> 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.
For starters, comparing jpegs is a stupid idea, that introduces additional
variables. I would test both.
Some time ago (years?) someone here posted a link to canon's website. We
were discussing plastic skin, and the site, in the process of selling us on
the unique advantages of the CMOS sensor, said in passing that by
manufacturing their own sensors, they were able to add an initial level of
processing on the chip. We understood this to be applied to the RAW file as
well as the jpegs.
If that is true, then their super duper new and improved sensors are just
like everybody elses, except maybe Panasonic.
Does this mean the emperor has no clothes? Let's face it, 10 slightly noisy
MP's will resolve more detail that 5 fairly clean ones. I refer you to the
latest issue of Black and White, where the new mamiya is reviewed. The
reviewer notes that the camera can resolve the stitching on the model's
shoes, but can't resolve the mesh of her stockings, and is afflicted with
moire there and the checkered dress, something he wouldn't find with his
higher MP rented Phase One back on his 'blad.
I amcontinuallly dissapointed in Kodak. There is much to be said for their
sensors aside from noise. The depth of poor corporate management must be
greater than we imagine.
Bill Pearce
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|