>> |
ac
!!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>250979 >if Canon did it, you would be posting 5 page disserations about how great it is Heh. Actually, I don't think it's *that* bad especially since you can at least turn the second-level noise reduction off, I just really wanted to say "All aboard the failtrain, TOOT TOOT" because it made me giggle to do so.
There are certainly some theoretical advantages to their pre-A/D noise reduction, but it seems that those advantages go away in practice. Loss of detail is a more serious issue to me than noise. And if you think that noise is a more serious issue than loss of detail, everyone else's practice of letting the photographer choose how much NR he or she wants works pretty well.
>>250985 >not that i want an A900 due to its lolcost. I was a bit surprised with how cheap it is. It costs the same as the D700 with twice the resolution. Even if you factor in losing a bunch of that to noise and hamfisted noise reduction, that's still pretty good for people who really need all those pixels.
>>250989 >I, for one, look forward to ISO6400 and shooting hummingbirds in action on moonless nights. Well, save yourself some cash and get a Nikon D300 or Canon EOS 50D. They both have the same ISO range.
Or for the same price, the D700 gives you *real* ISO6400, plus software pushing up to 25600. Which I actually would prefer to a shit-ton of extra pixels I don't need.
|