Epson r-d1xg
At the dawn of digital cameras, Sony released two very similar 6 MP sensors: Sony ICX-453-AQ and Sony ICX-413-AQ with crop factor Kf = 1.5x, which turned out to be quite successful and were used in a large number of digital SLR and (suddenly!) Rangefinder cameras, a list of which is shown below. I am sure that the readers of Radozhiva will see the names of some cameras for the first time.
Nikon
Pentax
- Pentax * ist D
- Pentax * ist Ds
- Pentax * ist DS2
- Pentax * ist DL
- Pentax * ist DL2
- Pentax K100D
- Pentax K110D
Samsung
- Samsung GX-1S (Pentax * ist DS2 copy)
- Samsung GX-1L (Pentax * ist DL2 copy)
Konica Minolta
- Konica Minolta Dynax 5d (aka Konica Minolta Alpha sweet digital and Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D)
- Konica Minolta Dynax 7d (aka Konica Minolta Alpha 7d and Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D )
Epson
- Epson R-D1
- Epson R-d1s
- Epson R-D1x / Epson R-D1xG
I am a big fan of the 6 MP Sony CCD sensor, which, in fact, was the reason for the search for camera models that were built on its basis. In my humble opinion, 6 MP Sony CCD in some disciplines will be better than the next generation of 10 MP Sony CCD ICX-483-AQA / ICX-493-AQA sensors.
Unfortunately, I cannot 100% guarantee that all these cameras are based on the Sony ICX-453-AQ or Sony ICX-413-AQ, but this is most likely the case. The fact that some cameras instead of a 3008 x 2000 pixel image create a 3008 x 2008 image is a normal circumstance. In the technical specification for this sensor, the recommended output resolution is generally 3000 x 2000. The number of effective pixels allows slightly varying the final resolution during debayering.
The latest model that uses a 6 MP CCD is the Epson R-D1x, introduced in early 2009 with a price tag of about $ 3000.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
And what, sobsno, nostalgia? Any flea market is inundated with similar offers from $ 50 in good condition. His 6MP CCD recently took for 70.U.
I would love to read about Epson. The camera is interesting, but there are not many owners and they do not often share their impressions.
They now even b / y cheaper than $ 1000 can not be found
It would be cheap - I would buy it myself and try it :)
Matrix with a nice color rendering, but by modern standards is quite noisy.
Rather, it’s just nostalgia (before, the grass was greener and the women were prettier) ...
At 200 and 400 ISO, even nothing. Arkady even at 800 fucking slips.
The noise even at 800 is not annoying, unlike the "advanced" counterparts at 10MP. Yes, they have a more perfect autofocus system, but shamelessly bloated iso. Over 1600 wiltedness turns into eye pain.
For example, the same D80. It seems to be CCD too, but at 800 noise it sometimes has a color. At 6MP, the entire sensitivity range is fair. The choice was very painful - what to take: an ancient focusing system, but a more noble picture or progress, but with reservations. I had to spit on 11 MultiCama-1000 points. One horseradish one cross both there and there))
The grass is greener, this is definitely about the old CCD-matrices ... I would say that it is greener than the grass itself, for which it is appreciated :)
To some extent, it’s nice to be an amateur who has no customers and who can afford to score by modern standards and shoot with the instrument that he likes. And always use it, because the received pictures are not for sale.
Therefore, D50 and D70 are our everything))) Fujifilms on super CDs there too.
Epson would be nice to feel. A kind of apparatus, apparently ... And the D70s was. Warm lamp picture. It is a pity that it is noisy at ISO other than minimum. And there is very little detail of 6 megapixels for post-processing ...
Here is an example of ISO1600 + d50, but with the right expo and with sufficient lighting. In such a size it is difficult to see any noise, I have to take my word for it. If things are bad with light, then noise (especially in the shadows) is already critical. Bottom line: in situations with acceptable light ISO160 on the 6MP SSD is very working.
judging by the reflection in the glasses, you have chosen the wrong background))))
This is the trick so that the whole landscape that a person observes is reflected in the glasses of his glasses :)
And you're right here, dear. Especially interesting is the landscape with glasses + good sunset light, for example.
They caught the reflection-landscape perfectly, very rarely successful shots turn out, super)
Unless of course it's FS
Is this important for the topic discussed here? How? And if you are so interested, then from the shadow-light pattern you can understand (if you can afford it) where and where the light came from and what the background would be, if I took this portrait in the actual backlight (without the backlights, which I didn’t have ) Want to sound smart? Be better silent.
It is logical !!! In general, what is the difference and to whom what the hell is there with the composition of light and an object? 1600 iso. Discuss your cheap ones at 35photo ...
I also love 6MP - a convenient size. For photos 15 x 22 (15 x 20) enough with a margin, for viewing on a 1920 x 1080 monitor, you can zoom in 1,5-2 times. There is no extra file size, and RAW is compact. But the disadvantages of the matrix are noise from fairly low ISO by modern standards. Therefore, it is not suitable everywhere, but where it is possible to keep the ISO low: where the light is good, or sufficiently fast optics will help out, or shoot with a flash, etc. It's good to take such a camera for a day walk, on a hike, on a trip. But I do not share disputes about CCD and CMOS coloring, forgive me - all these are signal output parameters and what you need, these can be done.
If you shoot in good light and don’t lift the ISO above 400 (800), but the noise of CCD does not bother. On D70s I bet a maximum of 400; indoors - only with flash.
In general, my acquaintance with Nikon began with the D60 - and so, I liked its picture (10MP CCD) even more than that of the D70s (although everything is subjective here). But - there is no screwdriver ...
But all this is just pleasant memories that can be left in the past.
Now Fuji mirrorless and a great picture at ISO 3200 and higher :)
How do you like the idea of buying a d80 if there is a d5300?
In my opinion, not bad, I myself have SSD devices.
I would note the advantages of the D80 on such points: an auxiliary screen, the presence of a focusing motor, a decent viewfinder, the presence of bracketing, and perhaps some more functions that are cut in younger models and which I don’t remember offhand. D5300 is more modern: higher speed, the matrix works confidently at higher ISOs (confidently up to 1600-3200), more precisely color reproduction, a lot of focus points. Personally, I see no reason to buy a D80 for the D5300 and, all the more, change the D5300 to the D80. Outgrowing the D5300, I would look at least at the D7200, and even more likely at the D610. What do you want to see from the D80 that cannot be obtained on the D5300?
I once had a video camera with a CCD matrix ... Somewhere it is, almost new. We must try to take pictures for the sake of interest. I rummaged in the Web: what is most interesting, the advantages of CCD matrices, by definition, include low noise and high DD, since such matrices collect the entire picture in an analog version and then digitize it. But they are more expensive in production - this is probably the main reason for the transition to CMOS.
Are you confusing something ... The SSD of the matrix is just distinguished by a high noise level at ISO more than 800 and a low (compared to the same CMOS) DD. I have d50 and Fuji Propyatka (in Fuja with DD everything is even very good, but there is already a SuperSD sensor) I know not by hearsay. I do not agree with the opinion above that there is no difference in color between the SSD & CMOS sensors. You can “screw up” a lot in the editor, but not everything, well, you also need to know / understand what exactly to turn and how to turn. Knowledge of editors is required. But not everyone needs it (if a person takes pictures for himself, not for sale) and it is possible. For example, I was “worn out” with the topic of developing and RAVy with my D700 re-developed in what I could… I stopped at RAVTherapy. In the case of SSD / SuperSD, development (and shooting in RAV) is not needed at all. The maximum is to move the extreme points in the “curves” - the color is ready right from the camera. An example of a portrait above is a cam.jepeg + “curves” + vignette. From d700 it is already necessary to "pull" to something like that. All IMHO, of course.
This is not me confusing, but the sources that came to hand. On google type “ccd versus cmos”
Therefore, he was surprised
obviously CMOS is evolving, but CCD is not. IMHO but the noise from the CCD is really lower)
CCD wrote about lower noises in the old days when CMOS just appeared. Then, indeed, CMOS was more noisy due to the smaller physical size of the photodiode by the same matrix size. After all, each CMOS photodiode has a strapping nearby, which took up space and warmed the photodiode, i.e. in two ways influenced the increase in noise (smaller size of the photodiode + excess heat). But then CMOS took a big step forward, and now older CCD cameras have a much worse working ISO than CMOS.
With camcorders, the opposite is true. That is why all the cool camcorders (such as those of the TV people are the best) are still on CCD. Surveillance cameras for important objects are placed only on the SSD.
Yes, this technology also has a number of disadvantages. It was supplanted solely due to the imposition of commercially reasonable requirements such as energy efficiency. Because You can’t shoot a lot on a single battery and an SSD matrix (this also applies to photos, but the video was originally asked for by the needs) :) But where there is energy efficiency, there can be no excellent color by definition.
Cost is also not in the last place. After all, it is much cheaper to put a faster percentage on a smaller manufacturing process than to develop a new matrix.
Yes, by the way, I read about this on a CCTV related resource
What are the benefits? The same LEDs.
The only difference is that in CMOS each pixel has an individual amplifier and the signal is removed many times, in contrast to CCD, where all photons are collected into one charge, then line by line are “sent back” through the same amplifying channel. An empty line is filled with the next line of the matrix using a shift. And so on until all horizontal lines pass into the buffer for subsequent processing (digitization). Since all pixel charges pass through the same amplifier, the noise in the CCD sensor was less than in the CMOS, where at first it was technologically difficult to achieve high repeatability of individual amplifiers. Over time, CMOS technology has improved significantly and processors have become faster. More signals - more color shades, better dynamic range. CCD = cheap, that's all!
But in vain do not appreciate native software for RAW proyaki. I also tried everything, and in the end I realized that you need to show RAW in your native software. Then you can edit anywhere, but show in your own. This was prompted by practical experiments, as a result of which I saw that third-party software does not exactly work out RAW to JPEG imaging algorithms, and artifacts grow with increasing ISO. Native software accurately reproduces the camera algorithm, allows you to apply parameters to series of shots, suppresses noise better, corrects white balance better, better eliminates optical imperfections (distortion, aberration, etc.).
That's right, non-native software does not see camera profiles and you need to do everything yourself in manual mode, start with a gray and gloomy frame ... Sometimes (!), When shooting conditions are close to ideal, I use CNX-D (for d700), but alas , this is extremely rare (a photo hobby, it is difficult to guess the time, so that with light). But I created profiles for RT under 700ku for different conditions (based on a profile from IVX, lives on NikonKlab) and I (!) Are very happy with the result. There are my examples in the topic on Nikkor 28-105 3.5-4.5, here at Arkady. There, development is in the Republic of Tatarstan.
I don’t know why your native software does not see the profiles - it sees them perfectly with me. And especially when you are talking about difficult conditions, i.e. you probably shoot at high ISO, and even then pull shadows - here RT gives a noticeably worse result compared to the native program. But this is what anyone likes - RT is RT.
