distances - avoiding the inconsistent performances we've seen from some recent fixed-lens cameras, and the new design effectively overcomes the depth of field limitations experienced with our current studio scene.

We're also working on a low-light mode that will give a truer impression of how the cameras will perform in poor lighting in the real world. The low-light mode will not only use lower luminance but also a less color-balanced light source - giving a clearer impression of what happens under real-world lighting, when cameras struggle to capture and represent color accurately.

The test scene can be seen in our phone reviews, over at connect.dpreview.com, but we'll be using it for many of the cameras launched at Photokina in the very near future, and working to re-test key cameras from the last year or two.

Comments

Total comments: 324
1234
Gesture
By Gesture (Oct 10, 2012)

Where's the kitchen sink?

1 upvote
Sergey Borachev
By Sergey Borachev (Oct 10, 2012)

Will DPR re-test the more significant cameras from the last 2 years with the new chart?

If not, the problem is that it is impossible to compare cameras properly after a change, e.g. comparing the D800, 5DIII, E-M5 or X-Pro1 with newer cameras coming out, to help upgrade/choice decisions.

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Oct 11, 2012)

Last line of the news story: 'We'll be using it for many of the cameras launched at Photokina in the very near future, and working to re-test key cameras from the last year or two.'

2 upvotes
Sergey Borachev
By Sergey Borachev (Oct 11, 2012)

Sorry I did not see it for some reason. My mistake.

If possible, can you re-test all the key cameras in the last 2 years first before publishing new camera test results using this new chart, so as to make comparisons possible? Thanks.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Oct 11, 2012)

We'll make sure that a good selection are available for comparison at launch.

0 upvotes
Lan
By Lan (Oct 10, 2012)

I wouldn't mind some small lightsources near the edges, to check for coma.

Also wouldn't object to some neutral coloured objects in front of and behind the chart - to test for Axial CA.

Are those reflective balls actually balls, or just a photograph of them?

Have you discussed the new chart with the folks at DxO? I'm sure their feedback would be invaluable if it hasn't already been given :)

0 upvotes
Biowizard
By Biowizard (Oct 10, 2012)

From the old scene, I miss:

1) Paperclips and Baileys bottle: metal/metallic respectively, with specular reflections.

2) Martini bottle & Batteries (Peripheral), Queen of Hearts (central): all ideal for checking over-sharpening, edge chromatic aberration, JPEG artifacts, noise, and the like.

3) Kodak Q-60 colour chart - large gamut and wide ranging palette.

4) The dark box of Yarn reels - which were great for checking shadow detail.

In the new scene I dislike:

a) Too many colour photos of unknown quality/calibration/gamut

b) The non-standard playing cards: you should stick to a known standard (eg, Piatnik, Bicycle, etc) like your previous Queen of Hearts.

c) Dull "flat" feel (which I realise is actually unimportant, but hey ho!

In the new scene, I LIKE:

x) The computer PCB, wine corks, and other real items/textures around the periphery

y) The hatched engravings - assuming they are genuine originals

IN SHORT: you are MISSING some vital textures/reflections/shadows.

Brian

11 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (Oct 10, 2012)

Do you really think that THIS is the hen with the golden eggs. The major parts of the old setup, the bottles, the globe, the yarn box, the robot, the disposition of the objects in depth that gave an idea of the DOF, all that is missing here. This is a mixture between Imaging Resource and a souvenir shop, but certainly not a test picture that one could title as such. The graduation scale and the color box is all I can see as positive elements here. Why not find a big poster and take a picture, a portrait of someone with fancy flower arrangement, then the old setup expanded to more objects. On your new setup, all is flat. You need at least a foot in depth to be able to get a DOF idea. Human is an animal that works with inhabited values, changing this can make them search their salute elsewhere. You try to change too much since you left to Amazon, and you know yourself by comments you read, that many are not happy about that, like testing suddenly cellphones, for example.

2 upvotes
thejohnnerparty
By thejohnnerparty (Oct 10, 2012)

I liked the yarn in the shadow box in the old setup. I think it should be kept in the new one. Perhaps the box you have in the new setup is okay, but I thought the yarn in the old setup was good for showing detail in the shadows. Also, would like more 3D. I like the robot, the globe and the bottle.

2 upvotes
bugbait
By bugbait (Oct 10, 2012)

Photos are essential as they offer smooth & complex hue saturation and value.
The old man is ideal. The blown out female image is not as useful to me as there is absolutely no texture to her skin. Real women have texture, and so do the images of them. The lip area was also very useful part of the old scene. The child is adorable, but even if it is your own child or a paid (parent) model; I do think it is inappropriate to use a child for the intense viewing of thousands of strangers. I feel strongly on that point.

There is a lot to like about the scene, but do not finalize until you get lots of feedback from users and have implemented some of their suggestions. Such as adding back in shadow areas, that is a must for most folks.

Thank you for the effort.

3 upvotes
c_henry
By c_henry (Oct 11, 2012)

I don't really understand why the child picture is inappropriate, surely many photographers take pictures of children, either their own or other peoples.

If the concern is around the type of person viewing the picture, I'm sure they can get better quality (for want of a better phrase) pictures from other sources.

Otherwise DPR would have to ban all child pictures from the site. Something I think not many of us would want.

Just a thought.

1 upvote
bdhufnagel
By bdhufnagel (Oct 10, 2012)

New user here. Does DP Review have a dynamic range / white circle test? This has been an issue with me for years but most reviews I see look at color fringing, color accuracy, moire, and resolution. I would like every camera review to include dynamic range measurements and how the exposure number affects range and gray scales.

I would like an objective test comparing combined lens, sensor, and software behavior equally across all camera types. I can tweak color and print on different size paper according to pixel count but i cannot fix dynamic range or clipping issues. Preserving detail in shadows and shiny objects are things I am always concerned with.

1 upvote
Torvald
By Torvald (Oct 10, 2012)

I miss the structure of various materials: glass, metal, wood, plast, (..) , their reflects..
The previous dark box was also usefull.

3 upvotes
rocklobster
By rocklobster (Oct 10, 2012)

I am trying to like it but I think that it is a step backwards. There is a lack of reflective and shadowed areas and the right hand side seems to be brighter than the left. Also, colour saturation seems to be low. I must say that I prefer the studio scene at 'imaging resource' as it is more 3D although that overdose the bottle theme. I also, don't like it that a camera under test takes a photo of a photo - prefer real objects.

Cheers

3 upvotes
Shangri La
By Shangri La (Oct 10, 2012)

No glass/metal? And those prints are of unknown/mediocre(?) quality, really hard to gauge camera quality.

4 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (Oct 10, 2012)

I like the little shark!

0 upvotes
Najinsky
By Najinsky (Oct 10, 2012)

Please make the test scene widget usable on an iPad (and other tablets if it isn't already). Currently the widget displays but an area can't be selected, when an area in the scene is 'clicked', it moves to the correct horizontal, but the vertical is always at the very bottom of the Sven making it useless.

1 upvote
Najinsky
By Najinsky (Oct 10, 2012)

"Sven, making it useless". English football fans should appreciate that "auto-correct" mistake. ;-)

0 upvotes
ozturert
By ozturert (Oct 10, 2012)

1) I think it'd be better to put smaller objects (like furry objects) to as middle as possible because lense's performance will affect the corner objects greatly.
2) What are those photos on the right-top for?
3) It'd be perfect to create some shadow areas to see dynamic range and behavior of the camera in shadows under good light.

0 upvotes
marcuz
By marcuz (Oct 10, 2012)

I don't know, I agree that depth of the old scene was a bit of a problem, making difficult to understand if what was blurred in a camera result was indeed unresolved or simply slightly out of focus, but what it seems to me here is that there's much of the same stuff repeated all over a bit hectically.

I mean, the printings on a a curved surface (the bottle) with the ulterior complexity of the reflection of its etiquette, the etchings of the paper money and the slight pattern of its watermarking, the tone of yellow and red of the kinda universally known mickey mouse figurine, that are maybe more reliable to note how a sensor handle colors than the color grid here, at least to me, well I'll miss them...

