any Bayer CFA alternatives?

No film-vs-digital war intended, but is there any digital cameras out there that has full color-resolution?

I have the Canon 5D3, but I'm having too many headaches with its color (especially concerning skin-tones) when I compare it to what I can achieve when using film.

I'm sure the Canon is more color-accurate than film, scientifically speaking, but that's just not really of much use to me.

When I photograph people I get much more flattering images when using film than when using the 5D3.

So, where in the digital world do I go, when my goal is photos that look more like those I get on film?

Is there any digital options at all?

Thank you.

JEL

Sigma's Foveon offers full color capture. But it is quirky technolgy. And my experience with DP2 Merrill is that getting accurate colors can be tricky. I never liked photographing people with it for that reason.

I know some people love and still use earlier generation of Foveon cameras, pre Merrill. And looking at photos, it still manages to deliver.

I actually like my DP2M, but working with raw files is a bit of a pain. But for monochrome, it is exceptional and very easy to handle.

Thanks

I do know about the Sigma, but haven't actually tried one myself.

I've seen sample-photos from it and found the images very crisp looking and good looking.

But I have also read about it being, as you describe, quirky to work with, as well as having poor battery life and a single fixed lens and generally not very user-friendly.

JELSTUDIO said:

I do know about the Sigma, but haven't actually tried one myself.

I've seen sample-photos from it and found the images very crisp looking and good looking.

Click to expand...

I'll say it like that. After seeing what my Merrill is capable of, I have never looked at the Bayer based cameras the same way. That includes my beloved Micro 4/3 gear.

JELSTUDIO said:

But I have also read about it being, as you describe, quirky to work with

Click to expand...

The quirkiness comes from limited shooting envelope of Foveon sensor. You're better of sticking to base ISO and nailing your exposure. For monochrome, it's much more relaxed, since there's no color blotching to worry about. I'd say you can easily go up to ISO 1600 when shooting B&W and I'll take people's word that the noise looks like a film much more so than Bayer based cameras.

JELSTUDIO said:

, as well as having poor battery life

Click to expand...

Fortunately, Sigma sells those cameras with two batteries, at least since Merrill

If you only turn on the camera when shooting, you can get around 70-80 shots on one battery (at least I can). But some people claim they get only about 30. Doesn't really matter much. You will not be taking hundreds of photos with it. Not if you want to keep your sanity.

JELSTUDIO said:

and a single fixed lens

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. You basically have two choices in regards to Foveon. Either a fixed lens compact camera (the dp series) or a DSLR (sd series). The DSLRs use Sigma's SA mount. Never had the pleasure to use any sd camera, but people still use SD9 or SD14/15 DSLRs with earlier generation of Foveon sensors.

JELSTUDIO said:

and generally not very user-friendly.

Click to expand...

As for the DP2 Merrill I have, it's actually a very nice camera. It is slow in operation, which is nice if you want to break away from spray and pray kind of shooting (which I did), but I imagine very frustrating if spray and pray is your thing. Very nice for more thoughtful photographic experience. Obviously, not good at all for shooting any action (hence the general belief that Sigma's are for landscape and still life shooters).

The camera is very simple and minimalistic, but I found the ergonomics and UX very good. It really is well designed, although I guess DSLR users used to dozens of buttons and dials might have trouble with the simplicity of Sigma's design. For me, it was a welcomed change from feature packed OM-D with sprawling menus and exhaustive customisation options. Sometimes less is better

And it has the single best shutter button I have ever used on any camera. Ever.

The biggest weakness of Sigma is software. The OOC JPEGs are not acceptable to me (oversharpened), but the SPP software that converts the RAW files is slow and clunky. I'm sure it's much better with older generations (the Merrill files are huuge). It is actually the main reason I'm not using it as much. I still have a bunch of unprocessed shots waiting for better times. There's some support from third parties popping up, but I have not had the chance to try it yet.

Anyway, if you ever have the chance to get a second hand dp2s or Merrill on the cheap, give it a try.

JELSTUDIO said:

So, where in the digital world do I go, when my goal is photos that look more like those I get on film?

Click to expand...

If you're shooting Raw, color rendition is pretty much up to the program you're processing your Raw files with. There are lots of choices. Some Raw converters -- DxO is one I can think of off the top of my head -- offer film emulation. You can also buy film emulation presets for Lightroom from a number of sources.

If you're shooting JPEG, Fujifilm and Olympus are going to be your best bets. They aren't full-frame, though. Fujifilm offers 6 color film emulations in its current X-mount camera line: Provia, Velvia, Astia, PRO Neg Std. (Fujicolor PRO 160NS), PRO Neg Hi (Fujicolor PRO 400H), and Classic Chrome. That last one isn't an emulation of an existing film; it's an engineered look for documentary/journalism type work where you want to emphasize the subject and downplay the color, but don't want to go full monochrome.

You can read about Fujifilm's color film simulations here:
http://www.photoxels.com/the-world-of-fujifilm-film-simulation-episode-1/

Olympus probably has better monochrome simulations than Fuji does, especially in the Oly Pen F, but Fujifilm has added an Acros simulation in the X-Pro2 and X-T2.

[Being a Fuji owner I know more about their products than about the others.]

--
The open-source LightZone Project: http://lightzoneproject.org/

Thank you for your detailed reply

I wasn't aware Sigma had an interchangeable lens model. I've googled it and read a bit about it. Very interesting. I'll do some more reading on that camera (user-reviews and such) and study more sample-photos from it.

Between 30 to 80 shots on a battery... not too happy to hear that though.

And huge file-sizes also isn't too ideal. I already get that with film-scans, and it can be quite a work-flow killer.

Anyway, I'll see what my impression of its color is when I get to see more samples.

Thanks again

Yes, I'm working on RAW images, but not getting the results I want.

I've been at this, in-depth, for years and I believe I've tried most of the serious software-packages out there. I've yet to find one that consistently does what I want.

I get closest to what I want when using Canon's own DPP4 software, but I do wish it had more RAW controls.

Fuji cameras seem nice, but I'd prefer an option that doesn't use color-interpolation.

But thank you for suggesting them



This example-image isn't mine, but does show some of the same harshness I also get.

JELSTUDIO said:

JELSTUDIO wrote.. I get closest to what I want when using Canon's own DPP4 software, but I do wish it had more RAW controls.

Click to expand...

Perhaps check out camera sensor profiling...?

Here's for a starter http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/photography/camera-profiling.html

No matter what digital sensor you use, there is a need to "interpret" what the sensor has recorded. The problem you face are metamerisms, i.e. colors which look the same, but in terms of spectral data, should be different. The cameras just record all the spectral data, and then some software has to figure out how that fits with how we humans perceived the scenery. White balance, color profiles etc. are tools to help with that issue. In return, there is for example no one-fits-all-color-profile, because it depends on the lighting conditions and the actual things you take pictures of.

Thanks There's some reading to do there, I can see

Yeah, I was kind of afraid of that:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/12262693

Is there any website that somehow lists comparisons of cameras and film-stock based on this issue? Such that one could aim for cameras that are inherently closer to certain other cameras or film.

JELSTUDIO said:

I get closest to what I want when using Canon's own DPP4 software, but I do wish it had more RAW controls.

Click to expand...

DPP's user interface is an odd duck. It makes visible the distinction between operations that occur on the Raw data (including demosaicing parameters) and operations that occur on the demosaiced RGB color image.

Along the way, DPP provides separate sharpening facilities for both Raw data and image, which adds to the confusion. If you're seeing harshness that you think is from the demosaicing of the color filter array, maybe you're leaning too heavily on the Raw data sharpening (which occurs before demosaicing) rather than the RGB image sharpening (which occurs afterward). I'd recommend reserving Raw data sharpening for countering the effect of the anti-aliasing filters, and using the RGB image sharpening for everything else.

Have you tried the various picture styles? I'd think that between Portrait, Faithful, Neutral, Snapshot Portrait, and Studio Portrait there'd be at least one that'd give you skin tones close to what you want. If you're determined enough, you could use the Picture Style Editor to create your own custom picture style.

I have sharpening turned fully off (the button is shown on 3 tabs, but it's only 1 function. If you turn it on or off on 1 tab it also turns on or off on the other)

I mainly switch between neutral and faithful, leaning more toward faithful.

None of the picture styles get me close to the color-look I get on film however.

I've also tried making my own styles in PSE, and through gamma-adjustments I can get quite close actually, but I still have wrong colors (mainly a lack of blue tones and an abundance of green. Even with whitebalance adjustments. I ascribe this to the metamerism-effects being different from those of the films I use.

With gamma-adjustments I can 'even' out the skin-tones more, between dark areas and brighter areas, but it's still not very close to what I get on film.

On film I get a very even nice skin-tone on all exposed skin (face, forehead, neck, chin, arms, etc), while on the Canon 5D3 I get a variety of colors that are different from area to area (forehead may be the color I want, but then the neck turns ugly green, or the neck is good but then the chins get neon-red. I never get the flattering 'completeness' that I get on film. I've spent years on this and I just can't seem to crack this, and I think it is probably not possible (due to that metamerism-effect mentioned))

Thanks for your suggestions

For landscapes the 5D3 is super, but for skin-tones on people it gives me headaches :/

Film look.... hmmm...

Wonder, if the now free Nik Collection could be something for you (too)?

Find it here: https://www.google.com/nikcollection/

Thanks Janoch

Unfortunately I have already tried them.

It's a pretty good package though.

Well, you're clearly a lost case then!

Oh, forgot about Portrait Pro! Have you tried that one?

Link http://www.portraitprofessional.com/photo_editing_software/new_in_v12/

Btw. I know some photographers, who use film especially for portrait use, so a (last) option is of course a multi-camera setup.

Most recently was Benjamin Kanarek here on dpReview, not that I "know" him...

Ps. And no, I don't get percentage, so not trying to sell you anything! :-D

They are some Fuji cameras which lack a Bayer sensor.Now, they still have a grid of color filters over the sensor, but not in the traditional Bayer pattern.

Fuji cameras are also valued for having excellent out-of-camera JPEGs.

Janoch said:

Well, you're clearly a lost case then!

Oh, forgot about Portrait Pro! Have you tried that one?

Link http://www.portraitprofessional.com/photo_editing_software/new_in_v12/

Btw. I know some photographers, who use film especially for portrait use, so a (last) option is of course a multi-camera setup.

Most recently was Benjamin Kanarek here on dpReview, not that I "know" him...

Ps. And no, I don't get percentage, so not trying to sell you anything! :-D

Click to expand...

LOL yes I actually have PP, but mostly for making the occasional fun goofy-looking edits

It's quite good for blemish-removal actually

I do use film too, but even though it looks better to me, the work-flow with film is clearly not as quick or cheap as digital (and having the very limited number of available frames on a film-roll actually stresses me)

I do love the look it gives me though.

Yeah, lost for now, but only until some day when a new bread of camera comes along, hopefully