You carefully read what I wrote above.
I've also tried a lot of things, but still every time I return to RPP. The “relatives” seem to do a lot of things (or something) without asking. And you can't turn it off. RPP is more honest in this regard - as they say (and this is evident), it seems to be doing nothing by itself. And then in LAB TIFF and in ACR to correct vignetting, distortion, HA, if necessary. With portraits - definitely RPP first. I have a retina monitor and the difference in the results of the “native” and RPP work is very clearly visible. Nobody draws the texture of the skin and skin tones (maybe the definition was wrong) because RPP does not draw, especially since the sources with d800 with good resolution.
Well, OK. I don't know what your native software does without asking - it just loads RAW with the settings that were on the camera. You can change these settings if for some reason you made a mistake at the time of shooting. But this is precisely the advantage of the native software, which gives a RAW file in such a form as if the camera made a JPEG from it by default. Other software will reset these settings and you will set them again. Those. picking with other programs is by definition more. But you know better what and how to do for yourself.
Not everything can be changed in the camera settings - there are also predefined presets with a set of settings in essence and with limited tools. And so, of course, everyone chooses the algorithm that suits him. The main thing, probably, is that I do not earn money from the photo and the customer does not stand above my heart. In general, the topic is the same as Windows and Unix (linux) - I don't like graphical interfaces, but I love the command line and software compiled from sources with the desired settings, rather than installing from packages.
Presets are not hard. They are also edited, and in the camera itself :)
Native software is good for many, but there are two big drawbacks: the convenience of work and the speed of work with a large number.
I tried my native Nikon software, I didn't understand much, I didn't like the interface. Even when you do it for yourself, I go through the photos from the trip: a little over 3k. Even if you throw out half, there are still 1500 photos that need to be “run” through the developer. On my native software, I'll just die, or I'll finish processing these photos in ten years (in my free time from other things). In the same lightroom, you can slowly do basic processing in a week or two.
I tested the d70s and d40 forehead with three different lenses. So d40 cut the picture issued. Yes, and d70s drew frames with brute force of a blue hue and DD seemed worse. For amateur d40 shooting, the legendary camera with a unique palette of pure color. More than there is in d40 is not necessary.
Hello, namesake. And how to test: just filmed in JPG?
Yes no? RAW. Tripod. Target. View in Capture NX2. And by the way, the photo editor works very well with CCD.
RAW on D40 - very interesting, keep going.
Is there no RAW on the D40? Or is it about something else?
Complement: The niece asked what apparatus to take for the birth of a child. He said that I would find a good d40 on Avito. I didn’t obey. 3200 were bought in the store. So what? The artist is now jealously looking at pure colors that are pleasant in tone. And in the 3200 room, the faces are green, just sadness.
Yeah ... d40 / d3200 are not comparable values. There are, of course, methods of dealing with both “green faces” and “powder”, but what about it? Moreover, when cameras such as d40 / d50 / d70 / d80 / d200, which are mere pennies now, give out everything at once. Straight to the Jepeg.
Come on, let me have a look at these “green faces” ... Well, it's just awful how you want to see where and how you caught these green men.
The D40 is one of my favorite cameras.
Hello, I'm new to DSLRs (2 months. I’m using it), and I’m tormented by one question, I bought D80, then I continued to research and it turned out it was better to take D70 or D40, is it really that bad (everything was gone, everything was gone :)
Color d40 best
D50 is not worse (well, maybe AutoBB works out not so stably) + there is a screwdriver.
The d40 has a display and memory card standards
+1 autoBB yes, sometimes not so successful. the D70s are even slightly worse on this point.
I have two: D40 and d80. Both are good. Take a walk in the mood. But the d40 has ISO 800 and the d80 ISO 400. Indoor d80 is weak in light sensitivity. Try to refuse ISO 80 on d100. Take ISO 200-400. You will be surprised at the sharpness of the picture.
Because of the grain, it’s 200-400 and the type is sharp. D40 makes less noise. Because of 1/8000 and ISO 200, only d70-70s are suitable for high-aperture optics
The matrix noise is messy and has nothing to do with sharpness - it eats up the details and impairs the perception of the picture. What you mean is sharpening, obtained by dithering, that is, introducing ordered noise that the eye clings to and creates the feeling of a sharper image. I know only two artistic tricks that can be created with the random noise of the matrix: the first is to leave it and pass it off as an analogy with the grain of the film, as a kind of retro frame (for this, the picture can be converted to a b / w version), and, second, suppress noise, making details blurry. But anyway, having a picture with less noise is preferable than with large ones, because you can always bring the effect of even grain or blur, but you will never be able to return details from a noisy picture.
I here there is a gallery with d70.
What difference does the ISO algorithm work. Take d80 and take a frame from the tripod at ISO 100 and ISO 200. And examine the resulting images in magnification. And you will see where more details.
There will definitely be less details at ISO 400 and especially 800. For these cameras, only 100-200 is suitable for a detailed shot, 400-800 can also be used wisely, but the details will already suffer from noise.
Oh, these eternal disputes CCD vs CMOS ... Arkady, as if on purpose, threw Temka up - he knew that thousands would come :) And how many it is written that both matrices are based on the same material, and the difference is in signal processing. No, all the same, the mastodons do not give up and repeat theirs. What color you need, you can get this, moreover, with standard tools, without manipulation in editors - right on your cameras (with CCD or CMOS).
It wasn't Arkady who threw “Temka”, but you yourself begin to prove the well-known “truths”. You will not show flowers from the same d800, but the faces of people. And with all those profiles as shown on the flowers shown. We will discuss further. We will select a developing method, editor, tools AND ... We will bring everything to the color of the SDS. We will bring it 100%. With all this, there are already cameras where nothing needs to be “developed” and “brought forward”. They are with their "minuses", these cameras, but the amateur (!) Will have enough of them for years. Without any smart editors and smart developers. And the fact that there are “signals”, “construction methods”, etc., all this has already been chewed 1000 times.
It does not prove anything, but shows that saturated colors are just a parameter setting built into the camera. The flowers just show that the D80 just lifts up the color saturation, and kills the details.
Well, what is wrong with your faces on CMOS? On this site, hundreds of photos from CMOS-based cameras, made simple development without any changes. What is wrong with them?
Finally, you write about fine-tuning and hassle with editors - there is just nothing to finish, you can select the necessary settings on the camera once. I like colors with increased saturation - ok, set the higher saturation on the camera and you will have the same effect right away with the camera.
And, of course, no one forces you to buy a new camera. Shoot on health with what you like and already eat.
A classic example is the legendary “ghoul”. Yes, there is a rather specific matrix, but plus to this, the picture initially has some kind of “film” profile (almost like in the new Fuji), giving such a beautiful color. In fact, it is also an “improver” of the picture, but the correct one (warm, tube) :)
Well, if there is such a need for a special warm color or film imitation, then why buy old cameras then? For a long time there is a site with hundreds of profiles (nikonPC com) that you can throw into the camera and shoot as much as you like with your warm soulful color.
I also understand when you have an old camera, and you can squeeze what you need out of it, and there is no need to splurge on a new camera. I also understand the pros who work with a heavy camera, and for personal needs they can take an inexpensive used one, from which again they need to squeeze what they need. But I don’t understand those who have normal, not bulky, more modern cameras, and they buy (switch) to old people because the color is right there.
There was d3100, after which he took d200 - at one time we were together. When I took paired shots, I sold 3100 at once - the difference is enormous, especially if there is sky and greenery in the shot. I couldn't match the colors from 3100 to a similar result (although I'm not particularly good at editors). And not only the colors are plastic - the whole picture looks different, for example, at 3100 the sky is overexposed, the earth is normal, at the two hundred everything is smoother, and you can't fix it either. And the sky - 3100 even blue color, and two hundred still gives out shades, and a little grayer - I like it better.
You need to understand the features of your camera and be able to use them. If you managed to remove the sky with a regular blue stripe without semitones at standard settings, then this does not mean that the d3100 cannot do this in principle. Believe me, maybe.
Here it’s not so much the type of matrix, but the size of the pixels. 6 megapixels per crop 1.5 = very bold pixels that pick up more light. Smart people have long stopped chasing megapixels, and manufacturers have seen the opposite trend. For example, the same Sony A7S II with large pixels (12 megapixels per FF) costs twice as much as the usual 24 megapixel model and works at significantly higher ISO values.
It is necessary to consider not only the size of the pixel, but also its characteristics. For a photodiode, this is light sensitivity. The actual working ISO of the matrix reflects this. Since it is possible to obtain diodes with better sensitivity, manufacturers get three possibilities: 1) to preserve the matrix area and the number of pixels, but to increase the actual working ISO; 2) increase the number of pixels on a matrix of the same area without dropping the working ISO; 3) reduce the size of the matrix, keeping the number of pixels and working ISO. I personally would prefer that progress followed the first path. But consumers stubbornly choose more megapixels, and for the manufacturer it turns out to be profitable to make a small matrix. As a result, we have what we have - the working ISO is progressing slowly, but there are many small-sensor and multi-pixel cameras around.
My friend, who worked in the field of radio electronics production and has the appropriate education, said that there really is no dispute between SSD and kmos. Just kmos is much more technologically advanced in production, cheaper and has a lower reject rate. And user characteristics (sensitivity in particular) are higher in ssd.
CCD - photodiodes to matrices give a signal to a common amplifier, CMOS - each photodiode gives a signal to its own amplifier. With the same matrix area for CCDs, you can make diodes of a larger area (you do not need to spend a lot of space on the strapping for each diode), which may explain the better sensitivity of CCD versus CMOS for one generation. But for different generations of matrices, everything is no longer the same. Those old CCD diodes, which were large and there were few of them on the matrix, are very, very much inferior in sensitivity to modern small diodes on new matrices. Therefore, today's 24MP APS-C CMOS sensor easily outperforms the old APS-C CCD in terms of sensitivity and noise level. Don't go chasing old warm matrices unless you know exactly how to use them.
A strange conclusion - with d3200 green faces mean gofno, but don't put BB?
I’m renting on d300, d7200, and d80, I’m driving it like that for a couple of days, honestly, until I really feel the difference between d300 and d80, I’ll still compare the sunset, shoot on 2 carcasses, then it will already be seen whether there is magic of SSD.
Advice for the lazy, you don't want to fry the raves - just put the jeep and that's it, then, too, in 90% of cases, twist the bb and the curves, and you won't have any grief. I was convinced of this myself, I shot a drift, I wanted 7 frames / sec with a d300, good jipegs, but Nikon does not light up the raves, set up the main camera and rejoice
Turn off the adl and it will "light up", ssd at d80 is oak.
This is what Pavel Kosenko writes (in the context of working with RPP)
“Why, when opened in RPP, the files look darker than in other converters?
As a rule, in modern cameras, metering is implemented with some underexposure, in order to avoid clipping in the light (which, as you know, is not restored), and common converters try to compensate for this with the default settings. For example, in Adobe Lightroom, this is Brightness +50 and others. RPP does not do this and displays a picture much closer to the one that was originally laid out in the Raw file.
Why when opening in RPP files look less saturated than in other converters?
Common converters apply certain default parameters to opened files, which include, among other things, increasing contrast. For example, in Adobe Lightroom these are Contrast +25, Black Point +5, Medium Contrast Curves, etc. Increasing contrast automatically leads to an increase in saturation. In RPP, you start processing with a more “honest” (in terms of information embedded in the file) image.
FudjiPro, also on the idea of 6mp, not 12
C5 has a pro 6 + 6 matrix, there are 12 megapixels there, but the resolution is like that of 8 mm of the usual ssd
FudjiPro, also on the idea of 6mp, not 12mp
Go for popcorn
And grab my cola
will be where to throw the mentos
Class - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMcNdRDgVrE
Sold the water? suffer now :)
Alas, the main problem of soaking - low working ISO, is now not resolved.
And for the arts on iso 100-400, I now have an Olympus of 35rc and an Olympus of Om-1 with 100 / 2,8.
And how can it (the main problem of ghouls) be solved now?
for hedge - nothing.
And what about the colors of the xt-10 vs s pro5?
by color, ALMOST parity.
According to the picture and DD, modern Fujiks are definitely blowing.
6 MP these days, when photographers shoot 80 percent for social networks, it seems even redundant :)
For social networks, a telephone is enough.
Nikon D40 - decals for badges. Douzha befits a colori CCD.
Also my favorite camera is Nikon D80 (CCD)
STO is great. And no matter what anyone says, it's easier to get a beautiful color from a camera from a camera. And no matter how I bring the photo from d810 to fuja s5pro in the editor, it still doesn't work out that way, or it comes out very similar, but for a very long time. Interestingly, few people would think to bring the fuja picture to the d810 picture, although it would seem a worthy goal - to shoot with a cheap old camera as if it were an expensive one. And still, for some reason, it is the new cameras that are brought to the old one. I have only d6s out of honest 70-megapixel ssd now, but although the picture is pleasing, I can't say that it is better than the more megapixel d80. Maybe the fact is that my first camera was not a 6-megapixel ssd, but d5100, but in general, d80 is still more interesting for me.
It’s nice to read such articles, antiquated directly :)
And in which editor do you bring the color to Fuj? I myself used to work on this issue in lightroom and Nikon's native software, but abandoned them all after I installed and tested C1. At the same time, I lost the task of “bringing the color to fuja”, because I just like the color - probably C1 has a good profile for the D800. In lightroom, I myself made profiles using a colorchecker, the result was not very good, to put it mildly. And yes, you can never reach a photo with D800 (at long exposure, with high ISO, with high resolution) from a Fuja photo, unfortunately.
Since you have already remembered C1, please tell me how you activated it? I also have d800 (e), I wanted to process it in C1, but after installing the "trial" version, the sliders are inactive (Windows 10). In the meantime, I'm processing in my native Capture NX-D or Corel after shot pro (I like it more for portraits)
in C1 you can work in directory mode and session mode. In directory mode and I had such a troubles, in my opinion. Therefore, I started using session mode and in it, in the trial version, everything works. There are installs with tablets on the roottracker, though it is not very convenient - the trial must be reset every 30 days and continue to work. There was even an idea to buy, but 300 eur while the toad presses)
Thanks for the answer! I tried to turn on C1 in session mode, but only the top row of tools (where the “hand”, crop, pipette is) and that's it ... Hike, without a specialist system administrator, will not work. And the editor is cool - you can see it!
I also had some problems if he blocked the network activity with a firewall, or maybe the trial expired. The editor is good both in the number of functions, including the ability to create layers, and in the good profile of the camera for the D800. The 800th ravas opened in it have a completely different color, by default, than the same files opened in the lightroom or native software, and I like this color more. In the photo there is one frame (for nothing, on ISO 6400, just as an example), it is open in C1 (duplicated one file) and in LR with two different camera profiles (forgive me Arkady for offtopic :))
the option at the top left is the most “glossy”, indeed, C1 is more elegant than lightroom! It is even more interesting to see the portrait in both editors, but I understand that not everyone wants to be a model for review :)
Lightroom, camero, something else, Nikon's program. I generally do not like to exercise, although it is considered wrong by many. I love the footage straight from the camera in the Jepeg. I know that most of the pros shoot as rabbits and fix everything on their computer for a long time, but I also know a number of very cool photographers who shoot even very serious orders in a jepeg without any correction. It turns out, by the way, as if the picture was taken to mind for a long time. But in fact - the correct bb, correct camera settings, good color, good lens and great experience.
Regarding ISO and permission, of course, I agree. My amateur interest comes into play here, I don’t print posters and I don’t have to have a frame at any cost without puff in the dark. But I wouldn’t refuse from a fuja with a ff matrix and workers like the d800 :) Of course, fuje loses even to new crop in most parameters, but the color and the overall impression of the picture also matter to me personally. And this despite the fact that on a number of plots I may not be able to distinguish between pictures from fuja and d7000, for example, in which the color is nothing like :)
On the other hand, I don't like the overly saturated colors and the warm tone in old cameras. I took D60, D80, D200 from my friends - well, not natural colors, and I can't do anything about this feeling. This does not mean that I do not like more saturated colors than in reality. I just prefer to manage this saturation myself. Old cameras in different lighting conditions constantly gave me different deviations in saturation, so much so that in raw it was somehow corrected to a decent look, but in jpg it didn't even make sense to edit. Excuse me, but I do not understand this joy from above the green grass, above the blue sky, the faces, as if decorated with foundation.
I agree, this is all taste. Someone likes it, some don't - it's logical. I like this saturation, but someone, on the contrary, reduces it even in modern cameras.
Well, it should be noted that a picture similar to ssd can be obtained from modern cameras, but this takes time. I don’t have it, so I’m taking it off right away when I want such a picture and when I don’t need it. Like, I save time on processing by the presence of many different carcasses :)
Yes, I am also not rich in free time, but it doesn’t take me much time to bring the picture to the right form. I shoot in raw, and there I already look, depending on the plot, which preset to set and which settings to correct to form the final frame. In general, it doesn’t take me longer, but I’m just saving money. I would rather spend money on a better lens for an existing carcass than buy a second carcass, which I will sometimes use. Yes, and I do not want to take a carcass like D40, which is already 10 years old, and whose condition, even if it was not used at all, will not be ideal from time to time.
Well, yes, here it is more convenient for someone. But it's easier for me to buy 10 carcasses and shoot as soon as I want. There is no time to do any processing at all, I rarely even take pictures off the cards. Once every 2-3 months, I collect everything at once - I throw it off, scatter it in folders, examine it. Well, this is, if not some urgent report, there, of course, everything must be done right away. If time suffers, then you can postpone. It is especially pleasant to disassemble photos taken a long time ago in unusual places. As if I went there for the second time. And this analysis can take a whole day in its entirety, an hour just to throw off the pictures, and shove them into folders. If I also converted, I would have wasted a lot of time. But, I think, there would be one carcass - it would be easier in this sense. I scored the map, immediately downloaded everything to the computer, edited what I needed ... But I, apparently, went the other way :)
So yes, taking one old carcass and relying on it is dangerous. That's why I got myself a whole park of old ssd :) If one dies, I will use others. The pity of all will be Fuj, of course. But thank God it has a mileage of about 15 thousand - I hope it will work some more.
Fuj will still serve you, my mileage is almost 140k, but I saw Fuj on sale with a mileage of 140k and the number of shutter replacements - 3, i.e. I shot the carcass under 600k :)
This is really very nice to hear :)
This is what the fool at the sale writes about the number of shutter replacements?)
Anonymous, in fuja in the settings you can see this amount.
+ I chose the same path: I have five cameras and it is very convenient. It is also interesting to compare the result by color and pattern. I prefer to take pictures a lot, remove the marriage and think about what I did wrong and there is absolutely no desire to stretch out at the computer.
Just about, I agree. And you don't need to re-adjust the lenses - you need a telephoto lens - you take a camera with it right away, you need a fix - a camera with a fix :)
Yes, when there was one DSLR I always had trouble changing it or not - you seem to want to put on a different lens and at the same time you are afraid to see dirt in the sky after changing ...
for sure. Acidic and flat green in modern nikon are much better!
.........
the problem is that it is not a problem to pin down the richness and excess of information. But back, alas.
First, why such confidence about the great useful information obtained by the old matrices (mind you, I'm not just asking about fudge)? Secondly, where do you manage to dig up these acid-green faces - poke (you can directly on this site) into a photo that you refer to the category of green acid skin?
read about the frequency characteristics of the ssd and smc matrices, for example, and film. There is plenty of information on the net. more about the tonal range.
secondly, I did not write anything about the green acidic skinton. I wrote just about green.
And Nikon's skinton is really lousy, alas.
If we compare old devices with CCD (in the crop and full frame segments they are only old) and modern with CMOS (in the same segment, even budget ones), then there are practically no reasonable advantages of those CCDs over modern CMOS. But there are many other shortcomings, and you can’t name such a color rendering (the one that is usually described as spiritual, warm, vibrant, saturated, etc.). I also understand that there is a much more expensive segment of technology where they continue to use CCD, but what can we say about it if the prices there are sky-high.
Well, according to the perception of green - to each his own. I don't think Nikon has it acidic or flat. Here, just a taller person rested on green faces, so I thought that you are there too. Well, Nikon has a lousy skin tone for you, work on with fuji. There are enough of their troubles. Nikon's skin suits me perfectly. And if it suddenly stops satisfying or someone demands to change the shade of their skin in my photo, then even then I will not run to buy an old device with CCD and start assembling the system again on another brand - it's all just wasted time and money. I'm just going to do the correction - more or less successfully, but that's all I will do.
There is a wonderful dialogue about this in the TV series "Black Sails".
You can google it on youtube for “black boobs-boobs sails”.
Here he accurately describes your situation.
but, in .. found. https://youtu.be/7eiIR7ThAW8 ))
And your situation, by the way, too)
no .. I then, unlike you, I see the difference between boobs. Now.
Just like that hero, you do not look at the picture as a whole, but try to compare particulars - bad skin tone, wrong colors, the fruit is not yellow enough - it is acidic, it is green ... And you suffer from the fact that the brushes are not the same as expressive means are lacking in modern cameras. Therefore, the plot is about you - you hit the bull's-eye.
Lynx, just between the boobs? Lubok on the right was not only a different breast, but for information.
azaza, well, if for you the right picture in terms of the totality of boobs and fruits is “in general norms”, then what can I take from you - you can't even write an answer on the site “working”. ))
The main condition for the delicious color of CCD- is the correct exposure. Therefore, many photographers who believe that they are stretched, held out in photo editors are very mistaken.
In difficult conditions or at a party, I do not hesitate to use the auto mode on d40 and get predictable frames.
Here I seem to have normal color perception (even tested), and the monitor is not bad. But as I look out the window, look at the local landscape and clearly understand that few people like SUCH colors in the photo, because the reality is more dull than I would like to see. And on the old CCD, the colors are more juicy, saturated (sometimes even overcooked); however, like many old films. Nice colors, but unnatural to be honest. But they do. This is the point of CCD, as well as hardware image enhancers - some cameras based on them.
D70 for 70 bucks, and I go nuts with the beauty of the picture, I shoot the same sunset with the D3000, even with a more perfect lens, it turns out to be an ordinary sunset, and even print on the wall with CCD
not every time, but if a picture with rich colors in the presence of three or more primary colors, grab D70
and yes, the D3000 also has a CCD, but for some reason it’s far from being such a tube (((
Added a review from d70 - https://radojuva.com/2017/09/sigma-dl-35-80mm-hardcore-test/
IMHO, this is nonsense. Want a tube
Unfortunately, this is not nonsense, but a lot of experience shooting with various cameras.
If someone does not see the difference between old CCDs and new CMOSs, I envy him. Chess word.
Yes, there were miracle sensors on CMOS, but they can be counted on the fingers of the hands of my Trudovik.
This is a matter of taste and habit. If someone likes it, then this is not nonsense, it is their right. I don't like it, but this is my personal opinion. The main thing, after reading about these beauties of ccd, is not to run to buy these cameras. You can take from friends, shoot, evaluate yourself - and draw an adequate conclusion. Hook - then join the club of ccd lovers. Not hook, you will have a reasoned opinion.
Who sees, he will see! I exchanged 7100 for D80. I hooked the color when I tested both cameras together. And I consider myself a fool when I bought a new 7100. In addition to the blue-colored dirty color, I did not see anything there. Even Iso 800 had a ceiling.
Continuing the dialogue - a photo :). One -C5pro, the second -D800, glasses are different, aperture 5,6. One of the photos - zhpeg С5pro, on the second - an attempt to do something similar in C1 in a short time - auto-correction, WB and exposure. Ceiling flash photography.
Left - D800, right - Fuj?
What kind of lenses?
but I think the opposite)
yes, D800 on the left, Fuj on the right. On the D800 there was a 180 2.8 MK4, on Fuj I had to put a Ju-37A in order to shoot from one point.
Z.Y. I judge exclusively by the sharpness of the picture, because I look from the killed TN-monitor.
let the source code look)
https://fex.net/?gclid=CjwKCAjwzYDMBRA1EiwAwCv6Jo5y1w26h1jK0cnK9BI6i4-MezPxt8TngXg9osLTPe35X-bFgo1RDRoCHeIQAvD_BwE#!891711443203
link to the sources, available for 7 days, except for the RAV, there is: Jpeg D800 - jpeg from D800 in a custom profile, D800 C1 - jpeg from C1, S5Pro F2-jpeg from C5Pro with profile F2
Opened both RAWs in Capture One 10.1.2. Added exposure +0.7 for the D800 and set the white balance to be the same for both shots. Well, where is Fujik better?
Vaughn turns out what the magic of Fuji is. Just a business - twist the sliders (sarcasm) ... Eh, guys, Nikon's marketers are praying for a clientele like you)))
There is a serious nuance - you looked at the files of both D800 and C5pro in C1, but this is not entirely correct. From my experience I can say: how good C1 is for processing D800 files, just as bad for processing files of this Fuja, i.e. profile in C1 for C5pro - none. It would be more correct to compare the rpeg obtained in the C5pro camera and the rhpeg D800, which was obtained in C1 or any other editor or in the camera itself. C5pro files are much better processed in Lightroom or in a native editor. Yes, and a photo, for assessing the capabilities of the cameras - no, if you take a portrait on both cameras, then the C5pro will be better, and the D800, after C1, will also show an excellent result.
It is not excluded. I always shoot RAW and develop to the desired result. If you want a "warm tube" - I use Nik Collection. About sliders - to the point: You can get any color you like from a modern camera. Plus detail and dynamic range, higher working ISO. Therefore, I consider it unacceptable to use old cameras in serious work. Just indulge ...
And if someone uses and he does well, what will we do? Quarter? On the rack? ..?
“And if someone uses and is good at it, what are we going to do? Quarter? Rack? ..? "
then "He's not your Photographer!"
If someone doesn’t succeed in making a clear, solid shot on an ancient CCD, then most likely someone’s hands are not in the right place. Ha Ha Ha!
So much was said about the fuji flowers that at first the shot on the left, which I liked more with the flowers, was mistaken for fuji and was upset about d800 :)
You confuse color with saturation. Build your hand and eye for now. It comes with time.
you may be right. But once again I looked closely at the pictures, where the air conditioner (and I mean them) - in my, of course, subjective, opinion, the saturation is the same in the pictures. But the colors of fujika, upon repeated examination, seemed to me not so “defiant”
I tried to "develop" myself from the same sources using the link in RPP. Of course, everything turned out differently for me. A decent monitor (retina). And the summary (IMHO) is this: after 30 minutes of squats with the source of nikon, I still could not get the same pleasant and natural color of plants that
Again. I tried to "show" myself from the same source using the link in the RPP. Of course everything turned out differently with me. Monitor worthy (retina). And the resume (IMHO) is this: after 30 minutes of squatting with the source of nikon, I still could not get the same pleasant and natural color of plants that I immediately received in the source of fuji.
As a result, I got this from Nikon. What do you think?
the temperature, in the BB, it is necessary to raise a little (I judge the color of wallpaper and leaves) and increase the exposure (I did not turn off the ad and the source turned out to be clearly underexposed).
The fact of the matter is that with the help of the BB I tried to get the color of the leaves, close to pleasant to me and, in my opinion, natural (I looked at the photo of fujik :)). Again, in my opinion, the color of the leaves turned out kind of like. But this is again a subjective matter. Corrected only BB and curves. There are no sliders in RPP. Decreased saturation (-10 in RPP measurements). Now I want to take the X-T2 (20) + 35 1.4 ... In the S Pro5, as far as I understand, there is no fine adjustment of autofocus, but for me it means that I don't consider such a camera either.
when I bought C5pro (bu), I spent a lot of frames, a day of time, turning 3 screws for adjusting autofocus, i.e. it’s there, like, there, but only with a hex key, with the removal of the bottom cover, and this is the crap).
In my opinion, about nothing. The color of the wallpaper cannot be compared with fujik. In general, I like thinking in this vein, "so you can wind up and get the same thing." It's akin to the Fujika philosophy of film simulation. And what prevents you from actually taking the film and shooting on it? In my opinion, it's easier and more accessible). The same is with CMOS-CCD. Allegedly with CMOS, you can get the same if you want. Isn't it easier to take a camera with a CCD for 3 rubles and just shoot it? Just for fun. And do not bother then where to move which sliders.
here Fujik at the same exposure, it was necessary to put it right away
What does the exposition have to do with it? I just downloaded two chamber jpegs from the link. Because have already indicated that comparing edited ravs is not entirely correct. But chamber original jeeps are quite possible.
Yuri, I looked at the original of your shot on D800. You are using the third-party Kodak Ektachrome P profile by default in the camera. This profile gives a rather hard picture, with high contrast and sharpening level, with a bias in cold tones. Those. the picture from such a profile will be exactly different from the standard colors of Pro 5, so it is initially more difficult to bring it to Pro 5 from such conditions. But at the same time, the built-in profile of the D800 “Landscape” gives warmer colors in this frame, while the picture remains saturated and sufficiently contrasting. I am not saying that it is close to the Pro 5, but, in my subjective opinion, it looks interesting.
It's not that I'm using Kodak Ektachrome P, it's just that it ended up in this frame, and the PC D800 profile has nothing to do with the two photos in the picture, for comparison. the frame with D800 in the picture is processing in C1 of the NEF file, and C1 does not understand Nikon's profiles :). I rarely use zpeg, straight from the camera, so I don't bother much with the installed, in this profile
Yuri, I got something like this:
Obviously, raw from Fujik is not converted correctly. Therefore, such a comparison does not make sense at all.
Yes, perhaps you are right. Hyper-Utility swore during installation, probably some kind of conflict with the monitor.
Valentin, the meaning of my comparison was a little different: I wanted to compare two photos - a camera from the C5pro camera, taken in the most saturated camera profile and an image that can be made in the minimum time for processing a D800 RAW file in the C1 editor. If we start to process and compare both sources, then what's the point? it's an endless process :)
And, then excuse me, I didn't understand your idea right away. But then I would just compare two JPEGs made in the most saturated profiles, or two JPEGs obtained by simple conversion from RAW with standard “bright” profiles. The D800 has a built-in Vivid profile.
Here is a comparison of the two “saturated” profiles: the right photo is your JPEG from fudge, the left is a JPEG from RAW without adjustments with a simple application of the built-in Vivid profile (this could be done immediately without RAW on the camera). The problem here is that the frame on the D800 was exposed under your wired Kodak Ektachrome P profile, and under the standard camera profiles it was underexposed by 1/2 stop. Because of this, the comparison is inaccurate: the frame with the worst exposure loses subjectively.
The histograms, by the way, show how far the S5's red channel has gone to the right - but this is so, to the question of a warm color.
look dzhipegovskie color d500 (looked at a friend) is a bomb !!!! That's the color !!!
and then you will see the difference “between the boobs”, calm down on Nikon's skin tone (this topic has already gotten a little tired, sorry) and the like!
Holy war and here :))
As the former owner of S3Pro and S5Pro (which are not 12MP, but rather somewhere in the middle or even 6), I will suggest that the value and influence of the type of CCD or SuperCCD matrices in the process of obtaining the final result in the photo is slightly exaggerated. With the help of modern RAW processing and editing programs, you can get at least any picture, both for film and for a slide. The main thing today in working with cameras is the lens, the head and hands of the photographer. Magic is not in a piece of iron but in the world around us.
+
RAW with d40, processing 2-3 minutes. How much time do you spend dorobotku frame multi-pixel camera?
I’m setting the standard modes for myself in the camera jpeg and I'm not worried about post-processing. Post-processing is when completely different requirements and tasks. Technique 5100 + Nikor 17-55 / 2,8
The number of pixels does not directly affect the frame refinement time. If you are hinting at heavy RAW from multi-pixel cameras, then the question of the computer is - if it is very ancient, it will probably slow down. And any more or less five-year-old works without problems. The main thing is that you don't need to convert one frame at a time. First, we set the necessary settings, which are remembered automatically, and then we start the conversion of all selected files. Then let it convert for at least an hour ...
2 minutes: application of the camera profile in Capture One and, if necessary, a little curves, BB and hue (but rarely). Everything.