Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Real ISOs, crybabies, misinformation.
0 views
Skip to first unread message
RichA
Dec 28, 2009, 6:52:05 PM12/28/09
to
Check out this thread. A perfectly reasonable relay of information
from DXO about the differences in sensitivities of cameras. DXO is
probably the only site that deals properly with this clearly evident
issue. Dpreview tweaks the illumination levels on all its tests shots
when it does reviews, which explains why (despite real-world
experience being the opposite) all the shots appear the same from
camera to camera. I've owned a slew of different DSLRs and can state
that even with the same manual lens being used and the same manual
exposure, (thus eliminating t-stop arguments) different cameras render
different illumination levels in images, leading some to show even
more noise in shots than others when levels are equalized. Marked
ISOs are clearly not the same from camera to camera for raw shots.
P.S. Who cares about JPEGs? The camera manufacturer can create any
levels it wants for them so comparing them is insane, except to judge
artifact control.
from DXO about the differences in sensitivities of cameras. DXO is
probably the only site that deals properly with this clearly evident
issue. Dpreview tweaks the illumination levels on all its tests shots
when it does reviews, which explains why (despite real-world
experience being the opposite) all the shots appear the same from
camera to camera. I've owned a slew of different DSLRs and can state
that even with the same manual lens being used and the same manual
exposure, (thus eliminating t-stop arguments) different cameras render
different illumination levels in images, leading some to show even
more noise in shots than others when levels are equalized. Marked
ISOs are clearly not the same from camera to camera for raw shots.
P.S. Who cares about JPEGs? The camera manufacturer can create any
levels it wants for them so comparing them is insane, except to judge
artifact control.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=34086189
Ray Fischer
Dec 28, 2009, 7:54:26 PM12/28/09
to
RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Check out this thread. A perfectly reasonable relay of information
>from DXO about the differences in sensitivities of cameras. DXO is
>probably the only site that deals properly with this clearly evident
>issue. Dpreview tweaks the illumination levels on all its tests shots
>Check out this thread. A perfectly reasonable relay of information
>from DXO about the differences in sensitivities of cameras. DXO is
>probably the only site that deals properly with this clearly evident
>issue. Dpreview tweaks the illumination levels on all its tests shots
And again Rich plays smear and run.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Invalid
Dec 29, 2009, 1:07:59 PM12/29/09
to
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4b395342$0$1602$742e...@news.sonic.net...
1600 or 3200 ISO beat 1600 or film pushed to 3200. So who really cares
about a little noise compared to film grain. I admit sometimes grain adds to
the look, but Hell I can add grain in the darkroom with a texture screen, or
in digital post production...
Chrlz
Dec 29, 2009, 4:30:13 PM12/29/09
to
Maybe more people would reply if you weren't a hit and run attention
seeking poster who won't back up his claims.
Why haven't you elaborated on the test you *claim* you did? - you
know, the one that proves 'plastic' camera images are degraded by heat
where metal cameras are not.
It's right here:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_frm/thread/730fef7c95ebbc0b/fd8606a7f9ae3820?hl=en&lnk=raot#fd8606a7f9ae3820
..and you seem very reticent to acknowledge you made the claim, let
alone back it up.
0 new messages