от:www user
В отличии от нулевого фотографа и напыщенного дрочера Хогана, Кен:
1. Мастер пейзажной фотографии.
2. Имеет профессиональные познания в том, что называется Digital Imaging (это профессия Кена).
3. В отличии от Хогана, Кен ВСЕГДА пишет ВСЕ условия теста и обработки:
Teknik top
These images are shown at the same size, shot from the same place, with lenses of equal angle-of-view, at the same aperture. These are huge enlargements: this synthetic reference vegetation is at 200 meters (600 feet)!
The D7000 image is shown at 100%, while the D3 image was enlarged to the same print size in Photoshop CS5 (bicubic) to ensure a fair comparison.
The same equivalent focal length was used for each camera, and I with the sharpest prime lens in existence for each camera: The 1987 Nikon AF MICRO-NIKKOR 55mm f/2.8 for the D7000, and the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4 G for the D3.
The 55/2.8 MICRO-NIKKOR is the sharpest lens made for Nikon, and likewise, the 85mm f/1.4G, with the same angle-of-view on FX, is Nikon's sharpest 85mm lens. in both cases, either of these lenses is far sharper than the camera can show; we're seeing the camera's limitations here, not anything related to the test conditions or lenses.
Each was shot at the Daylight white balance setting. I turned off shadow and highlight optimization.
Picture Control was amped-out as I usually shoot: VIVID and +3 saturation, and sharpening at 6.
Each was shot at f/5.6 on a tripod, at each camera's standard ISO: ISO 100 for the D7000 and ISO 200 for the D3.
To show each camera fairly, I used actual images directly from each camera. If I had shot raw data instead, I would have needed to process each file with software to turn that data into a visible image, which also would have shown differences in each piece of software's interpretation as well as differences between cameras. Unknown to most casual users is that even if I used the same software, say Adobe Camera Raw, it processes files from different cameras differently. By using real JPGs, we can see exactly what each camera is doing. Feel free to run your own experiments with raw data if you prefer. Sharper renditions will enhance detail, but exaggerate noise, and vice versa. Ditto for differences in letting Adobe or whoever do the noise reduction instead of the cameras themselves in JPG. If you want these results in raw data, shoot it yourself and please share with us the results as I do. Hint: As of today, 09 November 2010, Adobe Camera Raw can't read the D7000 raw files, which I had planned to use.
Есть ещё вопросы?Подробнее
Это даже не смешно...Какие могут быть вопросы к тестеру, который сравнивая две камеры наводится непойми куда, одевает разные линзы и сымает в джипег с выкручеными непойми куда настройками? Боже упаси! По поводу сравнения квалификаций КР и Хогана...Вы много прочитали книжек/пособий/руководств по эксплуатации пера незабвенного КР? Ну да, это вам не оранжевых детей фоткать...
PS: Купите наконец Eye One Pro, можно будет пользоваться монитором в любое время суток, тем более что проку от ваших ночных сеансов никагого- лицо девушки цвета докторской колбасы вперемежку со свеклой...
