stunsworth Posted August 4, 2006 Share #21 Posted August 4, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Fair enough Alfie, here's a plastic Canon shot. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/2508-has-digital-reduced-the-quality-gap-with-mf/?do=findComment&comment=24950'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 4, 2006 Posted August 4, 2006 Hi stunsworth, Take a look here Has Digital reduced the quality gap with MF ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Dan States Posted August 4, 2006 Share #22 Posted August 4, 2006 Yea, makes you wonder why pro's are running to them in droves, National Geographic has practically made them their standard equipment and they are blowing everyone else in the market into the weeds. Must be that everyone in the whole world has lost their minds.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 4, 2006 Share #23 Posted August 4, 2006 Fair enough Alfie, here's a plastic Canon shot. Steve I had that Airfix plastic "Howarth" kit when I was a kid. #Thanks for the memories...# Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 4, 2006 Share #24 Posted August 4, 2006 10 out of 10 for recognising the location Andy ;-) ' Out on the wiley, windy moors We'd roll and fall in green. You had a temper like my jealousy: Too hot, too greedy. How could you leave me, When I needed to possess you? I hated you. I loved you, too.' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinb Posted August 5, 2006 Share #25 Posted August 5, 2006 I think many in this forum would be very happy if Leica had a 5D sensor At least I would be.. I don't think that Canon files are that hard to process and get good results. They need a bit more sharpening but can also take more sharpening than any other camera. They are also a bit too red. But I really don't agree about a "plastic" look... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 5, 2006 Share #26 Posted August 5, 2006 Martin, the image I posted is from a 300D - ancient technology in digital terms :-) - but I agree, I'd be more than happy with a 5D sensor in a Leica rangefinder body. In the event I'm probably going to have to settle for an equally excellent alternative. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted August 5, 2006 Share #27 Posted August 5, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Here is what the canon shot, nothing wrong with the camera Alfie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flatfour Posted August 5, 2006 Share #28 Posted August 5, 2006 Steve - With respect that picture does look plasticy on my monitor. Hope you don't mind I've tried to remove the plasticy look with PS. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/2508-has-digital-reduced-the-quality-gap-with-mf/?do=findComment&comment=25205'>More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 5, 2006 Share #29 Posted August 5, 2006 Hi Anthony, I've no problems with people playing around with my images, but in this case I have to say I prefer the original. The reduced contrast/saturation makes it look muddy to my eyes :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 5, 2006 Share #30 Posted August 5, 2006 ' Out on the wiley, windy moors We'd roll and fall in green. You had a temper like my jealousy: Too hot, too greedy. How could you leave me, When I needed to possess you? I hated you. I loved you, too.' "I didn't know you cared" (That was a great programme from my youth...) BBC - Comedy Guide - I Didn't Know You Cared Sorry, but Anthony's edit looks like a nice flat scan that then needs the levels adjusted, to my eye. Indeed, the histogram in PS has nothing at the top and bottom ends. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flatfour Posted August 5, 2006 Share #31 Posted August 5, 2006 Andy - I'm new to all this - (don't say I knew it) - but what do you mean by the histogram has nothing at the top and bottom ends ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 5, 2006 Share #32 Posted August 5, 2006 Like this, Anthony Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/2508-has-digital-reduced-the-quality-gap-with-mf/?do=findComment&comment=25251'>More sharing options...
Guest flatfour Posted August 6, 2006 Share #33 Posted August 6, 2006 Thanks and I see your point Andy but that is just a statement about why the original is plasticy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 6, 2006 Share #34 Posted August 6, 2006 But, if you are not using the full width of the histogram, you are not getting the full tonal range in the image. This may be what you want, if it's a highlight shot for example. But in a scene lile this, one would normally wish to see a full range of colours and tones. The edited version looks like it is being viewed through an ND filter. However, each to his own taste - there is no "right" answer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
supperman Posted August 6, 2006 Share #35 Posted August 6, 2006 Indeed but even good processing can't remove the plastic out of the Canon shots no matter what. Care to give us an example? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted August 6, 2006 Share #36 Posted August 6, 2006 Sorry but that landscape shot just looks very bleachy looking. I think that the colors are slightly off ... And yes, the gradations are still too smooth. I bet that if I were to print that at 4 by 6 feet, then I will know that everything looks a little too buttery for my taste. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
supperman Posted August 6, 2006 Share #37 Posted August 6, 2006 Sorry but that landscape shot just looks very bleachy looking. I think that the colors are slightly off ... And yes, the gradations are still too smooth. I bet that if I were to print that at 4 by 6 feet, then I will know that everything looks a little too buttery for my taste. You really can't comment about the colors unless you have seen the actual scene. The 'bleachy' look is actually preferred in professional DSLRs, and you only get 'Disney' colors from P&S cameras, or if you decide to boost the saturation in-camera. And color gradations are supposed to be smooth! The greatest thing about the 16bit a/d converter in the DMR is that you'll get even more colors and even smoother gradations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 6, 2006 Share #38 Posted August 6, 2006 Which shot are we talking about here, guys? You have confused me... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted August 6, 2006 Share #39 Posted August 6, 2006 Indeed, I agree but the scene needs to have the full spectrum of coloration and I feel that the Canon just doesn't do it. It is very subjective and my personal opinion but that's why I choose to shoot with Leica (and Zeiss). I just find that the Canon shots especially with humans are just too plastic and smooth. And I don't mean smooth transition among tones. I'm talking about muddy tones. If you shoot the 85mm Canon f1.2 wide open versus the Leica Summilux-R I'm willing to bet that the Canon will not resolve the same amount of details. In fact, I prefer to see the living daylights/pores on the model. They look like f****** mannequins with Canon lenses. I would rather have the reality showing and not some Canonized view of the universe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billh Posted August 6, 2006 Share #40 Posted August 6, 2006 If you shoot the 85mm Canon f1.2 wide open versus the Leica Summilux-R I'm willing to bet that the Canon will not resolve the same amount of details. In fact, I prefer to see the living daylights/pores on the model. They look like f****** mannequins with Canon lenses. I would rather have the reality showing and not some Canonized view of the universe. The Canon lens is better. Mine resolves over 7oLp at f1.2. One of the very best people photographers on this forum had both, and used the canon because it was the better lens. As for the other argument (“muddy” canon), it is beyond ridiculous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.