11-06-2010, 01:39 AM
[quote name='thw' timestamp='1289007171' post='3986']
You are sadly mistaken.
From your very own Pentax expert, GordonBGood (and also a few other Russian Pentax experts):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=34060408
"To "look a gift horse in the mouth", what you are missing is that the actual improvement in apparent sensor performance of the K-x over the others at these high ISO's is just a matter of some extra clever Noise Reduction (NR) applied to the raw data that can't be turned off. The K-x images are very slightly softer than the others, which accounts for its improvement that can be seen. It also has an excellent DR in the very deep shadows, but that isn't revealed in these tests as the blacks aren't boosted enough."
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=34060504
"You are correct, the Canon 500D which does NOT do Noise Reduction (NR) to raw at all has the most detail (and noise), while the Nikon D5000 which does the most (uncaught by testing) NR to raw has the least detail and a slight amount less noise, where the K-x fits somewhere between."
Definitive proof of NR in D90/D5000 as compared to D300/D300s. Unfortunately Gabor has passed away.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=32402216
That being said, it's the final output that matters. And if doctoring RAW data provides means less off-camera processing for the user (and of course much higher scores for those so-called scientific tests), so much the better. That's why I am all for in-camera CA and vignetting removal etc etc.
[/quote]
Interesting, good to know. Thanks for the links and background. I have rephrased the initial post to rectify my error.
I am also in agreement with manufacturers optimising output to achive the best possible image, be that in RAW or Jpeg but with the added provision that they also allow the user control where possible to disable such optimisations if they wish.
You are sadly mistaken.
From your very own Pentax expert, GordonBGood (and also a few other Russian Pentax experts):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=34060408
"To "look a gift horse in the mouth", what you are missing is that the actual improvement in apparent sensor performance of the K-x over the others at these high ISO's is just a matter of some extra clever Noise Reduction (NR) applied to the raw data that can't be turned off. The K-x images are very slightly softer than the others, which accounts for its improvement that can be seen. It also has an excellent DR in the very deep shadows, but that isn't revealed in these tests as the blacks aren't boosted enough."
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=34060504
"You are correct, the Canon 500D which does NOT do Noise Reduction (NR) to raw at all has the most detail (and noise), while the Nikon D5000 which does the most (uncaught by testing) NR to raw has the least detail and a slight amount less noise, where the K-x fits somewhere between."
Definitive proof of NR in D90/D5000 as compared to D300/D300s. Unfortunately Gabor has passed away.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=32402216
That being said, it's the final output that matters. And if doctoring RAW data provides means less off-camera processing for the user (and of course much higher scores for those so-called scientific tests), so much the better. That's why I am all for in-camera CA and vignetting removal etc etc.
[/quote]
Interesting, good to know. Thanks for the links and background. I have rephrased the initial post to rectify my error.
I am also in agreement with manufacturers optimising output to achive the best possible image, be that in RAW or Jpeg but with the added provision that they also allow the user control where possible to disable such optimisations if they wish.