Thanks for the link, the RAW file comparisons are useful. I don't understand why there are ever jpg comparisons. Reviewers seem to think that saying they use the in-camera defaults is somehow meaningful, it isn't. Since every camera uses different defaults, and you can obviously change those results, you have no idea what you are looking at, the comparison is completely meaningless. I mean if comparing point and shoots where you might rationalize that most people will just shoot default jpg, maybe that's reasonable, but if you are buying this level of camera, you probably shouldn't be shooting jpg. I mean if the default jpg from one camera saturates an image more, or has a lower contrast boost than another, but you can achieve the exact same look with another setting on the camera, what's the point in comparing two dissimilar jpg's.? A camera maker should just make their default jpg profile over saturated and excessively sharpened, and people would think from the reviews that it's amazing. The comparison of the Sony and Nikon here is a good example, so the Sony shows less noise and more smearing and less detail, what does that tell you...nothing. Can it match the Nikon if you use a lower setting for noise reduction, will the noise then be equivalent and the loss of detail gone, or will it get too noisy to bring the jpg up to the same level of detail as the Nikon? I think it's lazy on the reviewer's side. If you want to compare jpg's, take the RAW with absolutely no camera settings, and process them both the same, however you choose to process them...as long as those choices are explained, at least it's a more accurate side-by-side comparison.
When I edited some RAW images with the Nikon software, I was constantly annoyed at how many settings were applied to the images (even with the standard jpg.). There's a lot of processing that goes on. One thing I like (most of the time) with my open source software is it ignores all the picture profile stuff, all I can do with a RAW is convert from the basic file with no settings from the camera other than the White Balance. It can't read the Nikon profiles for the different jpg's, it can't apply the sharpening or noise reduction settings, etc., I have to do all that in whatever software I use. It makes a big difference seeing what the true RAW file looks like before you begin editing. In the case of the pileated woodpecker that I posted earlier, it took me a few edits with the Nikon software before I realized how much it messed up the original RAW. In the first photo I posted, the red shadows were blocked up and had no detail because of the picture profile applied, when converted from RAW to TIFF. Removing that profile showed immediately how much more fine detail there was. Anyway, this is mainly a warning for those who do shoot jpg with the camera, or those less familiar with RAW editing, make sure you know the camera and your software inside-ou (exactly what both are doing do your files in terms of processing)t, otherwiseyou are trusting one or both to make a lot of decisions about the final output, and I'd say nearly 100% of the time, someone with just average editing experience can do better with just a few seconds of editing a RAW file, usually a lot better!.
