Thomas A Anderson

@Muskokaphotog

Resolution is produced by a combination of the lens and the sensor. One of those two will always be the bottleneck in resolving detail: either the lens will be able to resolve...

You mean what advantages does it have besides its extremely high resolution? Is that not enough of an advantage???

That sucks. I wonder if the damage was actually fairly minor and the very efficient technicians simply did a quick repair of superficial damage, ran diagnostic tests to confirm everything was ...

I'm not really sure what your test is meant to prove.  It appears that your thesis is:  at very high ISOs, one can't tell the difference between detail destroyed by noise and detail destroyed by ...

I may not have been as clear as I could have been here.  I was responding to someone who compared various RAW processors, and concluded that DXO DeepPRIME was preferable in order to compensate for ...

I don't print to be viewed from a few feet away.  I print so that as viewed from inches away there is stunning levels of detail. That is extremely presumptuous.  You don't know how much I've needed ...

A crop sensor using the 18-150 almost certainly doesn’t have enough detail for RAW to have many advantages.  I’d still use it in order to retain what detail there was and make noise reduction more ...

No.  I don’t think you are missing anything that you care about.  It’s like claiming that simply because I like a car that goes 0-60 in 3 seconds I must think everyone who prefers going 0-60 in 5 ...

The OP can easily clear up any confusion.  And in your case, why do you shoot CRAW?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67499756 And I shouldn't have to rely on cutting edge noise reduction algorithms that are getting better at inventing lost detail when I could just use actual ...

I must have been looking above and not below So all I need is to spend money on DXO with an AI noise reduction algorithm?  That's great....but as others have mentioned, enhancing detail after noise ...

I've seen plenty of tests, like your own, that show detail falling apart in situations that are not demanding in terms of dynamic range or detail.  And I appreciate the shots demonstrating your ...

So the buffer depth makes high frame rate shooting only useful for extremely short bursts.  Nobody who needed burst performance would find that usable...unless they also only needed JPEG.

The detail destruction caused by artifacts in the CRAW is obvious. And those issues will only be amplified with fine detail in different orientations. You're working with extremely regular ...

Don’t see it.  Link? Old information?  As far as I know there are two kinds of compression:  lossless and lossy.  RAW is lossless, CRAW is lossy.  I see no reason for any loss. On that subject, do ...

Are you suggesting that you’ve conducted a thorough and exhaustive test?  I beg to differ.

As I said above, there are plenty of reasons one might have for any given hypothetical choice.  The question I asked wasn’t hypothetical:  I was asking the OP why he would personally choose to not ...

But I don’t need a reason. The best quality my camera can produce is RAW. Period. I don’t have to study scenarios for how CRAW looks to know that. I have no issue with storage and don’t need 20fps ...

There's plenty of room for discussion on using RAW, CRAW, JPEG, etc. but the logical approach for photographers to apply to ANY photographic parameter or situation is to find reason to REDUCE ...

There's very little photography occurring for the sake of photography. And many people who are interested in photography for its own rewards probably do own a proper camera.....but only buy one...