12-02-2010, 01:14 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-02-2010, 01:19 PM by Brightcolours.)
This thread is all over the place now.
Thom Hogan is just a Nikon fan guy who makes his money writing about Nikon equipment exclusively, and he can not (or should not) be quoted on technical issues as he often has no idea on what he is talking about and is just totally Nikon centric.
Canon does not manipulate or filter RAW data (besides on the 5D mk II where apparently in an early firmware update pattern read noise was suppressed a bit).
Think of it like this: if you add 100 to every reading you get, do you lose or change any information? No.
If you subtract 100 from every reading, do you lose or change any information? Yes.
Jennben pointed to low read noise in shadows/base ISO. The Pentax K5 and Nikon D7000, both with the same Sony sourced sensor, indeed perform very good in that area, better than any APS-C sensor before.
Does that have to do with noise reduction? No, at least not totally as there indeed is a lot more detail that it would have solely from cleaned up noise.
So, talking about RAW filtering in the shadow/base noise case is not relevant at all.
Both the Pentax and Nikon do start to manipulate the RAW in the area of noise reduction at higher ISO settings, Canon does not do that.
So, when we look at the dpreview tests from the Canon EOS 60D and the Nikon D7000:
- The Nikon(Pentax) has an advantage in base ISO shadow (read) noise. This is an advantage if you have severely underexposed an image or do one shot HDR.
- The Canon has an advantage at higher ISO (ISO 3200 and 6400) with better noise performance. The Images look a tad cleaner and retain more detail. This is an advantage in every high ISO image.
The Canon also has a tad higher pixel resolution, so at high ISO the Canon has the possibility of more detail in print.
For most these differences do not matter, as all 3 cameras are very capable sensor output wise. Other differences might be more important to one, or one already has lenses for a platform.
All 3 seem to be very on par and great choices.
And jennben, no, manufacturers don't deceive, but they do make lenses that to more discerning photographers are not an ideal choice (like for me lenses like the superzooms and the Nikon 16-85 Canon 15-85 type lenses, and for me the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II with its huge focal breathing for the type of lens). <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Thom Hogan is just a Nikon fan guy who makes his money writing about Nikon equipment exclusively, and he can not (or should not) be quoted on technical issues as he often has no idea on what he is talking about and is just totally Nikon centric.
Canon does not manipulate or filter RAW data (besides on the 5D mk II where apparently in an early firmware update pattern read noise was suppressed a bit).
Think of it like this: if you add 100 to every reading you get, do you lose or change any information? No.
If you subtract 100 from every reading, do you lose or change any information? Yes.
Jennben pointed to low read noise in shadows/base ISO. The Pentax K5 and Nikon D7000, both with the same Sony sourced sensor, indeed perform very good in that area, better than any APS-C sensor before.
Does that have to do with noise reduction? No, at least not totally as there indeed is a lot more detail that it would have solely from cleaned up noise.
So, talking about RAW filtering in the shadow/base noise case is not relevant at all.
Both the Pentax and Nikon do start to manipulate the RAW in the area of noise reduction at higher ISO settings, Canon does not do that.
So, when we look at the dpreview tests from the Canon EOS 60D and the Nikon D7000:
- The Nikon(Pentax) has an advantage in base ISO shadow (read) noise. This is an advantage if you have severely underexposed an image or do one shot HDR.
- The Canon has an advantage at higher ISO (ISO 3200 and 6400) with better noise performance. The Images look a tad cleaner and retain more detail. This is an advantage in every high ISO image.
The Canon also has a tad higher pixel resolution, so at high ISO the Canon has the possibility of more detail in print.
For most these differences do not matter, as all 3 cameras are very capable sensor output wise. Other differences might be more important to one, or one already has lenses for a platform.
All 3 seem to be very on par and great choices.
And jennben, no, manufacturers don't deceive, but they do make lenses that to more discerning photographers are not an ideal choice (like for me lenses like the superzooms and the Nikon 16-85 Canon 15-85 type lenses, and for me the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II with its huge focal breathing for the type of lens). <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />