>
> I have never applied noise reduction to my 5D's ISO 3200 images. Nor
> does the camera. They're all shot in raw.
>
I beg to differ. All DSLRs apply some form of noise reduction to the images
prior to the RAW file being written. Canon, in fact, is very clear about
this as they apply substantial noise-reduction right within the CMOS and
initial data processing. The sensor, in Canon's case, is "profiled" as to
the specific noise characteristics and this is taken into account during the
initial bit-bending that goes on. Raw is not Raw. Camera companies spend
millions of dollars in very very careful color profiling to get the files as
close to a desired "look" as possible. You think those Digix or whatever
processors are just sitting in the cameras to give you faster autofocus? :)
Now, to be clear about one thing--Some cameras do this better than others.
Frankly, when it comes right down to pixel-peeping level, I will suggest
that the original Canon 5D is best-of-breed and the images don't look
processed at all. The Sony A900--even at base ISO is OBVIOUSLY doing
noise-reduction. The same is definitely true with the Nikon D2X (yes, I
know, an ancient camera) and the Olympus E-3. But the Sony A900 takes this
to a level that I can't believe people aren't making a big stink over. Even
the D700 has obvious cleaning marks from its own noise-reduction broom.
Which brings me to a prediction: The Canon 5D will be recognized as a
"legendary" digital camera--highly sought after and holding its own long
after 100+ MP are the norm. (we're only three-four years aways from a 5D
Mk4 with 98 MP with ultra-clean ISO 25600).
In the meantime, we're seeing people madly dashing out to buy the 5D Mk2
even though it has known flaws, which to me, would be immediate and total
show-stoppers. Canon never did fix this black-dot problem with the 1DsMk2,
and they still haven't gotten the 1Dmk3's auto-focus to work totally correct
yet. The 20D was plagued with back-focus and electronic problems. Canon has
made a few boners in the past few years and it's obvious that some models
will stand the test of time, while others are destined for the scrap-heap of
history. The 5D will be one that stands the test of time. Frankly, one
reason is because the camera is really at that sweet spot of really being
all-there in image-quality. The pixel-count is truely at the
maximum-usability point. I try to move around 35mm scans and I can't
efficiently do it--imagine trying to process a wedding shoot of 1600
pictures taken in RAW at these ungodly pixel-counts. I can't even get
Lightroom to handle 5MP files in a timely manner. 300ppi for A0 prints is
not normal people.
Can you believe it? The Schnozz is praising the 5D????
Run for the hills, it's the end of the world!
AG (don't get me started on the D3X) Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|