Canon T1i review posted
- Thread starter Aharami
- Start date
- Aug 23, 2003
- 25,375
- 142
- 116
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,393
- 8,552
- 126
i still have no idea why they use jpgs to measure noise. they claim that they do things 'as typical users' would, but insist on using a 3rd party raw converter (and an expensive one at that) rather than the one the camera comes with. they also use a raw converter that is well known for at least somewhat working with manufacturers so that no, not all raw data is processed in quite the same way and the field probably isn't as level as dpreview makes it out to be.
they also are far too focused on per pixel. print to 8x10, 11x17, and poster sizes and tell us how it looks. imaging-resources used to comment on prints (and may still do so), in addition to going quite in depth into how the camera actually works in use day to day.
they also are far too focused on per pixel. print to 8x10, 11x17, and poster sizes and tell us how it looks. imaging-resources used to comment on prints (and may still do so), in addition to going quite in depth into how the camera actually works in use day to day.
- Aug 23, 2003
- 25,375
- 142
- 116
CameraLabs.com reviewed the T1i and D5000, and they do use NX2 and DPP to test RAW images in their resolution comparisons.
However, they also use JPEG to test ISO performance. I agree with this decision because RAW processing and NR has a lot of variables depending on the scene, converter and camera. The "sweet spot" can often shift between cameras.
And frankly, SOOC JPEGs are what most people shooting these consumer-level cameras will be using.
CameraLabs came to the same conclusions about the T1i as DPReview did.
However, they also use JPEG to test ISO performance. I agree with this decision because RAW processing and NR has a lot of variables depending on the scene, converter and camera. The "sweet spot" can often shift between cameras.
And frankly, SOOC JPEGs are what most people shooting these consumer-level cameras will be using.
CameraLabs came to the same conclusions about the T1i as DPReview did.
I don't see anything wrong with them using jpegs and 3rd party RAW converters and I hope they keep doing so.
The majority of people use jpegs and 3rd party RAW programs such as LightRoom has become somewhat a standard; just look at those 'what RAW converters do you use' questions we often get here or anywhere.
The majority of people use jpegs and 3rd party RAW programs such as LightRoom has become somewhat a standard; just look at those 'what RAW converters do you use' questions we often get here or anywhere.
But then you have to consider which settings to adjust for which camera, and either way there's gonna be people who whine and complain about it. But I'm glad they started doing raw noise comparison, so you know which camera has the better IQ to begin with.
On that issue, I agree with ElFenix. I wish Dpreview would, at least, show users how things can be different by adjusting a few settings. I find it strange how Dpreview goes through several pages of detailed examination of a given camera but fails to address a few basic issues. For an instance, Canon's Standard Picture Style mode smears detail for noise. Even if NR is off and ISO is low, it still does that. A few clicks to Neutral Picture Style can bring the camera to show a lot more detail with more noise.
dug777
Lifer
- Oct 13, 2004
- 24,778
- 4
- 0
While it would be nice if dpreview did that, the reviews are already monumentally time consuming and I'd argue that goes outside the remit of comparable, consistent and unbiased reviewing.
Imagine repeating every test they do, working through the almost uncountable combinations of modes and tweaks within those modes
That would be the only 'fair' and consistent way of comparing each camera at it's 'best' (and that itself is entirely subjective, do you like more detail and more noise? Joe Blogs and Tom Smith prefer less noise and less detail, and Jane Doe likes that tricky cel shading mode
).I think dpreview makes perfectly rational, defensible decisions on what settings to compare, and I struggle to see how else it could be done without running into the above issues. They just take the way the camera is most likely to be used (see your comment I bolded), and compare.
Enthusiasts (or the manufacturer) are perfectly placed to point out these things you raise (and do).
My 2c
Originally posted by: dug777
While it would be nice if dpreview did that, the reviews are already monumentally time consuming and I'd argue that goes outside the remit of comparable, consistent and unbiased reviewing.
Imagine repeating every test they do, working through the almost uncountable combinations of modes and tweaks within those modes
That would be the only 'fair' and consistent way of comparing each camera at it's 'best' (and that itself is entirely subjective, do you like more detail and more noise? Joe Blogs and Tom Smith prefer less noise and less detail, and Jane Doe likes that tricky cel shading mode
I think dpreview makes perfectly rational, defensible decisions on what settings to compare, and I struggle to see how else it could be done without running into the above issues. They just take the way the camera is most likely to be used (see your comment I bolded), and compare.
Enthusiasts (or the manufacturer) are perfectly placed to point out these things you raise (and do).
My 2c
As previsouly mentioned, it's not that I want them to 'repeat every test working through the almost uncountable combinations of modes and tweaks within those modes.' Just a simple acknowledgement. Every time a review pops up, I see those same old arguments on this issue of 'oh. this camera's image looks so whatever compared to this and that.' An example I always use in this case: Pentax *ist DS. Because Pentax used Bright Mode to be the standard mode, it's gotton terrible reviews when it comes down to noise, gradation, and WB categories. A few simple click to Neutral Mode would've generated opposite conclusion but as it was not mentioned, it stayed in that negative way. Just in this forum, look at disscussions on 5D mk2's early sample images. Even those who seem knowledgeable were simple-minded to come up with 'oh it's so soft and doesn't show much details though it's a 21+ MP camera' conclusion.
dug777
Lifer
- Oct 13, 2004
- 24,778
- 4
- 0
Originally posted by: Deadtrees
Originally posted by: dug777
While it would be nice if dpreview did that, the reviews are already monumentally time consuming and I'd argue that goes outside the remit of comparable, consistent and unbiased reviewing.
Imagine repeating every test they do, working through the almost uncountable combinations of modes and tweaks within those modes
That would be the only 'fair' and consistent way of comparing each camera at it's 'best' (and that itself is entirely subjective, do you like more detail and more noise? Joe Blogs and Tom Smith prefer less noise and less detail, and Jane Doe likes that tricky cel shading mode
I think dpreview makes perfectly rational, defensible decisions on what settings to compare, and I struggle to see how else it could be done without running into the above issues. They just take the way the camera is most likely to be used (see your comment I bolded), and compare.
Enthusiasts (or the manufacturer) are perfectly placed to point out these things you raise (and do).
My 2c
As previsouly mentioned, it's not that I want them to 'repeat every test working through the almost uncountable combinations of modes and tweaks within those modes.' Just a simple acknowledgement. Every time a review pops up, I see those same old arguments on this issue of 'oh. this camera's image looks so whatever compared to this and that.' An example I always use in this case: Pentax *ist DS. Because Pentax used Bright Mode to be the standard mode, it's gotton terrible reviews when it comes down to noise, gradation, and WB categories. A few simple click to Neutral Mode would've generated opposite conclusion but as it was not mentioned, it stayed in that negative way. Just in this forum, look at disscussions on 5D mk2's early sample images. Even those who seem knowledgeable were simple-minded to come up with 'oh it's so soft and doesn't show much details though it's a 21+ MP camera' conclusion.
I belive dpreview has mentioned such things in recent reviews ( I can't recall which one, either this or the D5000 one), and where it's a well known issue or 'fix' I can see your point.
I did find it laughable how they said the d5000 has better high iso when the 500d clearly is capturing more detail, the d5000 is just removing all chroma noise...but meh, i think it's great that now we are talking about iso 3200 and 6400 and how they are useable and this is on the lower level cameras even!
And yeah, you'd think they would be most concerned with straight out of camera jpegs.... or you'd think they'd at least use the manufacturer's raw converters..the raw stuff is mainly a review of ACR and not the camera itself.... ACR doesn't produce as good of results from the canon raw files as DPP does, imho.
The other nice surprise in the review was how well the olympus camera did noise wise! It's excellent!
And yeah, you'd think they would be most concerned with straight out of camera jpegs.... or you'd think they'd at least use the manufacturer's raw converters..the raw stuff is mainly a review of ACR and not the camera itself.... ACR doesn't produce as good of results from the canon raw files as DPP does, imho.
The other nice surprise in the review was how well the olympus camera did noise wise! It's excellent!
- Aug 23, 2003
- 25,375
- 142
- 116
Unfortunately for Canon, most online reviews are saying the same thing: the D5000 provides identical levels of detail with lower noise.
In real world use, I doubt anyone would be disappointed with either camera.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter