The difference? between sensors

[Smogg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The green color is the main reason I don't like Fuji.

[jaapv]

But it does not correspond to reality in this case.

[Smogg]

3 minutes ago, jaapv said:

But it does not correspond to reality in this case.

I didn't guess the camera?

Edited August 12, 2024 by Smogg

[jaapv]

No. 50% chance 😉 I don't know anything about Fuji, not interested. The third has the best greens - proving it is not the sensor but the software. 

[Smogg]

3 minutes ago, jaapv said:

No. 50% chance 😉 I don't know anything about Fuji, not interested. The third has the best greens - proving it is not the sensor but the software. 

Thanks! Now I'll know that Panasonic gives more interesting color and/or white balance

[Stuart Richardson]

10 hours ago, jaapv said:

It is indeed a software issue but people tend to get hung up on sensor brand  ( although all makers use the same ASML printers for their lithography and use the same Silicon wafer)  nor is there any real difference in “color science” whatever that marketing speak may mean. The camera makers make their choice in the specifications of the filter stack and the way they manipulate the processing, although there is no way that they can move outside the norms set by CIE. The real difference is the starting point given by the software which is used by the photographer - as proven by Photoworks' post.

 

I think that is what people mean when they say "color science". I agree it is not really a useful term as it is so vague. At the same time, there are real differences in the starting points of different companies' cameras and even different cameras within companies. I think there is some extent to which this is inherent in a camera, and to some extent in which it is influenced by the processing software. I would say the profile and software have to greatest determinant, but that is why Leica and other companies work with Adobe and C1 to make appropriate profiles that they believe fit the camera. I agree with SrMi that you cannot really evaluate a single image and comment as to whether one camera or another has better color. The first reason is because it is entirely driven by taste (unless you are literally talking about how well a camera can be profiled to match a color chart), but the second reason is that different compositions and lighting are going to give different results.

As an example: I had the S3 for awhile and really did not like the way the color looked in Adobe. I found that the Cobalt profiles were much more to my taste. But there were still certain images where the Adobe Color version looked better to me. When we make these decisions it is usually only after shooting enough images to make a generalized opinion. For example, I loved the M9 and S2/S006. They had different color to each other, but the CCD and software combo just put out colors that I found very pleasing. I still think the S006 had the best color of a digital camera I have used.

Even though I work as a printer and process files in one way or another all the time, I think the way a camera renders out of the box as it were is extremely important, as it can cut down substantially on work required to get a final image, and it also allows you to visualize your work more effectively, as the result is closer to the finished product. I also think people tend to say "file X can be easily made to look like file Y", and as someone who has to do it a lot, I would say that it is not always so easy, as it often requires a lot more than just white balance and contrast curves...it often involves a lot of selective color balancing and saturation management. Basically a lot of work that you want to avoid doing if you don't have to. So even though I have the experience to do these adjustments, I would much rather have a camera who outputs a file that gets as close as possible to what I prefer.

I have not has the original SL or an S5, but I did have the S1 and an SL2. I found that both put out nice color, but the SL2 was for me nicer. I would advise trying the "camera natural" profile in the Panasonic cameras, however. It rendered really nicely...again, at least to my eyes.

[la1402]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 8/12/2024 at 9:04 AM, hansvons said:

 I also prefer Leica over Canon because their skin tones tend to look overly healthy. Others prefer Canon and Adobe for exact that very reason. 

Interesting comment and I believe you are correct. With the caveat that everbody in my family thinks that also Leica looks overly unhealthy in terms of skin tones. 🙃. I think neither are correct and it’s more a matter of taste of what you like your starting point to be like.

[jaapv]

On 8/12/2024 at 1:21 PM, Stuart Richardson said:

I think that is what people mean when they say "color science". I agree it is not really a useful term as it is so vague. At the same time, there are real differences in the starting points of different companies' cameras and even different cameras within companies. I think there is some extent to which this is inherent in a camera, and to some extent in which it is influenced by the processing software. I would say the profile and software have to greatest determinant, but that is why Leica and other companies work with Adobe and C1 to make appropriate profiles that they believe fit the camera. I agree with SrMi that you cannot really evaluate a single image and comment as to whether one camera or another has better color. The first reason is because it is entirely driven by taste (unless you are literally talking about how well a camera can be profiled to match a color chart), but the second reason is that different compositions and lighting are going to give different results.

As an example: I had the S3 for awhile and really did not like the way the color looked in Adobe. I found that the Cobalt profiles were much more to my taste. But there were still certain images where the Adobe Color version looked better to me. When we make these decisions it is usually only after shooting enough images to make a generalized opinion. For example, I loved the M9 and S2/S006. They had different color to each other, but the CCD and software combo just put out colors that I found very pleasing. I still think the S006 had the best color of a digital camera I have used.

Even though I work as a printer and process files in one way or another all the time, I think the way a camera renders out of the box as it were is extremely important, as it can cut down substantially on work required to get a final image, and it also allows you to visualize your work more effectively, as the result is closer to the finished product. I also think people tend to say "file X can be easily made to look like file Y", and as someone who has to do it a lot, I would say that it is not always so easy, as it often requires a lot more than just white balance and contrast curves...it often involves a lot of selective color balancing and saturation management. Basically a lot of work that you want to avoid doing if you don't have to. So even though I have the experience to do these adjustments, I would much rather have a camera who outputs a file that gets as close as possible to what I prefer.

I have not has the original SL or an S5, but I did have the S1 and an SL2. I found that both put out nice color, but the SL2 was for me nicer. I would advise trying the "camera natural" profile in the Panasonic cameras, however. It rendered really nicely...again, at least to my eyes.

Exactly why I always profile any camera I get. That makes the initial conversion much more consistent in my workflow. I am well aware that many professionals will/can not process each image individually. In that case having all cameras profiled to the same colour chart is invaluable. 
A remark on Leica sensors: In general they have thin and thus less effective IR filtering to accommodate M lenses and to reach high acuity; quite adequate normally but in high-IR conditions this can lead to near-incorrigible colour casts. Olive foliage, general yellow and on Caucasian skin purple and white blotches. That is the reason that I will  always use an IR block (“hot”) filter in such conditions to prevent excessive postprocessing work or even a desperation B&W conversion. 

[Printmaker]

I've been shooting with both the SL2S and the SL2. Being so impressed with the SL2S, I added a SL2 to my kit about 6 months ago. I can't put my finger on the exact differences but the SL2S files are almost perfect out of camera while the SL2 files seem to require more effort. Perhaps it is the BSI sensor in the SL2S as it does seem to give more shadow detail. Lifting the shadows on the SL2 files to achieve similar detail gives a flatter image and then boosting the contrast or adding white and black changes the color saturation. Perhaps a few hundred more hours editing my SL2 files will be needed.

I'm sure some will say purchasing a new SL3 will provide a more SL2S rendering but this is not in the budget this year.

http://www.barefootinkauai.com

[Photomek]

Am 27.8.2024 um 02:25 schrieb Printmaker:

I can't put my finger on the exact differences but the SL2S files are almost perfect out of camera while the SL2 files seem to require more effort.

Out of camera… you mean the profile "Adobe Color"?

[Markey]

1 hour ago, Photomek said:

Out of camera… you mean the profile "Adobe Color"?

Yes ...I get confused about that which is why I always opened my files with Photos until MS cancelled it .

[Donald M]

If you really one to know how the raw file really looks like in Lightroom, I recommend this video: