06-18-2012, 06:50 PM
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1340004777' post='18953']
From the MTF lens review site of PZ I read that "It is difficult to provide a final verdict about micro-4/3 lenses because neither the camera JPEGs nor the standard RAW converters will give you an access to uncorrected image data". So I assume that smaller sensor cameras do much more processing and corrections including more aggressive noise reduction to raw data than DSLRs.
Frank
[/quote]
Possibly, yes. Not entirely sure about this, as I do think that most processing is done at jpeg conversion time.
Looking at the (raw) images of the GF2, I must say they remind me of my old 350D, although it has 50% more areal resolution, and a smaller sensor. That is not bad. And the newer cameras are better, some say as good as the 5D II.
Kind regards, Wim
From the MTF lens review site of PZ I read that "It is difficult to provide a final verdict about micro-4/3 lenses because neither the camera JPEGs nor the standard RAW converters will give you an access to uncorrected image data". So I assume that smaller sensor cameras do much more processing and corrections including more aggressive noise reduction to raw data than DSLRs.
Frank
[/quote]
Possibly, yes. Not entirely sure about this, as I do think that most processing is done at jpeg conversion time.
Looking at the (raw) images of the GF2, I must say they remind me of my old 350D, although it has 50% more areal resolution, and a smaller sensor. That is not bad. And the newer cameras are better, some say as good as the 5D II.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
