Still loving the M6II, even more with new DXO

R2D2 wrote:

MAC wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

Overall, DPXD sets the IQ standard a notch higher (IMHO), and gives you one more tool in the toolbox that can be utilized as needed, or not.

I couldn't tell at the image level

On my monitor I can judge at 100%.

even at 100 %, the print sizes would need to be enormous

so I pixel peeped in photoshop using the side by side comparator at 300%

Ouch! I never view at greater than 100% because that view is meaningless to me (it exceeds my output requirements). I make sure that my crops never exceed 100% (even my birdies).

yes, but I was in diagnosis mode

well, unfortunately I found more artifacts on the face of the player with the ball when dpxd was used

Well that's actually how her face appears in real life (dermatitis). Daughter of a friend. Poor teenagers!

I was referring to the artifact spikes at 300% in diagnostic mode near the tip of her nose

I definitely didn't want to set the image level any higher because then things got really ugly!

I figured if I were to process this image for publishing, I'd increase the detail level further overall, then selectively bring it down in her face. She'd feel much better about that.

too much work - you could be at iso 800

and for the closest player in maroon on the left, I'm see to much watercolor like blur with dpxd vs dp

The blur is because all the rest of the players' faces are indeed OOF. If there was a watercolor effect in the faces of the in-focus players, then I'd be worried. When they're OOF, then I like them to stay that way, and not have any of that "false detail" that over-processing can create.

in diagnostic 300% mode, it was the color separation forming an unnatural line versus the continuum

so for my tastes, I don't see the extra benefit at the image level and I'm not preferring the DPXD when I pixel peep on the faces - and the extra time to process would be an added negative

Too much detail in the faces (even if it's real-to-life detail) can certainly be a negative.

yes it can

Folks generally don't like that (heck an entire industry revolves around portrait smoothing software). You probably even have some!

I do

but I did see more stipple detail in the ball as you said -- so for a photo of objects where one wants more detail the upgraded version may be the one to use, but for faces, I dunno ...

for me I stay with PL5 for now

Sure. So much of what we view as "normal" is based on what we've experienced in the past. I do predict that this NR software will be changing that paradigm eventually though. At least once all of the "grainy film" shooters of yore (like you and me) have moved on...

yep, a little tight grain is naturally good by me

btw - time is important too.

I got some great iso 12,800 shots with my 32 f1.4 at my last event - rendering with deep prime - which takes time - and as Larry said, a whole lot of variables in many sliders can make a difference

R2