| Joined: | Wed Apr 18th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4186 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
It's not a sacking matter Doug!
Actually I think it was a very good list for 'top of the head', several things on there I didn't know about.
To me the biggest gripe I have about these 'cheap' high resolution consumer bodies is the horrible, harsh, gritty noise in shadow areas, I have seen it time and again in images on here even at the low screen resolution we get online. On occasions when I have mentioned here I have been accused of pixel peeping??? So I have moved on since it doesn't affect me, I am happy with my antiquated D1x and D200. Of course it could be caused by the compression process used when the images are compressed when they hit the forum server software, but I don't think so because it doesn't happen with the larger pixel cameras. It has been said it's caused by post processing but I'm not so sure.
My D3100 is just the same, even with NEF's straight from the camera. Looking in the shadow areas, instead of smooth, graduated shade it's a speckled gritty mixture of light and dark pixels mixed to produce the appropriate shade, instead of a smooth graduated area of the appropriately coloured pixels. I don't believe the shaded areas are outside the gamut of the sensor or the software because larger pixel cameras manage to produce smooth shaded areas despite their comparative brick sized pixels. Also it's not JPEG artefacts because it happens with untouched NEF's straight from the camera.
And yet we still use them?
I just wonder if we protesteth too much over these less than perfect characteristics.?
No...it's not as good as a D3/4, or newer Dxxx bodies.
But sometimes its more about being fit for purpose...and for most people not selling their work, a Dxxxx maybe acceptable.
____________________
Eric