09-14-2011, 08:19 PM
[quote name='Sammy' timestamp='1316021230' post='11594']
It obviously doesn´t validate the DxOMark results but would they partner if the data were flawed? It´s kind of an acknowledgement by PZ of the correctness of the DxOMark results. A high DR increases the "creative potential" to deal with an image in post processing simply because there is no post processing to recover anything from blown whites or blacks. The, according to DxOMark, at base ISO more than two stops better DR of the D7000 is indeed a massive advantage in this regard.
[/quote]
This may or may not be true - it is about how much trickery is applied in creating the Raw file, and probably not direct sensor output. DxO measures the Raw files, not sensor output. - see slightly higher up (or check the DxO site for it). But then, whatever, it is just one of the many things to take into account, possibly anyway.
In the end, post processing as it is called, once you have quality output from a camera/sensor/lens combination in the form of a raw file, and dare I say it, even from a jpeg, is much more important than any benchmarks <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. Just like developing the film in a certain way and printing it in a certain way was most important in the old wet process. It then becomes a matter of preference for the output supplied by a certain camera/sensor/lens combination. And there is no bad choice, as long as the choice is made deliberately, for any good reason, IQ, noise, UI, ergonomics, lens range, even budget, or otherwise.
Kind regards, Wim
It obviously doesn´t validate the DxOMark results but would they partner if the data were flawed? It´s kind of an acknowledgement by PZ of the correctness of the DxOMark results. A high DR increases the "creative potential" to deal with an image in post processing simply because there is no post processing to recover anything from blown whites or blacks. The, according to DxOMark, at base ISO more than two stops better DR of the D7000 is indeed a massive advantage in this regard.
[/quote]
This may or may not be true - it is about how much trickery is applied in creating the Raw file, and probably not direct sensor output. DxO measures the Raw files, not sensor output. - see slightly higher up (or check the DxO site for it). But then, whatever, it is just one of the many things to take into account, possibly anyway.
In the end, post processing as it is called, once you have quality output from a camera/sensor/lens combination in the form of a raw file, and dare I say it, even from a jpeg, is much more important than any benchmarks <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. Just like developing the film in a certain way and printing it in a certain way was most important in the old wet process. It then becomes a matter of preference for the output supplied by a certain camera/sensor/lens combination. And there is no bad choice, as long as the choice is made deliberately, for any good reason, IQ, noise, UI, ergonomics, lens range, even budget, or otherwise.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 ....