[PuxaVida]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1291280889' post='4680']

Didn't mean to say that it's not a good camera for a lot of people... was just commenting on how resolution should also be considered when looking at noise because they go hand-in-hand.

[/quote]



Agreed (+ the DR is also a similar characteristic)... And this balance seems to be very well handled on D7000 (at least for my taste).

IMO, Hogan is a joker... all that he and guys like that digilloyd do is publish their personal diary pages and not stuff that has much meaning to anyone else. I mean I just opened up [url="http://www.bythom.com/nikond700review.htm"]Hogan's D700 review[/url] and this is what I mean:

....

I find his reviews on his site a bit "light", but the "Complete Guide" books include a lot of information (at least for an amateur like me). Can you suggest other authors in this area? I always believe in reading from different ressources for the same topic.



Serkan

[PuxaVida]

The process from collecting photons on photodiodes, then counting the electrons which goes until saving the data to the memory card is raw process, right? Who can claim that some manifacturers don't touch anything until saving of the data? Does it go "naturally"? No elements of electro engineering interferences? I mean, I really don't understand how come a data (based on light photons) saved to a memory card cannot be more or less "cooked"...



I believe there's no pure "raw" data as the word itself mentiones, but there are various ways of "cooking" the data meal.



Serkan

[Guest]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1291281485' post='4682']

If it's a P&S that one needs, Nikon caters to that market ranging from the Dxxxx range to the Dx range. If one needs the maximum control because they know what they're doing, then raw shouldn't be cooked to anyone's liking because it can't be reversed/uncooked.





GTW

[/quote]

You are so right.Those bloody manufacturers do nothing but deceive us. Whether it is canon with their stupid 15-85 lens (c. your statement in the lens forums a while ago) or nikon with their whole range of D-SLRs. All these products are just nothing more than point and shoots. The cooked raws are reason enough to save oneself thousands of dollars/euros and never buy a d-slr because its just not any better.

I save myself further comments.

[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='' />

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1291282821' post='4685']

Well, I guess it's the same reason why people read Chuck Norris Ken Rockwell or watch Top Gear - sometimes personal experience / opinion gives you much more than charts.

[/quote]

Not sure if it's the same reason... many KR readers probably don't know how wrong the guy is because I've seen a few early-learners linking to his site as gospel. I mean, look at the population of FourThirds users who don't(and refuse to) understand equivalence.



As for personal experience/opinion giving more... sure... most people's cameras aren't going to be used for shooting test charts in a scientific way. That's why shooting lego bricks from a weird angle makes a lot more sense to everyday photography <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



GTW

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1291282950' post='4686']

I find his reviews on his site a bit "light", but the "Complete Guide" books include a lot of information (at least for an amateur like me). Can you suggest other authors in this area? I always believe in reading from different ressources for the same topic.

[/quote]

Serkan... there's nothing wrong in reading anything out there. For example, from guys like Thom Hogan, Lloyd Chambers, Ken Rockwell I learned about photographic concepts that people can misunderstand but still make people think that they know enough to write about them.



So my advice is to read things that have little to no writing-fluff in them. More to the point/scientific the article is, the fewer things can be said wrong or be misinterpreted by the reader. Afterall, nothing can be said/read wrong when there's no writing, right? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



GTW

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1291284965' post='4689']

You are so right.Those bloody manufacturers do nothing but deceive us. Whether it is canon with their stupid 15-85 lens (c. your statement in the lens forums a while ago) or nikon with their whole range of D-SLRs. All these products are just nothing more than point and shoots. The cooked raws are reason enough to save oneself thousands of dollars/euros and never buy a d-slr because its just not any better.

I save myself further comments.

[/quote]

I think your comment answers the question about the most raw thing out there...

[PuxaVida]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1291331195' post='4716']

Serkan... there's nothing wrong in reading anything out there. For example, from guys like Thom Hogan, Lloyd Chambers, Ken Rockwell I learned about photographic concepts that people can misunderstand but still make people think that they know enough to write about them.



So my advice is to read things that have little to no writing-fluff in them. More to the point/scientific the article is, the fewer things can be said wrong or be misinterpreted by the reader. Afterall, nothing can be said/read wrong when there's no writing, right? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



GTW

[/quote]



I think reading rubbish is something that's not avoidable in todays internet full of junk. At least at the beginning... I don't read Lloyd Chambers or Ken Rockwell (not any more I must say)... Rather than those, I prefer objective and scientific articles. But this doesn't mean that when I find something informative from people like Thom Hogan I can use it to increase my knowledge. I mean I don't know the guy and I don't want look like his public attorney, but there's no meaning in saying "Thom Hogan is a joker"... not more than saying "GTW is the Batman"<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />...



Coming back to my request, can you suggest some authors who write scientific & objective articles (other than yourself)?



Regards,



Serkan

[PuxaVida]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1291295698' post='4700']

...

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.

[/quote]



What is added to what is not clear to me but, don't we change the information wheter we add or subtract?

...

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.

+ this is an advantage in terms of DR...

- 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.

... I'm not sure if it's tad cleaner but I can see more chorma noise on 60D & D300s at ISO 3200. And I think a print of an image taken at ISO 3200 (or 6400) will be awful for all of them.



Serkan

[miro]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1291281485' post='4682']

Sure, it's good but "best" depends on what one needs to do. If it's a P&S that one needs, Nikon caters to that market ranging from the Dxxxx range to the Dx range. If one needs the maximum control because they know what they're doing, then raw shouldn't be cooked to anyone's liking because it can't be reversed/uncooked.



It's the same with most other areas too... for example there are such things as [url="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ns=p_PRICE_2%7C1&ci=8617&N=4294550597"]professional studio monitor speakers[/url] because they produce an output that's most linear/faithful to the recorded signal. They bring out all the ugly things recorded in a track too and so a sound-engineer can work on their piece/track as they choose to do. If you want something that just sounds nice you can go and get any of the other nice [url="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ns=p_PRICE_2%7C1&ipp=25&ci=2518&N=4294544049"]home entertainment speakers[/url] that add their own colour to the sound.



GTW

[/quote]







I don’t agree with your statement.

There is huge difference between sound listening and photography

By sound listening we are talking about Hi-Fi standard . The goal there is to reproduce the sound as close as possible to the real source.

While the photography is to photograph something that doesn’t exist or has not been seen on such way.

Journalistic/reportage photography, snapshots and photoequipment collection are dedicated sport branch.









Greetings,

Miro