Want the Best Camera for Color - and Reproduction in Magazines and/or Books?
Nov 30, 2018 10:17:06 #
Largobob wrote:
I've been a 'science guy' all my professional life... (show quote)
Bob - if you go to the link provided, you will have as much material as I had, prior to compiling my list. It had occurred to me there is some bias, in the deliberate absence of cameras like the EOS 1Dx Mk. II, the EOS 5Ds / 5Ds R twins, the 5D Mk. IV, the Nikon D5, and the D500 ... but, they did cover Canon quite well, by the inclusion of the fairly new EOS 6D Mk. II, the EOS R, and the EOS M50. Plus, Nikon was embraced by the inclusion of the D850, and the more recently-released FF MILCs - the Z6 and Z7. But, there does seem to be an overabundance of Fuji models.
The data is provided at that link, and the methods used to establish these norms, is already copied over here (above) and at the link ....
Nov 30, 2018 10:29:08 #
jerryc41 wrote:
That's an interesting rating/ranking. Post processing can do so much. I can't imagine anyone buying a certain camera on the basis of this listing alone. I guess it's just one more piece of information to help make a decision.
If I was going to buy a mirrorless, I would get the Fuji XT-3, so I'm glad to see it at the top of the list.
If I was going to buy a mirrorless, I would get the Fuji XT-3, so I'm glad to see it at the top of the list.
It IS interesting, isn't it, Jerry? ... Especially seeing how the "little guys" like the EM-10 Mk. 3, and the EOS M50 (just a few hundred each) - compare to the "Bigger Guys" - costing up to 10 times as much!!!! ...
Oh, yes, I agree with you, Jerry - but the Fuji XT-3 - lacks the 5-way IBIS, employed in its bigger brother - Fuji's flagship - the X-H1. I suspect that's the one I'd go for, if I decided to go Mirror-less ... which I doubt, quite sincerely! ... I have a cut-off for a camera of one grand - which bar I don't believe I'll EVER raise. It seems to me - if you can't find a decent camera at that level, you haven't really looked, hard enough ...
Nov 30, 2018 10:41:08 #
Chris T wrote:
Stumbled across this report in my travels, so, tho... (show quote)
Was going to post this. Thanks.
Nov 30, 2018 10:48:06 #
Chris T wrote:
Bob - if you go to the link provided, you will hav... (show quote)
BTW the Canon 5dMIV has essentially the same sensor as the EOS R so it should rank about the same. In general you can see how each manufacturer is doing and their sensors fall in place. Remember Sony is making and sharing many Nikon and Fuji sensors, so really Sony is holding most of the places here. Canon sensors have lagged behind for a few years.
Nov 30, 2018 11:24:23 #
gwilliams6 wrote:
Was going to post this. Thanks.
Sure, G ... was happy to do it, too ... I believe all info like this - should be shared, where possible!
Sorry, I jumped in front of you, in-line, btw ...
Nov 30, 2018 11:35:58 #
gwilliams6 wrote:
BTW the Canon 5dMIV has essentially the same sensor as the EOS R so it should rank about the same. In general you can see how each manufacturer is doing and their sensors fall in place. Remember Sony is making and sharing many Nikon and Fuji sensors, so really Sony is holding most of the places here. Canon sensors have lagged behind for a few years.
Yes, G - quite true! ... the EOS R uses a 30mp sensor, and the 5D4 uses a 30mp version, too ... still, the latter's a DSLR, the former - a MILC!
Granted - Sony DOES make the sensors for not only Nikons and Fujis, but - Pentax, too, I believe ...
If one was to evaluate the Sensors, alone - I daresay Sony would win, hand over fist!!! ....
But, although the sensor's abilities play a large part in camera design, there are OTHER considerations at foot ...
Which is why we have so many different designs, issued, year-after-year ...
And explains, partly - why there's a need for this kind of comprehensive testing!
Nov 30, 2018 13:21:22 #
While I'm pretty sure that you are not grinding your axe, and you are just trying to help others by providing "More Data", you must realize that no good deed goes unpunished. Me, I love "More Data", and I can't seem to get enough of it. Data makes me think, and I like that. I tend to discard things that seem like BS and just move on. Seems like a simple concept. On the other hand, I often receive great help from members of this group. Now, I am puzzled by vicious attacks like you are currently experiencing. I guess there are just those that have bad days. Chris T, thanks for the data. For those responding negatively and forcefully to Chris T, please keep in mind, that if I hurt your feelings with my comments, I didn't mean to, however, my comments probably do apply to you. JimmyT Sends.
Chris T wrote:
Stumbled across this report in my travels, so, tho... (show quote)
Nov 30, 2018 13:51:54 #
Jimmy T wrote:
While I'm pretty sure that you are not grinding yo... (show quote)
Jimmy ... my "Good Deed" - as you call it, has not received "punishment" thus far, on this thread. So, I'm not sure to what this refers. Since I prefer to keep my socks in order, I keep myself blind to other items, stored elsewhere. This way, I don't wind up trying to put a stocking cap on my foot, or a knee-high sock on my head. ... Make sense, Jimmy? ...
If you're referring to User ID's comments, here - I was quite clear, I had nothing whatsoever to do with the testing procedure employed - which is represented, here. All I did, was compile a list based on the material, add a short descriptive (erroneous, now, I see - in one or two cases) and add prices from the current B&H Catalogue - a project anyone here, could've easily done - were they thus moved.
As far as Hurt Feelings - on your part, my part, or the part of any other UHH member - I got over all that, a year ago. Now, I just chill - mostly!
Nov 30, 2018 14:52:48 #
patman1
Loc: Pataskala, Ohio
User ID wrote:
I believe you're mistaken. I replied upon reading ... (show quote)
Things must have changed an awfull lot, we prepared images in PS for the best available color converted to cmyk and provided tiffs for printing. It would of been unheard of to supply an uncorrected image to a printer, what they got was what they printed. I am not only familiar with color separation but owned my own lab. We not only created 4 negs but always a 5th to control contrast, of course this was film. I later did seps in PS and working for the largest Ad agency in the world if out art wasnt correctly balanced and separated you were in trouble.
Nov 30, 2018 14:55:40 #
Nov 30, 2018 15:03:47 #
BebuLamar wrote:
Chris,
My camera is not on the list there must be a mistake.
My camera is not on the list there must be a mistake.
No, you're quite right, Bebu ... the Nikon Df is not represented, here ...
Perhaps, this forward from the article, might enlighten you - in that regard -
"The Caveats
Image Engineering has only been conducting tests for us since 2017, so its catalog of results is still limited relative to the entire universe of available cameras. In other words, this list isn’t exhaustive though it does encompass a wide range of models and will be updated regularly as new cameras are tested."
Nov 30, 2018 15:06:43 #
User ID wrote:
`
If you know anything about color separation
then you know none of that matters at all.
.
If you know anything about color separation
then you know none of that matters at all.
.
True... It really only matters to JPEG capture fans. Processing raw removes many differences.
The more of these I read, the more I yawn.
Nov 30, 2018 15:09:16 #
patman1 wrote:
Things must have changed an awfull lot, we prepare... (show quote)
Pat ... I still DO own my own Lab ... ran it for many years ... but, when Digital took over, there no longer seemed much need ...
Still - I do - occasionally - still, roll up my sleeves, and go in there, every once in a while ...
I used to get lost - both in space, and time ... now, I've left it, for the most part ... Photoshop isn't quite the same thing, though ...
Nov 30, 2018 15:11:35 #
burkphoto wrote:
True... It really only matters to JPEG capture fans. Processing raw removes many differences.
The more of these I read, the more I yawn.
The more of these I read, the more I yawn.
Well, thanks, Bill ... so pleased I gave you the opportunity to stretch your jaw ...
Nov 30, 2018 15:12:03 #
I read most of the posts here. I agree with those who seem to know about "printing". I have worked in prepress for several companies most of my life, am 55. I do the color work, make the photo correct for printing. I shoot raw with my Nikon. One comment here sticks out... yes every photo must be set to print correctly depending not only on what type and kind of press it goes on but also the kind of paper that will be used. So, I would prefer, and always seem to have to ask for, one a "perfect" printed copy of what you want the photo to look like, I want the file that printed that "perfect" photo... as the client sees it. I then want the raw file so I may limit the amount of ink being put to the paper by the press by the numbers, most presses can not print above 300% ink coverage. Then establish the curve for the dot gain the press will make to the print during the printing process. ie, the film, the plate, the pressure at the press between rollers and even for slur caused by the press... I would ask... are there any questions but it would take many hours to explain why all of this makes a difference when an image is printed to paper using a printing press, not a digital printer or ink jet printer. Yep, get the best photo you can, but in the end, the printer can make or break that image if its not purposed for the intended printing press or digital printer. Am sure everyone has experienced printing at home on your ink jet does not match the same photo printed on a different ink jet. There are at least a dozen variables to account for for every picture I must ready for press. Just my thoughts.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.