[LRflex] Re: More contoversy!

Good Mornin' Douglas!

You wrote:

>David,
>it bothers me a little that the 20D was set at 3200, this is more or=20
>less a "pushed" setting - for those who don't know the 20D, the default=20
>ISO eq. range is
>set to a default of 100 - 1600,you have to set 3200 in the menu - the=20
>typical "stone-wall effect" is very prominent in the darker parts of the =
>
>Canon shot, but is also visible in the DMR shot just to the upper right=20
>of the squirrels tail.
>  
>
Yes, ISO 3200 *is* a pushed setting on the Canon.  Still, it is 
considered quite usable by many. It was intended to be compared to the 
DM-R's ISO 400 shot with 3 stops underexposure... which, after 
correction during Raw to Tif conversion, is equivalent to ISO 3200.

I have now added a Canon shot at ISO 1600, for direct comparison to the 
DM-R's ISO 400 shot with 2 stops under exposure, which effectively works 
out to ISO 1600.

And yes, the "Stone wall" effect is apparent in both shots - Canon and 
DM-R at 3200.  It is visible, to a lesser extent, in the Canon shot at 
1600. I don't see it in the DMR's (effective) ISO 1600 shot, but then 
again, that may only be the subject details/lighting not showing it. 

When making comparisons, please remember that the DM-R's 1600 is it's 
"Push" setting, and it does not have ISO 3200 at all.

Also remember that I am not trying to show that the DM-R, with the 'work 
around', is superior to the Canon. I'm just trying to show that it can 
be made to perform comparably to the 20D, at ISOs where the DMR is 
acknowledge to be poor, without the 'fiddle'... or not designed to 
operate at all (ISO 3200).

BTW: all of these shots are slightly out of focus... rejects, if you 
will.  I chose them because I didn't want to have the viewers focus on 
the photograph, but rather on the backgrounds, where noise is most often 
evident. 

If you compare the noise in the oof tree on the left of the woodpecker 
shot, to the noise in the seaweed at the transition from sky to beach in 
the heron shot, you'll see that the noise in much more evident (to my 
eye and mind) in the Canon shot. (ISO 1600 side.)

This is not to say that the DM-R shot is better, nor without noise 
problems.  Just that it is widely acknowledged ( and I won't argue) that 
the noise levels in the DM-R at 800 are poor, and at 1600, almost 
unusable.  I am only trying to demonstrate that using Peter Werner's 
method of under exposing and compensating during conversion 
(development, if you prefer) from RAW to Tif, can produce some very 
usable shots at high ISO's.  Certainly more usable than the DMR when set 
at ISO 1600, and comparable, if not better to the Canon at ISO 1600.  At 
3200, I think it is also comparable to the Canon... which is interesting 
as the DMR, on its own, cannot do ISO 3200!

Remember, these shots are not a "My DMR is better than your Canon" 
test.  They only show that with a suitable "work around", the DMR can be 
made to perform close to, or as well as, the Canon 20D - something not 
otherwise possible.

I know Ted Grant has weighed in against the idea of "fiddling" with a 
"work around", but in truth, it takes no more time or effort to tweak 
the exposure compensation on the R8/9 than it does to change the ISO on 
the 20D.  What does change, is that the preview image on the LCD is 
darker. However, at minus 2 stops (effective ISO 1600), the display is 
so much better on the DM-R, that this is hardly noticeable.  With the 
ISO 3200 (-3 stops) tweak, the DMRs display is distinctly darker.  But, 
then again, the DMR is not supposed to do ISO 3200, so....

All these shots were developed and adjusted identically.  Tweaking each 
one for best advantage could give different results, but then we'd be 
altering more variables... and there are enough here already!  And all 
could benefit from a run through Neat Image or Noise Ninja, but the idea 
here is to show the noise, not hide it!

I'm sorry I can't provide direct comparison shots ... I'll have to leave 
that to others.  Yesterday, I advertised my Canon 20D and it sold to a 
chap who, surprisingly, lives less than a 45 minute drive from me.  
Should that deal fail, I now have backup buyers in both Japan and the 
USA!  (Did I under price it?) So, I've been busy cleaning and re-packing 
the Canon and won't be using it for more shots.  (Sorry, but I need to 
recover some funds to take by bank account out of DMR shock!)

I will, over the next few days, try to get some actual ISO 1600 shots 
from the DM-R.  The ones I tried, when I first got the camera, were 
deleted as unusable.  At least with Peter's "work around", results from 
the DMR are certainly acceptable at high ISOs, which is all I've been 
attempting to show.

Cheers!

http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/Noise.htm

-- 
David Young,
Logan Lake, BC    
CANADA. 

Personal Web-site at: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt
Leica Reflex Forum web-page: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm

------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
    http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
    http://www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/

Other related posts: