Author Topic: Lets pixel peep some JPEGs... (Read 3188 times)

Ray · « **Reply #25 on:** June 08, 2011, 02:37:49 PM »

Quote from: lisandra on June 08, 2011, 02:21:51 PM

Thing is, Im not disagreeing with the dude, Im a RAW shooter myself, but I do disagree with him in the statement that comparing JPEGs is useless.

Its obvious this is an unfortunate misunderstanding, happens sometimes, it'll pass.

Quote from: lisandra on June 08, 2011, 02:21:51 PM

To me the better the JPEG the better the processor (a good thing) or the easier it was to process (a cleaner file, a good thing too).

That is the most logical approach to this in my view as well, Raw is always better but a very good jpeg reveals much about the camera's sensor and processing capabilities allready, without good raw data there cant be any good jpeg ('chicken and the egg logic').

rparmar · « **Reply #26 on:** June 08, 2011, 03:43:27 PM »

Quote from: lisandra on June 08, 2011, 02:14:36 PM

But then people started noticing they couldnt get the look of oly EPL1 at high ISO from RAW no matter how they tried.

I would like so see some documentation of this. I am new to MFT but doubt it has any magic other formats don't have.

Quote from: lisandra on June 08, 2011, 02:14:36 PM

Quote
I prefer a camera to give me the best possible untouched images so I can use my photographic discretion.
Theres no such thing, I use to think teh same, then panther pointed out that even in RAw files in the analog to digital conversion manufacturers dont leave at as it is.

Er, how can there be no such thing as "the best possible". I think you are misunderstanding something.

Quote from: lisandra on June 08, 2011, 02:14:36 PM

I cant wait for the RAW files to be posted too.

I wonder why not? Some impending end of the world I am unaware of?

Bad data is worse than no data at all.

P.S. Apologies for getting overly defensive.

P.P.S Any way to multi-quote on this forum?

lisandra · « **Reply #27 on:** June 08, 2011, 04:03:42 PM »

Quote

Apologies for getting overly defensive.

My fault actually, Its a language barrier thing, when translating from my native tongue I often come of as overly aggressive or something.

Quote

Er, how can there be no such thing as "the best possible". I think you are misunderstanding something.

Perfect example of the language thing. What I mean to say is that I dont thrust camera makers to give me an untouche RAW file

Quote

I would like so see some documentation of this. I am new to MFT but doubt it has any magic other formats don't have.

Ill look it up, we did a thread on this a long time back. turns out the best solution was to merge the RAW and JPEG in photoshop

rparmar · « **Reply #28 on:** June 08, 2011, 04:08:25 PM »

Wow, your English is so good I didn't suspect a language barrier of any kind.

voyager · « **Reply #29 on:** June 08, 2011, 04:40:42 PM »

Everyone getting along in this thread? Just checking...

lisandra · « **Reply #30 on:** June 08, 2011, 05:05:14 PM »

Quote from: rparmar on June 08, 2011, 04:08:25 PM

Wow, your English is so good I didn't suspect a language barrier of any kind.

I write it pretty well, speaking it is another whole thing. Still I sometimes can't get the ideas to sound like I mean them

candyspan6 · « **Reply #31 on:** June 08, 2011, 08:05:20 PM »

Quote from: lisandra on June 07, 2011, 03:38:24 PM

There's no shame in it. Sure I might say the contrary some time in the future (or past) but really, its your money. And its not 15-20$ were talking about, cameras cost anywhere from 600-1000$ so you should be able to scrutinize a product as much as you want.
That said, dpreview posted the studio scene comparison of the G3 and to me it was so amazing I deemed it worthy of a topic. These are still JPEGs but amazing nonetheless. I know I know, dpreview kinda sucks but all were doing is looking at photos here.
Before going there, know this. First you have to choose the G3 from one of the tabs, if you want my suggestion use the tab thats using the 60D and keep the D7000 and the A55. Second change the position of the 100% crop square to either the old lady face (best), or the adonis looking statue face. These are areas with lots of detail and the coins are a bad choice. Switch over to ISO 1600 (switching on top switches all of them simultaneously). The GH2 and the G3 look pretty much alike, and they absolutely murder their APS C counterparts (A55, D7000). Switching over to ISO 3200 is where things got "wow" for me. The G3 clearly does better in retaining detail tan the GH2 and the D7000 (the A55 blurs everything to hell by now) so I boldly changed the A55 to a K5. I still preferred the G3. But what about ISO 6400? surely m4/3s cant keep up with that K5 at this ISO...it does, to me it looks better, even if its by a bit (its more obvious in the adonis face). Go see for yourself and post your amazement here, Ill wait. THIS is the camera that should have had ISO 12k (or higher).
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicDMCGH2/page18.asp
P.S. just for kicks, after doing all of that, go ahead and change one of those cameras for a 5D mk II (at ISO 3200-6400). Make youre own judgement on which looks more detailed, but me, I still preferred the G3

We all see and use what's beneficial to justify and validate our existing opinions. These types of tests are useless, in fact are totally flawed, only used to create debates on forums like this, and for readers to talk about the source; in this case DP review, wants to create more user traffic - so they make ridiculous comparisons. If we can't see that by now, I don't know what else to say. Go and try the cameras out side by side. Take the files home on your personal computer compare, and decide for yourself. Don't take anyone else's word for it because just like armpits, we all have an opinion and they all stink. Unless we're smelling them ourselves. When I'm shooting for a client, I want the best camera, and lens I can get. For me it was the d7000 hands down. Smaller sensors always want to be bigger sensors because the bigger sensors perform better. Point and shoot wants to be m4/3, m4/3 wants to be an APS-C, and that wants to be FF. Now everyone compares the FF to medium format. I like m4/3 for what it does, and I'd love for the system to come out with a camera that fits the bill, without trying to be the size of a chicklet container. For the serious stuff, I'll take my d7K, m4/3 does not match up in my book! But again that's my book, what you want to see may be different...

adash · « **Reply #32 on:** June 08, 2011, 11:48:15 PM »

candyspan6, Your preference of D7000 over m4/3 has to do something with your personal choice too, doesn't it?
Because I know about Lisandra the exactly opposite - GH2 instead of a55(similar sensor to D7000) because of sharpness and fine detail.
Fine detail is also one of the reasons my K-r stays in the drawer, although it is the only camera that can use the excellent Sigma 18-50 F/2.6 EX DC MACRO. The other reason for not using it is focus accuracy, but that's for another thread, for example "DSLR vs. Mirrorless - focus speed or focus accuracy? Or both with the newest G/GH by Panasonic"

lisandra · « **Reply #33 on:** June 10, 2011, 05:35:22 PM »

Quote

GH2 instead of a55(similar sensor to D7000) because of sharpness and fine detail.

its a print vs screen thing for me, on screen the a55 files just look amazing (the web I mean), theyre clean and clear you name it. But when printing the GH2 has the appearance (i guess) of more aparent resolution or detail.

Panther · « **Reply #34 on:** June 10, 2011, 06:15:42 PM »

Personally & in my opinion,
I believe there's somewhat of an ant-DSLR slant within this forum...

But then again, this shouldn't be surprising since this is a Micro Four Thirds forum...

cosinaphile · « **Reply #35 on:** June 10, 2011, 07:20:07 PM »

print a well shot, sharp, micro4\3 image at a reasonable iso vs any apsc and printto 20 by 24 do you print larger?

side by side the prints cant be told apart based on image quality
i stand by that, but respect disagreement to my pov

even megapixels wars are nonsense to a point

also the gulf between sensor size of point and shootand m43and or aps c
is vast but the iq difference in the larger formats of apsc and m43 and ff are much less so

lisandra · « **Reply #36 on:** June 11, 2011, 11:56:33 AM »

Quote from: Panther on June 10, 2011, 06:15:42 PM

Personally & in my opinion,
I believe there's somewhat of an ant-DSLR slant within this forum...

But then again, this shouldn't be surprising since this is a Micro Four Thirds forum...

I got nothing against DSLRs (well, sorta), I have 2 (3 if you wanna count the A55). I use them too, on the John & Tin wedding it was 70:30 m4/3s and APS C. On the Ideliz & Edward I havent posted yet it was more 60:40 (because of glass), I just dont post much of it here. On that wedding when things got dark the 60D I brought along was almost completely black in the VF, here the A55 and GH2 shined because of autogain. I couldnt stop thinking about you guys in that moment. Things like that have me pretty much sold on mirrorless. And I never had a 4/3s camera before m4/3s came along, so that must say something on how much the output impressed me that I defend it so much now. Is it the light aa filter? my own tastes? the FIne detail despite the grain? I dont know, but theres certainly something about the output of m4/3s that just plain speaks to me, it reminds me of some sort of medium I just can put my finger on.
One must never say never, (out of subject) a few years back I was thinking always up (to full frame), I went down (to 4/3s) and am completely satisfied with the results. Would you have talked to me about the quality of a smaller sensor than APS C I would have rolled my eyes in disbelief, and yet, today, after only a couple of years of using the format, I defend 4/3s to the death (you all know)

Quote

But then again, this shouldn't be surprising since this is a Micro Four Thirds forum...

I think m4/3s gets a lot of hate too right here on the forum

Quote

print a well shot, sharp, micro4\3 image at a reasonable iso vs any apsc and printto 20 by 24 do you print larger?

22x22s, 17x22s,18x24s, 16x20s, 16x32s rarely at ISO 100 or 200. Heck I even did a GH1 ISO 100 40x30. Dare to print man, its the most satisfactory feeling in the world

Lets pixel peep some JPEGs...

Author Topic: Lets pixel peep some JPEGs... (Read 3188 times)

Ray

Re: Lets pixel peep...

rparmar

Re: Lets pixel peep...

lisandra

Re: Lets pixel peep...

rparmar

Re: Lets pixel peep...

voyager

Re: Lets pixel peep...

lisandra

Re: Lets pixel peep...

candyspan6

Re: Lets pixel peep...

adash

Re: Lets pixel peep...

lisandra

Re: Lets pixel peep...

Panther

Re: Lets pixel peep...

cosinaphile

Re: Lets pixel peep...

lisandra

Re: Lets pixel peep...

Lets pixel peep some JPEGs...

Related Topics

Recent Topics

Recent Gallery