[Leica] Re: Leica DMR vs. Canon 20D comparison shots

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

On 6/5/05 6:24 AM, "F?lix L?pez de Maturana" <FELIXMATURANA@telefonica.net>
typed:

>> The 1Ds mkII now seem exorbitantly priced even compared to, for example
>> the D2x, which according to dpreview.com, is every bit as good as the
>> 1ds mkII for less money! It looks like the APS size sensors are going
>> to be around for a long time.
> 
> Have I read same test? Excuse me for quoting literally Phil Askey -I hope with
> his kind permission-
> 
> "A check of the detail crop however shows that at ISO 1600 and 3200
> we're losing detail to the smoothing effect of noise reduction. A quick
> scan of the graph below shows that noise levels between these cameras
> are actually quite similar up to ISO 800 (with or without noise
> reduction), with noise reduction switched Off the D2X's ISO 1600 noise
> is marginally higher than that of the EOS 1Ds Mark II. Set noise
> reduction to High and you get the cleanest looking images and lowest
> measurable noise levels but at the expense of image detail (see samples
> below graphs)"
> 
> "In development terms this new sensor may not be as mature as those
> found in Canon's digital SLR's but it real terms it performs almost as
> well, the only difference seems to be Nikon's choice of standard
> sensitivity range which is ISO 100 to 800. Turn off the High ISO noise
> reduction and shoot at ISO 1600 equiv. (HI-1) and noise levels will be
> higher than we'd like, turn noise reduction back on and you begin to
> lose detail (my preference is keep the detail as the noise isn't that
> objectionable)."
> 
> "Having now matched the in-camera sharpening we can see that while the
> Canon's resolution advantage can be seen in areas of fine detail it's
> not a storming lead"
> 
> Leica DMR option for 1.3 crop sensor is an economical decision consequence of
> cost influences and it's the first time I see Leica  not going to the top
> notch absolute quality but is doing concessions to practical factors. May be
> it will be necessary for survival.
> 
> Felix
> 
> 
Is it true that perhaps the standard way to deal with noise levels are, like
sharpening, best left to software later?

In this case third party noise software which is getting to be just part of
the ballgame, (workflow) for a large consensus of willing eager (serious)
digital doers?

Seems like it to me. I've not got that yet but it seems inevitable. It's
pretty cheap too.

I'd not base my opinion on the digital back by noise.
Noise is easily dealt with later.
We have ways.


Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/