Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
colorflow

Why some DSLR files look "plastic"?

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

plastic!!!!!!!.............................................. here .......................imitation plastic vinyl

 

 

 

 

 

 

/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1254/711837395_d38add4532.jpg&key=c151385439c0a4ae977ca96bdf9e5d002f7cebca24d15c5c04d22031cd4bffb0">

 

 

 

 

Well, if yours is removable, it explains some of your posts.....

:D:p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did some fairly extensive comparisons between the 5D and M8 in second M8 review.

 

I also compared the 1DsMkII to the DMR with both using the same, excellent, 100/2.8 lens.

 

So, there's one form in which this kind of information does exist.

 

Happy Fourth,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys don't have to believe what I say. Guy has run an epic thread at FM and many other older threads over there too, images from Canon cameras shot with a Leica or Zeiss lens do have a whole different look.

 

For those who are alway keen on the technical matters, here are some test numbers by Color Foto in Germany ... in any case, Canon's 50 macro and AA filter aren't doing the 1Ds2 any justice. LOL

 

1Ds2 Resolution when tested with a lowly 50/2.5 macro:

 

ISO 100: 1594 lp/ph

ISO 400: 1596 lp/ph

 

Note ... the 1Ds2 actually resolves more at higher ISO ...

 

DMR with a 100 APO Macro:

 

ISO 100: 1313 lp/ph

ISO 400: 1301 lp/ph

 

M8 with 50 lux asph.

 

ISO 160: 1304 lp/ph

ISO 320: 1253 lp/ph

 

I suspect if the 1Ds2 can be tested again in the German lab with the 100/2.8 APO Macro, it's resolution figure will go beyond 1800 lp/ph ... perhaps approaching 2000 lp/ph?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To me the quality differences must be there between the 5D and the M8 but those are found on the outer edges of where people look for those differences. Both cameras will please a highly critical audiance. And so I think althought there are differences they are too minor to be concerned about when making a choice for one or the other. Practical reasons for a choice are more obvious like if you want tilt shift lenses or already own lenses by on or the other brand, using tele photo zoom lenses or small and great less distorted wide angle lenses. If you want to make a jump into higher file quality than I would consider medium format digital or medium or large format film based systems.

 

Yes, I agree. I think some people are splitting hairs. A lot of this gear is pretty exceptional now. I'm not sure what many of us are doing with the resolution and overall quality potential we already have in 35mm digital. That's why I haven't bothered to shoot with my MF or LF film cameras recently or bought an MF digital back. I really don't need it to satisfy my clients.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people are splitting hairs because this is a gearhead forum ... good enough is NOT good enough. LOL

 

I personally would never bother to visit a "photographers' " forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems that the general concensus is that the 'plastic' look is a result of many parameters.

I tend to agree that the hair splitting is OTT but on the other hand everyone is here to chat about stuff they are interested in.

Plastic or no plastic, I enjoy both the M8 and other canon gear and as many here love the look of the Leica, but discounting DSLR as producing plastic images is extreme.

Here is a snap that could count as plastic or not, depends on your point of view.I actually like this look..what do you think?

 

regards

 

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here is a snap that could count as plastic or not, depends on your point of view.I actually like this look..what do you think?

 

LOL ... that's a great one, so besides "plastic" and 3D, we shall add another debate over "sleepy" and "lively".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An odd aspect to this thread is that some people claim to see a plastic effect, while others tell them that they can't (?) or don't (?) or shouldn't be able to (?) What's that all about? Is the latter group saying the former is lying, or hallucinating, or what?

 

There was a very long discussion on this topic on the Galbraith forum, later moving to Luminous Landscape, in which a pretty well known advertising pro (James Russell) simply said (in summary) that than Canon's "look" was not adequate for his work, and that he was moving to medium format, which he did, at amazing cost. As machines, of course, MF digital backs would not be adequate for other pro shooters (like sports, or photojournalism), but in terms simply of quality and "look," a pretty large number of pros have gone to MF -- suggesting that there is something there, whether you call it "plastic" or something else. I doubt that most top-end professionals, who are actually running businesses, would be interested in investing, say, $100,000 or so in relatively short-lived MF camera equipment if they could get by with $20,000 in Canon or Nikon gear.

 

 

My feeling is that there's a difference, that some people may like, and that other's don't, and that those who don't call it "plastic," which is somewhat offensive. You might call it "processed" or something else. It's also possible that people who are doing very high level professional photoghraphy in certain genres literally don't see the difference, because when they look at their photos they see great quality, more than what is necessary to get printed in whatever medium they work in, and they don't really spend any time comparing with other cameras. What would be the point? If you're shooting sports or news with a 1DsII, you've got the best camera for the job, and a MF camera is disqualified on so many counts that wouldn't even be worth considering. So why pixel-peep in an effort to find tiny differences that would never been seen in the final commercially-printed image anyway?

 

All of that doesn't mean the differences don't exist -- just that some people don't see them, or, with some justificatiion, don't care.

 

JC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of being a total curmedgeon, I might observe that digital has forced many people to pay big bucks for performance that is sometimes less than what they got with film.

 

I have never cared for the Canon DSLR look. That's why I got the M8. Fortunately, I don't have an employer or a client telling me "we only accept at least 12 mp files from pro-level Canon DSLRs" because they read in some advertising-dependent magazine that this is a way of ensuring the best quality and keeping the Great Unwashed masses with digital Rebels out of the game.

 

I pity the poor pro who has to spend six or seven figures just to get himself to the place where he was a few years ago with film. Then, with standards changing every couple of years, he'll have to buy all new stuff again, and the resale value of the obsolete stuff will plummet. Technology is a harsh mistress.

 

That said, digital offers many things that film didn't. But it also keeps elminating the middleman and forcing the photographer to do him or herself what the color lab always did in the past. In an industry where the basic tools, both hardware and software, change every 6 - 18 months. I wonder how many great pianists there would be if the piano keyboard was redesigned every year.

 

--Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I pity the poor pro who has to spend six or seven figures just to get himself to the place where he was a few years ago with film. Then, with standards changing every couple of years, he'll have to buy all new stuff again, and the resale value of the obsolete stuff will plummet. Technology is a harsh mistress.

 

 

I don't think this is the case at all. The barriers to entry in this profession are very low. Even a Canon system of a 1DsII, a 5D and a bunch of lenses, a computer, and a printer is only $30K or so. Two M8s, some lenses, and the rest will be about the same. It cost me a lot more to get into the business with film. I needed a darkroom and a bunch of different camera systems to do what I now do with only one. And at one point I had spent about 10K on scanners that I don't use any more. And there is nothing to stop someone from getting started with less expensive gear. As many do.

 

I really don't see my current digital cameras becoming obsolete although I may replace them at some point. My 1Ds is 4 years old and I still use it a lot. Why would an M8 or current high end MF system become obsolete if it continues to produce excellent photos? The savings on film, processing and film related expenses is not passed on to my clients but instead is turned into additional profit for me. This more than covers the cost of camera gear. And if a $3,000 5D can only be sold for $1000 after three years, that means it only cost $666.33 per year to use it. Big deal.

 

A good MF system certainly is not close to a 6 figures. (Unless you are buying several digital backs.) You can do a really good one for $50K and get others for less. Price it out and see. Considering the tax deduction, and the fact that the lenses probably will stay current, if you use the camera or back for 5 years and sell it for zero, it will cost about $4K per year. Not so much. You probably would only buy this if you already have a pretty succesful operation. And if that's the case, you'll have a lot of other expenses to concern yourself with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am an architect and spend lots more on software and hardware just to make drawings I used to make with a pencil when I was a apprentice at my first workplace.

That pencil still works and cost a fortune then since it took so much time to make a drawing.

 

Photographic tools are rather cheap if you are doing well as a pro photographer especially since procuction is so much faster these days.

 

Its actually true that the digital cameras of 5 years ago still do remarkably well. I might be convinced to think that the new M8 will last for several years at least till 2010 or even a few more years without needing to get the newer one. Since its digital you can shoot more files than you have ever done with the filmbased Leica's over a lifetime ........in that sense the new M8 will give you more value than all the old one ever did no matter how long they did serve you.

 

The only thing I am worried about is that they will come out with a better IR solution than filters. Then you are the one messing about with filters while the new generation is really far better off. I hope that will come quick so the M8 will still do well on the secondhand market....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
{snipped}I suspect if the 1Ds2 can be tested again in the German lab with the 100/2.8 APO Macro, it's resolution figure will go beyond 1800 lp/ph ... perhaps approaching 2000 lp/ph?

 

Actually, Simon, though I've used the 1d, 1ds2, 5d and DMR and M8 now, all with Leica glass (and Canon glass on the Canons), I have to say I like the look of, say, the 80R Lux or 50 R Lux much better on the DMR than on the 1ds2. They're a wee bit better on the 5d, but only slightly.

 

The big difference is over Canon wide glass and the Leica, under 35mm (though the 50 R Lux still beats the 50 Canon 1.2L pretty handily). The Canon 85 1,2L, though not the same as the 80 R Lux, is certainaly as sharp after f2.0.

 

What's kind of amazing to me is that the Leica numbers you quote are from systems that have, what?, only about 60 % of the resolution of the sensor of the Canon?

 

That's pretty impressive in terms of resolution. I'd expect them to fare worse, so the sensors must be different, no?

 

FWIW, I prefer the look of the Kodak sensors a lot more than the Canons, and the higher sampling AD converter is also a bonus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, Simon, though I've used the 1d, 1ds2, 5d and DMR and M8 now, all with Leica glass (and Canon glass on the Canons), I have to say I like the look of, say, the 80R Lux or 50 R Lux much better on the DMR than on the 1ds2. They're a wee bit better on the 5d, but only slightly.

 

I absolutely agree with you, Jamie. The DMR certainly produces a look which is out of the world but, the point I was trying to argue over is ... using Leica glass on EOS cameras will definitely elevate the output quality to a higher level.

The big difference is over Canon wide glass and the Leica, under 35mm (though the 50 R Lux still beats the 50 Canon 1.2L pretty handily). The Canon 85 1,2L, though not the same as the 80 R Lux, is certainaly as sharp after f2.0.

 

I am never a big wide angle fan although I do occasionally shoot some funky weird stuff so I won't go further into that territory ... I've owned four copies of the EF85/1.2L, always buy and then sell, buy again and then sell again - AF is handy in some extreme low light situations but the Canon never beat the 80/1.4 for its mystic rendition of the warm fuzzy atmosphere I really like. I believe both lenses were designed for wide open shooting so there's little point comparing their performance stopping down to smaller apertures IMO.

 

Canon lenses are great - best of the breed from Japan - though absolute lab test figures are still behind Leica and Zeiss, and this is clearly visible even when using a consumer grade EOS camera.

 

What's kind of amazing to me is that the Leica numbers you quote are from systems that have, what?, only about 60 % of the resolution of the sensor of the Canon?

 

That's pretty impressive in terms of resolution. I'd expect them to fare worse, so the sensors must be different, no?

 

I have many test results and charts, the ones that I lifted from Color Foto are the most straight forward numbers. General conclusions are always the same though interpretations may be slightly different.

 

I just took some time to dig out the numbers for the 5D, now Leica (camera) fans should feel comforted because this is where the DMR/M8 have some slight edges. LOL

 

Res. of 5D:

 

ISO 100 - 1261 lp/ph

ISO 400 - 1277 lp/ph (like the 1Ds2, it peaks at higher sensitivity)

 

Forgot to mention ... of course the 5D sensor is different from the one in 1Ds2 also, Canon has adopted some new materials, the AA and IR filters are 2 in 1 (if I remember correctly), they used crystal instead of glass ... all helped to bring the cost of full frame down.

 

FWIW, I prefer the look of the Kodak sensors a lot more than the Canons, and the higher sampling AD converter is also a bonus.

 

Canon has never given up R&D in CCD ... and they're adopting 14 bit A/D as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...