Reading mode: Light Dark

Considering full frame systems (Canon, Nikon and Sony)

Go to last post
jabberwock said:
It takes some quick learner to make images like these (with either
camera!)
Click to expand...
Seems like we both like that kind of flower shot:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=23674145

Hehe, I don't claim to be a great photographer but what I do take I like to represent what I see where colours are concerned. If you want to make it personal then fine but let's try to stay on topic, shall we?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=28725097&changemode=1

Actually, the second one was with the D300 and this was about the plant ID, not the photo although the D300 came out quite lacklustre by comparison.
jabberwock said:
Ahh those greeeens ...!!! You mean there is someone out there who
would prefer what is above to what is almost daily below?
Click to expand...
Well, actually, I'm not overkeen on the colours of many of those, although there are some quite good shots there.
jabberwock said:
You can't be serious.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am. You can't be courteous?

Jim
 
Roman Johnston has a keen eye for finding a good photo and I enjoyed looking at his gallery.

His post processing over saturates his photos in my opinion. There’s nothing wrong with that - it is his style, but if you are trying to duplicate reality the greens in particular are unreal. I’ve been to some of these locations so I can speak first hand.

If your object is to create punchy, surrealistic photos that excite the senses, then the accuracy of the camera’s processing of the color makes little difference because you’re going to further exaggerate the palette in PP anyway.

If this is what you’re looking to do, many cameras will fit the bill.

--

'When nothing seems to help, I go and look at a stonecutter hammering away at his rock perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it. Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two, and I know it was not that blow that did it, but all that had gone before.' - Jacob Riis

Stay Well,
Pete K.
 
Hi Alex
sigala said:
My question to you - particularly to users of both Nikon and Olympus.
Apologise if this is a silly question, but I read many statements on
this forum basically saying that you can make colors look whatever
you like in LR. Do you have any sample settings that could give Nikon
jpeg appearance similar to E-3 daylight output? I love the D700 high
ISO performance, but given that 70% of my photos are taken outdoors,
I will keep the E-3 for another year if this cannot be done.
Click to expand...
Yes I have also read it many times om this forum that the color inaccuracies of canon and nikon is no big problem because it can be corrected easily. However there is no tools or profiles that can do this, the statements are never followed by a link or reference or anything useful. Searching the net also yields nothing...

There are however tons of tools that can distort color beyond recognition but nothing to correct inherent distortion. The fact is that the transforms needed to do the correction is not simple and probably dependent on elements like:

pixel position, angle of the light hitting the pixel (This would mean that the color depends on both aperture and the properties of the lens), variation in the microfilters used on the sensor etc, etc. So maybe it is one of those things that while possible in theory, are just not practical to do in reality.

I know the E3 is already the best there is (at the present state of technology), but if someone out there has a transform (or tool or whatever) that will make the E3 100% (or as close as possible) accurate in the color reproduction I for sure am interested.

Regards
Jens

--

It is an inverted pyramid of piffle. It is all completely untrue and ludicrous conjecture. I am amazed people can write this drivel.
 
Martin,

I did some 'research' - not on the internet, but in the raw exifs.

There's a section 'ImageProcessorIFD' in the raw exif (see below for an example) that appears to contain color based values.

The interesting thing is this:
  • these values differ (esp. in the color matrix section) for each of the ZD or PL lenses.
  • they're the same for each picture taken with this lens.
Perhaps that's where the color information for each lens is stored.

If so, I stand corrected :-)

Cheers,

Claus.

The EXIF section:

ImageProcessorIFDVersion = 0112

ColorMatrix = 354, -76, -22, -40, 348, -52, -6, -88, 350
ColorMatrix_3000K = 356, 65456, 65516, 65496, 348, 65484, 65530, 65444, 354
ColorMatrix_3300K = 326, 65500, 65502, 65480, 328, 65520, 65534, 65368, 426
ColorMatrix_3600K = 338, 65484, 65506, 65488, 336, 65504, 65532, 65404, 392
ColorMatrix_3900K = 342, 65476, 65510, 65490, 336, 65502, 65532, 65416, 380
ColorMatrix_4000K = 344, 65472, 65512, 65492, 340, 65496, 65530, 65424, 374
ColorMatrix_4300K = 422, 65380, 65526, 65488, 316, 65524, 65526, 65456, 346
ColorMatrix_4500K = 344, 65472, 65512, 65494, 340, 65494, 65532, 65424, 372
ColorMatrix_4800K = 322, 65496, 65510, 65500, 316, 65512, 65528, 65468, 332
ColorMatrix_5300K = 350, 65464, 65514, 65496, 344, 65488, 65530, 65436, 362
ColorMatrix_6000K = 356, 65456, 65516, 65496, 348, 65484, 65530, 65444, 354
ColorMatrix_6600K = 362, 65448, 65518, 65500, 352, 65476, 65530, 65448, 350
ColorMatrix_7500K = 330, 65484, 65514, 65504, 332, 65492, 65530, 65472, 326
ColorMatrix_3000K = 244, 52, 65496, 65504, 344, 65480, 65532, 65452, 344
ColorMatrix_3300K = 218, 80, 65494, 65486, 324, 65518, 0, 65380, 412
ColorMatrix_3600K = 224, 72, 65496, 65492, 332, 65504, 65534, 65416, 378
ColorMatrix_3900K = 232, 64, 65496, 65496, 332, 65500, 65534, 65428, 366
ColorMatrix_4000K = 232, 64, 65496, 65496, 336, 65496, 65534, 65432, 362
ColorMatrix_4300K = 290, 65524, 65514, 65494, 312, 65522, 65532, 65460, 336
ColorMatrix_4500K = 234, 64, 65494, 65500, 336, 65492, 65534, 65432, 362
ColorMatrix_4800K = 222, 68, 65502, 65504, 312, 65512, 65532, 65476, 320
ColorMatrix_5300K = 240, 56, 65496, 65502, 340, 65486, 65534, 65444, 350
ColorMatrix_6000K = 244, 52, 65496, 65504, 344, 65480, 65532, 65452, 344
ColorMatrix_6600K = 248, 48, 65496, 65504, 348, 65476, 65532, 65460, 336
ColorMatrix_7500K = 228, 68, 65496, 65508, 328, 65492, 65532, 65476, 320
BlackLevel = 60, 61, 61, 60
ChromaSuppless_5_0601 = 0.078125, 0.8125, 0.15625
ChromaSuppless_5_0602 = 0.078125, 0.8125, 0.15625
ChromaSuppless_5_0603 = 0.078125, 0.8125, 0.15625
GainBase = 256
ValidBitsPerPixel = 12, 0
StartOffsetX = 38, 0
StartOffsetY = 16, 0
FinalWidth = 3648
FinalHeight = 2736

LensDistortionParams = -0.005326, 0.000192, 0.000014, -0.005638, 0.000350, 0.000016, -0.006000, 0.000220, 0.000053

LensShadingParams = 8192, 8192, 8192, 8194, 8204, 8208, 8215, 8236, 8253, 8278, 8310, 8339, 8370, 8399, 8414, 8446
--

... when the photograph annihilates itself as medium to be no longer a sign but the thing itself...

 
sigala said:
To my eye, the colors with both 5D and D700 look quite uninspiring
compared to what I get with no effort out of E-3. Also, neither of
the samples appears to be very "crisp"
My question to you - particularly to users of both Nikon and Olympus.
Apologise if this is a silly question, but I read many statements on
this forum basically saying that you can make colors look whatever
you like in LR.
Click to expand...
It is easy to get excellent color from the D700 and D3 in photoshop. I find my colors to be very similar in quality to my E-1.

Both the D3 and D700 also produce images that will sharpen to you heart's content.

Best,

Bill
 
Jim Attfield said:
jim stirling said:
Lol well i am no fan boy , but i honestly do not see any spectacular
differences in the color out puts from any of the current crop of
cameras from all makers some just have a better jpeg engines the
Olympus being very good whilst for example the Sony is pretty poor in
my mind here is a 100% crop comparing the D300 and E3 nothing that
cant be matched when shooting raw
Jim
Click to expand...
Well, I invite you to try it for yourself, not just comparing test
box shots from review sites. You will find it is not so easy.
Click to expand...
i have edited Olympus e3 raw files and d300 files and i find it not difficult to make the colors all but identical , pretty much any raw file can be made to look how you want it to, the reason for using the review samples was to provide totally neutral samples and .the following are quotes from the imatest results from the E3 and the D300 { imaging resource provides downloads of the raw files for those interested}

D300

"Slight oversaturation of strong red and blue tones, as well as some greens, but better than average accuracy and pleasing color overall."

