100-300 vs. 50-200+1.4TC: surprised!

luisflorit wrote:

Anders W wrote:

No, definitely the grain I see in your shot is better than the one I see in mine. However, as you know, this is a processed shot, so it is in fact very hard to tell just from this. I can of course process mine to look even better than yours, and so you can (read below).

OK. But there was no selection of anything here, or in the shot below.

Yeah, I suspected that.

And no NR beyond LR defaults.

Maybe is that. I never used LR (Linux user here). I hate noise, but hate NR even more. The finest detail is very important to me.

LR doesn't use any luminance NR by default, which is what matters with regard to what we usually have in mind when we say detail (which is luminance rather than chroma detail). It does use a small amount of chroma NR. With a perfectly exposed shot at ISO 200, you don't really need that either. But it hardly does any damage either so I usually leave it as it is.

I would have to look back to tell for sure when it comes to sharpening. But my guess is that the first is with LR deffaults and the second a bit more than that (but in way that does not provoke too much noise).

I see.

I'll take a shot, and post the ORF file for you to play with. That's the only way for you to understand what I mean.

OK. Please do that.

Anyway, I will apply exposure shift of +2/3 EV to all my pictures, as I do with my E5, since Oly RAW files are exposed to the left for ISO 200 and above (since the E620). That will take care of good amount of noise.

L.

PS: some of the arguments here in my thread remembered me why I left the forum, that you asked me the other day...

Well, you still have to wear a pretty thick skin at times. But I think the reason for some of the reactions is that your claims are simply a bit provocative in view of what at least some people consider established facts. Exactly how provocative something is can be a bit difficult to judge if you haven't been around here for a while.