Canon lover switched to RX-100, and it was terrible! Need advice....

Started Feb 1, 2013 | Discussions thread
YiannisPP
Senior MemberPosts: 1,621
Like?
Re: Sony RX100 low ISO JPGs look pretty good.
In reply to AdamT, Feb 3, 2013

AdamT wrote:

Low ISO RAW conversions in general cannot really outclass the OOC jpegs as your statement below would seem to imply.


you either have low expectations or are using a RAW converter which adds NR behind the scenes because even at Base ISO the fine detail is smeared away (the NEX and Alpha series are the same) , in RAW it`s tack sharp . for the record I`d not shoot the S90 in JPG either for different reasons , the G1X is fine

Adam,

I don't think you can say I have low expectations in general. You can of course say lower than yours. But my expectations in general are in line with DPR's reviewers for a camera of this class, which I think we can assume are not generally low. I quote from DPR's RX100 review:

"The RX100's processing isn't perfect - it looks a lot like some noise reduction is being applied and then the results sharpened, but the overall effect is a lot more pleasant, realistic and detailed....Having Raw mode on the RX100 means that you can achieve slightly better image quality than is possible from JPEG, although the increase in potential resolution is relatively subtle...there's not a lot of scope for digging out more detail by converting from Raw. That said, the ability to fine-tune the sharpening to match the subject matter is always handy...In general the RX100 does a fairly good job of using an appropriate amount of noise reduction at each ISO setting but obviously it can't tailor it to the subject....There's not a lot more detail to be gleaned from shooting in Raw...."

My findings largely concur with the statements above, so you see why I took exception at your bold statement "Sony JPGs are glooped to death with NR at ALL ISO".

I am using LR4.3 by the way (and used IDC). If these add NR behind the scenes then wow, didn't know that and that's bad. But whether this is or not the case, I'd really appreciate it if you could prove your point of how significantly superior the RAW conversion can be compared to the OOC jpeg at base ISO. Could you please post a comparison of the two for a good light, base ISO photo?

In your two hypothetical cases, you could've added a third one, i.e. "or your pp skills are not sufficient to get the most out of RAW", at which I wouldn't have taken exception, I'm always learning.

Personally I cannot really see a substantial benefit from converting from RAW in these conditions (low ISO, good light). Any minor (very) fine extra detail I can glean out is accompanied by also minor increase in fine grain. We're talking about very fine detail indeed and I fail to see under what conditions you'd see it in a final photo unless you crop at near 100%.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow