more pixels are better!

Started Dec 14, 2008 | Discussions thread
ejmartin Veteran Member • Posts: 6,274
Re: Perhaps you can explain...

DaSigmaGuy wrote:

ejmartin wrote:

... the following then:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=30190836
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=30211624

Explain?...OK...Never heard of in-camera noise reduction?

Not a property of Canon RAW data, which is what the linked posts are about. You might (re)read them. The RAW data, run through a reasonably good quality RAW converter (DPP was used for the analysis), has detail out to very close to Nyquist.

Here are some relevent quotes from Phils 50D review to save me the
trouble of repeating myself:

[snipped irrelevant diatribe about soft camera jpegs]

To my eyes the 40D is actually capturing MORE
detail, at least going by Phils samples but again, this is probably
due to much better pixel level quality, which in turn is due to the
40D's larger photosites.

Again irrelevant, when the question is what are the capabilities of the sensor rather than the mangling of the sensor data done by the camera jpeg engine. The RAW data tells a different story:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=30001276

Please use quantitative analysis rather than the erroneous internet
mythology you have been spouting.

I dont need to because Phil has already done it, right here on dpreview.

ROFLMAO; Phil hasn't got a clue.

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
thw
cpw
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow