Oh, the horror. Say it ain't so, Joe.
Less than two weeks ago I finally learned, for the first time,
that RAW images from Canon cameras are not as noise-free as
JPEGs. However, all the review sites compare JPEGs. The
Canon's super-clean CMOS sensor trumped everybody else.
Well...
Evidently, the CMOS isn't quite as clean as people have been
leading us to believe. A fellow photographer, whom I greatly
respect, sent me some images to look at, which were RAW
converted with no noise reduction. Honestly, they were barely
cleaner than my E-1's. Maybe a stop better, but that's it.
Maybe that's why I keep hearing about running Canon images
through Neat Image or Noise Ninja.
Has it all been a lie?
Hold the presses.
In Phil's 400XTi review, he reveals for the first time the
difference in noise between JPEG and RAW files. Yowza. Those
RAW files do look a lot like my E-1 files. That shadow noise is
bad!
What am I, a RAW shooter, supposed to make of all this? I'm
being serious here! I never really had that much of a problem
with noise in my E-1 and I can get creamy smooth images if I
want them--just through the conversion process.
Other than the obvious resolution improvement, are we really
that bad off not going Canon?
Granted, at the highest ISO's (1600, 3200) even the RAW files
are noticably cleaner with the Canon, but at 800 they are barely
better.
Thoughts? Am I smoking something that's clouding my vision?
AG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|