11-06-2010, 05:35 PM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1289062293' post='4006']
DXOmark almost never detects RAW NR. And again, I did NOT blame any camera. SIlly stuff.
[color="#0000FF"]"The Pentax K5's RAW data is doctored". Silly stuff indeed.
By the way, I only asked how a NR applied at ISO3200+ would affect the data measured for ISO80.[/color]
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.
[color="#0000FF"]Hold your horses. Are you telling me that, just by looking at that line, you can say the K-5 is applying NR at every ISO?[/color]
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.
[color="#0000FF"]No, you haven't. Just claiming the RAW is "doctored" is not an argument, and I won't simply take your word on it. I want to know what "doctored" means; the word itself is meaningless for me.
Also, I never said you're defending the K-5.[/color]
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.
[color="#0000FF"]Sure, it was done on dpreview: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.a...e=36806297
For me, such shadow detail means they're not applying any NR @ISO80 - at least not on shadows (but would they need it, on mid-tones/highlights?)[/color]
[/quote]
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1289062638' post='4008']
Imaging resource does not do a good job at all, regarding "testing" the IQ and IQ possibilities. The only thing that is a little bit useful from them is the studio RAW files.
[color="#0000FF"]I find their RAW files to be quite useful.[/color]
DPReview is not all that much better, they do not even know how to test DR, and their noise assessments are failed too.
[color="#0000FF"]But they're good at showing the camera's interface; I'd rather look at their reviews, than search in the manual <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />[/color]
Photozone does not do a much better job either, if you really want to compare IQ from different camera bodies...
[color="#0000FF"]I'm more interested in lens tests, from them.[/color]
So even after they review, we still can not really tell. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />
[color="#0000FF"]All we can do is to take a hint from here, one from there...[/color]
[/quote]
DXOmark almost never detects RAW NR. And again, I did NOT blame any camera. SIlly stuff.
[color="#0000FF"]"The Pentax K5's RAW data is doctored". Silly stuff indeed.
By the way, I only asked how a NR applied at ISO3200+ would affect the data measured for ISO80.[/color]
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.
[color="#0000FF"]Hold your horses. Are you telling me that, just by looking at that line, you can say the K-5 is applying NR at every ISO?[/color]
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.
[color="#0000FF"]No, you haven't. Just claiming the RAW is "doctored" is not an argument, and I won't simply take your word on it. I want to know what "doctored" means; the word itself is meaningless for me.
Also, I never said you're defending the K-5.[/color]
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.
[color="#0000FF"]Sure, it was done on dpreview: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.a...e=36806297
For me, such shadow detail means they're not applying any NR @ISO80 - at least not on shadows (but would they need it, on mid-tones/highlights?)[/color]
[/quote]
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1289062638' post='4008']
Imaging resource does not do a good job at all, regarding "testing" the IQ and IQ possibilities. The only thing that is a little bit useful from them is the studio RAW files.
[color="#0000FF"]I find their RAW files to be quite useful.[/color]
DPReview is not all that much better, they do not even know how to test DR, and their noise assessments are failed too.
[color="#0000FF"]But they're good at showing the camera's interface; I'd rather look at their reviews, than search in the manual <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />[/color]Photozone does not do a much better job either, if you really want to compare IQ from different camera bodies...
[color="#0000FF"]I'm more interested in lens tests, from them.[/color]
So even after they review, we still can not really tell. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />
[color="#0000FF"]All we can do is to take a hint from here, one from there...[/color]
[/quote]