Nikon Z6, Z7 and Canon EOS R low-light ISO scores?

Started Dec 4, 2018 | Discussions thread
Historicity Senior Member • Posts: 2,234
Re: Nikon Z6, Z7 and Canon EOS R low-light ISO scores?

bclaff wrote:

Historicity wrote:

Maarten Droogne wrote:


As a K1 Mark ii owner and party to the after-effects of what on the Pentax forum is considered a faulty DPreview, I notice that someone basing a decision on that review caused you to take the K1ii "off the table". "Aggressive noise" reduction was mentioned. Since all the camera makers have some noise reduction in their sensors, "aggressive" becomes a matter for debate ...

Not all cameras have Noise Reduction (NR) applied at any ISO setting.
For those that do the effect is generally at high ISO settings and not too extreme.

I am the person who used the term aggressive and I stand by that statement.
Here's an annotated graphic to give you some idea of why:

I suspect this signal processing is a combination of noise reduction and sharpening.
Personally I would not want this in my raw files.

The thing is, a chart doesn't provide evidence that there will be a  negative result.  No one involved in the storm and stress aftermath of the DPreview review claimed there was a negative effect.  They argued that they would rather introduce the NR themselves. But time has passed.  Others have reviewed the K1ii and placed it very high in their ratings.  No one has complained of soft images because of noise reduction.

For a while I was manager of a testing department at McDonnell Douglas during the period when MDC had to prove by test or demonstration that it had met the Air Force's requirements for the design of the C-17.  In something like the above chart, if this matter were part of what my group had to deal with, the question would be, did the Air Ask for a particular result in a chart -- or -- did they ask for a particular result.  To my knowledge the Air Force was interested in results.  On something like this they would have required tests.  The "seller" said the results would be good; so, the Air Force would demand that the results be proved by testing.  If the testing showed that the product met the requirements, then the Air Force would have signed off on it.  It would have been acceptable -- even if some Air Force engineers (hypothetically) worried about a graph like the one that you are bothered by.

The Ricoh CEO explained at one point that they had to come out with the Mark ii upgrade because as it was, the AFSC KP (with the accelerator that produced the challenged "aggressive" NR) had better image quality than the K1.  They had to install the accelerator on the K1 in order for the K1, the Ricoh flagship camera, to be better than the KP.  (BTW, no one has complained about "aggressive noise reduction" from the accelerator in the KP.)

I have both the KP and the K1ii and am very happy with the results from both of them -- as is everyone who has commented about these two cameras on the Pentax forum or any place else I've encountered [at least in regard to image quality.  Many do not like the KP's grip and ergonomics.]

DPReview acknowledged that their testing was faulty and made one apology and changed their grade by one point, but those on the Pentax forum who watched this matter most closely argued that DPReview did not go far enough in their apology.


 Historicity's gear list:Historicity's gear list
Ricoh GR II Nikon D200 Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Olympus E-1 +123 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow