11-06-2010, 04:51 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-06-2010, 04:53 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='Kunzite' timestamp='1289061058' post='4004']
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.
[/quote]
DXOmark almost never detects RAW NR. And again, I did NOT blame any camera. SIlly stuff.
There is a VERY clear pointer to some kind of NR, the strange/weird totally straight line in their DR graphs. That is not normal, and it shows something is being done to improve DR measurements.
I gave very clear arguments, read my posts again. Im not the one trying to defend the K5 (you are) when it is not even being attacked.
Anyway. Care to show any 9.5 stops underexposed images? And the recovered versions? Without any examples it is a bit odd to talk about it.
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.
[/quote]
DXOmark almost never detects RAW NR. And again, I did NOT blame any camera. SIlly stuff.
There is a VERY clear pointer to some kind of NR, the strange/weird totally straight line in their DR graphs. That is not normal, and it shows something is being done to improve DR measurements.
I gave very clear arguments, read my posts again. Im not the one trying to defend the K5 (you are) when it is not even being attacked.
Anyway. Care to show any 9.5 stops underexposed images? And the recovered versions? Without any examples it is a bit odd to talk about it.