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
I also have warm feelings for these matrices. Coincidentally, this review came out simultaneously with the acquisition of Nikon d70s and Minolta 7d :)
the theme is holistic by default, although there’s nothing to argue about: the tiny RAW size and a great picture right from the camera against the lack of video and the ability to shoot at high ISOs with high quality, whoever needs what, he chooses it, or just buys himself a penny 6MP, and free time is nostalgic because, for commercial needs, the outdated format, unfortunately, is no longer suitable
Yesterday I bought myself a “brand new” Nikon D70s with a mileage of 12.000 for 39 dollars, I will do nostalgia on vacation.
I've never seen such low prices, where did you buy if it's not a secret?
On OLX, we sort by price and see what is there in the evenings :) Cheap - because without charging, boxes and other things, and the owner did not have the opportunity to check his work.
To be honest, I'm in shock)) you are very lucky) considering the condition and mileage
I also bought one through OLH a year ago, paid $ 48 at the exchange rate. I just had to buy a memory card separately (about $ 10) and almost immediately gave it to the service for cleaning the matrix, as I was tired of removing the spots in Photoshop. The cleaning cost $ 25, after which spots appeared again after a year, and I even thought it was easier to buy another camera at this price and not think about the contamination of the matrix from frequent lens changes)
I took his D-70 for a thousand rubles, because of the 18-105 with a broken bayonet that was with him, for spare parts. True, the state is terrible, it feels like they were playing football, there is no living place, the body is cracked in two places. Took more out of curiosity, dig deeper. Yeah, “they brought him home, he turned out to be alive” - everything works as it turned out. The counter showed 4000 operations - more than one circle of the shutter went through the campaign, since the inscriptions on the buttons were almost erased a long time ago. The picture is excellent from him, it seems that the manufacturer since 2004 did not particularly try to do anything in this regard. A very smart phot, it holds the battery, there is practically no shutter lag. Quite good ergonomics, the 8000 shutter works out, the 500 flash is synchronized. JVI would be bigger to him and so the rules of ph. 15 years after the release of the D-70, manufacturers of digital mirrors are measured with letters, video, Wi-Fi, megapixels are added. And in fact, there is nothing particularly new in improving the image itself. It's sad.
It would be interesting to add the Olympus E-500 camera to this list. She has a Kodak CCD matrix that gives very nice colors. Here http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EV500/EV500IMATEST.HTM according to tests, her DD is almost on par with Fujifilm S3 Pro
What is the interest? In 8MP or kf = 2?
(ORIGINAL) In the case of the Olympus E-500, it seems that its dynamic range is about average, at least based on this particular test.
(TRANSLATION) In the case of the Olympus E-500, it seems that its dynamic range is approximately average, at least based on this particular test.
I looked through the jpeg from the test - my eyes almost bleed: soap is everywhere, a normal BB can only be obtained manually.
In general, if we take this camera now, then only for experiments in the genre of “sado-maso”.
Examples are highly dependent on optics, and the color reproduction from this camera is praised by everyone. I have never seen a bad opinion of him on the network, except that “but I have a noise on ISO 800”. Crop 2 is, yes, not a fountain, but it has a different format, it was designed as the most compact DSLR. And for me it is very worthy.
Nastolgiya nastolgiya, but the new kmop will be more interesting. On the crop, the new matrix gives Pts good dd, and the multi-pixel margin during processing, and the noise margin is good and the dots are excellent. I can calmly shoot at 7100 at 1600, then quite a bit of noise. Next, I do the risen to 12mp and there is no noise at all, then I add sharpness a bit. Capture one pro10 does all this in batch right away with a whole bunch of photos, what I like about it is that for it there are bells and whistles from old Nikon, canon cameras, etc., which perfectly reach the picture to d80,40, d2x and mark and td And all the old women, it’s so, play around.
The question is different: is it worth updating and overpaying for the camera if the end result is almost the same? There is no video on the CCD.
It depends on what they decided to upgrade to and for what purpose.
If you need video from a CCD, it's easier to get a camcorder, which I did. Used Panasonic HC-V730 (not CCD, but MOS) came out at $ 150 last year. For home and not very complex commercial requests - it is the most (FullHD, 50fps, stabilizer, great color immediately + super autofocus)
The answer is actually understandable, especially since the question contains the keyword "overpay". One thing is bad - you cannot buy old cameras in zero condition with a guarantee in a store, on the other hand, used ones. costs a penny, well, it will break down or become unrepairable, etc. etc. - for an amateur, not a special problem ... the next used unit will take the savings. (or several used pieces)
Whether it is worth overpaying everyone decides for himself. Taking a new camera in your hands, you get additional goodies. Such as a 3.2 screen with multi-point dots. Someone will say that evaluating a frame on the screen is nonsense, they say you will come home and at 24 hours you will be watching, but as for me, it is already very inconvenient to look at a small flickering screen. And about "the end result is almost the same?" Well, how is it the same? If you shoot in greenhouse conditions, where you do not need a large dd and the ISO does not rise above 400, then it may be the same. But such conditions are not always the case. And here the difference begins to be felt and the result is not at all the same. Well, in fact, you pay money for this in order to get a margin of quality and capabilities when shooting. But this is my opinion and I do not impose it. The main thing is that when you take the camera in your hands, you get good pictures, and good not only in the sense of high-quality from a technical point of view, but such that when you look at them the smile spontaneously stretches and a shine appears in the eyes)))
I think that for amateur photography, a d40 camera is enough. Lens 18-55. To whom it is not enough. It pays for the difference from a new carcass, to taste the portrait fix. On this camera in “Auto mode” it is impossible to get technically bad shots.
They talk about the sound of the motor of the fourth Selick, and in response to a reminder about the smoothness of the last Camry.
Here you are all complaining about the high cost of Epson. Take Pentax K100D WITH THE SAME MATRIX. The effect is the same. UAH 1500 - 3000 This is an example. RENAULT The K9K 1,5 dsi diesel engine was installed on 27 cars of the world, Renault, Nissan, Mercedes ... And they say the engine is better in Mercedes, but in fact in Mercedes A-class and Renault LOGAN the same engine))) and consumption and overclocking and nothing to show off!)) It's the same with the matrix .. The core, the base, the root is the MATRIX. Debayering algorithm and this is already secondary. And I think in the pentax this algorithm is no worse.
In the pentax, the matrix is also stable;)
Yah!
well, in addition to the matrix there is also a harness :)
I took the Epson and don’t regret it at all :)
although I have a micro-museum of more or less popular cameras :)
epson r-d1
canon d60(2002)
5d
s2pro
d200
k10d
k110d
kr
k-01
gr2
x2
pen f
dynax 5
r1
717
828
dp2-m42
dp2m
nikon 1
qs
x-t1
x10
papershoot
nx mini
a7s
a200
next3
rx100ii
lc5
old SLR + 18-55 output = regular mobile phone. But if you fix the fix 50 1.8, then yes, the result will be good, well, if the shooting conditions are good. But then again, there is no screwdriver in the 40s, and motor fixes will be priced at the 40s themselves. Then it’s already 80 or 70 or 60
(old DSLR + 18-55 on the way out = regular mobile phone) - stop….
Have you ever opened photos from your phone on your computer ?????
the phone will have more details, it has more megapixels
but 18-55 from fix is not so easy to distinguish
boo-ha-ha))))) do not introduce people (who just want to start taking photos) into the absurd. develop and work on literature at least.
according to your conclusions, a smartphone is 1oo500 megapixels steeper than Nikon d4s with its “pathetic” 16 megapixels)))))
I did not say that the phone is cooler than the photo. there will be more details than 6MP it’s obvious
I repeat to you Read the literature. Section - the size of the matrix. Then you will interpret. And once again look at the photos on this site taken with this camera, download to your computer and download the photo from your phone. Next, open 2 photos on the monitor and compare)))))
Will not. It's not a megapixel, and not even the size of the matrix (which is there with a match head), but the lens (if you can call it that at all).
In general, size matters because at infinity, the sharpness of the lens falls
go learn the alphabet, boy.
Nikon 18-55mm VR II, which with a button on all focal points shows decent sharpness. I acquired it specially. If you did not use it, then better keep silent.
The 18-55 is not a lens to be proud of!
hold the horses! dxomark has not tested it yet
Well, I still don’t understand how you can be proud of photographic equipment
So I think the same! Moreover, 18-55 ... Here Otus - where did not go!
It is necessary to be proud of the wife, children and pictures standing (first of all the plot), and not some kind of Otus there.
You should be proud of your wife, children and good pictures (especially in the plot), and not in any way Otus ...
A person who has spent about 5000 USD on a lens and takes pictures with it is worthy of respect. He did not buy himself a show-off, but invested in his favorite pastime!
For me, a worthy shot is an interesting plot (which does not depend on the photographer, the setting does not count), composition, high-quality and detailed picture with beautiful bokeh. All these components are very difficult to assemble.
A wife should be proud of her parents. A good wife is even more rare than Otus. Look how many divorces have become! It's hard to be proud of children. Did he become who he wanted? Did he become what his parents saw him? Who is guilty? There are many questions ...
If Arkady gets good photos at 18-55, just imagine what gorgeous photos will be from Otus! And this is only his merit, not the merit of a cheap kit lens! Google for example "Miroslav Tikhy".
Dear Anonymous, there are a lot of decent snapshots for 18-55 on the internet. Or examples on https://radojuva.com/2014/07/nikon-18-55-g-2-vr-ii-af-s-dx/
Reread. I’m talking about this. From 18-55 you can take wonderful pictures. And be proud of them (pictures).)
So all sorts of D810 give testament easily, people in the know?
Watch the Nikon commercial shot on the D810. There, these lights are very well visible.
On CCD and flare can be corrected. On modern CMOS, this does not work.
On CCD, normal skinton is easier to get, it's obvious.
But in a bad light, nobody will surpass modern Nikons. In Kenon, in this light, faces are red for everyone, like for drunks. Or the girls’s makeup is finished, and everything turns out like clowns.
But this is when reporting. The background photo is a completely different story.
In general, the argument is not about anything. Why would anyone argue that one is better than the other? Each is more suitable for its tasks. Everyone likes their own.
Why argue? What for? I can't understand in any way ...
The inability to restore Old from overexposures (more than a stop) - this was the biggest revelation when I started using the D800 after C5pro. If there is just a discussion process, without pouring waste on each other, then why not? Exchange of opinions, experience, rating of Radozhiva, again :) For example, during the discussion of this article, I was once again convinced that there is no universal RAW converter and it is better to select it for each camera to your taste. And so, you are saying everything correctly
Exchange of experience, this is good, I am only for!
It’s just summer now, and juvenile boobies write all sorts of garbage everywhere, tormented by idleness.
A common thing, with the autumn passes.
+ + +
Sorry, Peter, but you also wrote, to put it mildly, strange things. First, about the fact that the D810 easily gives light - is it the fault of the D810? I had a chance to touch the D800, there the exposure meter worked at a level, I somehow did not see any serious details. But anything, of course, can be. Secondly, about red faces in low-light conditions at Kenon - well, there are only two ways that allow you to stretch the image. The first is a less significant increase in sensitivity with a shift to the red spectrum, which allows you to get less noise in the image, but gives an excess of warm shades on faces. The second is a significant increase in sensitivity with equalization of the white balance, which is accompanied by high noise, and often a dip in greenish-yellow shades. This is all a matter of taste, but here I am on the side of Kenon - here is the link to the video, see what you liked more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z39UaN0A5Zk
Valentine, in the conditions of reporting, in a fairly bright light, when there is no time to set the BB and the correct exposure, the D810 and D610 often get quite noticeable highlights. In the dim light this problem is not, more precisely, it can be dealt with.
I have 4 cameras, just for shooting in different lighting conditions and speakers. About 70 thousand shots come out annually for me.
Believe me, I know what I'm talking about.
When it is possible to install the gates, Kenon just gets gorgeous shots, but such an opportunity is far from always. And the gates do not give the opportunity to shoot a series (you can certainly try, but you will be kicked out very quickly). And if the light is even a little lacking, then Kenon is already betraying the marriage, nothing will be pulled out.
I watched the video, I can’t understand what it is about. What did they want to say?
Peter, it is about the different behavior of Canon and Nikon cameras in low light conditions. Canon does not adjust the exposure so much and does not adjust the white balance so rigidly - as a result, even at higher ISOs, the picture turned out to be less noisy and slightly darkened, with a bias towards a warm tone (that is, just the same “red faces”) ... Nikon pulls the exposure harder and evens out the white balance harder (here you have a high probability of flare, and a departure to green-yellow shades). And then everyone chooses for himself what he likes best.
Yes, and if possible, briefly drop a line on what kind of cameras you have under different lighting conditions (I'm really interested in this).
Valentin, firstly this video, has nothing to do with photography. Secondly, the D810 already had a good picture at ISO3200.
Thirdly, in real conditions, Kenon would not have succeeded in the light of a candle. Everything would have looked much sadder. Again, in the dim light, high ISOs do not help Kenon. I have not seen a single reporting photographer with Kenon and without flashes or strobes.
Fourthly, Kenon has better noise reduction there when shooting video. But we are talking about photography.
Etc.
But I do not want to say that Kenon is no good. In a good light, he is definitely better than Nikon.
In my case, everything is trite. I shoot ballroom dancing and ballet on the D610. I shoot portraits of dancers on the D200 and on the Fuji S5 Pro (this is summer). Sometimes I shoot football on the D200. For walks during the day, or if I go somewhere, I take D70s with me.
Thank you for sharing your experience, very interesting.
I agree that there is a big difference between video and photo. But, what is clearly visible there, are the features of the signal processing algorithms of different cameras with completely identical settings set manually. And it is precisely the effects that you described above that they stem from the mat. parts and features of the software part sewn into the camera.
where is everything good with nikon at 3200
I’m sitting on Nikon, but he blew Kenon in this video even at 3200
As if vkusovschinka. There the muzzles are red, but here it smells like carrion, so pale green. In general, the ISO-3200, even at full frame, makes a noise
by the happy face of the model, you can guess that her choice is D800
Please note that in the video clip the cameras operate with a manually set temperature of 3200K. Automatic balance adjustment is turned off (!). That is, here we can just see how the matrix and brains of the camera work before any adjustment. When automatic white balance is on, Nikon will programmatically pull the balance into the region of warm tones, and Kenon, by contrast, into the region of cold tones. Cameras of both brands will try to normalize the white balance with one way or another success. But all the same, what is inherent in the cell will initially be decisive: the faces from Kenon will be warmer, with Nikon lighter. Further, you yourself can correct what you need: either camera settings, or software. The output result can be obtained almost the same.
++
Dear Mikhail, the Internet is full of wonderful pictures taken on the phone)
My mother has a wired push-button telephone in the room. I haven’t seen one frame yet.
I had to take a disk
Plus, the disc test turns out!))
Michael; from the category, my wife has at home 7100 with 24-70 2.8 with the lid not removed. This is what I mean, if you take d40 from 17-55 and a modern phone, then the difference can not be immediately noticed. But if you take d40 and 50 1.8, then you can easily get a cool shot. The logic is simple, old crop + good conditions + good glass (better fix) = excellent result. Super duper fr or crop + 17-55 = modern phone - according to the picture.
PS somehow the conversation is not constructive, let's better upload photos and thereby confirm our theses.
The difference from 17-55 will be very noticeable, take a word. Until it has not reached a single phone))
I will have a review on the old poor crop and on the poorest lens that I could find on the market, two heads behind 18-55 - in the end, the skills remain above the technique. Wait for the “anti-crisis review”.
D70 + Helios44?
No. Only hardcore af.
So the old man Nikkor 28-80mm under the freshly bought D70s :)
Sometimes I shoot with such a bundle. 28-80 pleases with fast and accurate autofocus, and d70 with beautiful colors. If you shoot during the day or with puff, and besides with the right hands, the result will be quite good, even if you let it go straight into the gloss.
Ivan! Helios 44 legendary portrait lens!
You have already been written. A bunch of photos are already on this site. Don't look at the picture on your phone. open the photo on the monitor. The conversation is really not competent - because of the point it makes no sense to argue with you and prove banal truths.
Yes, I forgot! changing my smartphone with a bunch of megapixels for your wife 7100 from 24-70 / 2,8.
Trite truths)) but I thought that resolution and mp are somehow connected) and here it is, 6mp on the monitor will look better than 12mp from a smartphone)
On my 1,5MP monitor, 6MP looks fine, which cannot be said about photos from a 10-megapixel soap dish (matrix 1 / 1,7, aperture 2,8) - soapy, noisy, low DD, etc.
Everything's clear with you! I admit, you are a "genius" of engineering thought)))))
Nostalgia for the CCD has dried up, the tears have dried up and everyone is looking at the new CMOS together. Progress cannot be stopped….
The digital hobbyist era began and ended with decent machines like the d40. All subsequent generations have been produced and designed for photographers who believe in the Masterpiece button. A-Ha-Ha!
If this era is over, then there is only a small handful of D40 owners who only understand digital amateur photography. At least a confident assertion. Have you ever shot a more or less long period of time on cameras other than the D40?
I see a significant difference in the drawings of the lenses, and what is the picture on the output. But the difference in crop? Besides the price, I can’t see. Please enlighten what new crop is added to the frame, which was not in the frames of the old DSLRs?
In the frame itself - nothing, but in the process of obtaining it - a lot, on which, in fact, the presence of the frame itself depends.
In fact, this is an opportunity to get a technically high-quality image where the d40 cannot do this, simply can not do it. Or he can, but only in the hands of a wild professional, who may not be the owner of a fresh crop.
And is it important.
Now, if you look at the ads (I'm talking about my city), for the price of d40 or for two prices of d40 (which is not a very big difference) you can get a camera that will give several times more good shots at the output if you shoot in difficult conditions (dark , wet, the subject is moving, ...), and if it is average, the technical quality of the images will be 2-3 times higher.
A clear gingerbread, if you shoot statics on the street during the day, it makes no difference which carcass. And if in the evening running children, for example, then there is a difference.
If you don’t see the difference, it doesn’t mean that it actually doesn’t exist.
I like d40, I like the shots from it - cool, shoot for your pleasure.
PS: I tried d40 - I didn't like it for a long number of reasons.
I agree with Vanya. Mikhail, you just got used to your D40 and didn't work with other cameras, but maybe you don't need it. And in general, it is good that you are not obsessed with new cameras, but it’s just in vain that you say that there is nothing more worthy of the D40. D40 is the most stripped-down, simple device. Yes, he was not bad for his time, but today he is not suitable for everyone and everyone. It should be recommended for purchase only to those who clearly know what they will do with it and how to work with it. I sometimes borrow old cameras from friends to shoot something, just for fun. And I always note: yes, and they can shoot well; and they have their own specifics that can be used wisely when shooting. But only by holding these old people in their hands, clicking on them - all the same, there is no desire to buy such a carcass for yourself.
https://yadi.sk/i/S9PWjnE-3Lx7mj .D40, ISO 1600,18-55, Normal amateur shot in difficult conditions. When ISO 1600 is not enough, the flash turns on.
The shot is good, and, perhaps, he really is d40 - for the eyes.
But I would not say that he is, after all, quite complicated for the technique. Did the fish move fast? Did you have only 2-3 seconds to snatch the camera and take this picture?
I myself really like the built-in flash - if you have a reflector in the ceiling, then in a small room, with the proper ability to catch scenes and without shooting in series, you can shoot with pleasure.
I myself lived with 350d for a long time, the camera is excellent, I had complaints about it 10 times less than the d40, but now, shooting (also amateurish, as always) at 50d, I understand how many cool shots I would have missed trying to shoot something same thing at 350d. And, I note, shooting only at 350d, I did not understand this, understanding appeared only with 50d.
Such things, excuse me.
Everything around, yes about. Specifically tell me. Under what conditions you can’t get the technically correct shot on a technique released 10 years ago.
Not around and not around, I wrote several times already, for example:
the object moves quickly, it's dark around, the picture must be taken a couple of seconds after I realized that I need to get the camera out of the bag.
On 50d I shoot a running son - it's easy:
Take the camera out of the bag for a comfortable grip, change the focus from single-frame to tracking, shutter speed from 1/100 (by default on the camera in the bag) to 1/320 - 1/500, don't touch autoiso, don't touch AWB, don't touch center-weighted metering , autofocus - snapshot. Less than two seconds.
350d would not have been able to do this - no autoiso, you need to manually select 1600, focus catches slower - that's it, the object has run away. The setup time is 2 times longer, focusing is still, perhaps, a couple of seconds (depending on the light).
I can't paint the plot about d40 - I don't have the opportunity to try it. But, as I remember, on the junior nikons, any settings are made through the menu, since there are no buttons on the case (which the junior nikons actually do not suit me in the first place), so, most likely, add a few more seconds.
Or, for example, I was traveling in a bus with a dim light, there was an interesting story. the camera to the belly, approximately pointed, iso 6400, exposure 1/100 - 10-20 shots, partly in bursts, partly moving the camera to the right - to the left, at home on a computer I chose a good, sharp one, with a suitable composition and the faces of passengers with the correct subjects. I cut out a piece of about 15 megapixels from 4 megapixels - that's the situation. On 350d - d40 it is impossible to shoot this, these cameras simply cannot cope, there would be no pictures at all.
And by the way, my 50d is already in about 10 years from now, so let's replace 10 in your statement with at least 13 years.
And with a modern crop, like 7d mkII, for example, everything would be even simpler, even better and better. Yes, even with some 750d, (or which one is the newest there right now?) Now it would be more convenient than with the 50d, probably. Indicate why I made a mistake, if I made a mistake.
Nobody argues. For reportage you need a reportage camera. For an amateur and family shooting, D50 is enough. Everyone chooses a camera from the requirements. Well, there is a big "BUT" here. CCD color. Which is not given to everyone to see. Good luck!
You know, I very often notice that people give the instrument features a special artistic meaning. This concerns a lot of things: drinking bokeh, and the color of some special matrix, and the sound of a special guitar, etc., etc.
But from my favorite photographs (not made by me, I mean), there has never been such a thing that the main role was played by color or bokeh (as the simplest examples). It is always composition and work with light. None of my favorite works have been played on any particular guitar or piano, or with any special effects. Or, at least, the sound of the instrument is not in the first place there, for sure. It’s always some ordinary stratum or telly (I don’t distinguish pianos at all), and all the salt in the nuances is from the musician’s fingers and the musical logic in the composer's head.
But on the other hand, I very often notice that if there is a certain special “color” or “bokeh” in the photograph, then there is nothing else in the picture, because the author concentrated only on the color of his matrix or only on the circles in the out-of-focus zone from his beautiful high-aperture “glass” ... And it's the same with the music: you hear heaps of effects and the desire to reach the divine "sound" - there is no sense, you can not listen.
What I mean: I often observe that people replace the concept of "instrument" and "means of achieving artistic effect" with the concept of "artistic meaning". Replace the concept of "means" with "end".
It seems to me that I see this very CCD color, but I am not happy when I see it - often there is nothing besides it in the photo, no sense.
And, yes, people who have “the gift of seeing and appreciating CCD (substitute for CCD on: film, slide, full frame, medium format, only 35mm, only 50mm, only Leica - choose any)”, in my experience with them, completely useless as photographers. The same can easily be extrapolated to any art.
Good luck to you, Michael.
Mikhail, you are well done that you thoroughly know your D40 and know how to make good shots on it. I myself very warmly recall the photographs taken by me, for example, on the D60 and even a whale lens. These cameras produce small RAWs that are easy to handle. They are simple both because of the size and because the detail of the image from these cameras is small.
And I fully understand Ivan, and fully support what he is talking about. Things that you can shoot on an advanced camera on an old device, alas, can not be removed. Higher-class equipment is also many times more convenient than entry-level equipment. And yes, images from new cameras on average I process more time than images from old cameras. But it is, in my opinion, worth it.
Eh, Vanya-Vanya, just imagine how the sport was filmed at Zenits before)) My friend (under 90 years old now, his eyesight is inadequate, arthritis ... etc.) have so many sharp shots of sprinters, football players and divers. I look at it and can't believe it straight.
Hence the conclusion: no technique can replace elementary knowledge and a little skill. You don't have to go far for examples - there, a photo of Arkady.
Therefore, everything that came out after 2000 simply has no right to be criticized.
