# Round ii- nikon d700 vs. x-e2



## funnyfarm

My husband let me up my budget a bit. I was deluding between the 5dc and an x-e1. Both used. 

I really wanted the x-e2 over the e1, so DH let me up my budget a bit. With that price I can get a d700 used. HOLY CRAP did that confuse things. I've had the price late kf shooting the d700 and that camera and I just clicked. I made skme of my favorite images w that one. I honestly think part of the reason is the fantastic bright amazing viewfinder and my funky vision. It was like peanut butter and jelly. 

But. I have 6 kids and wonder if I really want to lug around a d700.  it would have the 50 1.8 g on it for this year so not too heavy. 

Sorry for typos, iphone.


----------



## vipgraphx

D700 is an excellent camera with the 50 1.8g would be great for taking shots of the kids. IF you don't get the grip its not to bad as far as weight. Once you add the grip and more batteries it does get heavy especially all day. That was one reason I sold mine but now that I want a new camera and playing with small ones I really miss the size of the gripped D700..it just feels solid in the hands.

Keep in mind with the grip and AA batteries you can get 8fps great for actions shots of the kids as long as you are in focus. Also you can eventually build your lens collection and upgrade body later with no problems.

IF you want to go small the NEX 6 , NEX 7 from sony is a great quality camera. Alos the e md1  is another great option.


----------



## funnyfarm

no thoughts on the x-e2?  I can compare this to the ones you've mentioned.
my heart says "D700!!" and my head says "but a new toyyyyy! one of your favorite lifestyle photogs shoots with a x-e1 and you wanna be like her" then my heart says "but d700!!!!!"   I will be buying either used.  is it just me or does it seem like there is more to screw up on the tiny x-e2. pieces to break etc.  I just feel like the dslr's- especially the well built ones are just sturdier etc.  but the idea of carrying around a tiny little bitty thing that has the power of the d700.. kwim? (well besides the af) Im comparing both and really it seems like they are very similar iso, iq, etc.  af is slower on x-e2, but......  probably not THAT much slower.  i relaly did LOVE the d700 that i needed to sell before, and goodness is it so much cheaper now!

is 77,000 clicks pretty decent?  gosh I feel so conflicted now.  It's like an old boyfriend vs a new one, make sense?  my friend photog just LOVES her x-e1 (online friend that isn't local) and I'd love to love it too!  im afraid to buy used- what if i hate it!?  I do hear that hte auto white balance is REALLY good on it and man i hate fiddling with white balance.


----------



## Derrel

I think you might REALLY like the compactness of the X-E1. Have you read any reviews of it, like at sansmirror.com?

Fujifilm X-E1 Review | Sans Mirror ? mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan

Or, the newer X-E2

Mirrorless for the Holidays | Sans Mirror ? mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan


----------



## funnyfarm

Thanks!!!  I'm still confused as ever. Lol. While I'm definitely no pro, I really loved the d700 and have always wished that I hadn't had sell it. Now that I can actually get one again, I wonder if I'd rather have something smaller. I do also LOVE the bokeh of the ff w 85 (couldn't get the 85 til next year tho) but it's not absolutely necessary and really back then I was into posed portraits and wanted to go pro. This time around I really just want to have fun, have control over my images, and have great iq. And again, more of a lifestyle approach this time around. 

Im not sure. I know no one can make this decision for me. It's so confusing, that I can finally get my "baby" back and now I'm thinking about fuji. FUJI, what!? Was never on my radar before. 

Is it's wrong of me to wonder if mirrorless is just a fad?  Or is this really the new  dslr for enthusiasts of the future !?  I'm clearly not wealthy and this is a very hard choice because I don't want to switch up next year.  I'm so drawn to these little beauties now. 

WishI could afford to rent one.


----------



## sk66

Different animals for different reasons... IMO, either one you buy is going to be a compromise of some sort. The one thing about the D700 is there won't be any (many) situation where you could say the camera was the limiting factor.

Fuji's are nice. They have a unique image quality kind of like shooting with Fuji Velvia film. I'm happy to do a lot of "static" work using one. My biggest problem with any of the mirror less cameras is AF speed. So far, I haven't seen/tried, or heard of any that can match typical DSLR phase detection AF.... even the on sensor phase detection hybrid systems like the XE-2 has (I have the X20 which is very similar in this aspect, and a V2 that also has this system). For active shooting of kids this could be a significant limitation.


----------



## jaomul

Mirrorless are so ggood now but if the weight doesn't bother you dslrs with their bigger size and optical viewfinder and hands on control are still better. Though I have not used the olly em1. Portraits with an 85mm on fullframe are great.


----------



## Ysarex

I have the x-e2 which I started using about 3 months ago. I traded in a   5dmkII and lenses for the x-e2 and lenses. I made the swap because I   couldn't make myself use the 5d given it's size and weight. In   comparison the x-e2 is puny and for me a breath of fresh air. I've been   using it happily since I got it.

In good light with the ISO low, the x-e2 holds it's own against the 5d   in terms of IQ. In some ways it's maybe a tad better, but that's more a   function of Fuji's lenses. I bought the 14mm f/2.8 and it's simply   stunning -- the reduced sensor to flange distance matters and Fuji knows  how to make it count! Fuji's X-Trans technology does make a difference  -- it matters  to unload that bleepin' AA filter. That said get a Nikon  D800e and  learn to love moire! In real low light however the full-frame  sensors  trounce the smaller sensors. You're not going to change the  physics of  that and if you want to chase a couple kids around indoors  illuminated  by a couple 75w blubs the Fuji is going to fall out of the  race. You're comparing a full-frame to an APS sensor and there will be  differences one of which is low light performance.

The AF speed problems that the earlier Fuji's suffered from have been   corrected in the x-e2. Fuji in fact now claims the x-e2 has faster AF   than any of the competing DSLRs. That's an advertising lie of course but   the x-e2's AF is now comparable to the best camera's available. AF is  virtually instantaneous.

The build quality of the x-e2 is  excellent and the camera is designed to be used by a photographer.  Essential controls are immediately accessible -- equal or better than my  5d. There is a program shift wheel directly under my right thumb. ISO  access is a function button right next to the shutter release. The  lenses have aperture rings (whoopee!) for someone my age adjusting the  f/stop by turning a ring on the lens is right!! -- holding a button and  turning a jog wheel is wrong!!! So even though the x-e2 is every bit a  modern electronic marvel, it feels like a camera and for someone like me  it's comforting. Dear Lord!! the 14mm has a DOF scale inscribed on the  barrel!!! Hardly necessary but it just feels so right. THANK YOU FUJI!!

However the x-e2 is an EVF camera and no matter how good someone tells   you modern EVF's have gotten they do not compete with and OVF   viewfinder. In terms of seeing what you're photographing EVFs are   fundamentally inferior nearly across the board. You can get used to   them. I'm adapting well, but if there's one thing I miss in my old 5d   that's it. I traded away size and weight -- big plus but I also traded  away a great OVF -- big minus. Interestingly there is one way in which  EVFs have an advantage. When the light gets dim an OVF gets dim. The  EVF in dim light can stay bright.

If you intend to use the camera's JPEG processing engine the general consensus is that Fuji's EXR processor is 2nd to none and you can expect it to therefore be as good or better than Nikon's EXPEED processor. Fuji's raw files are a little troublesome because of the X-Trans sensor. They are not as well supported in the industry as standard Bayer array raw files. At this point Adobe, Capture One, PhotoNinja and Irridient provide good support.

Joe


----------



## funnyfarm

this is all super informative.  thank you all so much!  

I still dont know.  *bangs head on wall*


----------



## sk66

Ysarex said:


> The AF speed problems that the earlier Fuji's suffered from have been   corrected in the x-e2. Fuji in fact now claims the x-e2 has faster AF   than any of the competing DSLRs. That's an advertising lie of course but   the x-e2's AF is now comparable to the best camera's available. AF is  virtually instantaneous.


Have you used it for anything particularly demanding? I.e. sports/action w/ AF-c and tracking? 
IME the phase detection is a HUGE improvement over contrast detection in speed, but nowhere near as capable as a mid-upper tier DSLR w/ an AF-S/USM lens.


----------



## Ysarex

sk66 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> The AF speed problems that the earlier Fuji's suffered from have been   corrected in the x-e2. Fuji in fact now claims the x-e2 has faster AF   than any of the competing DSLRs. That's an advertising lie of course but   the x-e2's AF is now comparable to the best camera's available. AF is  virtually instantaneous.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you used it for anything particularly demanding? I.e. sports/action w/ AF-c and tracking?
> IME the phase detection is a HUGE improvement over contrast detection in speed, but nowhere near as capable as a mid-upper tier DSLR w/ an AF-S/USM lens.
Click to expand...


I'm not a sports photographer and so I'm not really the person to make that determination. Fuji claims a .08 second focusing time for the x-e2 using the 14mm lens. Like I said; it's from the marketing department. My experience is that the auto focus in use is fast enough that I often doubt that it worked and I get suspicious, but it worked. The x-e2 is capable of 7 fps in burst mode and I have tested that on moving traffic in which case the AF tracking had no problem keeping up. Chasing kids around the house shouldn't be a problem.

Joe


----------



## funnyfarm

Thanks for all the advice. 

Id if like to throw one more camera into the mix. 

All for for about the same price I can get
canon 5d classic, 85 1.8, 35 or 40. Maybe even some macro filters. 
D700 and 50 1.8g
fuji x-e1 Helios 44m and 35 1.4 
x-e2 and 35


keeling in mind that whatever I buy into I want to stick with forever. And I won't be able to upgrade or add on to my gear until next year.
one of the main things I'm excited about is the great white balance the x-e1/2 are supposed to have. I've read that it's great a few times now. I HAAAAATE messing with skintones and white balance. I do shoot raw though.


----------



## Ysarex

funnyfarm said:


> Thanks for all the advice.
> 
> Id if like to throw one more camera into the mix.
> 
> All for for about the same price I can get
> canon 5d classic, 85 1.8, 35 or 40. Maybe even some macro filters.
> D700 and 50 1.8g
> fuji x-e1 Helios 44m and 35 1.4
> x-e2 and 35
> 
> 
> keeling in mind that whatever I buy into I want to stick with forever. And I won't be able to upgrade or add on to my gear until next year.
> one of the main things I'm excited about is the great white balance the x-e1/2 are supposed to have. I've read that it's great a few times now. I HAAAAATE messing with skintones and white balance. I do shoot raw though.



Anything you've heard about the white balance of the Fuji cameras has nothing to do with their raw RAF files. There is no white balance in a raw file. People who are raving about Fuji's WB or Fuji's colors or the Fuji "look" are all referring to the output from the camera's EXR image processor. They're talking about the camera's JPEG output and most of them are just this side of blind.

If you shoot raw you should know that no WB data is recorded in the raw sensor capture. Setting the WB is one of the necessary steps in the raw conversion process and it's no different for Fuji RAF files than for any other camera's raw files. You may be operating under some misconceptions. You haven't been reading the Internet, have you?

Joe


----------



## bribrius

I went to a walmart the other day to pick up something I ordered site to store. while I was waiting for them to find the package out back I started looking around the customer service area. They had a table of cameras that was discounted because they were last years items, overstock, whatever. Lot of junk on the table but a couple gems in the heap.They had a pretty nice sony on that table for 250 bucks I could of sworn I seen the same camera on amazon for six hundred. It was still pretty updated too twenty mp maybe and 1080 video. Brand new in box. Not what I was looking for but someone who isn't particular might be better off looking for pricing deals as much as camera wants. 600 to 250 or a similar deal might help make up ones mind for them.


----------



## funnyfarm

Ah. Makes sense. So even if I used an expodisc To set custom white balance in camera, it wouldn't apply anyway?  I've always used a digital gray card in Lightroom , and have not use custom. I read hat the viewfinder on d700 (hitch I found to be fantastic) is .72x an the vf on the x-e2 is like 1.24x!!  I dont know exactly what that means but it sounds like a big bright viewfinder for my tired eyes.  That's also important to me. I think this means we can go ahead and rule out a 5dc. I know that camera will just frustrate me like it did in 2012.  I think his means nikon or fuji

gah!!!  That's one step closer. Again. Lol. Well back to square one at least. 

I dodnso  so love the d70" and I've mkssed it BUT. Maybe the fuji  could be my new baby.  I guess if I hate fuji I can sell, take a small loss and buy nikon.


----------



## Ysarex

funnyfarm said:


> Ah. Makes sense. So even if I used an expodisc To set custom white balance in camera, it wouldn't apply anyway?



Correct. Setting a custom WB on the camera has no effect on the raw file. It only applies to the camera generated JPEG. If you shoot raw and you really want accurate WB then you'll shoot a reference target for the light.




Joe


----------



## ann

I have used Nikon for over 50 years and loved my d700, however, lugging it around and using a mirrorless OMD 5 and then an OMD E1 lead me to sell off all my nikon equipment. 

I rarely print anything larger than 8x10 and the results are amazing, and I haven't looked back, (and my back is very happy)


----------



## funnyfarm

Thank you both of you. Is that like checker any more a crate than a digital gray card?

ann, thanks for your input. I don't think if ever print very big either unless I get a great family portrait or shot of my 6 kids I might blow that up big. The x-e2 has 16 mp vs. 12 w the d700. 

I wonder kf anyone on this site can compare the viewfinders on these 2 for me. I'm not really understanding how the big vf on the d700 (loved that vf) can be .72x and the vf on the teeny tiny e2 can be 1.24x   Wjat does that even mean!?


----------



## funnyfarm

OK last update- I've decided to go X-e1/2.  If I absolutely hate it (which i doubt I will, it looks really fun!) then I'll do this all over again next year.

so... is the x-e2 a big enough improvement over the e1 to justify spending 400.00 more?  auto focus is supposed to be better but no d700 or anything.  which SHOULD be okay for my needs.  I like that the viewfinder is a lot bigger, that will make using it easier.

but if I got the e1, i could get more accessories, and another lens possibly.


----------



## Ysarex

funnyfarm said:


> Thank you both of you. Is that like checker any more a crate than a digital gray card?



The color checker is not more accurate for setting a custom WB. If that's all you want to do then all you need is a piece of white Styrofoam -- the lid from a container at the grocery store salad bar is ideal. The color checker will permit you to create a custom ICC input profile for your camera if you have the necessary software.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex

funnyfarm said:


> OK last update- I've decided to go X-e1/2.  If I absolutely hate it (which i doubt I will, it looks really fun!) then I'll do this all over again next year.
> 
> so... is the x-e2 a big enough improvement over the e1 to justify spending 400.00 more?  auto focus is supposed to be better but no d700 or anything.  which SHOULD be okay for my needs.  I like that the viewfinder is a lot bigger, that will make using it easier.
> 
> but if I got the e1, i could get more accessories, and another lens possibly.



I believe the AF difference between the two cameras is consequential but I've never actually used an X-e1.

Joe


----------



## funnyfarm

Ok  I thought I was settled on fuji. 

Got to thinking though, that they've really only covered zooms and wider primes and their lens sselection is so slim. 

I prefer nikon bodies but canon lenses. I love the look of the 70-200L and 85L 100 or 135L. Nikon just doesn't have that magic.  (But fuji is still in this game.)  I know I'm buying into a system. But I really dislike the 5dc. I'm sore at least the vf and LCD are better on the 5dii. Maybe I can score one kf those for a great deal.
If I did go classic 5D is get the camera, grip,85, 35/40 and macro filters for the same price as the other systems. More bang for my buck?


----------



## Ron Evers

This thread is very entertaining with the OP being so fickle.


----------



## funnyfarm

Ron Evers said:


> This thread is very entertaining with the OP being so fickle.


. Happy to give you a chuckle. It's maddening to me!  There are just so many choices. I have a hard time buying mascara, and this is a much larger investment. My husband says "just pick Something an stick with it." Not that simple. Imagine being married to me! Ha!

Ron, do you have advice?
1)camera you strongly dislike (yet the 5dc is a great classic) so you can stick to canon lenses and upgrade in a year. 
2) camera you LOVED before but it *is* a tank but you can't have your dream L lenses. But you do get great images from this and more in focus than w the 5d. 
3) try Something completely new to you that many have said these cameras have "made photogtlraphy fun again". And many dslr owners are selling off all their gear. 

It it seems as though most kf the photographers that really appreciate it though, are street and landscape photogs. I want this camera for portraits and lifestyle of the kids.  Either way I go, I'm buying used so I can sell used and won't lose too much provided I dknt wait too long.


----------



## sk66

Ysarex said:


> sk66 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> The AF speed problems that the earlier Fuji's suffered from have been   corrected in the x-e2. Fuji in fact now claims the x-e2 has faster AF   than any of the competing DSLRs. That's an advertising lie of course but   the x-e2's AF is now comparable to the best camera's available. AF is  virtually instantaneous.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you used it for anything particularly demanding? I.e. sports/action w/ AF-c and tracking?
> IME the phase detection is a HUGE improvement over contrast detection in speed, but nowhere near as capable as a mid-upper tier DSLR w/ an AF-S/USM lens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a sports photographer and so I'm not really the person to make that determination.
Click to expand...

Hmm, well I have the new X20 which is supposed to have their fast AF... (no idea on specs or comparison to the XE-2). Once it has focus, I don't think chasing kids around the yard would be much problem... I certainly wouldn't put it as notably worse than a 9pt entry level DSLR.


----------



## sk66

Ysarex said:


> funnyfarm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. Makes sense. So even if I used an expodisc To set custom white balance in camera, it wouldn't apply anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. Setting a custom WB on the camera has no effect on the raw file. It only applies to the camera generated JPEG. If you shoot raw and you really want accurate WB then you'll shoot a reference target for the light.
Click to expand...

Yes, but most programs will "apply" the WB setting to the raw file on import. Many OEM programs will even apply all of the Jpeg settings to the raw file... Not that it's "critical," but it can be extra work to "undo."

I've done them all.. uni, custom, grey, etc etc...now I do none. Here's the reality...there is no such thing as a "correct WB." (and I can almost always find a pure white/black in an image, or close enough).

Now, if I was doing a long shoot with a bunch of images taken in the same light..hell yeah I'd use a grey card... set WB for one image and copy it to all the rest. But I don't typically do that kind of work.

The only good use for a color checker is to compare a print to your (hopefully calibrated) display...


----------



## sk66

funnyfarm said:


> Ron Evers said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is very entertaining with the OP being so fickle.
> 
> 
> 
> . Happy to give you a chuckle. It's maddening to me!
Click to expand...

You really have to define your needs/requirements better... If you go with a DSLR, you have more options later if things should change. If you go with a CSC you are permanently closing some doors...at least right now, but not that many.

You probably need to do the "three lists" thing... Must have, wants, might be nice.  And for yourself, prioritize w/in the lists... If you can't knowledgeably create the three lists, well, then there's another issue...


----------



## Ron Evers

funnyfarm said:


> Ron Evers said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is very entertaining with the OP being so fickle.
> 
> 
> 
> . Happy to give you a chuckle. It's maddening to me!  There are just so many choices. I have a hard time buying mascara, and this is a much larger investment. My husband says "just pick Something an stick with it." Not that simple. Imagine being married to me! Ha!
> 
> No way, not with six kids. :mrgreen:
> 
> Ron, do you have advice?
> 1)camera you strongly dislike (yet the 5dc is a great classic) so you can stick to canon lenses and upgrade in a year.
> 2) camera you LOVED before but it *is* a tank but you can't have your dream L lenses. But you do get great images from this and more in focus than w the 5d.
> 3) try Something completely new to you that many have said these cameras have "made photogtlraphy fun again". And many dslr owners are selling off all their gear.
> 
> I invested in m4/3 with the very first camera, the Lumix G-1 & we now have four m4/3 cameras.  No regrets with moving to the smaller format.  There is now a very large selection of native mount lenses for M4/3 including three very nice f2.8 primes from Sigma (19, 30 & 60mm) @ bargain prices.
> 
> You could sell off your existing lenses to finance your new system before the market is flooded by folks moving to mirror-less & selling theirs.
> 
> 
> It it seems as though most kf the photographers that really appreciate it though, are street and landscape photogs. I want this camera for portraits and lifestyle of the kids.  Either way I go, I'm buying used so I can sell used and won't lose too much provided I dknt wait too long.
Click to expand...


I do not see a mirror-less camera, well not a higher end one @ least, being a limiter in this regard.


----------



## sk66

> I want this camera for portraits and lifestyle of the kids.


Does "lifestyle" include lowlight/natural light? If so, the smaller formats will be more limiting. If it includes sports/action, then the smaller formats will be more limiting. 

But if it's more a general purpose type use, then almost anything can work well. I have a Fuji X20 and a Nikon V2... I'm plenty happy using them for a lot of things, and I would include general portraits and lifestyle in that list. They just hit their limits a lot earlier than my DSLR's.


----------



## funnyfarm

Thanks for the advice. I giggled at the 6 kids comment. 

All natural light, and the computer  will be calibrated. 

I'm in contact w a pro photographer who will sell me her d700 for $700 plus shipping, but it has 147k clicks. Is it worth the " risk" for that price? That's crazy low $!


----------



## sk66

I would consider it worth the risk if it's in very good condition. The shutter is only rated to 150k and many die shortly after that, but many go well beyond that as well (keep in mind the DB is dependent on individuals actually reporting). 
And a shutter replacement ($250-500 depending on what else they decide needs fixing) would still put it under the average price.


----------



## Ysarex

sk66 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> funnyfarm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. Makes sense. So even if I used an expodisc To set custom white balance in camera, it wouldn't apply anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. Setting a custom WB on the camera has no effect on the raw file. It only applies to the camera generated JPEG. If you shoot raw and you really want accurate WB then you'll shoot a reference target for the light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but most programs will "apply" the WB setting to the raw file on import. Many OEM programs will even apply all of the Jpeg settings to the raw file... Not that it's "critical," but it can be extra work to "undo."
Click to expand...


What programs "apply" on import is their interpretation of the camera's WB; if you load the same photo into 5 different raw converters no two will show exactly the same WB. So you can't set a WB on the camera and then expect to see that WB when you open the raw file. It'll typically be close but each raw converter inputs the file using their own profile. I know they usually say something like "As Shot" or "From Camera" but what you get isn't consistent one to the next nor does it necessarily match what you set on the camera.



sk66 said:


> I've done them all.. uni, custom, grey, etc etc...now I do none. Here's the reality...there is no such thing as a "correct WB." (and I can almost always find a pure white/black in an image, or close enough).



Of course there's correct WB. That color checker for example has known colors that we can measured by the numbers. If you photograph the color checker so that the colors in your photo match the real colors in the checker you've got correct WB. Photograph a grey card and if the RGB values for the card in your photo are equal you've got correct WB.



sk66 said:


> Now, if I was doing a long shoot with a bunch of images taken in the same light..hell yeah I'd use a grey card... set WB for one image and copy it to all the rest. But I don't typically do that kind of work.
> 
> The only good use for a color checker is to compare a print to your (hopefully calibrated) display...



You can use a color checker to create input profiles for your cameras. I find that to be a good use especially if you want accurate color.

Joe


----------



## funnyfarm

Thanks everyone. I passed on the d700. Part of me regrets it but the other half kf me wants to get away from dslr's


----------



## sk66

Ysarex said:


> Of course there's correct WB. That color checker for example has known colors that we can measured by the numbers. If you photograph the color checker so that the colors in your photo match the real colors in the checker you've got correct WB. Photograph a grey card and if the RGB values for the card in your photo are equal you've got correct WB.


I know that....but the point is that "correct" doesn't always mean true black/white/grey. In fact, for a lot of photography you don't WANT perfect color balance. And you don't usually want "accurate color." Quite often you want more/less saturation/vibrance/black point/white point, etc.

By input file I assume you mean a custom camera profile... I suppose, if you want. You could also just do it manually.

The end point really isn't that the image displays or edits "correctly" on a screen, but rather that it prints the way you expect it to. My screen can be jacked up, and my camera profile/defaults jacked up to compensate, and it wouldn't matter as long as it printed correctly (granted, that's a stupid approach).

I do calibrate my monitor, and I use printer profiles... that's more than enough for me. If I have a bunch of images with the same exposure/scene then I will edit one and sync them... Taking a grey card image would make that more "accurate," but not "better."


----------



## sk66

funnyfarm said:


> Thanks everyone. I passed on the d700. Part of me regrets it but the other half kf me wants to get away from dslr's


Well, at least it seems you are progressing towards a decision...


----------



## Ysarex

sk66 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there's correct WB. That color checker for example has known colors that we can measured by the numbers. If you photograph the color checker so that the colors in your photo match the real colors in the checker you've got correct WB. Photograph a grey card and if the RGB values for the card in your photo are equal you've got correct WB.
> 
> 
> 
> I know that....but the point is that "correct" doesn't always mean true black/white/grey. In fact, for a lot of photography you don't WANT perfect color balance. And you don't usually want "accurate color." Quite often you want more/less saturation/vibrance/black point/white point, etc.
Click to expand...


I don't want accurate color? OMG! All these years and I've been doing it  wrong!! And that college class I teach in Color Management -- OH  NOOO!!! How many students have I misled? 

*correct*

_adjective_                                                                                                                                                                                                                   : true or accurate : agreeing with facts : having no errors or mistakes
-- Merriam Webster

The point is "correct" always does mean accurate. All I said was, "If you shoot raw and you really want accurate WB then you'll shoot a reference target for the light." And I can back that up. You came along with, 'Here's the reality...there is no such thing as a 'correct WB.'" So that's just nonsense and you're sounding very confused now and trying to redefine simple words.

I think you want to say that you have license as the artist to interpret the color in your photo and if you don't want it to be accurate for whatever reason you're not wrong to do that. That's fine. Of course you can do that. But correct WB is a reality and an option for those who want to pursue it. There's a good argument held by experts in the discipline that your license to interpret the color in your photo is valid only after you can demonstrate that you posses the skill to be accurate when it's called for.



sk66 said:


> By input file I assume you mean a custom camera profile... I suppose, if you want. You could also just do it manually.
> 
> The end point really isn't that the image displays or edits "correctly" on a screen, but rather that it prints the way you expect it to. My screen can be jacked up, and my camera profile/defaults jacked up to compensate, and it wouldn't matter as long as it printed correctly (granted, that's a stupid approach).
> 
> I do calibrate my monitor, and I use printer profiles... that's more than enough for me. If I have a bunch of images with the same exposure/scene then I will edit one and sync them... Taking a grey card image would make that more "accurate," but not "better."



Most people would in general say that accurate is better than inaccurate.

Joe


----------



## sk66

No, I'm not confused...
Photography is about "feeling" and "communication," it has very little to do with "accurate" or "correct." And it really doesn't matter *what* the subject is (unless you're doing some type of scientific study maybe).



> I think you want to say that you have license as the artist to interpret the color in your photo and if you don't want it to be accurate for whatever reason you're not wrong to do that. That's fine. Of course you can do that.


Yes, I guess that's what I'm trying to say...

And just to be a complete d!ck... Which is "correct," allowing whites to be yellow due to sunset/tungsten because that's how they actually were, or adjusting them to white even though they weren't white? Or setting Wb so that the pale thin skinned individual looks blue/pink as they actually were, or adjusting the WB so they appear as we perceive them to be? The answer is, neither is "correct." IMHO, chasing "correct" is fairly pointless.


----------



## Ysarex

sk66 said:


> No, I'm not confused...
> Photography is about "feeling" and "communication," it has very little to do with "accurate" or "correct." And it really doesn't matter *what* the subject is (unless you're doing some type of scientific study maybe).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you want to say that you have license as the artist to interpret the color in your photo and if you don't want it to be accurate for whatever reason you're not wrong to do that. That's fine. Of course you can do that.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I guess that's what I'm trying to say...
> 
> And just to be a complete d!ck... Which is "correct," allowing whites to be yellow due to sunset/tungsten because that's how they actually were, or adjusting them to white even though they weren't white? Or setting Wb so that the pale thin skinned individual looks blue/pink as they actually were, or adjusting the WB so they appear as we perceive them to be? The answer is, neither is "correct." IMHO, chasing "correct" is fairly pointless.
Click to expand...


Just because something is fairly pointless to you in the photos you take doesn't mean it's pointless to everyone else. Try this example: you're photographing a product for a corporation and the product contains the corporate logo and corporate colors. I'll bet their marketing dept. will be concerned that you achieve accurate WB. Your projecting what matters to you on everyone else. All I did was answer the OP's question and explain how to get accurate WB. You're free not to do that, you just don't get to say that since it doesn't matter to you it shouldn't matter to everyone.

Joe


----------



## funnyfarm

It's probably silly but I have this silly concern that I am going to feel like less of a photographer with a tiny little camera. Not to anyone else, because I don't care what anyone else thinks, but to myself in my mind.does that make sense?  But maybe that's the freedom I need. I've always given up on photography in the past because I take it too seriously and stop having fun w my big ole dslr. I need a middle ground. 

X-e2 it is. But I will probably upgrade to the X-t1 next year


----------



## Jazzmeizter

Ysarex said:


> funnyfarm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you both of you. Is that like checker any more a crate than a digital gray card?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The color checker is not more accurate for setting a custom WB. If that's all you want to do then all you need is a piece of white Styrofoam -- the lid from a container at the grocery store salad bar is ideal. The color checker will permit you to create a custom ICC input profile for your camera if you have the necessary software.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


 What do you mean by this? I'm interested.


----------



## Ysarex

Jazzmeizter said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> funnyfarm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you both of you. Is that like checker any more a crate than a digital gray card?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The color checker is not more accurate for setting a custom WB. If that's all you want to do then all you need is a piece of white Styrofoam -- the lid from a container at the grocery store salad bar is ideal. The color checker will permit you to create a custom ICC input profile for your camera if you have the necessary software.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by this? I'm interested.
Click to expand...


This is an dead thread from a year ago. Might be a better to start a new one. Looks like your new here -- welcome. Can you be more specific about what you'd like to know?

Joe


----------

