X20 3200 ISO jpg - raw comparison

Started Apr 12, 2013 | Discussions thread
tazmac Regular Member • Posts: 360
Re: X20 3200 ISO jpg - raw comparison

tron555 wrote:

That's because this camera was only designed to take pictures in RAW at ISO 400 or less, and PP'ed extensively to get any detail out of them. If you like to take JPEG images and do not like PP every image extensively, you should NOT own or use this camera. I have never seen a high end camera that is not capable of taking JPEG images that look so bad and costs $600!!! Even images taken at ISO 400 look extremely noisy and full of grain. If you are still able to return it, do yourself a favor before it is too late and get any camera for less money that can take JPEG image that have much better IQ! Why should anyone be forced to take only RAW images and PP them to death that are still only half way presentable? There are soooo many other cameras available for $600 (or less) that take much better pictures, why settle for less if you don't need to? Life it way too short to put up with substandard cameras when there are so many others that are so much better, and cost less.

troll555 make yourself a favor and leave!

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow