D7 vs. CP990 contrast WARNING BIG!

There has been some talk about using reduced contrast settings on the D7 to compensate for the very agressive contrast. Giovanni wanted me to post a 990 vs D7 with the modified settings shot. I've taken a first stab at that here, but there are some problems so don't read TOO much into these images...

The 990 was set at default settings FINE compression. Matrix metering, auto white balance.

The D7 was set at -2 contrast, -0.3 EV, +2 color, multi segment meter, auto white balance, normal sharpening.

I tried to match the scene as closely as possible, but the flowers are moving in the wind.

Keep in mind that it was possible to get the cameras to do all sorts of things by moving the framing just a little bit, and that next time the results might be different.

Comments:

Well, let's start with the color. The D7 got this just perfect, especially those purple flowers. I'm looking at them out the window as I write this, and the D7 color of the flowers, grass, sidewalk is just right; it looks warm like that. The 990 got everything a little too pale, it tried to make the sidewalk white for example, and the grass is too blue.

Now for the exposure. The D7 did a better job on the highlights, but the 990 really pulled in the shadows. Now, is that because the 990 used a longer exposure loosing some highlights or because the D7 shot still has too much contrast... I don't know. One clue is the way in which the cameras metered the scenes. The D7, even at -0.3 EV exposed the scene at EV=13.02, while the Nikon exposed it at EV=11.98, a differrence of 1EV (factor of 2 in brightness). No wonder the Nikon got the shadows, it thought that the scene was 2 times less bright. This seems to be a constant thing with my D7, that it meters high, and that is why people see blown highlights all the time. The EV -0.3 setting seems to help, I could see using EV -0.7.

I plan to shoot some more shots. I think that it is going to be necessary to find two shots where say the highlights match, then look at the shadows. to really say which camera has better range. -Bryan

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=785850&a=13585450&p=52767581&Sequence=0&res=high

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=785850&a=13585450&p=52767835&Sequence=0&res=high

Bryan Biggers said:

The EV -0.3 setting seems to help, I could see using
EV -0.7.

Click to expand...

Could this be the result of the continuing debate between manufacturers whether the average scene has a brightness of 13% or 18% gray

I know that when the EOS3 came out, it merered for 13% gray which was a deliberate choice from the designers but everybody stated that it overexposed 2/3 EV and pushed canon into supplying a firmware upgrade.

I do not know what the current consensus is and what Minolta has chosen but it surely looks familiar to me.

Jean Paul

Bryan Biggers said:

I tried to match the scene as closely as possible, but the flowers
are moving in the wind.
Keep in mind that it was possible to get the cameras to do all
sorts of things by moving the framing just a little bit, and that
next time the results might be different.

Click to expand...

Yeah Bryan, I've tried "controlled" testing too.

I finally came to realize why some reviewers use very high quality printed posters for their comparison shots.

That Nikon does a nice job. Most of us would never know about the "accuracy", it looks real enough.
My D770 has great range. But boy is the outa the camera shots FLAT.

I think you'll have to back off the D7 more. It's obvious tho that the range is in there.

Homer

Homer

Bryan:

Did you try overexposing the D7 to see if it picked up more detail in the shadows? The Coolpix looks about a 1/2 or full stop lighter as you mentioned.

Bryan,

Looks to me like a metering difference. The 990 is about a stop more open than the D7. The grass shows that pretty much. All the shots I have done with the two don't show an obsevable difference when the images get the same overall exposure, that is when each camera has been adjusted individually such that the end products have a comparable visible esposure. That is not very scientific I know, but I think that is what you are trying to show in a more precise way.

dh

Bryan Biggers said:

There has been some talk about using reduced contrast settings on
the D7 to compensate for the very agressive contrast. Giovanni
wanted me to post a 990 vs D7 with the modified settings shot. I've
taken a first stab at that here, but there are some problems so
don't read TOO much into these images...

The 990 was set at default settings FINE compression. Matrix
metering, auto white balance.

The D7 was set at -2 contrast, -0.3 EV, +2 color, multi segment
meter, auto white balance, normal sharpening.

I tried to match the scene as closely as possible, but the flowers
are moving in the wind.
Keep in mind that it was possible to get the cameras to do all
sorts of things by moving the framing just a little bit, and that
next time the results might be different.

Comments:
Well, let's start with the color. The D7 got this just perfect,
especially those purple flowers. I'm looking at them out the window
as I write this, and the D7 color of the flowers, grass, sidewalk
is just right; it looks warm like that. The 990 got everything a
little too pale, it tried to make the sidewalk white for example,
and the grass is too blue.

Now for the exposure. The D7 did a better job on the highlights,
but the 990 really pulled in the shadows. Now, is that because the
990 used a longer exposure loosing some highlights or because the
D7 shot still has too much contrast... I don't know. One clue is
the way in which the cameras metered the scenes. The D7, even at
-0.3 EV exposed the scene at EV=13.02, while the Nikon exposed it
at EV=11.98, a differrence of 1EV (factor of 2 in brightness). No
wonder the Nikon got the shadows, it thought that the scene was 2
times less bright. This seems to be a constant thing with my D7,
that it meters high, and that is why people see blown highlights
all the time. The EV -0.3 setting seems to help, I could see using
EV -0.7.

I plan to shoot some more shots. I think that it is going to be
necessary to find two shots where say the highlights match, then
look at the shadows. to really say which camera has better range.
-Bryan

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=785850&a=13585450&p=52767581&Sequence=0&res=high

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=785850&a=13585450&p=52767835&Sequence=0&res=high

Click to expand...

Looks like posting is working again.

I shot two more shots, this time trying to match the highlights with the two cameras so that with matched highlights we can compare the shadows.
Some comments:

Yeah, I know the hightlights are blown out. I took the shot with the 990 first, then tried to match it with the D7. I had to use EV +0.3 to match it with the D7. The highlights are maybe a little more blown on the D7 shot, but this shot is closer to the 990 shot than the EV +0 shot was.

I think that you can see that with the highlights matched pretty closely that the shadows match pretty closely too.

The 990 shot is first.

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=785850&a=13585450&p=52775314&Sequence=0&res=high

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=785850&a=13585450&p=52775597&Sequence=0&res=high

Excellent point, since that is just about the difference. It is all relative, thoguh. Still,it is a lot better when the 18 % assumption is either built in or the manufacturer lets you know that they have shifted the standard in their device.

dh

jp said:

jp52637 said:

The EV -0.3 setting seems to help, I could see using
EV -0.7.

Click to expand...

Could this be the result of the continuing debate between
manufacturers whether the average scene has a brightness of 13% or
18% gray
I know that when the EOS3 came out, it merered for 13% gray which
was a deliberate choice from the designers but everybody stated
that it overexposed 2/3 EV and pushed canon into supplying a
firmware upgrade.
I do not know what the current consensus is and what Minolta has
chosen but it surely looks familiar to me.

Jean Paul

Click to expand...

Looks like I messed up on the links Try these... 990 shot first, I hope.

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=785850&a=13585450&p=52775314&Sequence=0&res=high

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=785850&a=13585450&p=52775597&Sequence=0&res=high

Bryan Biggers said:

Looks like posting is working again.
I shot two more shots, this time trying to match the highlights
with the two cameras so that with matched highlights we can
compare the shadows.
Some comments:
Yeah, I know the hightlights are blown out. I took the shot with
the 990 first, then tried to match it with the D7. I had to use EV
+0.3 to match it with the D7. The highlights are maybe a little
more blown on the D7 shot, but this shot is closer to the 990 shot
than the EV +0 shot was.

I think that you can see that with the highlights matched pretty
closely that the shadows match pretty closely too.

The 990 shot is first.

Click to expand...

Bryan Biggers said:

Looks like I messed up on the links Try these... 990 shot first, I
hope.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't know what is happening, it reversed the two shots, the 990 shot is the cooler shot and the D7 shot the warmer.
Bryan

Rick Decker said:

Bryan:

Did you try overexposing the D7 to see if it picked up more detail
in the shadows? The Coolpix looks about a 1/2 or full stop lighter
as you mentioned.

Click to expand...

Yeah, see the second set of shots, I gave the D7 +0.3 EV and they came out pretty close.
Bryan

What I see is a sat and contrast difference mainly in these two. That is I attribue the greater color intensity and contrast in the 990to those.

There is a slight color difference as well, but the DR to the eye is pretty much the same. I agree with your general hypothesis that observable differences once you have dialed in the settings to pretty much match the exposure in any two cameras, there are not going to be appreciable visible differences in prosumer cameras.

dh

Bryan Biggers said:

Looks like posting is working again.
I shot two more shots, this time trying to match the highlights
with the two cameras so that with matched highlights we can
compare the shadows.
Some comments:
Yeah, I know the hightlights are blown out. I took the shot with
the 990 first, then tried to match it with the D7. I had to use EV
+0.3 to match it with the D7. The highlights are maybe a little
more blown on the D7 shot, but this shot is closer to the 990 shot
than the EV +0 shot was.

I think that you can see that with the highlights matched pretty
closely that the shadows match pretty closely too.

The 990 shot is first.

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=785850&a=13585450&p=52775314&Sequence=0&res=high

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=785850&a=13585450&p=52775597&Sequence=0&res=high

Click to expand...

The really weird thing is...

I originally linked to the full size shots on Photopoint in my msg. When I first posted the msg, the full sized shots appeared. Now, about 6 hrs later, the full size shots have been reduced to those reduced size shots with the "hosting provided by photopoint banner". Photopoint must have done that, I don't know how or why. What good is it if you can't link to some full size shots? Does anyone understand what happened?

The originals are in this album -Bryan

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=785850&a=13585450&f=0

Bryan,

Are you sure your link is to the full size picture? PhotoPoint may have added a downsized image which if you click at PhotoPoint will change to the full size with a different link.

Frank B

Bryan Biggers said:

The really weird thing is...
I originally linked to the full size shots on Photopoint in my msg.
When I first posted the msg, the full sized shots appeared. Now,
about 6 hrs later, the full size shots have been reduced to those
reduced size shots with the "hosting provided by photopoint
banner". Photopoint must have done that, I don't know how or why.
What good is it if you can't link to some full size shots? Does
anyone understand what happened?

The originals are in this album -Bryan

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=785850&a=13585450&f=0

Click to expand...

I have never seen any reference to anything other than 18% from any Digicam manufacturer. And it normally is in their maunuals as an option of the white wall for manual WB.

BTW, I finally saw my first official 18% Kodak "neutral grey".

It is sure darker than I would have thought when I heard "neautral" gray. When I heard "neutral" I thought "light" gray. Not so. Quite dark actually.

Homer

papatrout said:

dh

jp said:

abc said:

The EV -0.3 setting seems to help, I could see using
EV -0.7.

Click to expand...

Could this be the result of the continuing debate between
manufacturers whether the average scene has a brightness of 13% or
18% gray
I know that when the EOS3 came out, it merered for 13% gray which
was a deliberate choice from the designers but everybody stated
that it overexposed 2/3 EV and pushed canon into supplying a
firmware upgrade.
I do not know what the current consensus is and what Minolta has
chosen but it surely looks familiar to me.

Jean Paul

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hi Frank,

Yes, I originally linked to the full sized shots, and they were there when I checked the posting. Bryan

Frank B said:

Are you sure your link is to the full size picture? PhotoPoint
may have added a downsized image which if you click at PhotoPoint
will change to the full size with a different link.

Frank B

Bryan Biggers said:

The really weird thing is...
I originally linked to the full size shots on Photopoint in my msg.
When I first posted the msg, the full sized shots appeared. Now,
about 6 hrs later, the full size shots have been reduced to those
reduced size shots with the "hosting provided by photopoint
banner". Photopoint must have done that, I don't know how or why.
What good is it if you can't link to some full size shots? Does
anyone understand what happened?

The originals are in this album -Bryan

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=785850&a=13585450&f=0

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Bryan: OK Which is which...

The second shot is the preferable one.

There is more detail in the sidewalk on the right corner and it appears sharper although that may be due to the better exposure.

The white flower with the purple (or is it pink - pardon my color perception) is exposed better and maybe sharper.

The second shot is the 990 shot. I think that maybe you are seeing the increased sharpening on that shot, the D7 was set on "soft". These were just taken to compare exposures really, and even so the exposured don't match exactly so one has more details in bright areas etc. Bryan

rick decker said:

Bryan: OK Which is which...

The second shot is the preferable one.

There is more detail in the sidewalk on the right corner and it
appears sharper although that may be due to the better exposure.

The white flower with the purple (or is it pink - pardon my color
perception) is exposed better and maybe sharper.

Click to expand...

Exactly as I asked many thank Bryan.

My personal point of view:

1) Normally I recognize in less than 1 second and without doubt the shots coming from 990 and those coming from D7.

This time I had more difficulties. I had to examine closely the shots to decide. It was the first time that I had some doubt. I recongised the 990 shot maninly due to the magenta cast that D7 don't have and for the diffrence in the exposition still remaining.
In all the cases the two shot seem very very close.

2) Nevetheless this can show that what all the people call "dynamic range" is 95% really only exposure / contrast / saturation difference.

3) In MY system (matrox+Philips brillance+ PSP calibration) I'm undeiced what shot cleaily is better than other because:

a) the colours seem more natrural in D7 also if a little oversatured for my taste
b) the colours have more appeal (also if not so close to the reality) in the 990

c) the detail definition in some points seem better 990 mainly because D7 tend to overexpose.

d) in the higlight detail the D7 seem to produce more accurate gradients, nevertheless we have to consider aslo the resolution difference that make some difference in this field.

4) Shadows as I see in MY system:
a) the shadow gradient is cleaily visible in both two.
b) the shadows of D7 are darker than in 990 (exposition difference)

c) the shadow gradient seem more natural in D7; The 990 seem to have some "step" (see the left down corner)

d) the shadow gradients in these shots of the D7 seem more close to the rendition of a Pro camera than the 990 (this probably due to the lenses; please please don't flame me for this heretic conclusion!)

5) the fact that in conclusion some people prefer the D7 shots (like me) some other the 990's mean that now we are going in the filed of personal preferences than camera performaces; many thanks to Minolta that let us to set up according to OUR personal preferences; now I undestand why Dave at imaging-resource pointed this capbility of D7 as a real plus in respect to the other cameras that don't permit this fine regulation;

6) at this level we have also to consider the diffrences due to the display system capibility (video board+monitor+setup) : different system can produce diffrent result more favorables to a camera than to the other.

In all the cases nice work Bryan.

A conclusion test it can be some indoor shots with less sun light.

;-)

Bryan Biggers said:

There has been some talk about using reduced contrast settings on
the D7 to compensate for the very agressive contrast. Giovanni
wanted me to post a 990 vs D7 with the modified settings shot. I've
taken a first stab at that here, but there are some problems so
don't read TOO much into these images...

The 990 was set at default settings FINE compression. Matrix
metering, auto white balance.

The D7 was set at -2 contrast, -0.3 EV, +2 color, multi segment
meter, auto white balance, normal sharpening.

I tried to match the scene as closely as possible, but the flowers
are moving in the wind.
Keep in mind that it was possible to get the cameras to do all
sorts of things by moving the framing just a little bit, and that
next time the results might be different.

Comments:
Well, let's start with the color. The D7 got this just perfect,
especially those purple flowers. I'm looking at them out the window
as I write this, and the D7 color of the flowers, grass, sidewalk
is just right; it looks warm like that. The 990 got everything a
little too pale, it tried to make the sidewalk white for example,
and the grass is too blue.

Now for the exposure. The D7 did a better job on the highlights,
but the 990 really pulled in the shadows. Now, is that because the
990 used a longer exposure loosing some highlights or because the
D7 shot still has too much contrast... I don't know. One clue is
the way in which the cameras metered the scenes. The D7, even at
-0.3 EV exposed the scene at EV=13.02, while the Nikon exposed it
at EV=11.98, a differrence of 1EV (factor of 2 in brightness). No
wonder the Nikon got the shadows, it thought that the scene was 2
times less bright. This seems to be a constant thing with my D7,
that it meters high, and that is why people see blown highlights
all the time. The EV -0.3 setting seems to help, I could see using
EV -0.7.

I plan to shoot some more shots. I think that it is going to be
necessary to find two shots where say the highlights match, then
look at the shadows. to really say which camera has better range.
-Bryan

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=785850&a=13585450&p=52767581&Sequence=0&res=high

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=785850&a=13585450&p=52767835&Sequence=0&res=high

Click to expand...

Hi Giovanni,

Giovanni said:

Exactly as I asked many thank Bryan.

My personal point of view:

1) Normally I recognize in less than 1 second and without doubt the
shots coming from 990 and those coming from D7.
This time I had more difficulties. I had to examine closely the
shots to decide. It was the first time that I had some doubt. I
recongised the 990 shot maninly due to the magenta cast that D7
don't have and for the diffrence in the exposition still remaining.
In all the cases the two shot seem very very close.

Click to expand...

That is what I thought also. It is very hard to tell the difference, every time I think that I have a difference and look at the photos, then I think, no, but the other one is better over here!

Giovanni said:

2) Nevetheless this can show that what all the people call "dynamic
range" is 95% really only exposure / contrast / saturation
difference.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is what I'm trying to show. The D7 seems to be making "different" exposure and contrast decisions than the 990 does, and it makes the shots look, well, different, but it is not because the camera does not have what most people think of as "dynamic range". The D7 can be made to take shots that are pretty close to the 990.

Giovanni said:

3) In MY system (matrox+Philips brillance+ PSP calibration) I'm
undeiced what shot cleaily is better than other because:
a) the colours seem more natrural in D7 also if a little
oversatured for my taste

Click to expand...

That is my fault, I picked +2 saturation on the D7, I probably should shoot with +1. I'm leaning more towards +1 now that I have printed some of my +2 shots, they are too saturated on the printer.

Giovanni said:

b) the colours have more appeal (also if not so close to the
reality) in the 990

Click to expand...

Yes. The 990 has a very real look. The D7 colors were actually very closer to reality, including the overall warm tone, I have the monitor set so I can see the scene out the window and the D7 colors were just perfect, but if you didn't see the original scene the 990 shot actually "looks" better.

Giovanni said:

c) the detail definition in some points seem better 990 mainly
because D7 tend to overexpose.
d) in the higlight detail the D7 seem to produce more accurate
gradients, nevertheless we have to consider aslo the resolution
difference that make some difference in this field.

Click to expand...

Also, I had the D7 on Soft sharpening again, and the 990 on Normal. Guess I should shoot again, ha!

Giovanni said:

4) Shadows as I see in MY system:
a) the shadow gradient is cleaily visible in both two.
b) the shadows of D7 are darker than in 990 (exposition difference)

Click to expand...

Yes. The 990 seems to have a tone curve that brings the shadows up. That can be good and it can be bad, it depends on what kind of look you want.

Giovanni said:

c) the shadow gradient seem more natural in D7; The 990 seem to
have some "step" (see the left down corner)
d) the shadow gradients in these shots of the D7 seem more close to
the rendition of a Pro camera than the 990 (this probably due to
the lenses; please please don't flame me for this heretic
conclusion!)

Click to expand...

The other thing that I see on the D7 vs. 990 shots, (not so much on this one) are a purple cast to some objects due to chromatic aberration on the 990 that the D7 does not have. On some scenes you can really see it. The Noise is different between the two cameras too. The D7 noise is more fine grained, and at least on my printer at 8x10 it disappears. The 990 noise is broader, more like an "oil slick" and I can still see it on a print.

Giovanni said:

5) the fact that in conclusion some people prefer the D7 shots
(like me) some other the 990's mean that now we are going in the
filed of personal preferences than camera performaces; many thanks
to Minolta that let us to set up according to OUR personal
preferences; now I undestand why Dave at imaging-resource pointed
this capbility of D7 as a real plus in respect to the other
cameras that don't permit this fine regulation;

6) at this level we have also to consider the diffrences due to the
display system capibility (video board+monitor+setup) : different
system can produce diffrent result more favorables to a camera than
to the other.

Click to expand...

Well, yeah, and I know that my monitor and printer are unique to me, and what looks good to me might not look good on another monitor.

Giovanni said:

In all the cases nice work Bryan.

A conclusion test it can be some indoor shots with less sun light.

;-)

Click to expand...

Well, I picked the outdoor flower shot because of the critisism that the previous indoor shot was "staged" to "bias" the test some how. I'd rather shoot indoors though, I get a lot better control and the wind isn't blowing so much. Where I liver there is a big field of hay to the West, and the wind seems to really get going over it so that it almost never stops blowing except around Sunset. Bryan

Hi Jean Paul,

jp said:

jp52637 said:

The EV -0.3 setting seems to help, I could see using
EV -0.7.

Click to expand...

Could this be the result of the continuing debate between
manufacturers whether the average scene has a brightness of 13% or
18% gray
I know that when the EOS3 came out, it merered for 13% gray which
was a deliberate choice from the designers but everybody stated
that it overexposed 2/3 EV and pushed canon into supplying a
firmware upgrade.
I do not know what the current consensus is and what Minolta has
chosen but it surely looks familiar to me.

Click to expand...

That is a really good idea. I'm still thinking about what that means! If so, would setting the camera for -0.7 EV all the time compensate for that? Could I test this on different cameras by taking a picture of something pure white and checking it in a photo program? I wonder what 18% gray would look like in a photo program if you measured the levels, I recall some serious debate about that. I certainly could photograph the same piece of white paper with both cameras and see what levels they set it to.
Bryan

jp52637 said:

Jean Paul

Click to expand...