>
> Not sure if this has been discussed before:
>
I think it has, but if one lives by DxOMark, they need to be prepared to die
by DxOMark. What is very very misleading is that the charts do not use zero
as the base-line. You see these huge differences in numbers on the charts,
but in reality, they are all within a few percentage points of each other.
Fact, the human eye is easily deceived and it takes substantial differences
to become a visible difference.
However, that said, if a person uses the bulldozer mentality when
post-processing and is cranking the sliders to extremes, every ounce of
noise-containment and bit-depth in the adjustment range makes a huge
difference. This is why some cameras (including the E-1) respond extremely
well to huge manipulations where others with better "specifications" turn to
quivering pools of pixels looking all to the world as having the tonal
seperations of a pre-school playroom where everything is painted in bold
primary colors.
Put another way: Once manipulated, that 64-count box of Crayola Crayons
looks no different than an 8-count box of Crayola Crayons with some cameras.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|