E3

"Slight oversaturation of strong red and blue tones, and undersaturation of some greens, but better than average accuracy and pleasing color overall."

funny no mention on this test about the wonders of e3 color rendition or the terrible d300 colors , i agree that the Olympus has an excellent jpeg engine but when working with raw files color is straightforward to change to whatever look you desire
 
smokes said:
But since you only read the one post by the OP, I will direct you to
another
Click to expand...
So now you are telepathic as well as unhelpful. My comments go directly to the OP's post because I also wanted what I believed was a higher performance body with great Olympus colours. I found I couldn't do it. It is information for the OP which is useful - whether the OP takes any notice is another thing.

Where are your helpful and constructive comments?

Jim
 
jim stirling said:
i have edited Olympus e3 raw files and d300 files and i find it not
difficult to make the colors all but identical , pretty much any raw
file can be made to look how you want it to, the reason for using the
review samples was to provide totally neutral samples and .the
following are quotes from the imatest results from the E3 and the
D300 { imaging resource provides downloads of the raw files for those
interested}
Click to expand...
Yes, I know all about Imaging Resource, I went through all of this when deciding whether to bother with a D300 or not.
jim stirling said:
funny no mention on this test about the wonders of e3 color rendition
or the terrible d300 colors
Click to expand...
I'm not really surprised, the test shots are just a small set of data points which, while a good starting point, don't bear much relevance to the real world.
jim stirling said:
i agree that the Olympus has an
excellent jpeg engine but when working with raw files color is
straightforward to change to whatever look you desire
Click to expand...
Well, my experience was different. With quite a bit of work I could get somewhere close but repeatability or a stable profile proved impossible. In short, I opted to not have all that work PP'ing all or most images.

If you won't take my word for it, buy a D300 and try for yourself with some real images. Perhaps you'll succeed where I didn't.

Jim
 
sigala said:
Here is the deal. I don't complain about anything. Not about the E-3,
not about Nikon etc. I just say what I like, what I don't like and
what I am willing to spend the money to have.

If there is a
superb low light performance along with daylight performance similar
to E3 - be it directly or with reasonable post-processing, I will buy
such camera.
Click to expand...
OK, here is the reply.

No.

Jim
 
outdo cropped sensors or 4/3's by leaps and bounds. If you ever see 100% crops of a900 files than you'll know what i'm talking about, the detail achieved is phenomenal.

The reason why I mention going for high resolution is because it'll more than likely be the last camera you'd have to buy and if the needs for high resolution comes you'll probably never even have to look at leasing MF. At least for me, I could have definately made good use of those files in on a number of occasions.

You can't beat 4/3's for telephoto though, i really can't think of a better sporting/wildlife system for normal iso use.

Oh and people need to drop this whole FF is more expensive and heavier than 4/3's thing,especially when we're talking high-end oly gear. Seriously as if an olympus pro setup is any different, well except that you actually don't get the advantages of having a bigger sensor.

--
Oldschool Evolt shooter
 
chuck_dyer said:
I agree - Why spend more the 2X the price of the E3 for ISO
performance that is rarely required for the amateur photographer.

If I was depending on my photo gear for a living, then I would not
hesitate in spending more money. For wedding photography, the high
ISO performance of the FF sensor would help obtain shots that are not
possible with smaller sensors.
Click to expand...
Just realized that a Malaysian website is selling Canon EOS 5D Digital Camera Body + EF 24-105mm F4 L Lens at RM9,999/- (pls convert to USD yourself).

Now, that is almost equivalent to the price of E-3+12-60 + FL50R!! But Olympus is always expensive in Malaysia.....sighhh!

ABBAR
 
Hi Alex,

The 5DMKII when it arrives should be quite good, but the D700/D3 is the KING right now for HIGH ISO/LOW LIGHT shots. If LOW light shots are your prime subjects I would steer towards the NIKON camp.

However, if LANDSCAPE/STUDIO shots are in your favor take a look at these two threads:

Landscape:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&thread=29849718

A900 vs. Hasseblad:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&thread=29852201
sigala said:
Hello all,

I own E-3 and 12-60 for a year now and overall quite happy - the
controls are mostly OK for me and the image quality below ISO 400 is
excellent. Also, touch wood, I have not had any of the quality issues
discussed in this formum.

Given that I bought it last X-Mas for a great bundle price and
because USD went up in comparison to CAD in the last month, I can
sell my system this season with a very minimal loss - maybe couple
hunderd dollars.

Why? Because I am kinda buying into the idea of full frame sensors
being more versatile in terms of shooting conditions. To me, all the
comparing 4/3 vs. APS-C is immaterial. Taking everything else (i.e.
ZD glass, IS, sealed body, etc.) into consideration E3 wins handily.
But against the full frames... not sure.

Anyway, I dowloaded samples from DP reviews of the D700, Alpha 900
and Canon 5D MK2 (all jpeg of course) and compared them with my E-3
shots of similar "themes" i.e. cityscape with blue skies, indoors,
night, etc.

To my eye, the colors with both 5D and D700 look quite uninspiring
compared to what I get with no effort out of E-3. Also, neither of
the samples appears to be very "crisp" (I read some gripes about this
on Nikon forum as well). Sony output up to ISO 800, on the other
hand, actually looks quite close to the E-3 color representation and
"crispness", especially with slight curve adjeustment in LR.

Having said that, low light performance with Sony appears to be sort
of on par with E-3 (or in some cases worse in terms of grain and
chroma noise - but of course with much higher resolution) - basically
I won't feel any more comfortale going above ISO 800 with Sony than
with E-3 today, judging by the samples.

My question to you - particularly to users of both Nikon and Olympus.
Apologise if this is a silly question, but I read many statements on
this forum basically saying that you can make colors look whatever
you like in LR. Do you have any sample settings that could give Nikon
jpeg appearance similar to E-3 daylight output? I love the D700 high
ISO performance, but given that 70% of my photos are taken outdoors,
I will keep the E-3 for another year if this cannot be done.

Thanks,

Alex
Click to expand...
--
-Alex

From the minds of Minolta to the imagination of Sony, Alpha, like no other.

http://www.pbase.com/lonewolf69
 
Jim Attfield said:
jim stirling said:
i have edited Olympus e3 raw files and d300 files and i find it not
difficult to make the colors all but identical , pretty much any raw
file can be made to look how you want it to, the reason for using the
review samples was to provide totally neutral samples and .the
following are quotes from the imatest results from the E3 and the
D300 { imaging resource provides downloads of the raw files for those
interested}
Click to expand...
Yes, I know all about Imaging Resource, I went through all of this
when deciding whether to bother with a D300 or not.
Jim Attfield said:
funny no mention on this test about the wonders of e3 color rendition
or the terrible d300 colors
Click to expand...
I'm not really surprised, the test shots are just a small set of data
points which, while a good starting point, don't bear much relevance
to the real world.
Jim Attfield said:
i agree that the Olympus has an
excellent jpeg engine but when working with raw files color is
straightforward to change to whatever look you desire
Click to expand...
Well, my experience was different. With quite a bit of work I could
get somewhere close but repeatability or a stable profile proved
impossible. In short, I opted to not have all that work PP'ing all or
most images.

If you won't take my word for it, buy a D300 and try for yourself
with some real images. Perhaps you'll succeed where I didn't.

Jim
Click to expand...
hello Jim ,

i already own a D300 D700 and D3 as well as a Canon 5D with some excellent lenses for both systems , i have an Olympus OM4ti with several Olympus lenses and i have been very tempted with an E3 it is a superb camera with virtually every current development on board combined with excellent build quality the only let down is my requirement for good high iso performance { which to be fair has only just been delivered by Nikon}, i am a wedding photographer and many Churches and Chapels do not allow flash photography and as i am in Scotland we have many dark wet and dull days so whilst i would not want to shoot crazy high {ie above 3200} the D3 iso 1600 quality has been a godsend for my work, i do not wish to be confrontational and in the end color rendition is a matter of taste and we will agree to disagree { Nikon is a bit strong on greens lol}
Jim
 
years ago on how to do that between DSLR's from Oly and Nikon, Canon etc.,, even before a cheap(er) full frame (Canon 5D) was released.

I still have not found an answer or a workflow that is simple or accurate most of the time. Most probably the answer would be that I have to be a post processing master with a lot of time to do it.
 
WOW! phenomenal photographer and camera, look at that range! The lenses he took with him are in total worth less than the 12-60 I believe.
--
Oldschool Evolt shooter
 
sigala said:
But how do you advance without re-avaluating from time to time what
else is new on the market?
Click to expand...
You advance when you realize that 99% of the time it's not the gear, but the person operating it.

--



E-Five-Ten/E-One/E-Three-Hundred/E-Ten/C-Twenty-OneHundred-UZ/E-OneHundred-RS
DZ Eleven-TwentyTwo/DZ Fourteen-FiftyFour/DZ Fifty-TwoHundred
EC-Fourteen/FL-Fifty/FL-Forty
Oldma-cdon-aldh-adaf-arm-EI-EI-O
 
Thanks very much.
To me that looks like the data I searched for.

Because of 3 colors, a matrix has 9 Values, and in your data those 9 values are listed - for each White balance.

Interresting that they store it in form of a matrix for each WB - they also could have made a table with approx 100 wavelenghts, but the set of matrixes is more easy to interpret.
cherrs
Martin F.

OlympusE330andE500andPanasonicL10.
Claus A said:
Martin,

I did some 'research' - not on the internet, but in the raw exifs.

There's a section 'ImageProcessorIFD' in the raw exif (see below for
an example) that appears to contain color based values.

The interesting thing is this:
  • these values differ (esp. in the color matrix section) for each
of the ZD or PL lenses.
  • they're the same for each picture taken with this lens.
Perhaps that's where the color information for each lens is stored.

If so, I stand corrected :-)

Cheers,

Claus.

The EXIF section:

ImageProcessorIFDVersion = 0112

ColorMatrix = 354, -76, -22, -40, 348, -52, -6, -88, 350
ColorMatrix_3000K = 356, 65456, 65516, 65496, 348, 65484, 65530,
65444, 354
ColorMatrix_3300K = 326, 65500, 65502, 65480, 328, 65520, 65534,
65368, 426
ColorMatrix_3600K = 338, 65484, 65506, 65488, 336, 65504, 65532,
65404, 392
ColorMatrix_3900K = 342, 65476, 65510, 65490, 336, 65502, 65532,
65416, 380
ColorMatrix_4000K = 344, 65472, 65512, 65492, 340, 65496, 65530,
65424, 374
ColorMatrix_4300K = 422, 65380, 65526, 65488, 316, 65524, 65526,
65456, 346
ColorMatrix_4500K = 344, 65472, 65512, 65494, 340, 65494, 65532,
65424, 372
ColorMatrix_4800K = 322, 65496, 65510, 65500, 316, 65512, 65528,
65468, 332
ColorMatrix_5300K = 350, 65464, 65514, 65496, 344, 65488, 65530,
65436, 362
ColorMatrix_6000K = 356, 65456, 65516, 65496, 348, 65484, 65530,
65444, 354
ColorMatrix_6600K = 362, 65448, 65518, 65500, 352, 65476, 65530,
65448, 350
ColorMatrix_7500K = 330, 65484, 65514, 65504, 332, 65492, 65530,
65472, 326
ColorMatrix_3000K = 244, 52, 65496, 65504, 344, 65480, 65532, 65452, 344
ColorMatrix_3300K = 218, 80, 65494, 65486, 324, 65518, 0, 65380, 412
ColorMatrix_3600K = 224, 72, 65496, 65492, 332, 65504, 65534, 65416, 378
ColorMatrix_3900K = 232, 64, 65496, 65496, 332, 65500, 65534, 65428, 366
ColorMatrix_4000K = 232, 64, 65496, 65496, 336, 65496, 65534, 65432, 362
ColorMatrix_4300K = 290, 65524, 65514, 65494, 312, 65522, 65532,
65460, 336
ColorMatrix_4500K = 234, 64, 65494, 65500, 336, 65492, 65534, 65432, 362
ColorMatrix_4800K = 222, 68, 65502, 65504, 312, 65512, 65532, 65476, 320
ColorMatrix_5300K = 240, 56, 65496, 65502, 340, 65486, 65534, 65444, 350
ColorMatrix_6000K = 244, 52, 65496, 65504, 344, 65480, 65532, 65452, 344
ColorMatrix_6600K = 248, 48, 65496, 65504, 348, 65476, 65532, 65460, 336
ColorMatrix_7500K = 228, 68, 65496, 65508, 328, 65492, 65532, 65476, 320
BlackLevel = 60, 61, 61, 60
ChromaSuppless_5_0601 = 0.078125, 0.8125, 0.15625
ChromaSuppless_5_0602 = 0.078125, 0.8125, 0.15625
ChromaSuppless_5_0603 = 0.078125, 0.8125, 0.15625
GainBase = 256
ValidBitsPerPixel = 12, 0
StartOffsetX = 38, 0
StartOffsetY = 16, 0
FinalWidth = 3648
FinalHeight = 2736
LensDistortionParams = -0.005326, 0.000192, 0.000014, -0.005638,
0.000350, 0.000016, -0.006000, 0.000220, 0.000053
LensShadingParams = 8192, 8192, 8192, 8194, 8204, 8208, 8215, 8236,
8253, 8278, 8310, 8339, 8370, 8399, 8414, 8446
--
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top