[Trawlerman]

I've been doing a bit of RAW processing and have come to some questions.

Would It be right to say that the camera body used is largely irrelevant? Let me expand on this. Obviously we need a camera body to take photo's, that's a given. But if we shoot with say a K5 vs K30 and then process in RAW would there be any glaring differences or would the body's facilities just be niceties aiding the shooting but really relevant to the final imaging.

I've seen a difference between RAW processing my K5 images to those from K-S1. Because of the lack of AA filter the K-S1 seems sharper. Shooting the two, I prefer the heavier body of the K5 but final images from the K-S1 seem better?

[vonBaloney]

If it is the same sensor there still can be subtle but noticeable differences due to bit depth (the flagship models use greater depth) and also the AA filter. Beyond that you're probably splitting hairs. If the sensor is different, if pixel density is different, then observable results disparity can be large -- so no the camera body (but more so the sensor) is not irrelevant at all.

[newmikey]

If it is the same sensor there still can be subtle but noticeable differences due to bit depth (the flagship models use greater depth) and also the AA filter. Beyond that you're probably splitting hairs. If the sensor is different, if pixel density is different, then observable results disparity can be large -- so no the camera body (but more so the sensor) is not irrelevant at all.

Agree totally with one addition: the camera body is certainly not irrelevant but most probably not as relevant as many may think.

[Adam]

Would It be right to say that the camera body used is largely irrelevant? Let me expand on this. Obviously we need a camera body to take photo's, that's a given. But if we shoot with say a K5 vs K30 and then process in RAW would there be any glaring differences or would the body's facilities just be niceties aiding the shooting but really relevant to the final imaging.

The camera body is pretty relevant IMO. Depending on the body you may or may not have 14 bit raw, an AA filter, etc., all of which improve RAW image quality at the pixel level. In addition, the sensor determines how much noise there is, how accurate colors are, and how much you can recover in over/under-exposed areas. Colors are probably of least concern since they can easily be tweaked, but newer cameras also tend to offer better out-of-camera color profiles / more accurate white balance.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[BigMackCam]

I'll add something here too. In most (not all, but most) situations, reasonably careful sharpening of output files when processing raw images will make the difference in sharpness between your K-5 and K-S1 files negligible at normal viewing sizes on screen. It can be noticeable at 100% (ie. 1:1) reproduction, but that's pixel-peeping. I see a difference between my K-5 and K-3 raw files (the K-3 uses a later sensor without AA filter), but by the time I export my files resized and sharpened for display, it's really not possible to see those differences...

[stevebrot]

The content of a RAW file is sensor data after it has been gone through the camera's image processor. How that low-level processing is done affects noise, dynamic range, color rendering, and tonal gradation.


Steve

[Winder]

I've been doing a bit of RAW processing and have come to some questions.

Would It be right to say that the camera body used is largely irrelevant? Let me expand on this. Obviously we need a camera body to take photo's, that's a given. But if we shoot with say a K5 vs K30 and then process in RAW would there be any glaring differences or would the body's facilities just be niceties aiding the shooting but really relevant to the final imaging.

I've seen a difference between RAW processing my K5 images to those from K-S1. Because of the lack of AA filter the K-S1 seems sharper. Shooting the two, I prefer the heavier body of the K5 but final images from the K-S1 seem better?

Even with the same sensor the differences between cameras can be noticeable. Different image processors, color filters, AA filters, 12-bit vs 14-bit. Compare the Sony A900 with a Nikon D3x. Same sensor, but the A900 has better colors and the D3x better high ISO.

[Trawlerman]

Ah, so RAW data is not all that it seems.
I wasn't aware that it went through an image processor before being saved to the card. So it's not completely RAW and has a modicum of processing but the main bulk is left to the user afterwards.

I'm going to have to do a lot of reading up on this subject. It seems the rabbit hole is a lot deeper than I originally thought!

Well the K-S1 is not going to be replacing the K5 in my bag anytime soon. I do need to do a whole lot more learning about sharpening and RAW processing in general.

[noelpolar]

LeRolls seems to benefit from using better bodies then me with his photos.

(Edit: oops.....just saw this thread is about camera bodies....sorry)

[Schraubstock]

I can understand your reasoning.

It is not the body per se but what sits within it. In a simplistic view don't forget a digital camera is nothing but a computer with a lens attached.

Theoretically you could nail all the parts of this computer on to a plank and take photos.

Not withstanding the lens, better computer equals better pictures.

Cheers

[wombat2go]

As far as I have read, and examined on the Pentax K-01 here, the image information in the camera raw files is a radiometric array in
right justified Hex ( 16 bit with 2 or 4 leading zeros) of the sensor well values.
Line1 :rGrGrG....
Line2 :GbGbGb....
............. etc
This is turned into an image ( jpg or tif) mainly by application of the Bayer matrix coefficients, and the ITU 709 standard gamma,
plus user adjustments, so that the images can be viewed on a standard monitor etc.
This is done either in camera or by one of the post processing/ viewing applications on computer.

If there are references to in-camera partial post processing of the raw files, I would appreciate a link.
Thanks

[stevebrot]

LeRolls seems to benefit from using better bodies then me with his photos.

(Edit: oops.....just saw this thread is about camera bodies....sorry)

ROFL...




Steve

[todd]

LeRolls seems to benefit from using better bodies then me with his photos.

Yes, he is also a master of the pixie shift techniques.

[12345]

The content of a RAW file is sensor data after it has been gone through the camera's image processor. How that low-level processing is done affects noise, dynamic range, color rendering, and tonal gradation. Steve

I knew that there must be some "pre-processing", but how much is actually done, say on a K-5? I have heard that the de-mosaicing algorithm can make a difference in some of the areas you mentioned, and I would have thought that the de-mosaicing would have more of an effect on the "noise, dynamic range, color rendering, and tonal gradation". (That's why RAWTherapee gives you several different options for demosaicing, some are better for high ISO, etc...)

I'm genuinely interested, because I'm almost more interested in the technical side of photography than the "other" aspects of it.

[normhead]

At one point I shot some side by side images with a K-01 and a K-5. You couldn't tell the difference. One was 14 bit, one was 12 bit. There was no discernible difference in the images. There's a lot of people who think there should be a difference. But they have never taken side by side images that show you what they are talking about.

I once showed folks a series of images showing why I moved to a K-5 to a K20d. To me their was a clear difference in shadow detail. Others claimed I was imagining it. Just because I thought there was a difference, and actually bought a new camera body because of analysis, some looked at the same images I decided i wasted my money. So, even if some guy like me ventures an opinion, there is no guarantee that if you had his exact same opinion and looked at the same images, you'd come to the same conclusion.

I looked at a couple of images and thought "I need a better camera."
Others looked at the same images and thought "I would have just kept what you had."
This is all subjective. And s such, what others tell you may not be the same as what you might think.

You can ask what others think, but that doesn't tell you how relevant what they think is to you.

Personally, I wouldn't believe you can't get the same image from two different bodies, even from different manufacturers, unless someone showed me a couple images demonstrating the difference. . I'm sure there are differences, but are there discernible differences or "meaningful to you" differences? If there are, people should post examples.

In my example above, I treasured a tiny little bit of extra shadow detail. Others didn't. Some prefer their shadows blacked right out to create a negative space. So even after you establish there might be a difference, then you have to determine which you prefer visually. That's impossible without images to compare.

Personally I don't have a lot of time for listening to what people think should be true. You have examples, or you don't have point.