Originally posted by alstauffer As far as in-camera noise reduction, I had it set to medium on both, starting at ISO800. I had assumed (probably incorrectly) that they would be the same, since the bodies came out close to the same time
They are totally different cameras, with totally different sensors and hene totally different JPEG engines. While they might strive to make "medium" have more or less the same overall effect on both, that.s going to be impossible. Much like trying to get "medium" level of speciness mean the same thing for both an Indian vegetable curry dish and and a Vietnamese beef noodle soup.
Quote: I didn't want to do anything at all in post-processing because IMO that's no longer comparing cameras.
As long as you do the *same* thing in PP, there is no issue at all. But even if you set NR to the same valuesfor both image in your PP software, it's still the case that you are dealing with different sensors with diffeent characteristics, so the same settings might not actually be expected to provide exactly the same results.
But the advantage of fine tuning the NR to get optimal results for both - not maximum NR, but optimum in terms of your own personal preference for the inventiable tradeoff between noise and detail - is that then you see a teat that resembls what you will actually see in real life. If one camera does better than another with NR turned completely off and no NR applied during PP, that,s all well and good, but is that how you normally shoot? And if so, why, if noise is so important to you that you are going to the trouble of doing the comparison? Why not compare *the actual images you would likely to be using* of the scene, rather than some images processed with settings you'd never use in real life?
Quote: EDIT: Just searched, according to this link, the K20d does no NR on raw files, only jpgs.
to be more accurate, the specific form of NR than can be switched on or off via the menu is only for JPEG, and that's true of everymcamera I have ever heard of. However, most cameras also have some amount of NR that is automatically applied even for RAW after a certain ISO that cannot be switched off. Sinceit cannot be switched off, there is also no point in worry about it, but I point this put just in case you later run into what appears to be information stating that your camera *does* apply NR to RAW and you are wondering which statement is in error. the answer is, neither statement is in error; theynare just talking about different types of NR. The type you can switch on or off is JPEG only; the type you cannot turn on or off is also applied to RAW.
Quote: So ignore where I talked about NR settings, because I guess they're not doing anything.
except that as some have noted, many raw converters will look at the exif or other metadata, see that you had nr turned pn in cmwa, and default to applying what they judge to be equivalent amounts of NR. You wold have to check the NR settings in your RAW processong and explicitly return them to zero to be sure. But again, I don't find that to be a useful comparison. Why compare images that are not shot and processed the way I wold actually shoot and process them? The trick is is in figuring out how you would actually use each camera - which camera settings and PP settings suit *you* best for each, so you know in your heart of hearts that you are comparing images as you wold actually see them in real life. Of course, that's going to be diffierent for each person, so unfortunately, you can't make such a taste truly objective. You kind of have to choose between *useful* and *objective* in this respect, I'm afraid.