0 upvotes
IZO100
By IZO100 (Oct 10, 2012)

all objects are almost flat on the wall. You need to add more "3D" objects like you add in the previous ones.

2 upvotes
Michael Foran
By Michael Foran (Oct 10, 2012)

I am sure others have mentioned this already but I don't see the point of the photos in the upper right. Isn't that kind of like showing how good a new TV would look on an old TV? I have no way of knowing if any defects I am looking at are the result of the camera being tested, faults in the prints, or the camera that took the original photos. Real world objects would be much more useful. Maybe some fake flowers or steel wool (dark and detailed). Maybe something shiny and textured so we can see if the camera has chromatic aberration problems with highlights and catchlights.

0 upvotes
Jen Yates
By Jen Yates (Oct 10, 2012)

I'd be much happier if whoever is responsible for hosting on the dpreview sites sorts out the major capacity issues you have. The site is either:

A) Fine
B) Slow
C) Insanely slow
D) Spewing random errors at passers by

And it would seem that (D) is best buddies with (A),(B) and (C) as it's never far away.

2 upvotes
Joesiv
By Joesiv (Oct 10, 2012)

I would also say, it'd be nice to have some backlit portion that shoots through a transparent grey scale or even better sky scape with clouds, cut a hole in the board. This would be invaluable for comparing dynamic range especially in RAW (leave it to the viewer)

0 upvotes
Joesiv
By Joesiv (Oct 10, 2012)

When you re-test, could you please do a "nominal" resolution file as well? Something like 12MP. In the widget you could have a checkbox that when turned on, cameras would be compared at the same resolution. The large MP cameras would be downsampled using a decent workflow (such as bicubic + unsharp mask).

This would help us compare directly based on the same screen reproduction or print size.

0 upvotes
boothrp
By boothrp (Oct 10, 2012)

Hopefully more than just "Key cameras from last year or two" will be tested. I suspect dpreview underestimates the interest people have in older cameras. EG, someone might want to compare how much better the Sigma DP1M is than the original DP1 series. And don't say "who cares about Sigma cameras?" they have their own special and justifiable niche.

1 upvote
plamensio
By plamensio (Oct 10, 2012)

Not bad but it is too flat for me no curves and shadows-like in real life.
Biggest problem -you have to take pictures with all old cameras .How we’ll be able to compare models and images otherwise?

1 upvote
andrew turner
By andrew turner (Oct 10, 2012)

Looks very flat....

FWIW I'd like to see the focus target as well as a bunch of other stuff on the focal plane, but also a range of objects in front of and behind it as well.

Might be a good way to compare DOF capabilities?

thanks
Andrew

3 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Oct 10, 2012)

Our old test scene used to be one of the only ones in the industry to do this and all it meant was that people tried to assess focus position far more precisely than we were able to actually set it.

The downsides massively outweigh the benefits, so this probably isn't going to happen, I'm afraid.

1 upvote
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Oct 10, 2012)

Andrew: Why test for DOF capability?
It is a result of focal range (or sensor size resp.), distance and aperture.
Sensor quality has nothing to do with it.

1 upvote
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Oct 10, 2012)

One of the only ones ? As opposed to most of only one, or just one of most others ?

0 upvotes
andrew turner
By andrew turner (Oct 11, 2012)

@Michael_13:

All bokeh is not created equal...

@ M Jesper: LOL. That was funny.

0 upvotes
compositor20
By compositor20 (Oct 10, 2012)

There are almost no shadow areas to evaluate shadow noise... where it is more problematic... please light only part of the image with a hard spot light so that parts of the image are in shadow...

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Oct 10, 2012)

That's almost certainly how the low light mode will work - partial illumination with a non-colour-balanced light source (a much more useful analogue of real-world conditions).

1 upvote
Great Snoopy
By Great Snoopy (Oct 10, 2012)

You may want to cast a shadow on the main scene too in order to better asses the DR of the camera in good light. The secondary scene you are talking sounds to me rather like a high iso test bed (which is good, also).

I also think that it would be nice to keep/integrate real life objects from the old scene (the watch being one of them, I'm sure more could be integrated)

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Jo_To
By Jo_To (Oct 10, 2012)

The first time I looked at the new scene, i thought OMG what a c..p. were is my beloved wrist watch? Many aspects could be prooven here at a closer look. The blue for the sky, sharpness, and noise.

Now I took a closer look to the new test scene, and I have to admit, it's not that bad at all. Because it's bigger you have to look closer. I found plenty of good stuff .Many Textures and some shiny objects, little tiny fonts, different kind of feathers.

But at least I have to say:

PLEASE SAVE THE WIRST WATCH!!

and Robot and Paperclips would be very helpfull too
And the Martini? I like Martini a lot ;-)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 58 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
mekanik
By mekanik (Oct 10, 2012)

Totally! Paperclips on this green needle pillow (or whatever this fantastic noise magnet is) and the watch. I will definitely miss them!

5 upvotes
AVe
By AVe (Oct 10, 2012)

Yeah, please add the watch. It's my benchmark as well.
And a shadowed place isn't that hard?

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Dave_H
By Dave_H (Oct 10, 2012)

I don't like it way to many objects that are similar.

5 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Oct 10, 2012)

Why no cat or dog in the scene?
How else will many judge a camera's quality?

10 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (Oct 10, 2012)

Ha- good one!

0 upvotes
arhmatic
By arhmatic (Oct 10, 2012)

This looks wrong. I think you should keep EVERYTHING from the old scene, and just add to it. There are many objects that got used to them for the past 10 years or so.

Also, I would not have any photos at all, but more real life objects.
The writst watch is one object I always looked at.

12 upvotes
starship2
By starship2 (Oct 10, 2012)

I do agree in every aspect.

1 upvote
arhmatic
By arhmatic (Oct 10, 2012)

Besides... it's simply not an "artsy" composition. Be creative! This still matters A LOT, despite the purely technical purpose here. What you got are just some random items stuck on a wall... you can do better.

2 upvotes
akiskev
By akiskev (Oct 10, 2012)

Nice sound card from the 16bit era :D

3 upvotes
rrr_hhh
By rrr_hhh (Oct 10, 2012)

I just tested the new test scene and I got a problem with the iPad : when I tap on the screen to change the spot observed for the comparison, the dotted rectangle goes down at the border of the frame. There is no way to move it in the middle of the frame.
That is already the case with the old studio scene, but with the old one there are preset positions which I could use : clicking on one of the presets rectangles the crops would appear in the comparator as intended. So the older scene was better if you were surfing on an iPad.

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Oct 10, 2012)

The first step will be a new scene (rather than new presentation tool), but we're trying to make the site more mobile-friendly, so I'll pass your feedback on to the dev team. At the very least, we'll make sure there are preset positions.

1 upvote
goblin
By goblin (Oct 10, 2012)

Will you keep the old scene as well, for the sake of comparing to older cameras ?

Otherwise, you'd be losing your main advantage - an easy comparison tool between cameras separated by years and generations.

I don't really care what a new camera looks like with a new scene if I can not compare it to an older one. And the "key cameras" remains to be defined, but I'm not holding my breath as far as my brand is concerned...

7 upvotes
RedFox88
By RedFox88 (Oct 10, 2012)

Unlikely. They did not keep shooting the old scene when they last updated the test scene. For instance the 5D is on the old scene and you cannot compare it against the 5D2.

1 upvote
fred134
By fred134 (Oct 10, 2012)

High ISO :
Would it be possible to compare cameras at same shutter speed (and f-stop), rather than at same ISO ? (or as an alternative)
ISO are not the same from camera to camera, unfortunately, and what is interesting in practice is the IQ at a given shutter speed/f-stop.

PS : I understand you would have to make some images lighter or darker in post, but you could also adapt the iso for a given shutter speed/f-stop.

1 upvote
fred134
By fred134 (Oct 10, 2012)

Shadow box : the present one is very usefulll to evaluate dynamic range thanks to the provided raw files.
Could you please maintain enough different objects at different tonalities in the new box to allow this ? (And maybe place it closer to the center, as it is not flat?)

