Jamie Roberts Posted October 23, 2006 Share #21 Posted October 23, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) FWIW, auto white balance hasn't been a problem for many point and shoot digicam nowadays, so why there should be such a hassle with a 5K "pro" model"? I admit that I'm an amateur who only does happy snaps, and have no time to waste on the "professional" PS stuff ... given your point is valid, then I shouldn't buy a M8? Simon--small changes in light really do affect the WB. Some cameras are much better at guessing this than others; few nail it, though. On a point and shoot WB is the least of your worries, but any that I've seen don't usually get it right under adverse circumstances. Most snap shooters shoot outdoors, in other words, or the happy flash comes on inside! So the AWB is constantly doing "about daylight" with 99% of those cameras. On the bigger side of things, and just in IMO and experience--and I'm going to get flamed for this--the Canon dSLRs really do an uncannily good guess--all of 'em. AWB really does work on those cameras--but even on those they're never nailed. The R9/DMR, with the original firmware (v1.2 has a bug on this) is the very worst digicam I've ever used for guessing WB. I suspect that's because there is no dedicated sensor as in a true dSLR. So I set it the DMR on daylight always. This gives the most predictable preview. More to your point, IIRC, the M8 has a sensor, so I strongly suspect it will be better in this regard. But--truly and honestly--I always shoot RAW. And since I shoot RAW and use exactly the setup Guy describes (the WB card), I never, ever, ever worry about the camera's guess at WB. And even when snap shooting with my G6, I shoot RAW and set the WB later. Yes, even holiday snaps (though of course keeping the thing on daylight, in daylight, works well enough for snapshots too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 Hi Jamie Roberts, Take a look here RPO M8 Test - Part two - From 160 to 2500 ISO. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sdai Posted October 23, 2006 Share #22 Posted October 23, 2006 Thanks a lot for your explanation, Jamie ... it's always my greatest pleasure chatting with many former RG forum members like you - who can offer your truly unbiased opinions in a professional manner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MP3 Posted October 23, 2006 Share #23 Posted October 23, 2006 Hi Dear From my experience with the M8 v1.0.5. I have the following results: - The AWB is a bit on the cool blue side, you can see it obviously in the jpeg images. The dngs are much more exact capture in this regards, so this should bring no problem to raw shooters, though I would expect better AWB in the final production version. - When I do my own testing with the M8 v1.0.5, I had switched to use the custom WB mode and calibrate it with a white card. Even so, it yielded jpeg images of different color temperatures (accurate or cooler) at the same framing, camera-subject positions at different ISOs. I've also been guessing that the M8 WB sensor may be very or over sensitive to changing lighting conditions. Frankl, in this area, I'm crossing my fingers waiting for Sean to shed us some light in his Part 2 review. - For high ISOs noise level, I can recognise that either M8's in-camera jpeg noise reduction and C1's default M8 profile have accomplished a good job in striking the balance between noise reduction and detail retention. Though the resulted images are very pleasing and looks rather noise-free, I have the impression that they are quite heavy-hand in this area of noise reduction. I had some time examining the dngs at C1 with no noise reduction applied, noise-free at 160, slight noise at 320, film gain noise begins at 640, heavier and more chromatic at 1250 and 2500. These are the reasons why I prefer not to release them here and would prefer waiting further for the final official shippment level images. Cheers Matthew - Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpo Posted October 23, 2006 Author Share #24 Posted October 23, 2006 Yes, I will go to shot other pics (at 160/2500 ISO) with a white paper reference on pics corner. The firmware on the M8 on my handle is the 1,6 last version released on 19 october 2006. I think the automatic white balance a little critical... Bye and thanks dor your replyes. Roberto Piero Ottavi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted October 23, 2006 Share #25 Posted October 23, 2006 For consistency, Roberto or someone else with time and his dng files could just redevelop each image with a click white balance, using the silvery doorbell box or the line of white concrete on the left. It won't be perfect color but it will be consistent. Roberto, mille grazie for the dng of your lady friend. I did some horrible things to it (high contrast curves, transforming it into b/w) in an effort to see if the 8-bit data was vulnerable to posterization when you stretch the tone curve. I don't want to show them, but I didn't see anything objectionable. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robsteve Posted October 23, 2006 Share #26 Posted October 23, 2006 FWIW, auto white balance hasn't been a problem for many point and shoot digicam nowadays, so why there should be such a hassle with a 5K "pro" model"? I admit that I'm an amateur who only does happy snaps, and have no time to waste on the "professional" PS stuff ... given your point is valid, then I shouldn't buy a M8? I think there is a difference between CCD and CMOS chips regarding AWB. The CMOS can do a AWB right on the chip, while for true AWB, a CCD needed an external sensor. This external sensor became problematic because it could get blocked or was seeing a different light than your subject was in. On the early Canon digital SLRs, they disabled the sensor in a firmware upgrade and tried doing it in software instead. In the end that didn't work well either. So to answer your question, AWB is a problem because the M8 is using a CCD. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoff Posted October 24, 2006 Share #27 Posted October 24, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) As opposed carrying around and fiddling with white balance card, I have had good results with an Expo Disc. It also doubles as a incident light meter when used in conjunction with built-in reflective metering. Problem is however is that the smallest size currently available is 52mm. ExpoImaging Expo Disc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
newyorkone Posted October 24, 2006 Share #28 Posted October 24, 2006 It might be time to whip out the old Pringles cap again... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted October 24, 2006 Share #29 Posted October 24, 2006 "“Sometimes I do get to places just when God’s ready to have someone click the shutter.” - Ansel Adams" That's a very interesting quote. A couple of weeks ago I met Ansel Adams' daughter in San Francisco and we got to talking about religion. I asked if Ansel was a believer and she told me he was at least an agnostic, but probably an atheist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ross Posted October 24, 2006 Share #30 Posted October 24, 2006 As opposed carrying around and fiddling with white balance card, I have had good results with an Expo Disc. It also doubles as a incident light meter when used in conjunction with built-in reflective metering. Problem is however is that the smallest size currently available is 52mm. ExpoImaging Expo Disc Hi Geoff, The linked website shows a 49mm size in the classic model. I have a 55mm from when Mr. Wallace first brought them out. You can also check the ISO & metering accuracy with one. Taking a picture through one will give a good idea of vignetting for a given lens. A very useful gadget. Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted October 24, 2006 Share #31 Posted October 24, 2006 Bob, are these used by just holding them in front of the lens or is there reason to attach them? I guess it depends on the lenses you use, but with the diagonal of a 21mm lens hood being 80mm, the largest size seems to make sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 24, 2006 Share #32 Posted October 24, 2006 On the early Canon digital SLRs, they disabled the sensor in a firmware upgrade and tried doing it in software instead. In the end that didn't work well either. So to answer your question, AWB is a problem because the M8 is using a CCD. Thanks a lot for your comment, Rob ... but that wasn't really a good excuse. For a camera at this level, I was expecting that a hybrid WB system could be integrated. I'm not sure which Canon DSLR you were talking about but one of the obvious models using a CCD sensor - the EOS 1D - is pretty good at AWB, Oly's E-1, Nikon's D1x aren't slouches in this department either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robsteve Posted October 24, 2006 Share #33 Posted October 24, 2006 Simon, it was the D2000, the one prior to the 1D. I have a 1D and it isn't that great either on AWB. The DMR does a better job except for the bug in the firmware when using continous, the AWB is only applied to the first shot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ross Posted October 24, 2006 Share #34 Posted October 24, 2006 Bob, are these used by just holding them in front of the lens or is there reason to attach them? I guess it depends on the lenses you use, but with the diagonal of a 21mm lens hood being 80mm, the largest size seems to make sense. Hi Mark, Yes, you can just hold the in fron of the lens or hood. The originals had a rubber ring that just pushed into the filter threads and the new ones are more like a lens cap. If I want them "on the lens" I use step rings. The only problem that I've had was separating a polarizing filter when pulling it off:( ....lost the lock ring, too. I suppose you could make a custom one from white plastic (ala Pringle lids) to fit the 21mm's lens hood. I'm surprised that some enterprising Asian firm hasn't made lens caps in an appropriate transparent material, to do the trick. I often use a 39>49 step up ring on my 35 & 50 Chrons so that I can use cheap lens caps. Empty filter rings are used as minimal lens hoods. This arrangement lets me use the Expo Disc. Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.