There is no “gift to see / hear / smell”. Everything is gained by experience, just like your philosophy. Vaughn, Valentina has already begun to act))) Comrade has suffered there too)) “Impossibility” replaces “convenience” and juggles them like a seasoned circus performer, but Lyosha cannot be fooled))
PS When will Arkady close the comments on this topic? ))) Likely, when it comes back from vacation.
I also add that ISO 1600 will only work if the frame is correctly exposed. The fish is excellent, Mikhail :) This shot was relatively noisy. What is remarkable is that even such a noise is easily removed by the converter and an almost clean picture is obtained with a resolution of 3000 x 2000, which can be easily printed 15x20 or even more.
Alexey, to be honest, we are not really talking about that. Shooting sprinters at Zenith is a must, I don’t argue, this is a harsh skill, wild and wonderful.
But why do we need it now? What exactly does this skill give to such a wonderful picture in itself?
Yes, of course, a head on shoulders and a hand from shoulders will not replace, there is no dispute.
Pf, it will be criticized, as it should, because not all of what has been done after 2000 is good. Because it exists not in an environment of competition with zeniths, but with its own kind, all the same. And it is quite clear that there are different instances: both better and worse, and to taste and color, and in general.
There is no need to call me a philosopher, please, I'm not talking about the structure of the world to you, Leshka Inconducible, but about the perception of art and the criteria in it. And about the “gift” - apparently they did not understand the context, that is, what specific “characters” I am talking about.
Well, because convenience is, often, just the line between possibility and impossibility. If you do not understand this, then perhaps with experience you will understand with whom you are so dashingly appealing to me.
Alexey, it didn't start to affect me. All that can be obtained from old CCDs I get without any problems on a modern device with CMOS. The opposite is not true - what modern technology gives the old CCD will never last. All my comments are about this. No need to chase after old cameras and buy them if you have more modern ones. They will not give you anything special. But if you have them, you can use them effectively. This is the only thing to understand. I have no charm with CCD or CMOS colors - the shades are modeled the way you need for any technique.
Valentine! What are you going to pull there with a CCD. Take the device in your hands and enjoy the photo. If something doesn’t work for you, turn on the AUTO mode and you will succeed. Good luck!
There is still a question on what to look at. As Arkady wrote somewhere: Photoshop to the priests, if you have TN. He himself decided to see Ravas from pro three-heels. On IPS, the colors are really nicer, but on working TN the difference is elusive. Looked through ACR since the other is not interested, I am not sitting. Immediately in this dispute, I recall Margulis, who said that it was necessary to make everything good, although it could be worse than an ideal. I agree with Ivan that light and composition are incomparably more important than colors that most people will not see from their monitors.
Mikhail, an old D40, built-in flash, whale lens, only jpeg, auto-mode - what level of photography are you talking about? Good luck to you, not me. I get what I need on both CCD and CMOS. I do not suffer at all for the rich colors of CCDs and do not share the opinion that the old devices have the correct color. The correct color is profiled by the colorchecker and not determined by the matrix type.
Well, show your level Valentine. And while these are all empty words.
Michael, in simple words:
Task 1. Shoot a landscape while preserving both the colors of the sky and darker details (green grass, trees, etc.). D40 knocks out lights at a time, it's not magical. Photographers use different techniques to maintain range. For example, they are exposed to highlights, preserving the color and its gradient in light tones as much as possible. A deliberately (!) Underexposed frame is received, which is being finalized. You suggest turning on the "Auto" mode and everything will work out.
Task 2. To take a portrait in the natural soft light of the cafe, where the lighting and the wrong temperature are very insufficient for proper exposure at low ISO. Photographers use fast lenses, carefully set the ISO, modify color distortion to natural shades, and work with noise. You suggest cutting a camera flash into the forehead, getting spots of light on your face and completely killing the whole natural atmosphere of the picture.
Task 3. To take a portrait in nature with a narrow depth of field, separation of the foreground from the far and a pleasant blur of the background. Photographers use lenses with high-quality optics, EGF from 100 mm and an open aperture of 2 or more. You rest on whale 18-55, i.e. EGF of 82 mm., Aperture of 5,6 with a rather small optical filling.
Something like this turns out. I hope the level difference is clear?
https://yadi.sk/d/9GaqVXcn3MAf3W Landscape d40
A lot of words. We all expect from Valentine the correct picture.
And the difference in level.
Michael
I agree with Ivan that light and composition are incomparably more important than colors that most people will not see from their monitors
—
Everything should be perfect in a person: shoulder straps, cockade, underneath. Otherwise, it’s not a person, but a mammal (s) DMB
There are no downsides to the D40. There is a big minus in the skills of the photographer.
I don’t think what else are you expecting from there, it seems to me that everyone is already tired of arguing with the wall in the face of your opinion, so it is unlikely that anyone will answer. I just got tired and stopped, looking at how you pass arguments and go on further.
And, if you do not see any drawbacks in your examples, or in your camera, it is wonderful, wonderful, but to assert what you claim is at least silly.
An example in the studio of Ivan. Or will you continue to argue?
Or dumb?
How ugly, fi.
Wow, what it came to. It turns out well-known photographers and professionals who shoot on the D800 / 810/750/700/500/7100 and other advanced modern Nikons do not know what the right color is. And a few lovers with ancient devices like D40 and whale lenses just understand the right color!
We ourselves are in shock and now we don’t know what to do and what to love: completely confused.
Egor, we should also agree on what the correct color is. Probably, it is precisely transmitted, identical to the natural, to what was remembered during the shooting. I would venture to say that CCD cameras, especially 6-megapixel cameras, do not give such a color, but according to some algorithms they fantasize, give some color of their own, so an emerald hue is often added to greenery, azure or purple to the sky, red viburnum becomes ruby, and the color of the faces is often difficult to convey marble pale pink. And the 6-megapixel lovers themselves do not say “correct”, but say: pleasant, interesting, maybe even “tube”. Probably, you can wind the curves from CMOS to such a color, but I can't, so in suitable conditions I take CCD, incl. 6-megapixel.
Valery, this is a "lamp" decoration, nothing more than one of the built-in profiles in old cameras. There is a neutral profile, super bright colors, and a monochromatic image. That is, the skin tone on the CCD can be very different. And on CMOS, it can also be different. There is nothing difficult in modeling profiles. You just need to master the shooting and processing of RAW. For simplicity, take the native Nikon View-NX or Capture-NX. These programs are the simplest, despite the fact that the functionality is enough to quickly bring the frame to mind.
Valentin, I shoot both old and new (5100) cameras in a neutral profile, in RAW format for ease of subsequent editing in ViewNX-i. Of course, when I open RAW, I see a jpeg preview in low resolution (as on the camera screen), in a neutral profile. I continue to argue that the colors are different, for the d5100 they are more similar to the original ones, for the d50 they have a CCD fantasy, as I wrote above. Arkady, by the way, shoots at d40, it turns out he is not a professional (according to Egor).
Valery, and I do not claim that the colors with the D5100 and D50 are exactly the same. Cameras use different sensors and different processing parameters, so they cannot be the same by definition. I affirm that you can customize them as you need. And in the camera profile if you need to write down the settings or just in the converter do what you need to your liking.
Valentin, unfortunately I do not really understand in programs, can you tell me how to set up the d5100 profile so that there is a picture, like in 6MP, but better, like in a "heap"?
Valery, first, I’ll make a reservation: you cannot configure one camera with one profile so that this camera then completely imitates the operation of some other camera in all situations. At the same time, if you understand what exactly you like about the jpeg from the D100 (for example, higher color intensity, shift of tone to a warm spectrum, better contrast, etc.), you can adjust the D50 for these requirements.
The easiest way, which does not require mastering any programs, is to adjust the existing profiles right in the camera.
For details on this, see your D5100 manual, “Changing Picture Controls” on pages 92-93. A simple procedure allows you to quickly adjust the profiles built into the camera in terms of color intensity (saturation), hue (warmer, colder, redder, yellower, greener, blue, etc.), contrast, brightness and sharpness.
But, before you start adjusting something, make sure which profile you most often shoot. Perhaps a simple change of profile from Standart to Vivid (for example) will already be sufficient.
If all this is not enough, then move on. Or we create our own new profile for ourselves (see page 96 of the manual). Or we look on the Internet for external profiles for Nikon cameras, select for ourselves and write to the camera’s memory card, then use according to the instructions (p. 97).
I do not consider more complex issues of profiling, because they require the skill to work in programs (I do not even speak about special equipment), and you wrote that this is not very good.
Valentin, I understand that you do not know how to get a 5100MP CCD picture on d6. You have listed all the "enhancers" you know and say that it should help. Meanwhile, the CCD-camera gives the picture immediately, without any improvements (contrary to your assumption). So isn't it easier to just take an inexpensive CCD camera and shoot in the right conditions for your pleasure?
Valery, do not attribute different fantasies to me. I have never argued that a 16MP CMOS camera can capture a 6MP CCD image. It is unlikely that there would be people at all willing to pay an additional price for the implementation of such a function in their camera (marketers and engineers would have been confused about this long ago), but okay, let's leave this aside. The following is important: the manufacturer has ensured that all cameras comply with the color standard, and also provided you with many options for adjusting cameras to personal tastes, tasks and needs. I have already said that sometimes I take old CCD cameras from friends, just out of interest, to broaden my horizons, to maintain skills. And there is nothing that cannot be obtained on CMOS. I did not list all the skills - you asked the question (seriously or provocatively - this is your business), I gave you a substantive answer. Can't modify a CMOS frame like a CCD? Well - then shoot on CCD, also, in general, an option, the more you have it. For me personally, the second old camera is a surplus. If you need two or more cameras - yes, please, let you have at least a dozen of them - it's up to you how to photograph, how many cameras to have, to shoot only in jpeg or only in raw. The problem is, after all, often, in something else (not about you): the user complaining about the low quality of the resulting images, instead of thoroughly understanding his own technique, shooting skills and techniques, with post-processing of the frame, he reads notes about the warm color of the CCD, immense potential of film, live picture from manual glasses and buys, buys, buys ... And pictures from buying old or new cameras, as a rule, do not get much better.
Valentin, I agree with you that you need to know your technique, shooting techniques, as well as post-processing. And your phrase “Can't modify the frame with CMOS as on CCD? Well - then shoot on CCD ”repeats the thought in my first message.
Valery, do you try to set the Picture Control item to Vivid and the image size S in your D5100 after all. You will immediately get a compact JPEG with rich color. Take pictures of nature (trees, grass, sky, clouds). I'm not saying that it will be 100% CCD, but it's a matter of taste, which is better. In terms of saturation and brightness, the CCD picture is definitely not inferior. The shades will vary slightly. For me, jpeg from D5100 with vivid and on-camera resize to jpeg is no less interesting than CCD from D50. Plus, I see that you can do with only one carcass.
Valentine, without doubting the result, followed your recommendations. Lens 35 / 1,8 DX, D50vsD5100. This is neutral from 5100, grayish, but about the same color was:
This is VIVID from it, obviously saturated:
And this is neutral with the D50, the emerald shade mentioned above appeared. Which may not be necessary for landscapes, but the skin tone often looks beautiful and unusual.
Valeriy, your picture from D5100 to Vivid straight in JPEG right into a small size, in my opinion, is very rich and very warm. In general, in my opinion, if you shoot as an amateur and only for yourself, there is no reason to find fault with the D5100 color in this picture. I am quite happy with this result. Therefore, I would not buy a second carcass and take two with me. Well, except, as Pastor wrote: one lens - one carcass, which in some cases makes sense.
The D50 is a good device, you can also easily get a rich picture in warm colors from it. If you have it, take it off to health. It is not expensive to sell, there is no point in buying such as a second one, and when it’s still lying, you can sometimes click. Successful staff.
Most photographers shoot on Canon. Think about why?
And because CMOC’s skinton is useless.
Because changing the entire body kit and relearning yourself for a new system is very long and unprofitable. It is not yet known if then all this will prove itself.
They all started right away from Kenon, and they taught their interns at Kenons.
Skinton has nothing to do with it.
Mikhail, well, what do you think the skin should be here? Well, what's wrong with it - is it green, yellow, not pink enough for you?
https://radojuva.com/wp-content/uploads/sg/d750-24-120-f-4/nikon-24-120-vr-f-4-on-d750-sample-2.jpg
And you put your hands to the monitor and compare the skinton.
https://yadi.sk/i/UsaYlp6G3M3oLQ d40
Michael, you know, based on your example, you can make 2 equally possible assumptions:
1. You have trouble with monitor color settings
2. Do you have something with the color of your hands (Chinese?) + Trouble with white balance in d40.
As an amateur, the skinton on the original image suits me much more than the skin tone of any hand in your example.
For the comment that I “do not see the divine color of CCD”, I’m ready, let it here.
Vania! This is not a deity. This is a summer tan. Show the skin of your hands.
Your monitor is blunt, and the BB is littered with warm colors (there may be artificial lighting).
Morning sun, yellow wallpaper, summer tan.
>> Professional photographers shoot mostly on Canon. Think about why?
I had the same illusion before coming to Canada.
According to my observations, here Nikon can be found more often and prof. shooting and in household than other brands (in the Toronto area at least), and in Russia, Kenon is much more popular.
This is the capture and retention of the market in certain regions. And thanks to such empty and unsupported statements, “all photographers use the A brand because” this capture continues to be held, and cognitive dissonance can arise among users of other brands. It is not respectful of other users.
Prof. Photographers work with what is more convenient for them and with what they are used to.
Each of the major brands allows you to provide plus or minus similar shooting / color / iso / DD / AF / ... capabilities, which are enough for 99.9% of tasks.
In general, I urge you not to clog up the air with subjective measurements whose brand is longer and thicker.
Good shots to all!
Strange ...
I switched from the Nikon D70s to the Nikon D90 and are delighted with the matrix.
At the 70s, the white balance went into cold shades - a little bluish especially in the room.
At 90m there is nothing like that near.
Now we are waiting for your masterpieces with the correct BB))
For ccd, the correct exposure is simply necessary. A lack of light distorts the color palette of the matrix. Therefore, many do not see the difference, because they cannot take the technically correct frame, but rely on photo editors where they try to stretch something.
A masterpiece in the plot .... A cat with a correct BB is not a masterpiece yet ... ..
In general ... it's time for weddings, Arkady opened a holivar topic, and went to earn his daily bread. Good luck with your work, nice photos, generous clients.
D70s is lying around, once liked the colors.
But now for portraiture I’ll take the D800, without hesitation.
I do not envy the portrayed.
Purely because of the color, will you take d800? It's just that I would also take d800, but because there is a greater scope in ISO and DD, the operation of the device itself and the shutter is faster, ergonomics are better, and in general it is ff. But they would have the same matrix sizes, rate of fire and convenience - the big question is what to take. Starting even d70s is weaker than iso and dd, but the color from the camera is better. If it's all the same to edit, then, of course, the d800 is more convenient in this regard.
Nikon D40 is a good camera, there are a lot of pictures https://500px.com/gears/cameras/nikon/d40
Until now, the D40 with 35 1.8 on it serves as my main walking camera.
I started with the D40, then I was delighted with the transition to the D80, but when the D700 got hold of it much later, I realized that nothing else was needed. He may be heavy, but prof. ergonomics and picture quality are still pleasing.
Arkady, tell me, please, what kind of hardware will be enough to work with 6 megapixel photos in lightroom and photoshop? For money, I won’t draw a modern camera. I think under d40 to take some computer to study.
I think any iron on two cores and 4GB of memory.
As of 2017, almost any computer will be enough, unless it is from a computer science museum.
On the characteristics given by Arkady, provided that the software is correctly selected and tuned, everything will just fly.
"Sufficient" I would call a computer even with half of the sounded parameters.
Computer requirements are described by software vendors. If you install native View NX v.2.10, Nikon states the following: OS is not lower than Windows Vista SP2, CPU is not lower than Pentium 4 / Celeron / Core with a frequency of 1,6 GHz, RAM is not less than 2-4 GB, free space on HDD - 1-3 GB. For lightroom and photoshop, such requirements are formulated on the Adobe website for the corresponding versions of these programs.
As I understand it, you already have a D40. It generates an RAW file with an average size of 6 MB. This is a very compact size, which is processed several times faster than RAW from high-resolution cameras. Nevertheless, such functions as, for example, noise reduction using special algorithms, load the computer very well. Therefore, the weaker you take the computer, the greater the likelihood that you will soon have to change it to a more powerful one. Perhaps it makes sense to take a computer a little more expensive, but so that you do not have to quickly change it to another and spend it, therefore, twice.
Old CMOS with d90 (on the left - what the camera shot, on the right - what came out of raw).
I disagree about the noise of these matrices - D80 with 10MP is much more aggressive at high ISO. Was in use D40, now there is D70 - up to ISO 800 can be safely raised in any conditions, for a camera more than 10 years ago, a very decent result. If you shoot in equal terms, then 1600 will give a pretty decent picture. In general, these cameras definitely make sense to shoot exactly in equal terms - the final result is two heads better than in zhpg.
And what do you disagree with that the older matrix is noisier than the new one? It is a fact. The opposite impression arises only in per-pixel comparison, when a 100% fragment with a 6MP matrix is applied to a 100% fragment with a 10MP matrix. And how in this case the 24MP matrixes make noise :) Compare the noise either at the same viewing size, or when printing at a certain identical size. And yes, you are right that in shooting in equal, you can get the result, at least, not worse than in jpeg - this is true for any camera. And ccd is often taken for on-camera jpegs just because they don't want to bother with unnecessary settings and modifications. But that's as convenient as anyone.
No, I didn’t want to say that these cameras are less noisy than the new D7000 and the like, I said that I wouldn’t put the noise in minus D40 / 50/70.
Yes, I agree, noise is a relative disadvantage. The limit of ISO 1600 is enough for a very wide range of tasks in the presence of certain equipment and the necessary skills.
Phenom on a dog with ISO 1600 noise is not visible since the small size is 1200x800, the frame is dark (almost 2 stops on exposure are not enough) and the balance is gone. You’ll begin to bounce back to see what noise there will be
Hello Arkady. Please help with a choice. I am an amateur, I shoot in two genres :) - grandchildren and landscape on Nikon D700 with 80-200 / 2.8 and 35-70 / 2.8. But lately I've been looking through old frames with Nikon D40 more and more often. Especially landscapes with smooth tonal transitions. I realized that I want to additionally purchase a camera with CCD. The problem of choice: Nikon D40-D50-D70-D80-D200, or Fuji C5?
The D40 has a wonderful picture, the camera is light, which is good, but there is no motor.
How much do the D50-D70-D80-D200 lose in the Nikon D40 picture?
I have been reading your reviews for a long time and your opinion is an expert assessment for me.
Sincerely, Oleg Larenkov.
Try S5 pro
there are a lot of s5 pro on ebay and usually with unrealistically low mileage
it seems that the people who bought them initially should have known why they needed it, so the low mileage is surprising
Or S3 Pro, if there is no desire to overpay
When a question arose about a photo, I always turned to two resources: the Foto.ru club, and yours - radojuva.com.
If earlier these resources were somewhere equivalent for me, today Foto.ru is no longer interesting to me, and your site, on the contrary, is more and more fascinating. I mean not only the technical side, but even more - the artistic side.
I look at your pictures - and in them - the enjoyment of color and joy :).
I think I understood the meaning of your nickname - Radozhiv :).
And more: seeing your answer a little dumbfounded :). For some reason, it was thought that you would not answer.
Thank you, I will look for S5 pro.
With respect.
Here are delicious cameras - https://radojuva.com/2013/04/nikon-mount-legend/
Arkady, if you are interested and guarantee a normal handling, I can provide Minolta 7d, 5D and optics to them for a test for review.
maybe someone will read it, about holivars on the topic of devices - matrices, etc.
consider shooting purely in jpeg, without RAW and discuss saturation, etc. - at least stupid. shooting in jpeg is suitable for most home photo tasks, where you just need to capture the moment of your life)) if your hands are already raw, then a person should understand what it means to shoot digital negatives and how to work with such pictures, at least you need to use a photo editor
digital devices just save on a flash drive a sequence of zeros and ones
ALL photo editors are aimed at ensuring that the photographer can twist this sequence of zeros and ones as he sees fit.
accordingly, you want the colors of the film, fujifilm, or something else - we take and in 10-15 minutes in the editor we make our own profile with our hands, and then apply it wherever you want
I personally see the difference in the images on the matrices in only one case
if it’s a landscape, and it is shot on modern matrices without an anti-moir filter, an increase in clarity is seen, and not software
everything else is purely human fantasy))
but again, this is unless you consider a purely on-camera jpeg without processing
I always talk about the same thing. It’s winter, the color is dull (any), I twist it until I get the one I need. The film, in fact, does the same, only there is one preset.
"Accordingly, you want the colors of the film, fujifilm, or something else - we take it and in 10-15 minutes in the editor we make our own profile with our hands, and then apply it wherever you want"
1) Vyacheslav, draw me such a profile in 10 minutes with your hands, yes, so that regardless of the shooting conditions (lighting conditions, time of day, and weather conditions) this profile painted colors for me a) Kodak Gold 200 b) Fujichrome Velvia 50 c) Kodachrome 64 Professional d) Kodak AeroColor 100.
Let Vyachelav, I'm sure you can. Universal for any conditions, but to 146% match the original.
Why draw a profile that is 146% consistent with the original? Especially for all possible input data, roughly speaking? Velvia will give different results in different pictures and will not be suitable everywhere, the same applies to K64. Or is it the highest value? Are you interested in photography at least something other than the color of the matrices? This is similar to artists discussing canvases and paints instead of painting.
Roman, we are different. You do not see the color (at all), and I may not see something that you see. Color is important to me, not to you. I understood it. Therefore, empty conversation between a blind person (this is not me) and a deaf person is unproductive.
Roman, the man said that in 10-15 minutes he would make a profile of the film with his hands. It's kind of easy. Guo, good luck. I want to see the result on the films I indicated - in 10-15 minutes.
What do you mean “I don't see”? Are you talking about the ability to distinguish shades in a parallel comparison? I'm fine with that. I love good color. I like the color of the film. It's just that color cannot be a value per se, only in a certain context. Because at least I cannot guarantee that my photos will be seen under the same viewing conditions. But okay.
“I personally see the difference in the images on the matrices only in one case
if it’s a landscape, and it is shot on modern matrices without an anti-moir filter, an increase in clarity is seen, and not software
everything else is purely human fantasy)) "
And photos from how many matrices you saw? Vyacheslav, did you carry several cameras with you at once, making the same frame for each and then compare the result?
It will not be the same. Not, if we conditionally take the same lens like Sigma 24-70 / 2.8 EX DG, which came out for all modern mounts, then RAW will be different. Jpg too.
White balance is the same as exposure. Well, ok, fix the camera on a tripod, we will adjust the BB on each camera and the exposure meter. But here all the same, the features of DD, for example, are the same. Pervopyatak and 4th nickel with the same Sigma will still give a different RAW. Ok, take D800, 5DMk4, 1Ds_mk3, D700. And what will we see Vyacheslav in the end, fantasy, right? All frames will be the same and the colors and shades 1: 1, right? Even when I fly on vacation, I take several cameras and lenses. Subjectively, there is always a camera that makes RAW more pleasant for one person and less pleasant for another in color and shade. In addition to the studio (and in the studio there is no need to deal with such heresy in such detail), it is impossible to fit one camera to another.
Honest mother :(
This is a corral. And what are you shooting on vacation, I'm sorry? Colour? Pure abstract virgin light without plot, composition, all this? This is some kind of photo impressionism.
The concept of "white balance" does not apply to RAW, by the way. The sensor under the filters detects exactly the same amount of light, and the BB determined by the camera is simply written in RAW and used in post-processing when calculating the debayering coefficients.
Dear Vecheslav, there is such a wise saying “Each Abraham has his own program”, and if you have a car of time and vision to break in front of the monitor, then excuse me, pass by, your opinion has been taken into account, but you don't need to teach anyone with your thoughts, here you know everyone is taking pictures for themselves, and professionals don't give a shit about a jeep from a high bell tower, but to store an archive with 5+ gigabytes on a disk or 200 ~ 300 mega is already noticeable. Yes, no one forbids converting from a rav to a jeep, but the time spent on this can still be useful to do, and still correctly selected light and parameters usually do not need post processing, so learn the mat part before writing something, a jeep for This is what they came up with * a universal format * probably heard about this, but this is every rabbi Abraham. I wish you health and creativity in your business, be happy and healthy.