Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in
Fujinon EBC 50 f1.4
Post new topic     Reply to topic    Home->Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 1:37 pm    Post subject: Fujinon EBC 50 f1.4 Reply with quote

A small review of the Fuji 50 1.4 Very Happy

On a physic matter, it's sizes are pretty moderate, the filter thread appear to be 49 mm size or less, while the whole lens it's probably a bit smaller than a Canon EF 50 1,8.

The whole lens barrel is made of metal, with a focus ring lovely smooth. Also the aperture ring is perfect, nothing really to claim about, also note that my copy is in marvellous conditions, almost no marks on the paint (just a couple of small paint marks loss on the focus and aperture ring, but i'm far from being worried)

The optic is perfect, not even a mark or a scratch on the elements, and for what i can see looking (carefully) into the barrel, there's no dust.


All in all, the lens feels compact and well built.

Right now i haven't a decent photo of it, btw it looks identical to the one shown here (apart of dust, mine is cleaner, lol)

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographers-marketplace/40485-pentax-me-super-m-50mm-1-4-czj-35mm-2-4-fujinon-ebc-55mm-1-8-a.html

So , let's go for the samples!

Big advice: this lens doesn't love direct sunlight, mostly when wide open (remember that's a f1.4, however closed down it can be a bit better, even though you call it a miracle). That said, the lens has a pretty low amount of CAs, it has some wide open, but if you stop down at f2.8-f4 they disappear).
Another "issue" i noticed, it's a kind of cast, which has some strange behavior: appear to be stronger indoor, while at the sunlight seems to be much more weak or no present at all.



First one, taken at f2.






This one has probably been taken at around f4-f5.6.






These two following are taken both wide open, at f1.4 (probably in the second one focus isn't really accurate, the cat was moving, you know Razz )







This one is somekind of a macro shot, taken with a small extension tube.




Another shot of my cat (Max)




Second samples series.

With these shots i want to show you its behavior under direct light conditions, while comparing with some shade conditions.


This one has been taken wide open, there are some CAs, but honestly, not as much as i thought.






About its bokeh, i still have to decide if i like it or not: the lens seems over-corrected, and the bokeh is somewhat hard, but sometimes it seems better than you could expect...however, mostly depends on presence and amount of highlights points behind the subject.








In this photo, the sunlight clearly created some problems: there's no flare, but a loss of contrast: i think that a hood may solve this issue (at least in part).






Here, again another comparison: the first pic, taken in the shade, it's ok, the second one (shoot indoor, sunlight coming from the window behind my cat) shows a critical loss of contrast, while the third one, again indoor, is acceptable.





PostPosted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you! Less impressive what I expected Sad


PostPosted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
Thank you! Less impressive what I expected Sad


Well, it isn't a Tak for sure... btw i like its colours and the almost lack of CAs on high contrast zones. Unfortunatly Fuji haven't build a milestone in photographic tools history, about lenses (they have been a bit more lucky on the D-SLR side, lately...but seems like they have left even this side).


PostPosted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, it is. Anyway I am very happy to see here these lens samples, I couldn't see much taken with Fuji lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you. I have a good respect for Fuji EBC lenses I have a nice one and have seen many example prints from other models but not the most common 50mm models.
EBC was a coating that is reputed to be as good if not better than Pentax SMC, my own f4.5 400mm beast shows no CA even wide open and has no problem facing the light.
I do see a cast due to PP which could easily be corrected but you don’t state if the shots were JPEGS from the camera or adjusted RAW shots? I assume they are DSLR shots so no cast would be the fault of the lens.
The 50mm and I think the 28mm may be fairly common but other Fuji EBC lenses fetch fairly high prices. I have seen a few 135mm sell for near Ł200 on eBay.
I don't need any more 50mm or 28mm lenses and the longer Fuji EBC examples are more than I would now pay so I doubt I will ever have any more great Fuji lenses.
I think your examples give an indication to how the lens could perform, thank you for sharing them. I enjoyed the view.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not sure the above photos are the best examples. I dont own this 1.4 but I do have the 1.8 55mm and this lens is very sharp and quite impressive, and yes it is just as good if not better than the Takumar. I personally prefer it over the Tak.


Here's samples found on fliker (50mm 1.4 ebc glass)
There are many more good samples of this lens if you search the net.







I think these photos will give you a better idea about the Fujinon EBC 50mm 1.4


Last edited by spiralcity on Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:52 am; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice samples and more in line with what I would expect to see from the lens.
It is always of interest to see ‘Test’ shots and it often easy to make a judgement by looking at the images and reading the testers opinion.
Not knowing how the tests were made, especially basic info like file type, exposure settings and PP details isn’t that important when the quality of the images can clearly be seen.
I can take a picture with the best lens you wish to give me and make it look like a bottle end.
I often do with some of my own better lenses! Laughing
But seriously it is a little understood fact that it can actually be more difficult to get the best from a great lens than it is to get a decent result from a mediocre one.
A little similar to asking a decent driver to put in a few good laps with a F1 car.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob Leslie wrote:
Nice samples and more in line with what I would expect to see from the lens.
It is always of interest to see ‘Test’ shots and it often easy to make a judgement by looking at the images and reading the testers opinion.
Not knowing how the tests were made, especially basic info like file type, exposure settings and PP details isn’t that important when the quality of the images can clearly be seen.
I can take a picture with the best lens you wish to give me and make it look like a bottle end.
I often do with some of my own better lenses! Laughing
But seriously it is a little understood fact that it can actually be more difficult to get the best from a great lens than it is to get a decent result from a mediocre one.
A little similar to asking a decent driver to put in a few good laps with a F1 car.


When posting test shots, it is always better to post the best pics you can render from the lens at any give aperture.
It is unfair to post photos that are not true renditions of the lenses capablities.
It is truly unfair to post test shots that are of sub-par performance. This does not represent the lens well at all.
Fujinon EBC glass is tact sharp. I sure didnt see that in any of the photos posted in the test.

I'm not trying to be mean or degrade the photos, but when someone takes on the responsiblity of testing a lens then the upmost care should be taken when recording the images.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The samples you shown all 500 pixel sized on their bigger side, and the last two are over-sharpened, especially the one in the middle.

My samples were jpegs out of the camera, which is a 40D. No postwork made on them. Ah, every jpeg has its own exif, i guess no one noticed it (of course it doesn't contain the "f" value).

I can surely post some more sharpened and at the size that you seem preferring:




However, images taken with this lens shows a magenta cast, and i'm sorry but it's likely to be a lens issue and not a wrong white balance issue, i could have shown you that there isn't, but it's there and in some shots it's a bit strong.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How do you know it is a lens issue if the samples are JPEGs straight from the camera?
Did you measure the colour temp, did you then set the colour temp or was the WB auto? Have you calibrated (Fine tuned) your WB on the camera or did you shoot a 18% grey card as a reference for every shot?
No lens test can show what a lens can do unless you shoot RAW.
No camera can show what it can do unless you shoot RAW.
No in camera processing can ever get it 100% correct unless by luck. It’s a dumb machine that has no idea what you were photographing or what colour it was supposed to be.
A cast will always be due to PP. If it was a just a different rendering of a few colour tones then maybe (Big maybe) it has something to do with the lens.
The fact is Digital cameras don't record colour.
A sensor is an analogue device that only records luminosity values those pixels that record Blue, Green or Red values only record greyscale values. The colour is added when the information is processed according to your Colour temp information. In the case of a RAW file no colour information is fixed and can be changed to whatever the user wants. In the case of a camera JPEG the camera takes a good guess based on its auto WB and the manufactures default values if you have set a fixed WB.
Why do you think your camera has so many WB controls and adjustments?
You can prove the reliability of your straight from the camera JPEG processing by having a wander about with a coloured sheet and photographing it in different conditions, you will find the colour to be different on almost every file.
I should also add that changes to WB made to a JPEG after in camera processing will have serious effects on the quality of the image. Once its a JPEG it's all too late the info has been thrown away.
Yet another way of looking at this is:- If you were to put a coloured BW photography filter on your lens and then shoot your digital on Auto WB there would be no sign of the filter. If you did the same shot as a RAW file again there would be no filter effect but you could reproduce it by changing the WB to whatever the conditions the shot was taken in (Sunlight, cloud etc) A cast any cast can only be put on a digital image by a fault/mistake in the colour balance. User fault.

Don’t feel too bad about it. I know a man who believes all images should be shoot at 5500K and never changed because that is the only true and right way!


PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Other lenses i've used in the same conditions don't show that cast. This does.

It can be corrected using a correct white balance, but that means that it needs its own white balance, and overall i've seen that this cast isn't predictable, so it could be more or less present.


Thanks for the pretty useful thing about dumb machines, the next time i need to show you all an image taken with a lens i'll process it to take out even the smaller imperfection that could offend someone's pride.


Ah, however, just a note that came to my mind: if the camera does record a cast with its own white balance, and it's even for a small but significant part, a lens issue, how do you think that lens could behave on a film camera, where you, of course, don't have a white balance? without even talking about the different response between films...


P.S. i use raw format since i had my first digital compact camera, a Fujifilm.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mUg wrote:
Other lenses i've used in the same conditions don't show that cast. This does.

It can be corrected using a correct white balance, but that means that it needs its own white balance, and overall i've seen that this cast isn't predictable, so it could be more or less present.


Thanks for the pretty useful thing about dumb machines, the next time i need to show you all an image taken with a lens i'll process it to take out even the smaller imperfection that could offend someone's pride.


Ah, however, just a note that came to my mind: if the camera does record a cast with its own white balance, and it's even for a small but significant part, a lens issue, how do you think that lens could behave on a film camera, where you, of course, don't have a white balance? without even talking about the different response between films...


P.S. i use raw format since i had my first digital compact camera, a Fujifilm.


What I see is exposure problems and focus issues. I have a shot of a cat taken on film that is a bit soft because I shot it wide open and I probably didnt have the best eyes for the best focusing in the dark. My pic looks much better than any of the images you posted. Keep in mind this photo is on film and has been scanned. So this image had benn degraded through multiple processes.
Fujinon 55mm 1.8 EBC


I also have this shot of my dog using same glass.



and heres one I posted on another thread. I cropped it a bit.



I can find hundreds of examples of this lens used on digital that are far superior to any examples that you posted.

If you decide to test a lens be sure you run the test accordingly.


Last edited by spiralcity on Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:17 pm; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mUg wrote:
Other lenses i've used in the same conditions don't show that cast. This does.

It can be corrected using a correct white balance, but that means that it needs its own white balance, and overall i've seen that this cast isn't predictable, so it could be more or less present.


Thanks for the pretty useful thing about dumb machines, the next time i need to show you all an image taken with a lens i'll process it to take out even the smaller imperfection that could offend someone's pride.


Ah, however, just a note that came to my mind: if the camera does record a cast with its own white balance, and it's even for a small but significant part, a lens issue, how do you think that lens could behave on a film camera, where you, of course, don't have a white balance? without even talking about the different response between films...


P.S. i use raw format since i had my first digital compact camera, a Fujifilm.





Tell me why are the Flickr shots far superior to your images? I'm speaking strickly exposure and clear focus? Post me an example of one of you test shots, sized down and sharpened that looks nearly as good as any of the flickr samples. I bet you cant.
The only photo i seen that looks to have proper exposure is the macro shot. You could probally size that pic down and make it look very good, but you would be hard pressed to do the same with the other samples.
It's obvious there are exposure issues in your examples. I feel this has NOTHING to do with the lens but alot to do with how the lens is being used.

Your statment about hurting peoples pride is not the issue.
People come to this site seeking accurate information about MF lenses. So, please when running a test give the best examples possible. As stated earlier, you should always shoot in RAW, forget JPEG when running a test.
EXPOSURE is the key issue with your images. Did I already say this? Rolling Eyes Very Happy

Please dont take this personal. My statements are not an attack on you. I have just stated an observation about this test. Perhaps you can run a new test if you feel up to it?

Perhaps you would like to sell me this lens? Very Happy I've been looking for a good copy at a reasonable price. I would be more than happy to do my own test with this lens mounted to my K20D.

Click here to see an example of a proper test.
http://forum.mflenses.com/voigtlander-58mm-f-1-4-vs-topcor-58mm-f-1-4-t13216.html


PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mUg wrote:
Ah, however, just a note that came to my mind: if the camera does record a cast with its own white balance, and it's even for a small but significant part, a lens issue, how do you think that lens could behave on a film camera, where you, of course, don't have a white balance? without even talking about the different response between films...

P.S. i use raw format since i had my first digital compact camera, a Fujifilm.



Sorry I thought I had made that clear.
It seems you are taking misinformation from some other forum users who don't understand digital.
I will give you a quote and a link to the facts.
Of course it is basic common sense once you have grasped the basics of how a sensor and digital camera work, but when you get deeper into colour profiles it is almost a lifetimes work.
As I said before if you don't like the colour cast your lens has on digital then put a coloured filter on to correct it!!! Laughing
Of course it won't make one bit of difference

Quote
A film camera can output a transparency. The film manufacturer controls the colour. A digital camera outputs a digital file full of numbers. Those numbers do not become colour until you image them on a monitor or printer.

Inside the digital camera there is RAW output from the sensor. A processor in the camera then converts it from RAW to some standard colour space and outputs a file. It only becomes colour when that file is imaged on an accurately calibrated and profiled monitor or printer.
Given this, it has always bothered me when a person reviews a new camera and comments on the colour that the camera, alone, produces.
Digital cameras do not output colour. Cameras are only the first link in the chain.

The good news is you can adjust everything. You should think of a RAW file as a latent image on film. You can control the development, the gamma, the color gamut, and the tonal mapping. You can emulate almost any film or create a whole new look. You can get either pleasing color or fairly accurate color.

The bad news is you can adjust everything. To get what you want requires a considerable amount of new knowledge and skill.

A digital camera or scanner does not have a color gamut.

I rather like this simple but factual article.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/whats-the-problem.shtml

I know there will be a few who will choose to ignore this (Or not understand it) and continue with their ideas that the lens, the manufactures sensor or the maiden name of their mother will effect the colour (I refer to when shooting RAW)


PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whilst all that is true Rob, it's beside the point. You can't deny that different lenses can cause a camera to interpret the colours of the same image in a different way. Of course you can correct a cast easily in PP or set the WB for that particular lens, but I don't want to go to the trouble of doing that for every shot. I need to be fairly confident that auto WB will give me a picture that looks about right.

So I think mUg is quite right to point out that his lens causes a magenta cast, but it's probably a characteristic of his particular copy. I have a S-M-C Tak 1.4/50 that causes a golden cast (radiation poisoning) and a Super-Tak 3.5/35 which churns out green pictures.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for your point Peter.
The majority if not all the people I know do adjust every photo and they shoot RAW which as you know sets no WB.
I think it doubtful that anybody who shoots RAW doesn’t make adjustments to every picture. Even those shooting a few JPEGs still open them in a Photo programme, have a look maybe crop and most likely finely adjust levels and WB.
If anybody wishes trouble free P&S it is better to shoot film and send it to the lab.
In reality every shot you take with a digital (JPEG) is adjusted by the camera and the adjustment is different for every exposure.
There is no consistency and there can be never be any until we have processors which can think and recognise images with their brain!
I mentioned in an earlier post that you can prove this by taking a coloured sheet for a walk about and do some shots in different conditions with the camera on Auto WB JPEG output. You will find virtually every shot has a different colour rendering of your sheet. The difference may be very small and may well be due to different exposure, different light, a different angle that the light is reflected off your sheet, but the thing is it is different. The auto WB and auto JPEG conversion has not delivered a consistent result.
As for colour casts in lenses have you tried shooting (Digital camera auto WB) with a BW colour filter on your lens?
A “different lenses can cause a camera to interpret the colours”
A digital camera does not record colours.
With a digital camera sensor a lens will only have different degrees of rendering contrast and sharpness between colour tones and can in some cases give very pleasant transitions between colour tones. The contrast of a lens and its individual contrast for different colours will affect the luminosity value of a tone for example a high contrast lens may cause a sensor to record a Black while a low contrast lens well may only deliver enough light for the sensor to record a Grey.
How those differences in tones are processed as colour is entirely up to the user or in the case of a JPEG the guess work of the camera processor.
In 99% of cases, if you have a great lens that has a fantastic contrast range difference between Greens and Blues (Ideal for BW) you are unlikely to see those differences if shooting JPEG with Auto WB, the camera will just iron it out.
This is why we always shoot RAW and do our best to adjust every picture

I remember about three years ago a new comer to digital photography and a member of another MF site posted a set of test photos from all his lenses showing the different colour rendering of them all. He claimed they were shot as RAW.
Of course somebody downloaded the image adjusted the colour balance and reposted the set as perfectly matching images. The person got very annoyed and he eventually made a big fuss about resigned from the group.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob Leslie wrote:
The majority if not all the people I know do adjust every photo and they shoot RAW which as you know sets no WB.

My camera does (Canon 400D). I always use RAW format and I adjust and convert to JPG with the Canon Digital Photo Professional program that comes on the CD. This has exactly the same WB options as the camera. I can also change the Picture Style in the same way.

Quote:
If anybody wishes trouble free P&S it is better to shoot film and send it to the lab.

For trouble-free P&S I use a Canon Ixus 60 which only outputs JPG. I don't have any problems, and quite often the pictures look better than the DSLR!

Quote:
As for colour casts in lenses have you tried shooting (Digital camera auto WB) with a BW colour filter on your lens?

No, not on a digital camera. What would be the point?

Quote:
A “different lenses can cause a camera to interpret the colours”
A digital camera does not record colours.

Yes, you said that before. The fact remains that the camera interprets the colour information from different lenses in different ways. Whether it's the sensor or the camera software doesn't make a lot of difference to me. All I know is that with certain lenses I'm going to get a colour cast on the RAW files off the memory card. Which is exactly what mUg was saying too.

Quote:
I remember about three years ago a new comer to digital photography and a member of another MF site posted a set of test photos from all his lenses showing the different colour rendering of them all. He claimed they were shot as RAW.
Of course somebody downloaded the image adjusted the colour balance and reposted the set as perfectly matching images. The person got very annoyed and he eventually made a big fuss about resigned from the group.

Well, I'm not surprised, to be honest, I feel sorry for him. Anyone can adjust color balances, what does that prove? I agree with that member, he wanted his pictures to be consistent with different lenses, just like me and mUg.

I think perhaps before you answer you might like to check out the format of CR2 files and how they can be manipulated with Canon software (DPPViewer).


PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My offer stands!

I am more than willing to buy this poor lens from mUg. Very Happy

I would be more than willing to run a test of my own. I would like to see the side by side test results.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

spiralcity wrote:
My offer stands!

I am more than willing to buy this poor lens from mUg. Very Happy

I would be more than willing to run a test of my own. I would like to see the side by side test results.

I don't quite know whether you're joking or not, and as mUg is not a native English speaker I'm pretty sure he doesn't either. I don't think his lens is poor at all. The images look a lot better to me than some of the examples you gave. I think he should hang on to it.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

peterqd wrote:
spiralcity wrote:
My offer stands!

I am more than willing to buy this poor lens from mUg. Very Happy

I would be more than willing to run a test of my own. I would like to see the side by side test results.

I don't quite know whether you're joking or not, and as mUg is not a native English speaker I'm pretty sure he doesn't either. I don't think his lens is poor at all. The images look a lot better to me than some of the examples you gave. I think he should hang on to it.


Show me one exaqmple posted in his test with proper exposure. Shocked

As I stated earlier, my comments are not an attack on mUg, just an observation on his test.

I offered film examples which have been scanned. i dont believe any of his examples have the proper exposure that my pics offered.

SORRY!

As stated, my offer stands.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

spiralcity wrote:
SORRY!

That's OK, no need to apologise. Smile


PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

spiralcity wrote:
peterqd wrote:
spiralcity wrote:
My offer stands!

I am more than willing to buy this poor lens from mUg. Very Happy

I would be more than willing to run a test of my own. I would like to see the side by side test results.

I don't quite know whether you're joking or not, and as mUg is not a native English speaker I'm pretty sure he doesn't either. I don't think his lens is poor at all. The images look a lot better to me than some of the examples you gave. I think he should hang on to it.


Show me one exaqmple posted in his test with proper exposure. Shocked

As I stated earlier, my comments are not an attack on mUg, just an observation on his test.

I offered film examples which have been scanned. i dont believe any of his examples have the proper exposure that my pics offered.

SORRY!

As stated, my offer stands.


I agree.

" think perhaps before you answer you might like to check out the format of CR2 files and how they can be manipulated with Canon software (DPPViewer"

I have had many Canon cameras my first DSLR was a 300D Before that I shot Raw on a G3 and I now still use my Canon G5 and always shoot RAW with it. I have up to date Canon conversion software inc Pro. many of my friends shoot Canon, the RPS club I belong to has a majority of Canon DSLR users (Many are close friends and shooting mates)
No I don't use Canon RAW converter but I keep up to date with it. Most of my Canon friends use ACR as I do.
At present I shoot RAW with my Pentax K10D, K100D, Canon G5 and Ricoh GX100. I try never to shoot JPEG, whenever I have I regret it. But each to his own and we all have different ways of enjoying photography.
I also enjoy some 'Fun' film and shoot with the Pentax ME Super and many RF compacts. I don't now do any developing or darkroom work but I do my own film scanning.

I'm sorry you miss all the points but don't get upset about.
I accept 100% that you get many colour casts with different lenses.
I get nice and different transitions of colour tones with all the different lenses I use and as you point out it is pretty pointless putting a coloured filter on any lens with a digital camera!


PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

peterqd wrote:
spiralcity wrote:
SORRY!

That's OK, no need to apologise. Smile


Hi peteqd. Very Happy

I am sorry, truly. This is gone a bit too far actually. Confused

mUg if you read this believe me, I did not mean to degrade you in any manner.

My only point was about conducting an adequate test. A war of words proves nothing.

When I offered to buy the lens it was in respones to mUgs disapointment with the glass. I've been trying to buy this lens for quite some time now. So mUg, if you dont want the lens I will be more than happy to buy this lens from you. PM me if your interested.

As far as me doing my own test, that would be to satisfy my own curiosity about the performance of the lens. Nothing more. I would be more than happy to post my findings. If I found the same thing as mUg I would be more than willing to admit it and tell mUg he was right.

In any case, "HAPPY HOLIDAYS".


Last edited by spiralcity on Thu Dec 18, 2008 6:02 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob Leslie wrote:
I mentioned in an earlier post that you can prove this by taking a coloured sheet for a walk about and do some shots in different conditions with the camera on Auto WB JPEG output. You will find virtually every shot has a different colour rendering of your sheet. The difference may be very small and may well be due to different exposure, different light, a different angle that the light is reflected off your sheet, but the thing is it is different. The auto WB and auto JPEG conversion has not delivered a consistent result.

What do you expect ? I spend some of my time photographing flowers. The flower colour depends upon the time of day when the picture is taken. When the sun is high in the sky its colour is different from when it is low in the sky. The incident light on the flower is different and its colour - as perceived by the eye - is different. Why should the camera not recognise this difference. ?

Quote:
A digital camera does not record colours.


If I take a picture of a sodium street light (when it's on) my camera records a yellow light. Now the light from a sodium lamp is rather pure consisting of light of a single wavelength of about 589 nm (before anyone corrects me - yes I do know that there are in fact two lines but the wavelength difference is very small < 1nm). By convention we call light of this wavelength yellow. So the camera does not record yellow ? Well it records something because we end up with a picture. In fact each of the sensor elements (sensels or shall I call them pixels ?) responds to this yellow light or not at all. If none of them respond we don't see anything. Let's assume that the sensels covered with a blue filter don't respond at all whereas the red and green sensels do. If the responses of the red and green sensels, to light of different wavelengths, are known - and presumably they are - then from the combined response of the red and green sensels we know that we have detected light of wavelength 589nm - yellow. Now the presence of this yellow light is stored in a set of digital numbers which are stored somewhere. During subsequent processing these numbers can be changed and the resulting output to printer or screen may be very different to to the sodium yellow seen by the camera. However I don't think that means that the camera has not recorded the colour yellow. The situation is complicated of course by the fact that the sensels record light intensity (luminosity) as well as wavelength (colour) information. And if Nikon (for example) does give away all its secrets to Adobe then the two different deconvolutions used in Capture NX and ACR can produce different results.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe if you try other RAW converters you will find they offer the same or better options than Canon software does, but if you are happy with it that’s all that matters. The Pentax RAW conversion software is also very user friendly with many good features but isn’t anywhere near third party software. IMO Nikon RAW conversion does really require third party software unless you are going to buy their pro version.
Versions of ACR from 4.6 also offer the option to create the main camera manufacture s default colour gamut. In other words if you shoot Nikon you can have your RAW files looking like Canon ones. There is really nothing it can’t do which is often a problem in itself. The last thing it could be called is simple unless you just switch the auto on, but if you did that you may as well have shot JPEG! With today’s third party RAW converters as far as conversion is concerned it makes no difference what camera you shoot
Of course all ACR RAW file information does come from the manufacture and only one has ever tried to hide any of that information (Nikon) the result was a huge protest from users and a big drop in orders they quickly apologised and reassured everybody that they would make their RAW file information open to all third parties. At default values there is no difference between any manufactures RAW defaults and any third party one. Many users have their own favourite converter and often it is just what you have become used to using. I have just become used to using ACR and with all the updates it is about all I can manage.
Two of my cameras do actually shoot DNG and the other two have long been fully supported by all the third party RAW converters.
All this business about RAW and colour is far too big a subject to be gone into on a forum. The Luminous landscape site has a six and a half hour DVD on the subject, but most of the topics are also covered in their excellent articles. If I continue with the topic I will only once again be posting links to their information.
It is reassuring that the people taking part in this discussion do shoot RAW and do have an understanding of what is going on. That’s much better than reading there is no advantage to shooting RAW and what’s the point etc.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Home -> Manual Focus Lenses All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum