Thanks for that detailed analysis, Moose. I had thought it exceedingly
likely you had done something like that with the images
but am glad to be able to follow along. Confirms my confidence in the
MSOA designation.
Close Attention Moose (CAM) writes:
>>I think it's far more complex than we might wish it were.
Yeh, a single number to summarize the performance of a lens/sensor is a
bit much. One of my points was that the DXO methodology
and much of its rationale is well elucidated and they do aid in the
intepretation of what comprise meaningful differences. One can diagree
with
there choices but at least they are interpretable and not arbitrary. If
they had linked them to relevant images to provide context like you
did, that would have been much superior.
>>>the GX7 holds detail in shadow, responds to NR there better and has
>>significantly fewer wormy artifacts.
I wonder how the new incarnation of DXO Opic pro noise reduction
dperforms with higher ISO OMD raw files. Its very first incarnation
was too tough on detail but they refined it. It looks at about 1000
surrounding pixels to help sort out noise. Can take 5min
to process an image but so does a layered NI.
Paying close attention to CAM, Mike
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|