>>3814251>You had a 50/50 chance, which is a flaw in his test. Still, looking over the data he gathered, people basically could not tell with any reliability what so ever. Even if there was a difference you picked up on due to experience with the cameras, it is a very, very tiny one.It's kinda small, admittedly. But people couldn't pick it up because they fell for the "CCD equals more saturated colors" fallacy.
>Evidence would be a color chart test.It would have to be a very special color chart full of midtones. Most color charts are devoted to nearly primary, highly saturated colors.
>But you said they made the change when they went from CCD to CMOS. I said roughly around the same time, so people conflate the two things. In many cases, the switch to CMOS of a brand was accompanied by a weakened filter because of the ISO race.
The CCD vs CMOS myth is rooted in ignorance. For example, the D300 came out in 2007 marking the departure from CCD *and* getting noticeably higher ISO values.
>I don't remember anyone complaining about the colorsCan't blame you for being too young to be there.
>It doesn't. Sorry to break that to you sweaty.You asked for this, I hate chartposting but if it takes a stupid chart to prove to you that water is wet here it is. Can you see the crosstalk? 5D II has all the colors more contaminated.
>LOL then the differences are tiny and meaningless. And tiny differences are simple to profile out. Nobody would fuck up a voting test that pit Velvia 50 against Portra, for example.You'd be surprised. Raw Velvia vs raw Portra would be one thing, but processed like this was... it would confuse many. In fact it's a similar argument about sensitivity vs what you can extrapolate from a muddy pic.
