On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 08:17:19PM +0000, Peter Lacus wrote: > Howdy all! > > I've tried Photoshop CS2 today to develop some RAW files and the results > were (probably as expected) the best so far. While smoothness remained > about the same as with SilkyPix (very positive), Camera RAW extracted a > tad more information. Even better thing is, that it doesn't really > matter - as long as one keeps the RAW files there'll always be a > possibility of improvements within a RAW software (I like it, it's the > same as with film scanning - you keep the originals and as technology of > scanning improves so do your scans). That said, I am quite satisfied > with results from each software I've tried, even the basic automatic > conversion with Picasa is good enough for me now. Should I change my > opinion I can always redo the pictures using another software. Let's > talk about peace of mind... :-) > > Well, I must admit I didn't expect such a big difference between digital > compacts and DSLRs. I can only hope that difference between istDs and > K10D is somewhat smaller, because otherwise it'll ruin my bank account. > Can somebody please tell me it's negligible? ;-)
The big difference between DSLRs and P&S compacts is the size of the sensor (and, in particular, the amount of silicon for each pixel). The sensor in a P&S is tiny compared to that is a DSLR - generally about 10% of the area. Image quality, and particularly the amount of noise, is strongly related to the size of each individual pixel. The sensor in the K10D is the same size as that in the *ist DS. So the DS, with only 6MP, actually has slightly larger pixels than the K10D. A raw image from the DS could actually be a little better than one from the K10D in potentially noisy situations (low light photography). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
