Comparison images Alpha 350 versus Canon 7D

[David Kilpatrick]

I've been doing some comparison shots while testing the Canon. The up-scaled Alpha 350 images come out pretty well in the studio, and the CZ 16-80mm can still hold its own against the new Canon 15-85mm. When the weather gets better (IF the weather gets better!) I will be able to see what the Canon 15-85mm is like on town and country subjects.

http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/eos_7d_comparisons

David

[Javelin]

the sony colours definatly look better but the canon looks like it has moe contrast? is that just the diference in exposure?

[David Kilpatrick]

The Canon definitely has more contrast - but the Sony lens was fitted with a filter, and the backlight is quite strong. On the chestnut shots there was a lot of flare lifting the shadows on the Sony shot so the black point needed moving to 5 in ACR. The Canon had no flare, black point left at 0. This could just be down to having the UV filter on the CZ lens, but it could also be connected with the internal design of the camera, efficient blackening etc.

David

[aster]

Hi,

I don't think that I'm being biased towards Alpha 350+CZ 16-80 when I say that I liked the colours and the colour dispersion / range of the Alpha set better. Especially the yellowish tint of the coins from the Canon disturbed me while the Alpha version developed some natural-looking metal surfaces. The tomatoes have warmer reds and greens and looking more saturated from the Canon but the Alpha version still looks more natural when I compared them to the cluster of tomatoes I took out from the fridge to check for comparison!

The same is true for the chestnuts; compared them to the ones we have at home and the Alpha looks more real with that rather-dark-auburnish colour instead of the brownish appearance of the Canon version.

Thanks for the test David,

Yildiz

[bossel]

The question for me is, which colours are more accurate? The tomatoe-reds are quite different, but which one is closer to reality?

[David Kilpatrick]

The Alpha 350 is much more accurate. The Canon colours are much too warm - all the way, on all shots. Both cameras were set to use Daylight. However, Adobe Camera Raw may not be finalised for the Canon files yet, and white balance is one of the issues - the Alpha 350 works really well with ACR for WB, but the A900 is still not 'correct' and always processes with the same sort of warmth you can see in the Canon files.

I would have to think carefully before preferring the A350 colours though. People like warm colours better generally, not accurate colours.

David

[bfitzgerald]

Have to say the tree shot looks better on the Canon to my eyes, but as ever, could be a WB thing.
DK is right, most people do prefer warmer v cooler images. This is even more evident as many folks just set WB to auto, and it's likely most cameras will record daylight WB cooler than it should be.

WB is one of the most overlooked aspects of photography, I find it disturbing that even well experienced photographers can have images published, with clearly incorrect/unappealing WB, esp a problem for skintones.

[David Kilpatrick]

The tree shot is Canon all the way - one conversion through ACR, one using DPP.

David

[aster]

I would have to think carefully before preferring the A350 colours though. People like warm colours better generally, not accurate colours.

David

I personally prefer the Alpha colours. I know how nicely-interlacing colours chestnuts can have and the Alpha produces exactly that.
For personal libraries I will always keep the native Alpha file...and if someone else prefers a warmer yet less accurate file and asks for it, then....is it not for this process that we all have post-processing software? I'll let them 'cheat' on reality as much as their hearts and eyes would desire.

Yildiz

[alexramos7]

The a350/a380 is a very good camera, their sensor is amazing.

In Image-Resource you can see that high pixel density is not so bad than low density.

Here a380 vs 7D in Image-Resource.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

I think the real problem of series 200/300 is the JPEG compressor and noise pattern.

[David Kilpatrick]

Try this if you think Sony noise and JPEGs are poor - this a 7D ISO 200 in-camera Standard JPEG at default settings:

iso200-noise-CA.jpg (61.36 KiB) Viewed 5093 times

This is at approx 200% view when reduced from a 1600 pixel wide 300% view screen shot. The 7D is noisy, and this is an f/8 sharpness from the £800 15-85mm zoom which, of course, has no CA correction in camera so you are stuck with the fringes. I'm not rushing to buy a 7D and indeed the 7D is why I just disposed of all my remaining Canon APS-C kit. I can't afford to maintain a Canon full frame system and the 1.6X format is heading in a direction I am not interested in.

David

[ECam]

In comparing the pictures from the Alpha 350 vs. the Canon 7D, the difference appears to be due to the variation in the AWB adjustment made by each camera. I was wondering if any of the "custom white balance calibration tools", like an 18% gray card, a Melita coffee filter, or one of the various WB lens caps on the market, was used to custom calibrate the WB for each camera and then compare the pictures. I have read two articles (I will post details of where to read the articles if anyone is interested) that gave rave reviews to a WB calibration lens cap that is under $5 and has shown great results in the test photos published in these articles, using different light sources. There are other white balance calibration lens caps on the market that cost from $60 to $130, that appear to be no better than the $5 version. I have not been able to find any information that shows the relative accuracy in WB calibration between the various lens caps, and I was wondering if anyone had had any experience with them, or knows of an article that has compared them.

[David Kilpatrick]

No AWB adjustment - that is not possible in studio flash. Each camera was set to Daylight white balance (sunshine), which is best for studio flash with softboxes (the Flash WB is intended for direct camera flash, not studio flash which is closer to daylight in spectrum). The Canon WB is warmer, even with in-camera JPEGs; through Adobe Camera Raw the same difference is seen at defaults, but of course can be changed.

I think the lenscap you mean is the Seculine - about £15 in the UK.

David

[ECam]

Hi David, didn't realize that you were shooting in studio with a flash.

The white balance lens cap I was talking about is brand named "Mennon". The web site is www.mennon-usa.com.

Sorry to get off topic (discussion of the difference between the Sony A350 and the Canon 7D), but I was looking for a discussion of white balance calibration and the devices used to set custom white balance in a DSLR. I could not find one on this site and it appeared that the tonal differences of the two cameras might be a white balance issue, had they not been shot with a flash.

I purchased a Sony A350 recently (my first DIGITAL slr) and have been researching the subject of white balance, having learned how much proper white balance can influence a photo. I have been experimenting with different light sources, attempting to adjust the custom WB for each shot and for each light source and combination. I have found that using the AWB setting on the camera, in some instances, produces a less than favorable result. But setting the white balance, using the custom white balance method for my camera, greatly improves the quality of the photos. I was looking for a good, practical method of setting the custom white balance for my camera. I shoot in JPEG and would rather get the white balance as accurate as possible before taking a picture. I would like to avoid shooting in RAW and having to then process every photo in the computer.

Thanks for answering my post and clearing up my understanding of what you were doing.

Edward

[David Kilpatrick]

I have, today, purchased a Vivicap (Seculine) which may be the same product you mention. I will test it and report in due course.

David