2 upvotes
RussellInCincinnati
By RussellInCincinnati (Oct 10, 2012)

Nice if there were a bit of high-resolution target right at the edge of one of the long borders, in the middle. Happily there seems to be an engraving in the middle of one of the short borders, that serves that purpose.

Seeing as how ordinary questions are, resolution/performance at center, at center of long border edge, and at center of short border edge. And for compulsive types, extreme corners.

0 upvotes
billimbriale1
By billimbriale1 (Oct 10, 2012)

Would have been a nice touch if the photo of the bearded gentleman at the upper right was of Ansel Adams.

1 upvote
AV Janus
By AV Janus (Oct 10, 2012)

+1000
For the low light mode.
I hope it will be the same scene just re-shot through the ISO later in low light situation!

and +500 for making the new scene flat. :-)

1 upvote
photofan1986
By photofan1986 (Oct 10, 2012)

Yeah, because everyone knows real life is in two dimensions !

Comment edited 11 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
StanRogers
By StanRogers (Oct 10, 2012)

Testing bodies (for interchangeable lens cameras, whether SLR, rangefinder or other mirrorless types) should eliminate the lens as far as possible; and field flatness is something you really ought to care about with a lens test. You can look at other sample images to evaluate bokeh and DoF.

0 upvotes
Simon97
By Simon97 (Oct 10, 2012)

With cameras like the 645D out resolving the old scene and the DOF issues, I agree it was time.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Jambsi
By Jambsi (Oct 10, 2012)

Dear DPReview -

Pretend this is the 1st sentence in all the comments -

Thank you. I really appreciate the Studio Shot Comparison tool and your efforts to make it even better.

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
14 upvotes
Riezer
By Riezer (Oct 10, 2012)

OMG...where's Mickey?

7 upvotes
Artur Pietruch
By Artur Pietruch (Oct 10, 2012)

PLEASE leave the old scene or continue using it along with new, it is absolutely important specially for hi-ISO compering to older cameras, plus DOF issue is only affecting large sensor cameras and can be addressed with manual focus adjustment but 3 dimension scene is much more valuable for other factors like color tones and shadows on round objects, so please again do not stop using the old scene!!!

8 upvotes
COlela
By COlela (Oct 10, 2012)

Where's the bottle!? We need to have the bottle with the tree.

5 upvotes
phototransformations
By phototransformations (Oct 10, 2012)

Doesn't' seem to be anything in this scene that will give us an idea about how the camera does with highlights, chromatic aberration, or deep shadow noise. The paper clips, watch, and dark bottles helped with this.

10 upvotes
Itai42
By Itai42 (Oct 10, 2012)

On the bottom left there're gold/silver metalic stuff that sho highlights, also metal ball above the center.
There's another highlight producing ball of sorts in the sadow box above...
Also - near the Canada flag there are some attractive highlights on the binders of the threads.

1 upvote
Itai42
By Itai42 (Oct 11, 2012)

Also - to the left on the middle (under the matches) there's a chocolate of metallic stuff that'll be good for CA and highlights -.
Othere then that there are a couple more like the coins, casino chips and paint brush etc... just have to get used to the new places of things...

1 upvote
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Oct 10, 2012)

I like it. Should do well with the increasing resolutions ...
But what else does it do ?

A few suggestions:
- More shiny object like glass, metal and plastic.
- Everything is dull colored, any camera can handle that. Please add some bright vivid colors, or even better, something led illuminated. If there is another sensor blooming / fuji orbs debacle i want to know about it.
- A smooth dark grey (almost black) surface for shadow noise comparison. The one in the middle has too much texture which masks any real noise. ( in the old scene i always use that black bottle, when it was not too dusty )
- A stepless gradient to check banding. One grey to black, one blue to dark blue. As you can see the blue feather is already causing trouble.

Bottom line. Give those sensors something challenging already !

Bonus suggestion: Take the same picture simulating warm indoor lighting.

9 upvotes
kb2zuz
By kb2zuz (Oct 10, 2012)

I agree there should be specular highlights to see how the camera deals with them.
Lights in the chart are also an interesting idea, unfortunately they also can cause problems with the lens, so if you're trying to separate the sensor problems from the lens problems, it is not the best test.
As far as a smooth dark area, the MacBeth Chart has you covered. Another option is to cut a hole in the table and have a receding box filled with black velvet to create a "black hole" if you want a pure black.
Gradients may have issues in the production that may appear problematic in reproduction. The feather and such are good "natural" tests.

0 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Oct 10, 2012)

I think a gradient is important. I'm sure a near flawless one can be found somewhere. Or just roll up some glossy colored material that is as smooth as possible, light and reflections will do the rest.

It's true that the lens could have trouble with lights, but so does anything placed in the corners. That's not enough to trump a good sensor challenge, assuming there is a decent prime out there for every camera. Nothing's perfect. And if noticeable, it shouldn't be too much trouble to write a note.

The black box on the MacBeth chart is quite small, but maybe that large square on the top left (with the flowers) will suffice.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
jpr2
By jpr2 (Oct 10, 2012)

a bit OT (for both this as well as the current, soon to be previous test layout), BUT...

would it be possible for DPR to finally test also - in a systematic way - AF systems for their performance not only in static, but for highly dynamic action scenes & tracking ??

It is a tough task (obviously) but so far NO OTHER SITE does it even approximately well :( - at best what some of them are reporting: various lags observed for already prefocused scenes.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
NikonDay80
By NikonDay80 (Oct 10, 2012)

It should be so nice that you take picture of that new camera scene test with some old cameras from "dust" (Nikon D80 [2006], Canon Powershot G3 [2002]...). I'd love to compare with nowadays camera !

5 upvotes
RedFox88
By RedFox88 (Oct 10, 2012)

Well do you want them to review new cameras or take new photos with very old cameras that were launched 10 years ago?! Get real!

0 upvotes
NikonDay80
By NikonDay80 (Oct 12, 2012)

I want to read reviews of new cameras, of course.
My wish is only to add this reference picture to "sample images" of those old cameras.

0 upvotes
ErikvdH
By ErikvdH (Oct 10, 2012)

Although I think there is enough detail in the old set-up, a bigger set-up could be good perhaps even better.
But, please replace al the photo's with 3D objects bottle, robot etc., the photos ad zero value.
And please hire a stylist, this set-up does not appeal to the eye.
Very, very, very friendly spoken...

4 upvotes
photofan1986
By photofan1986 (Oct 10, 2012)

That's ugly and useless. Please keep the old pattern and take a break.

7 upvotes
mfineman
By mfineman (Oct 10, 2012)

1. Needs some more "engraving" stuff. The old multi-color money was fine. (I only see B&W in the upper
left and B&W "ZWANZIG SCHILLING" here.
2. Need some "reference" pictures, say 16 images, showing close-up
detail in general, using best "35mm" or, even better, a 2x2 or
larger reference camera using best lens, F-stop, sensitivity combination.
4. I don't see much 3D stuff. (Like the bottle in the old one.)
3. Need the equivalent of 10X or better close-ups using best camera and also
scans for some etching, newspaper clipping, and perhaps a few other things.

1 upvote
tinetz
By tinetz (Oct 10, 2012)

That's nice that the old Austrian currency Schilling is getting its honorable place in this setup, being an indicator for border sharpness ;)

1 upvote
stevez
By stevez (Oct 10, 2012)

This is great although I'd prefer more tactile objects as opposed to photographs. Also, there's nothing in there that has any highlights, so perhaps the paper clips and the blue watch face could be kept as part of this new collage, if for no other reason than a link to the past.

6 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Oct 10, 2012)

Look at it again. Computer board, fabrics, yarn, thread, feathers, coins, starfish, fuzzy bits... what do you want, sandpaper? It has to be relatively flat to avoid the DOF problems of the previous scene. The queen of hearts was out of focus for some cameras like the 5D2 because it was at the back.

0 upvotes
MarkByland
By MarkByland (Oct 10, 2012)

The paper clips were a favorite of mine as well. Very good for depth and details over the ISO spread. Perfect for highlight definition detailing.

2 upvotes
Total comments: 324
1234