[clackers]

Are you suggesting that the individual photographer is better at, or smarter than the camera designer in understanding the technical flaws.

Absolutely.

As a human is better at exposing a scene correctly - that's why we have M mode. A human being is better at picking out where to focus, it's why we have an M mode there, too. Same for white balance and sharpening.

Noise reduction is scene dependent. The setting will be different all over the pic, too.

Because details are destroyed by noise reduction, you really have to decide with local brushes what to do element by element.

For musicians on stage I might turn up NR on the instruments and clothing, turn it down for the faces - I don't want the camera turning them into wax dummies - and really crush the blacks in the background, eliminating all details.

A camera - and camera designer - cannot know what you are shooting or what look you're aiming for.

If I want an algorithm guessing everything, that's what JPGs are for.

Leave the RAW alone as much as possible please, it's why I paid for a DSLR!

---

Last edited by clackers; 09-02-2019 at 12:31 PM.

[Lowell Goudge]

Absolutely.

As a human is better at exposing a scene correctly - that's why we have M mode. A human being is better at picking out where to focus, it's why we have an M mode there, too. Same for white balance and sharpening.

Noise reduction is scene dependent. The setting will be different all over the pic, too.

Because details are destroyed by noise reduction, you really have to decide with local brushes what to do element by element.

For musicians on stage I might turn up NR on the instruments and clothing, turn it down for the faces - I don't want the camera turning them into wax dummies - and really crush the blacks in the background, eliminating all details.

A camera - and camera designer - cannot know what you are shooting or what look you're aiming for.

If I want an algorithm guessing everything, that's what JPGs are for.

Leave the RAW alone as much as possible please, it's why I paid for a DSLR!

On a dslr the issues ar different we were discussing here a mirrorless camera with geometrically distributed artifacts due to camera design

Do you want to be fixing that on every image, I don’t.

[clackers]

On a dslr the issues ar different we were discussing here a mirrorless camera with geometrically distributed artifacts due to camera design

Do you want to be fixing that on every image, I don’t.

Well, this is the disadvantage - the MILCs lack a dedicated autofocus module.

They're making bits of the sensor do it - perhaps 12 percent of the pixels are affected to one extent or another.

And lacking a dedicated optical viewfinder, the sensor has to be constantly read from top to bottom to constantly update the JPG in the EVF, and to do autofocus as well. This is very draining on batteries - A9 owners have described them running down after two hours of use regardless of how few or many shots they've taken.

Demosaicing is something all of us put up with - Fuji users more than most, courtesy of how greens are handled - and the banding caused by the presence of these PDAF strips is just another problem.

And remember, the camera technicians at Sony didn't get this right - the minimizing fix was a modification to the algorithm that the professor who wrote the paper on the problem suggested.

All fixes come at a cost. If Sony hide the performance of lenses by correcting RAWs for distortion, vignette and edge sharpness - that Roger Cicala can see the difference using an optical bench instead of mounting on a camera - it reduces the latitude for post processing. It makes the RAW more like a JPEG.