Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I looked at your photos but cannot make a case to myself that these photos show representative behaviors of the two cameras accurately.
I don't think they represent a good comparison in all respects, but if you stick to the latidude when shooting JPEG (which was my intention), why not?
What I mean is: to answer the question "does one body have more exposure latitude than the other?", I'd have to have a RAW image taken with the exact same lighting and exposure settings, or an un- altered in-camera JPEG image taken with the same parameter settings, both of the same target and taken from the same position with the same lens, to give me confidence that I was seeing a difference characterizing the two cameras accurately.
How can you tell that "same parameters" are same parameters? Is mid-level sharpness the same for both models? Who knows? In my shots, the Ds was set as default, while the D was set default on all parameters but sharpness, which was a step lower. And those crops are NOT intended for comparing sharpness.
RAW format exposures should be definitive.
That's beyond my intention, as I wanted to show the big difference when shooting JPEG, which applies to 90%+ of my shots. Maybe someone else also shoots jpeg, even it is not in fashion.
For in-camera JPEGs, you also have to allow for possible differences between in-camera RGB rendering and JPEG compressions settings.
Yes, and this gives ìthe difference I am interested in, since I mainly shoot JPEG. Maybe someone else also shoots jpeg, even it is not in fashion.
For example, a Canon 10D and a Canon 300D use the same sensor and similar capture/rendering chipset, but Canon sets the defaults for the 10D differently form the 300D *and* what the parameter settings mean are not 1:1 mappings. I found that I could get JPEGs that looked almost identical to the 300D on its defaults by up setting Saturation, Contrast and Sharpening parameters, but I couldn't get the 300D JPEGs to match the 10D's using the 10D's default parameters as the 300D controls had a coarser adjustment range. The RAW files from both cameras were insignificantly different at the same exposure
Not surprised at all. I'd be surprised if the RAW files were significantly different. I expect the same with *istD and *istDS. Dario
