Shocked!

Thanks for your reply.

Amazing how this doesn't reflect my experience at all.

Just for clarity; I'm talking about files from both cams processed in C1 pro 3.7.7;
Film Standard look, CWB, sharpening off
sharpening in PP,
•no• NR applied at all;
profiled to print on a Fuji Frontier;
or profiled for an Epson inkjet using Lysonic inks on Lyson (or similar) paper.

(Used mainly for [evening] wedding work. Evening not afternoon, IOW the sun has set when we get out of the church.)

I find the differences not only not subtle; but even more: recovery from UNDER-exposure with the Nikons is so much easier, & NR cleans them up better than the 20/30D series in terms of detail.

Kabe, I'm curious regards that comment (slip?) of yours re. "that 6MP sensor": have you tried working with Nikon files from the d40 in Capture One yourself?

(as opposed to handling files that might have been processed by for example an assistant?) I'm just trying to exclude any prejudices from this discussion.

As for "flashing the church"....no that's not what I meant at all.....let's not go there; I don't think it's relevant to this particular discussion.

Thanks for sharing.
 
Amazing how this doesn't reflect my experience at all.
again that's because you have no experience, and you only compare cheap cameras to other cheap cameras but in the end you don't even compare correctly.
Just for clarity; I'm talking about files from both cams processed in
C1 pro 3.7.7;
Film Standard look, CWB, sharpening off
sharpening in PP,
•no• NR applied at all;
profiled to print on a Fuji Frontier;
or profiled for an Epson inkjet using Lysonic inks on Lyson (or
similar) paper.

I find the differences not only not subtle; but even more: recovery
from UNDER-exposure with the Nikons is so much easier, & NR cleans
them uop better than the 20/30D series interms of detail.
assuming that we care of what you think about a 20D or 30D compared to a D40

I don't. in any case try the appropriate forums
if you are really interested to know how the 20D and D40 work

but the things you said so far don't look good.. it shows that you have no idea.
 
CM_laptop wrote:
and the lesson is good but not good enough.

and know that I'm here to correct you, any time.

you posted nonsense and my job is to make you grow and correct you. for your own good.
 
& stop projecting, it's making you look like a fool.

I've dealt you a harsh lesson; keeping you on your toes;
& you can be sure anytime I'll see you posting stupid trollish remarks,
or inventing stories about hasselblads & the like,
I'll step in to have a tug at your ears.
 
Yeh - I saw a guy [possibly the same guy?] at an indoor sports event I was covering. My Canon action shots at 1600ISO came out great - and I have printed some for the client at A3+. Nice and sharp.

The guy with a Nikon just had a load of blurs of the action - very artistic but not what was needed. His only sharp shots were at the prize presenations!

PS This is a real story and this is my only forum id. Not a new id created and then used to post invented stories designed to goad the average forum member.
 
Well, when you are going to visit those churches from Romania, call me and tell me that I was wrong. Until then, I tell you to get a flash with you, or/and a IS 1.8 lens, because you will not going to find those candles that you described earlier.
 
Well, when you are going to visit those churches from Romania, call
me and tell me that I was wrong. Until then, I tell you to get a
flash with you, or/and a IS 1.8 lens, because you will not going to
find those candles that you described earlier.
No plans for Romania at the moment. Done that in Russia, in Bulgaria and in Finland. I really do not know how different those then might be.
 
In therms of ceremony, they are pretty similar. But, when comes to light there is a huge difference between churches in Russia and those in Romania. At 7 PM there is no question about day lighting, in a church with only a few windows, covered with dark paintings. You might notice that the smoked paintings on the walls (that make walls to be almost dark) prevent also the light to be reflected back from the walls. Is dark inside, next time I am going to take a Sekonic light meter with me to tell you how dark it is...
 
...from both, though not in C1 LE, since as I previously shared, I don't like the IQ (or workflow) at all. I used Aperture and, rarely, Lightroom to evaluate the files. They were softer and, thus, less prone to moire by a small degree than D70/s files, but in terms of noise performance and dynamic range, I didn't find them significantly different from my D70 files at all. Thus, I didn't end up keeping either, instead picking up a D80, which was an improvement in almost every way, but still trailed the Canon in terms of highlight headroom and shadow detail beyond ISO 500. At lower ISO values, there are far fewer differences and, in fact, I prefer the Nikons for their faster handling, better UI and superior metering, which make for better casual use cameras. Which is the reason I got a D80 to begin with (D70 was a stinker because of too-frequent moire and other aliasing artifacts resulting from the too-weak AA filter).

With CCD Nikons, there is sufficient shadow noise beyond ISO 500 to make the extraction of useful shadow detail (luminance detail) limited at best. Even with my D80, I find I must simply crush shadows rather than lift them in order to minimize the appearance of grain in prints. On the other hand, until pattern noise become intrusive (ISO 1600 on the 30D with tungsten light and mild underexposure or daylight with severe underexposure), the Canon XXD cameras, generally, yield appreciably greater shadow luminance detail, along with more chroma noise which can largely be minimized, if not eliminated, without detriment to the overall appearance of the shadow. The Canons also give 1/3 to 2/3 more recoverability of highlight detail thanks to lossless compression of RAW data. Meanwhile, Nikon's compression scheme for NEFs in the DXX cameras involves throwing away highlight data determined (by the camera's algorithms) to be imperceptible, limiting the ability to recover highlights. In short, beyond ISO 500 the XXD Canons provide files that are much more flexible for post-processing than do the DXX Nikons because of cleaner, more detailed shadows and greater highlight recoverability.

That's my experience through the 30D/D80 generation, which are my most recent firsthand experience with the respective brands.
Thanks for your reply.

Amazing how this doesn't reflect my experience at all.

Just for clarity; I'm talking about files from both cams processed in
C1 pro 3.7.7;
Film Standard look, CWB, sharpening off
sharpening in PP,
•no• NR applied at all;
profiled to print on a Fuji Frontier;
or profiled for an Epson inkjet using Lysonic inks on Lyson (or
similar) paper.

(Used mainly for [evening] wedding work. Evening not afternoon, IOW
the sun has set when we get out of the church.)

I find the differences not only not subtle; but even more: recovery
from UNDER-exposure with the Nikons is so much easier, & NR cleans
them up better than the 20/30D series in terms of detail.

Kabe, I'm curious regards that comment (slip?) of yours re. "that
6MP sensor": have you tried working with Nikon files from the d40 in
Capture One yourself?
(as opposed to handling files that might have been processed by for
example an assistant?) I'm just trying to exclude any prejudices from
this discussion.

As for "flashing the church"....no that's not what I meant at
all.....let's not go there; I don't think it's relevant to this
particular discussion.

Thanks for sharing.

--
--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com
 
Those are probably better lighted compared to Orthodox churches @ 7
PM...The walls are painted with dark smoked colors, no light come
from windows and only a few light are set in only 2 places in the
huge church. So go figure...
Maybe I missed your joke (if there was one) but...

there is no light in the catacombs in Rome, or very little. Last time I was there many people felt claustrophobic and panicked and had to leave just a few meters in.
 
Well, when you are going to visit those churches from Romania, call
me and tell me that I was wrong. Until then, I tell you to get a
flash with you, or/and a IS 1.8 lens, because you will not going to
find those candles that you described earlier.
Where you shooting in Romania during the event described in your first post?
 
--
1600 may be barely useable but it's better than darkness. When I only
had the 30D and a 300D I thought the 1600 on the 30D was a lifesaver.
Well of course it would be. Today I was shooting the 50D at 3200 at dusk and results were great.
I can't wait to get my hands on a new 5DMK and see what it will do at
high iso.
yeah no kidding!
 
Maybe 'cos I have extensive expereince in processing raw files from both series of cams in C1, ACR, Rawshooter & even RawTherapee;

but my experience differs greatly, as I previously pointed out.

