30D, 40D, 50D, Raw, sRaw, sRaw1, sRaw2, ISO 100-12,800 test shots
Paul
http://tinyurl.com/5uog2m
Even with downsized images, the 30D noise levels/banding look better than
the 50D.
30D Raw 3200 LR: http://tinyurl.com/6dfpau
50D Raw 3200 LR: http://tinyurl.com/5mpe3u
30D Raw 1600 LR: http://tinyurl.com/6cb53u
50D Raw 1600 LR: http://tinyurl.com/6pwjzv
Sachin Garg
news:YfKdnfsXoJi9L4_U...@pipex.net...
Interesting shots, would you mind sharing the original raw images?
You can either send them to www.rawsamples.ch or drop me an email and I can
send you my server's ftp login details where you can upload them.
Thanks
Sachin Garg [India]
www.sachingarg.com | www.rawzor.com
Paul
news:geui92$8v8$1...@aioe.org...
>> Interesting comparisons page (magnifier top right):
>> http://tinyurl.com/5uog2m
>>
>> Even with downsized images, the 30D noise levels/banding look better than
>> the 50D.
>> 30D Raw 3200 LR: http://tinyurl.com/6dfpau
>> 50D Raw 3200 LR: http://tinyurl.com/5mpe3u
>>
>> 30D Raw 1600 LR: http://tinyurl.com/6cb53u
>> 50D Raw 1600 LR: http://tinyurl.com/6pwjzv
> Interesting shots, would you mind sharing the original raw images?
>
> You can either send them to www.rawsamples.ch or drop me an email and I
> can send you my server's ftp login details where you can upload them.
These aren't my images. He didn't upload the RAW's due to file size,
although 100% JPEGS can be found here:
http://rapidshare.de/files/40841061/100.rar.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/40841132/200.rar.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/40841189/400.rar.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/40840996/800.rar.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/40840672/1600.rar.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/40840795/3200.rar.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/40840846/6400.rar.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/40840944/12800.rar.html
John Sheehy
news:YfKdnfsXoJi9L4_U...@pipex.net:
Adobe 50D conversion seems to be lacking at this point in time; a rushed
implementation. Adobe typically ignores banding issues and has minimal NR
for new cameras, before they are tweaked (all cameras have lots of RAW
noise at high ISOs, and even "0" NR usually means "medium"; not "none").
Thomas Knoll has acknowledged in the past that banding removal is applied
to individual cameras on a per need basis, and is not done automatically.
Paul
news:Xns9B50F49E...@199.45.49.11...
But even if you look at the difference between the 30D with ACR and the 50D
with DPP, the 30D noise levels/banding still look better than the 50D. Hit
the magnifying glass and look at the top right of the following pictures;
30D Raw 3200 LR: http://tinyurl.com/6dfpau
50D Raw 3200 DPP: http://tinyurl.com/6c2yjr
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
>
>> Adobe 50D conversion seems to be lacking at this point in time; a rushed
>> implementation. Adobe typically ignores banding issues and has
>> minimal NR
>> for new cameras, before they are tweaked (all cameras have lots of RAW
>> noise at high ISOs, and even "0" NR usually means "medium"; not "none").
>> Thomas Knoll has acknowledged in the past that banding removal is applied
>> to individual cameras on a per need basis, and is not done automatically.
>
Does the DCRAW allow conversion with no noise reduction and no smoothing
and no sharpening. I thought that it does.
Doug McDonald
John McWilliams
Why isn't the comparison between both photos processed by DPP? Two RAW
converters will never give the exact same rendition no matter how you
tweak settings.
Is the URL for the 30D by DPP. However, even under these carefully
constructed tests, you'll notice that the WB and exposure differ.
Thanks for posting the tests.
--
john mcwilliams
Paul
news:5fadnTjlHdS0KYjU...@comcast.com...
No particular reason. They original links were with ACR as this is what I
use myself. But then John pointed out that ACR was lacking for the 50D, so
I posted a link showing the 50D converted with DPP as a comparison.
On the original link, you can compare 30D, 40D and 50D with whatever
ISO's/RAW converters you wish.
John McWilliams
Yes, I see all that.
But you'll notice that the WB and exposure are different for the two
3200 exposures of the two cameras even when processed (the same, one
presumes) the same by the same RAW processor.
--
john mcwilliams
Paul
Maybe, but I have viewed a lot of photos and am yet to see one shot where
the 50D is better.
Lets face it, since the 1D II, 20D and 5D, we have not seen anything
particularly exiting from Canon. I like Canon, but, they need to have
photographers working for them, not some moppets who don't know their asses
from their elbows. That includes Chuck Westfall who for some reason rates
it 1-1.5 stops ahead of the 40D.
John McWilliams
I was under the impression there were improvements in noise from
20-30-40, but the 50D wasn't any better. I have the 20, and one day will
upgrade it. Same with the 5 D. But, yeah, no quantum leaps.
--
john mcwilliams
John Sheehy
news:z72dnQjzGNazyIjU...@pipex.net:
> But even if you look at the difference between the 30D with ACR and
> the 50D with DPP, the 30D noise levels/banding still look better than
> the 50D. Hit the magnifying glass and look at the top right of the
> following pictures;
The 50D image had more of a push of the red channel in the WB. The 30D
clearly has more chromatic noise reduction applied to it.
All these discussions will be futile until all reviewers realize how
inequitable their favorite converters are, and start comparing with
something like DCRAW which is fully capable of treating all cameras
equally.
John McWilliams
Is Adobe Camera Raw, and Lightroom for that matter, capable of making
the same and appropriate conversions for comparison purposes?
--
john mcwilliams