Mirrorless (modern sensors) distort at high ISO: they manipulate sensor readout (10D vs A7RV)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- If you chilled out properly and found that the love for cameras and photography has increased in you, then you can help me chill through Buy me a coffee, which is a simple way to donate as low as 2$. Your continued support is most welcome, and will contribute to elevate this channel and to greatly aid my gear acquisition syndrome... so I can keep on being chill and share future treasures with you. This is my buymeacoffee account that is shared between my Real World Audio channel and this wonderful Shutter & Chill channel. Please indicate that you are contributin for the Shutter & Chill, unless you are here for the music bit, in which case it does not matter.. just chill:
www.buymeacoff...
I appreciate every kind gesture. Greetings, János
My main take away from this series of videos is the importance of keeping the ISO down.
I've recently closely observed some work on a d40 with good glass that blows most recent cameras out of the water. It was in experienced hands.
Spot on. All the MILC pictures look plasticky or synthetic to me - never organic.
In modern cameras we pay for more megapixels and faster af module...for me 5d or 10d are souvenirs on furniture
I find it very hard to believe modern cameras cook the raw file to that extent and without a proper comparison i have no reason to believe your claims. Do not use adobe products or camera manufacturer software for creating a comparison, they are mysterious blackboxes that always cook the raw file before showing it to you and it is impossible to see the actual raw file, they will dynamically bias the image to make it look better and thus make for an inaccurate comparison. Instead use software that will allow you to disable almost every processing step like darktable.
Thank you for bringing my attention to darktable. I will try it out, downloading now. I have noticed that options such as automatic lens correction are the main culprits for baking in artifacts (that affects even ISO100). I have heard it as feedback from many professional photographers who said that they are returning to DSLR as cameras for taking photos for themselves as they take much more natural, less baked-in shots. (Although all of them reported that they are keeping the mirrorless for money making projects, as DSLR cannot compete with the speed and ease.) I have done a lot of M50mkII vs 20D/10D/5D comparisons myself, and my observation is that it is MUCH easier to nail a shot with the mirrorless, and most of the shots will be keepers, while with the DSLR only a fraction of the shots are keepers, so I am missing a LOT of moments. However, when I pool together the photos of both cameras of the same shots for a final tally of the 5 best shots of the two combined cameras, usually all 5 are DSLR. Mirrorless, how to say, lacks soul. Not always, and I always see unexpected positive results from mirrorless showing soul (aka superb, dense color information and 3d pop), but they are the exception.
Woah ,does 3d pop character come from lens.. Like Zeiss lens..
Flat' is lens trend today i Guess..
I also have saw some worse picture with 3 pop ,it look Like a two picture paste in A frame..
but paint picture by mirrorless camera is more interesting to me to discover ,thanks for this video,if it true every photographer should know this and Don't let camera manufacturer Lie to them..
You`re sensor distortion story is complete nonsense. It has no scientific base and is at best nostalgia combined with wish full thinking, supported by cherry picked samples that really don`t show anything at all.
I know your wrong because i shoot high mp sensors for at least 14 years now. And all i can say, use GOOD GLASS.
High MP sensors show so much more, it makes good glass really important.
High MP sensors are almost always very good at high iso and retain excepional detail when noise is reduced the right way.
Hello Janos
I’m very much enjoying the series and your presentations.
Would be good to hear more of your image critiquing of the 5d, 10d and other early Canon sensors.
As you make the point, they really are still valid and often produce more natural and organic photos for a fraction of the money.
All the best to you
Thank you, I will follow up on that! ;) I agree fully, they produce absolutely fantastic natural images at minimal cost. They require skills though, but I take that as a positive. I think they are cameras for those who know how to take a shot, and to take shots with great light. They are direct cameras: good photographer = good result. Great light = great result. Inexperienced photographer = poor result. Poor light = poor result...
There is a plethora of Sony Fanboys who love this efx, and I am going to say this. (BTW I am a cinematographer I have shot with pro-Sony cameras such as F5, Venice, FS700 etc) The sensors on the photo cameras are HORRENDOUS. The pictures look fake, the skin tones look plasticky and when it increases the ISO over 3200 it starts to paint the picture ALA Instagram filters. The reason more You tubers love the Sony's is simple, they can use the cameras without lights and push the files on Photoshop, but people had grown accustomed to filtering their skin, so Sony fits right in. The sensors in the photo cameras are not the sensors in the Cinema line. So what you are seeing is just that, the software "painting the picture" when it should be graining it if you will.
That's my second-hand impression of the Sony files available online as well... My photographer friend who has both Canon and Sony told me the same thing you did, that skin tones on the Sony are terrible, he wishes there was a camera that was like a Sony with Canon colors. He uses Sony for some of his filming works, but they strictly stick to Canon for pro photography.
I watched multiple videos. You got me thinking on some stuff. It trully looks like modern mirrorless cameras have more sharpness, probably digitally baked in, etc. On the other hand, I am not sure if dynamic range is always geting better the lower you are, maybe in one direction, like better shadows. I have a cinema camera from Black Magic and at 1000 iso I get better skyes and more details in the white areaa, while ar 100 better details in the shadows.
Very interesting! I have a Canon C100, which also works with higher ISOs like the Black Magic. Have not used it much, but I will look out for how DR / and highlights/shadows depend on the ISO.