I'm talking from experience with the cams, prints in hand; from the D40/50 as well as the 20/30D (not D80);

finding shadow detail more fragile with the Canons; which is very visible in print.

I'm not interested in theories espoused by forums or websites which very often are very far from reality; but true real-life experience in pro work.

That's why I value your opinion/experience; even though it contrasts so much with mine.

Could be from our different experiences & proficiencies in processing files from the two series of cameras, could be alot of factors; we'll just have to agree to disagree.

We each will continue to use what works best for us; & in the pro world that also means that which works with the least fuss & give least problems.

regards
C_M
...from both, though not in C1 LE, since as I previously shared, I
don't like the IQ (or workflow) at all. I used Aperture and, rarely,
Lightroom to evaluate the files. They were softer and, thus, less
prone to moire by a small degree than D70/s files, but in terms of
noise performance and dynamic range, I didn't find them significantly
different from my D70 files at all. Thus, I didn't end up keeping
either, instead picking up a D80, which was an improvement in almost
every way, but still trailed the Canon in terms of highlight headroom
and shadow detail beyond ISO 500. At lower ISO values, there are far
fewer differences and, in fact, I prefer the Nikons for their faster
handling, better UI and superior metering, which make for better
casual use cameras. Which is the reason I got a D80 to begin with
(D70 was a stinker because of too-frequent moire and other aliasing
artifacts resulting from the too-weak AA filter).

With CCD Nikons, there is sufficient shadow noise beyond ISO 500 to
make the extraction of useful shadow detail (luminance detail)
limited at best. Even with my D80, I find I must simply crush shadows
rather than lift them in order to minimize the appearance of grain in
prints. On the other hand, until pattern noise become intrusive (ISO
1600 on the 30D with tungsten light and mild underexposure or
daylight with severe underexposure), the Canon XXD cameras,
generally, yield appreciably greater shadow luminance detail, along
with more chroma noise which can largely be minimized, if not
eliminated, without detriment to the overall appearance of the
shadow. The Canons also give 1/3 to 2/3 more recoverability of
highlight detail thanks to lossless compression of RAW data.
Meanwhile, Nikon's compression scheme for NEFs in the DXX cameras
involves throwing away highlight data determined (by the camera's
algorithms) to be imperceptible, limiting the ability to recover
highlights. In short, beyond ISO 500 the XXD Canons provide files
that are much more flexible for post-processing than do the DXX
Nikons because of cleaner, more detailed shadows and greater
highlight recoverability.

That's my experience through the 30D/D80 generation, which are my
most recent firsthand experience with the respective brands.
 
Maybe 'cos I have extensive expereince in processing raw files from
both series of cams in C1, ACR, Rawshooter & even RawTherapee;
extensive? and still you don't get it right
I'm talking from experience with the cams, prints in hand; from the
D40/50 as well as the 20/30D (not D80)
not D80? only D40/D50 and 20D/30D

really?

and ... who cares?

take a look at the forum where you're posting this experience of yours.

done that?

good: it's the 1series/5D canon forum

which means that you are posting in the wrong forum. again try the appropriate forum and in any case work a little more on your experience on the 20D and D40 because you're doing it wrong

in any case nobody really cares about it

;
finding shadow detail more fragile with the Canons; which is very
visible in print.
prints out of a D40 are good, because of the colors (well saturated) and the limited resolution : but you should print 4x6 only.

again I personally couldn't care less about the 4x6 of the D40
I'm not interested in theories espoused by forums or websites which
very often are very far from reality; but true real-life experience
in pro work.
ditto: I'm not interested about the 4x6 out of cheap cameras as well

are you a pro? and you only print 4x6? how so?

bottom line you are telling stories and your experience is limited. and it shows.

P.S. : look: there are photographers in here : you can't spread this kind of limited "experience" and get away with it like you are the only one printing 4x6
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top