Impressive. Must not be full sodium lights.
Unfortunately sodium discharge lights have very little energy in their spectrum other than the yellow-orange sodium doublet. Trying to white balance won't get you much because almost nothing else is there.
With more limited dynamic range and much worse low light performance
No--white balance does not matter.
Think of raw as a negative and jpg/tiff, etc. as a print from the negative. If you want to print from the negative you have a lot of latitude. If you want to change the print you have to take a picture of the picture and manipulate that. So much information is missing in the print...
Software calibration got me nowhere near what my external colorimeter plus associated s/w does. The latter sets RGB values across a number of luminance values, and can be adjusted for desired color temperature.
This is extremely valuable for printing, you might want to have a color temp of 9300K for viewing on some monitors, but definitely 6500K for print proofing.
It is important to define your target. One size does not fit all, unfortunately. Even Macs and PCs have different standard monitor gammas...
I'm not arguing against personal preference--I'm only saying that one wants that personal preference to be consistent across platforms. I assume you want your color choice to be represented accurately across the presentational gamut--what you worked hard to perfect to your tastes on your monitor should look the same on mine, or in a print, as near as can be managed.
This is the argument for hardware colorimeters. They are an external reference. Software is a poor substitute.
Of course there is no guarantee that my monitor is anywhere near a standard calibration, but the point is that an agreed-upon reference exists. I sometimes do prints for exhibition at professional labs. It is very nice to know that what appears on my monitor is a close match for what they see on theirs, and that the prints are already in the ballpark on first proofing.
If you are standalone calibration is not important, if you are not it is indispensable.
Dpullum--what we are looking for is consistency across the workflow. Garbage in, garbage out. There IS a standard. Why not try to come as close to it as possible?
You will, for instance, notice that the music is much more pleasant if all the instruments in the orchestra tune to the same pitch ;)
The 70D improves AF in live view dramatically, and that's about it.
Actually here in Japan Nikon users outnumber Canon users, and they've made huge gains in the last couple of year among pro news shooters (my field)--and that is among companies with huge investments in glass.
I'd check DxO mark and compare their ratings of sensor quality. Canon is quite far behind Nikon in most every dslr category.
I use both Canon 5D Mk II and Nikon D800 systems. Actually both are fine. I personally prefer Nikon ergos, but both systems have advantages and disadvantages.
I went from a D300 to an 800E. There IS a difference. The pixel density makes it possible to shoot DX at 15.3 Mpx, or crop FX. I have not had problems with file size, especially shooting raw. And you can always downrez if the files are too large.
I do plan to try to participate and can and will post photos at some point. Thanks to all for the welcome :)
Hello to all. I am a professional video cameraman whose first love is still photography. I am based in Asia. You are welcome to cruise over to toby-marshall.com to have a look at my work.
Toby