AG Schnozz wrote:
> I have a pretty good idea of what kind of
> pixel-quality I need for printing and that exceeds it just fine.
>
> My only issue is with some banding that I've been seeing in high-ISO
> pictures.
>
It appears to be an impressive improvement.
I've just been pixel peeping at the iso 1600 butterfly and a butterfly
shot of my own with the 5D @ 1600. The 5D image is a bit bigger, but
only about 7% vertically, so that shouldn't be much of a factor.
In the out of focus areas, the noise characteristics are different. The
5D noise is about the same across the whole brightness range. The 410 is
visually about the same as the 5D in lighter areas, maybe even a bit
better in the lightest areas, but starts to fall apart in darker areas,
with more obvious noise, a sort of blobby look and a clear loss of detail.
It's harder to compare over a range of brightness in areas of fine
detail, as the shot appears not to have sufficient detail in the body
and wings. Probably a DOF problem, but could be partly due to loss of
detail to NR.
I'm thinking these are in camera JPEGs, rather than RAW files converted
to JPEG for web display. That would explain the different amount and
characteristics of noise with brightness and possibly some of the
slightly odd looking unsharpness in the body and front part of the wing.
If that is true, the JPEG processor is pretty good, but we won't know
the 'real' noise of the sensor system 'til we get some RAW source images.
i can't tell for sure if Dick's samples were originally RAW. They do
seem to have some of the same characteristics.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|