[quote name='robbiec' timestamp='1289002017' post='3982']
Bollocks! Nikon have been doctoring their RAW output for years as have Canon, Pentax have just started playing the same game.[/quote]
You are sadly mistaken.
From your very own Pentax expert, GordonBGood (and also a few other Russian Pentax experts):
[url="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=34060408"]http://forums.dprevi...essage=34060408[/url]
"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."
[url="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=34060504"]http://forums.dprevi...essage=34060504[/url]
"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.
[url="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=32402216"]http://forums.dprevi...essage=32402216[/url]
That being said, it's the final output that matters. And if doctoring RAW data 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 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.
[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1289005374' post='3984']
Whatever, no one is denying that the K5 is a fine camera. It may well be equal or better than any current canon or Nikon product. But by how much? And will the differnce matter to practical photography? I'd say very likly it will not matter. Just as the iq differences between the aps-c cameras released in the last two years are unnoticable unless you prefer your images as 100% crops and not as full photos. Anyway, i find pentax offers very compelling. All that kept me from buying into their system was the lack of full frame.
[/quote]
Higher ISO improvements are the standout development I think, to be able to wander around taking shots in pubs / gigs using available light without flash and with a unobstrusive setup like a a K-5 and 43 are worth their weight in gold for me.
And of course you are correct in that the differences between the cameras in the same class should be marginal, then of course the argument is which class does a particular camera belong to? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> It is then down to personal preference, ergonomics, lens type, particular field of photography you are into etc, etc. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
I like having nicely crafted primes which are reasonably small and fast but that is my preference.
On the NR question, at least Pentax does still allow the user control. You have 6 settings to choose from:
Auto NR, NR Off, Low NR, Medium NR, High NR (these are faily self explanatory)
Custom, which allows you to specify the NR setting per ISO which should allow a user to see if they can improve on Pentax's own settings or if they believe that the Raw convertor they use has better NR for the image they are trying to create. I don't know which setting DXO used to test. Maybe Photozone can test this when they review the K-5 in a lab environment.
11-06-2010, 10:24 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-06-2010, 10:27 AM by thxbb12.)
[quote name='robbiec' timestamp='1289038571' post='3991']
On the NR question, at least Pentax does still allow the user control. You have 6 settings to choose from:
Auto NR, NR Off, Low NR, Medium NR, High NR (these are faily self explanatory)
Custom, which allows you to specify the NR setting per ISO which should allow a user to see if they can improve on Pentax's own settings or if they believe that the Raw convertor they use has better NR for the image they are trying to create. I don't know which setting DXO used to test. Maybe Photozone can test this when they review the K-5 in a lab environment.
[/quote]
These NR settings ONLY apply to jpegs. Whatever NR setting you select, the RAW files will be exactly the same.
As DXO analyzes RAW files, it does not matter.
[quote name='thw' timestamp='1289007171' post='3986']
Unfortunately Gabor has passed away.
[/quote]
Thw, Gabor died?? when did it happen? I used to read his posts -not understanding him fully most of the time I must admit- with such a huge interest...
Sad news.
/Guys, sorry for going off topic.../
Greetings,
S.
[quote name='Sylvain' timestamp='1289041552' post='3994']
Thw, Gabor died?? when did it happen? I used to read his posts -not understanding him fully most of the time I must admit- with such a huge interest...
Sad news.
Greetings,
S.
[/quote]Gees just read that so sad, I hope he wasn't young.
Hard to accept, isn't it? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />
jenbenn, you're correct - this is revolutionary. But what one should do is to double and triple check; not just rejecting the result he doesn't like. I already did it, and the K-5 is showing it's impressive DR.
Brightcolors, and how would a slight NR applied at ISO 3200+ affect the DR at ISO80?
11-06-2010, 03:16 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-06-2010, 03:23 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='Kunzite' timestamp='1289052925' post='4000']
Hard to accept, isn't it? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />
jenbenn, you're correct - this is revolutionary. But what one should do is to double and triple check; not just rejecting the result he doesn't like. I already did it, and the K-5 is showing it's impressive DR.
Brightcolors, and how would a slight NR applied at ISO 3200+ affect the DR at ISO80?
[/quote]
What nonsense are you babbling about?
I do not get all these silly defensive reactions. Did I say any negative word about the Pentax K5? no. I was just poiting out how senseless and flawed DXOmark is. I am sure the Pentax K5 is a fine camera. As is the Nikon D7000. And the Canon 7D or 60D.
And about your "..the K-5 is showing it's impressive DR".... do you really mean that? I seriously doubt that. Any camera which would have a bigger DR would show very contrastless bland photos. Because that is what a bigger DR is about, contrastless bland images.
I am pretty sure you noticed something else that impressed you. Like a nice dynamic feel (good contrast).
Nonsense, like your post about "doctored" RAW? You made no effort to understand how and to which extend the RAW is "doctored", and you're completely ignoring no NR was detected below ISO3200. If you really want to pointing out how flawed the DXOMark is, then point out to it's own shortcomings (e.g. completely ignoring image definition), don't blame the camera(s). This way, you're just trying to reject their findings without providing any argument - at least, that's how it looks.
Defensive reactions, like yours? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> I understand your skepticism; but you should also accept the K-5 might be that good.
Yes, I really mean that. You're mistakenly presuming I'm talking about carelessly using the full 14.1EV for every picture, but of course this isn't the case. I wouldn't want to get "contrastless bland images". I'm not a big fan of HDR, either <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
But let me tell you, being able to underexpose an image by 9.5 stops (@ISO80) and recover it via software, is certainly impressive. And a definite proof they don't use NR at such low sensitivities.
|
