Hi Dario ... The tests shots were certainly relevant for me. I understand about adjusting the in camera settings, so seeing the somewhat overly sharp results you posted was not an issue - rather, it gave a good indication of what the standard settings may look like.
While a lot of photographs I take will be done in RAW, there are also plenty of times when I'd want to use JPEG - eBay items, Q&D test shots, unimportant or non-critical snaps, and so on. That's whata digi is for - options. Thanks for posting the pics and for your explanations. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Dario Bonazza > My opinion, expressed in my first message in this thread, is that IF you > shoot JPEG (and most people on this list apparently don't), the two cameras > give very different results, with the Ds offering better exposure latitude. > > Nothing more, nothing less. > > I expect that two RAW files won't show the same difference, but that's > another topic as other topics would be the sharpness, the color rendition, > or any other performance. > I cannot check two RAW's as I no longer have the Ds at hand. > > Dario > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "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
