lemon_juice: Recently, I'm experiencing more and more of the so called "change for the sake of change" - first windows 8 and now dpreview new forum look. Why change something that worked well? I know the new forum format has a few new features but they could have been added to the old look as well.
To be more specific my major concerns:
1. The blue text is harder to read and their no colour indication of visited links. I had to switch to the yellow layout - yellow should be the default and the blue should also have visited link distinction!
2. Lots of space wasted in the thread/post lists - why so much empty space between the lines? The pages have become huge and require more scrolling. The older compact view was much better.
[to be continued....]
3. There's some mess introduced in viewing images in posts. Enlarging/shrinking images with a mouse click results in some weird jumping of the page and the result is that the image goes out of view. Additionally, I've noticed some images are upscaled in the browser which results in perceived softness that is not present on the original. No images should appear larger than uploaded by the user - this makes no sense and degrades quality. Besides, the old widged allowed nice and smooth resizing, which was nice. Why did you have to change what was working so well?
Generally I have a feeling of a little chaos now that I'm coming back to the forums, much less enjoyable experience. But well, that probably has one good advantage - I found myself spending here more time than I wanted to so now I have a chance to step back from the forums and reclaim some of my time. No problem at all, who said I have to be a regular user of dpr forums?
Recently, I'm experiencing more and more of the so called "change for the sake of change" - first windows 8 and now dpreview new forum look. Why change something that worked well? I know the new forum format has a few new features but they could have been added to the old look as well.
How wonderful it would be if Apple gadgets didn't take up space at dpreview and instead we could read more about real photographic equipment...
It's too bad dpreview don't include raws processed with the converters provided by manufacturers. The fact that images from all cameras are processed by ACR doesn't mean this is an even playing ground because Adobe has to separately write algorithms for each camera and their quality may not be the same for different cameras.
How can I be sure that Adobe's algorithm for Fujifilm is the one that gets the best quality? I am inclined to assume that the camera maker knows better how to process their raws especially for such an unusual sensor. If Adobe did poor job with processing x-pro1 raws then we may get a very skewed view of the camera's performance.
lemon_juice: D800 is better at high iso than 5D Mark III - am I the only one seeing this? You can't objectively compare noise looking at 100% samples of different sizes.
Try this simple thing: load the 25600 ISO RAW samples in photoshop, downsize the D800 image to match Mark III's resolution and put these two images as saparate layers into one image then toggle the top layer on and off to see instant comparison at 100%.
I did this and what I saw: - detail is about the same - in some areas D800 is very slightly better while in others Mark III - noise is substantially stronger in Mark III, escpecially in dark areas - looks like a full stop worse than D800
I don't know why everyone says Mark III is better at high ISO while I see quite the opposite. D800 may not look better at 100% but in print it will for sure.
To those saying why would anyone want to downsize 36MP image when having D800 - you've missed the point. It's not that I advise downsampling when using the camera but in order to compare ISO performance of two cameras with different resolutions you need to downsample because you need to have equal resolution pictures in order to compare noise.
The reason is noise increases with resolution (upsampling) and decreases with resolution (downsampling). In other words a 36MP camera CAN exhibit much more noise at full resolution than a 22MP camera in order to keep the SAME iso performance. Without equal resolutions it's like comparing apples to oranges.
What I saw was clear - if a 22MP image from D800 is less noisy than a 22MP image from Mark III then it means D800's iso performance is better and it will show in prints or any other real-world usage.
D800 is better at high iso than 5D Mark III - am I the only one seeing this? You can't objectively compare noise looking at 100% samples of different sizes.