On Jul 6, 8:08 pm, wrote:


What do others think? Annika - do you see clear detail in that area
of the jpg? Maybe I/we just have a differing opinion of what being
clearly visible means...

Of course there is no detail - in the jpg!
Of course there is detail if we go back to the raw file,
like Bret did.
The problem has nothing to do with monitor settings.
And all to do with Canon's in-camera processing.

Here is another example, also from Bret:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/74548755/original
note exactly the same area under the beak
and inside the "S" curve in the neck.

Totally devoid of detail, even though other
areas of the image in the same focus plane are
very pleasing.

Not to disparage the image, by any means:
it's a great shot, of a great moment.

This is a problem with most d-slr
image processors, not just Canon's.
Although theirs and Panasonic's are notable
for creating images that just don't "make sense"
when looked at with a reasonable resolution.

There is an example in Ken Rockwell's of
the "6000 ISO" 1dsMKiii that nearly had me
falling off the chair laughing!
But everyone else seems to think those are
"clean" images, so what can I say.

Of course at 600x400 no one can notice
anything! And of course if one re-processes from
the raw file, it will look a lot better.

Both of these are examples of why I don't like
in-camera image processing, from just about
ANY manufacturer using small 1.5x sensors.

The only one that is slightly acceptable is Sigma's
SD14 jpg processing: there are some stunning detail
example jpgs in its section in pbase, clearly
the result of a far superior sensor that doesn't
require the large amounts of noise smearing used
by almost everyone else.

But unfortunately it has a 1.7 crop factor,
otherwise it would definitely be my first
d-slr!