OK, OK, Neil. Much as I hate to admit it, you are correct.... :roll: The Canon has better detail in several areas, including the grass. I still think that the colors in the X lose more vivid. 8)NeilCam said:Gotta disagree Frank, to my (equally, if not more so) untrained eye the 1DsII file looks to have better colors at least (look at the bricks) and contrast. However, I strongly suspect Iliah was trying to show something a whole lot more than that and in a less subject way than I've given.
I agree w/ everything else you said (and was pretty much what I was thinking, but from a different perspective ), but shouldn't the top/right endpoints of the user curves be more similar than they are if DR is indeed very close? What would you call "very close"?Iliah said:DR in both cameras is very close to being equal, but centered differently.
Good point. I was starting to wonder about that also. Makes perfect sense.Different centering also leads to discussions of underrated vs. overrated ISO
Good to know even though I've been a bad boy and haven't gotten around to actually using it yet -- been sidetracked too much.RAWMagick fully supports all cameras based on non-rotated RGB Bayer sensors.
Thanks Man-FaiMan-Fai Wong said:Henry,
Based on the findings here, the Nikon files won't yield greater DR, but they will yield finer tonal steps across the DR, particularly in the shadows and midtones (at least the lower midtones). That means details in those regions are better preserved than the Canon and not as easily blocked up.