Real ISOs, crybabies, misinformation.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Dec 28, 2009.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Check out this thread. A perfectly reasonable relay of information
    from DXO about the differences in sensitivities of cameras. DXO is
    probably the only site that deals properly with this clearly evident
    issue. Dpreview tweaks the illumination levels on all its tests shots
    when it does reviews, which explains why (despite real-world
    experience being the opposite) all the shots appear the same from
    camera to camera. I've owned a slew of different DSLRs and can state
    that even with the same manual lens being used and the same manual
    exposure, (thus eliminating t-stop arguments) different cameras render
    different illumination levels in images, leading some to show even
    more noise in shots than others when levels are equalized. Marked
    ISOs are clearly not the same from camera to camera for raw shots.
    P.S. Who cares about JPEGs? The camera manufacturer can create any
    levels it wants for them so comparing them is insane, except to judge
    artifact control.

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=34086189
     
    RichA, Dec 28, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Re: Real ISOs, crybabies - Rich's misinformation.

    RichA <> wrote:
    >Check out this thread. A perfectly reasonable relay of information
    >from DXO about the differences in sensitivities of cameras. DXO is
    >probably the only site that deals properly with this clearly evident
    >issue. Dpreview tweaks the illumination levels on all its tests shots


    And again Rich plays smear and run.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 29, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Invalid Guest

    Re: Real ISOs, crybabies - Rich's misinformation.

    "Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    news:4b395342$0$1602$...
    > RichA <> wrote:
    >>Check out this thread. A perfectly reasonable relay of information
    >>from DXO about the differences in sensitivities of cameras. DXO is
    >>probably the only site that deals properly with this clearly evident
    >>issue. Dpreview tweaks the illumination levels on all its tests shots

    >
    > And again Rich plays smear and run.
    >

    At the end of the day digital beats high ISO films. Shots taken with dSLR at
    1600 or 3200 ISO beat 1600 or film pushed to 3200. So who really cares
    about a little noise compared to film grain. I admit sometimes grain adds to
    the look, but Hell I can add grain in the darkroom with a texture screen, or
    in digital post production...
     
    Invalid, Dec 29, 2009
    #3
  4. RichA

    Chrlz Guest

    On Dec 29, 9:52 am, RichA <> wrote:
    > Check out this thread.  A perfectly reasonable relay of information
    > from DXO about the differences in sensitivities of cameras.  DXO is
    > probably the only site that deals properly with this clearly evident
    > issue.  Dpreview tweaks the illumination levels on all its tests shots
    > when it does reviews, which explains why (despite real-world
    > experience being the opposite) all the shots appear the same from
    > camera to camera.  I've owned a slew of different DSLRs and can state
    > that even with the same manual lens being used and the same manual
    > exposure, (thus eliminating t-stop arguments) different cameras render
    > different illumination levels in images, leading some to show even
    > more noise in shots than others when levels are equalized.  Marked
    > ISOs are clearly not the same from camera to camera for raw shots.
    > P.S.  Who cares about JPEGs?  The camera manufacturer can create any
    > levels it wants for them so comparing them is insane, except to judge
    > artifact control.
    >
    > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=34086189


    Maybe more people would reply if you weren't a hit and run attention
    seeking poster who won't back up his claims.

    Why haven't you elaborated on the test you *claim* you did? - you
    know, the one that proves 'plastic' camera images are degraded by heat
    where metal cameras are not.

    It's right here:
    http://groups.google.com.au/group/r...606a7f9ae3820?hl=en&lnk=raot#fd8606a7f9ae3820
    ...and you seem very reticent to acknowledge you made the claim, let
    alone back it up.
     
    Chrlz, Dec 29, 2009
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. rabbit

    burn bootable CD on WinXP from ISOs

    rabbit, Jul 31, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    3,744
    Walter Mautner
    Jul 31, 2004
  2. n

    Higher ISOs : the only way to go

    n, Nov 20, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    548
  3. Bob Alexander

    Why not slower ISOs?

    Bob Alexander, Sep 19, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    766
    Greg Campbell
    Sep 22, 2004
  4. Steven Ellis

    Misinformation about HDCP and HDMI

    Steven Ellis, Aug 14, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    529
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Aug 20, 2006
  5. §ñühw¤£f

    Fox Noise Crybabies

    §ñühw¤£f, Sep 1, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    659
    monkeywintest
    Sep 3, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page