Good punchy colours but the solid black shadows are a killer.Back in 2008, I owned a Sony A100 that had a 10mp CCD APSC sensor. There are people today that rave about the color output of that camera. You be the judge.
The downfall of the camera was its IQ quickly deteriorated above ISO 400.
Sensors back then didn’t have much DR. These were SOOC JPEGs. RAW probably would have done better.Good punchy colours but the solid black shadows are a killer.Back in 2008, I owned a Sony A100 that had a 10mp CCD APSC sensor. There are people today that rave about the color output of that camera. You be the judge.
The downfall of the camera was its IQ quickly deteriorated above ISO 400.
Don Cox
Yes, that is true for the Sigma Foveon Merrill sensor, which has similar punchy colours and limited DR. With care you can get the raw files to show some shadow detail so it doesn't look as though somebody spilt black ink on the picture.
--
Those two things might be connected. The easiest way to punch up the saturation and contrast of an image is to change the tone curves to darken the less bright color channels. Here's a quick example I cooked up, SOOC on the left and darkened tones on the right.
Yes it did RAW.
LED and fluorescent bulbs are the worst. I always look for ones with the best CRI rating, but few bulbs even list theirs. And even CRI isn't perfect, it's flawed to start with and it's based on eye color response, not camera color response. When looking for accurate colors under artificial lights I always insist on incandescent bulbs.
Incandescent lights lean toward orange so they are no more "natural" than LEDs which lean toward blue. Sunlight gives the most natural color which should be obvious because sunlight is the natural light our eyes and brains adapted to. Anything else is not natural.
You're missing the problem, it's not the overall color - that can be fixed by a simple white balance change. Sunlight and incandescent light both share the property of being made up of an even distribution of frequencies of light; the frequency distribution of a LED is much more lumpy. Metameric failure is the term when something looks different under one light source than it does under another.
LED has non-uniform spectrum with a big drop between blue and green. Tungsten is much flatter.
True but people tend to like saturated colors whether accurate or not.
No camera gives truly accurate colors. In fact, it's impossible because color perception varies so much from person to person and is highly dependent on the lighting. Even in sunlight, there are differences depending on the number of clouds and time of day. In our perception of color, our minds automatically compensate for those differences so we don't notice it but cameras can't do that.
These are from my first digital camera purchased in Jan 2003 (a 2002 model)
Yes, our minds compensate for color differences but cameras cannot do that.
There are LED lights available with a uniform spectrum output but they are costly.
Actually, our minds do not compensate for poor spectrum. We may learn to live with it to ignore it but this is another story.
