D
dennisgibson
Guest
Just wondering what the price is you are seeing on the panasonic site? I'm registered and the price is the same on the panasonic site as on amazon.
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
I don't think I expressed myself well. What I mean is this - the jpegs from the G3 appear to be very good, with most observers seeing that they are much better than the G2. Since the source material for those jpegs is a RAW file, this implies that the RAW itself is very good.no, it simply says that most in camera raw converters (like in Canon 60D) are actually very bad...
I followed this posters' instructions and it worked. Maybe it will for you. I tried this same method a month or so ago and it never would let me register but it worked fine this time.Thanks Diane! Maybe that's my problem
That's my assumption. BTW, i hadn't heard that the Canon jpeg engine is particularly "bad". I always shot RAW but many many Canon shooters, 60D and other bodies, shoot jpeg and are happy with the outcome AFAIK.I don't think I expressed myself well. What I mean is this - the jpegs from the G3 appear to be very good, with most observers seeing that they are much better than the G2. Since the source material for those jpegs is a RAW file, this implies that the RAW itself is very good.
you completely ignore the fact that quality of raw conversion depends a lot on a raw converter... compare E5 vs G2... or ACR 3.x vs ACR 6.x on the same raw filesI don't think I expressed myself well. What I mean is this - the jpegs from the G3 appear to be very good, with most observers seeing that they are much better than the G2. Since the source material for those jpegs is a RAW file, this implies that the RAW itself is very good.
you completely ignore the fact that quality of raw conversion depends a lot on a raw converter... compare E5 vs G2... or ACR 3.x vs ACR 6.x on the same raw files
any digital camera is a raw converter, Diane... how do you think you are getting all those JPGs ? any $1 cell phone w/ some ugly 640x480 camera has a raw converter inside... and point to compare E5 vs G2 was that they have pretty much the same sensor (noise/dynamic range wise - CFA/AA of course are different), yet if you will compare in camera JPGs from E5 vs in camera JPGs from G2 (you can mount the same lens on both if that is an issue) most people will find Olympus much better... now do you really believe that E5 has that better raw files (in terms of noise/DR) ? no - just Olympus put much more effort into the code to get good JPGs that are more pleasing to the eyes of many... the same thing is happening w/ G3 in camera JPGs, some people here want to believe that Panasonic made an leap and outdid GH2 sensor by a stop (then - why stop high ISOs @ 6400 when G3 is a stop better than GH2 where you have ISO12800, shouldn't a better sensor in G3 in this case allow for at least the same high ISO as GH2... simple question) - while such beans counting company like Panasonic just put some extra NR code in its firmware, that simple... but in any case - we shall wait for DxO to test the camera or something like DPReview to post the full review with ACR raw conversions w/ NR disabledI don't quite get comparing E5 and G2 as they are cameras, not RAW processors.
well, then I did not understand your statement "this implies that the RAW itself is very good."...I don't feel I will be able to fully judge the G3's RAW files on their own or against other cameras until RAW converters are updated to handle the files. Of course I know the converter makes a difference - that's the whole point. I did not ignore this, it was the basis for my comments.
Sigh.
Man, that made me laugh. Reading anything takes some intelligence, and some attention to detail AND keeping context (set by previous comments) in mind.I did not ignore this, it was the basis for my comments.
Sigh.
as often as any photographer that is using in camera JPGs and there are many of those, specifically w/ Olympus cameras and exactly because they have good in camera raw converter... it seems that actually you are "needlessly pedantic" here oke: by insisting that somebody must exactly say "I am using my E5 as my preferred RAW processor"...We all understand that jpegs are in camera processed but how often do you hear any photographer referring to an E5 as their preferred RAW processor.
Which then means that you must live with the controls that the camera allows, doesn't give you the option for local adjustments, you are baking in a jpeg at native size regardless of how you are going to print.as often as any photographer that is using in camera JPGs and there are many of those, specifically w/ Olympus cameras and exactly because they have good in camera raw converter... it seems that actually you are "needlessly pedantic" here oke: by insisting that somebody must exactly say "I am using my E5 as my preferred RAW processor"...
I missed that piece.You do realize there will be a RAW conversion via new upgrades of LR and PS (and others like Aperture, etc). You can never go back to LR2 for instance and convert a new camera's files unless you use dng.
yes, but I am not arguing that in camera JPGs are better than what you can get by putting some effort in raw conversion and postprocessing (I do not use in camera JPGs myself) - I am saying to Diane that there are many photographers that are using in camera JPGs + any camera is essentially a raw converter + the quality of that "in camera" raw converter can make a big difference - you can have perfect sensor and barely usable OOC JPGs or less than perfect sensor and very good OOC JPGs... so the quality of OOC JPGs proves nothing.Which then means that you must live with the controls that the camera allows, doesn't give you the option for local adjustments, you are baking in a jpeg at native size regardless of how you are going to print.
one more time - I am only disputing the statement from OP that "this implies that the RAW itself is very good."... OOC JPGs do not imply anything except the quality of the raw converter implemented in camera's firmware... that's it.I can easily see how you would call the camera a RAW converter and I can see how certain cameras/manufacturers have better converters than others. However there are plenty of reasons to not want to start with a jpeg.
We will have to agree to disagree, hopefully agreeably.one more time - I am only disputing the statement from OP that "this implies that the RAW itself is very good."... OOC JPGs do not imply anything except the quality of the raw converter implemented in camera's firmware... that's it.
Like the Houseman quote. I was not familiar with it. So true!Man, that made me laugh. Reading anything takes some intelligence, and some attention to detail AND keeping context (set by previous comments) in mind.
A. E. Houseman once wrote, "Three minutes' thought would suffice to find this out; but thought is irksome and three minutes is a long time." Now, it's about three seconds.
We all understand that jpegs are in camera processed but how often do you hear any photographer referring to an E5 as their preferred RAW processor. LOL you are being needlessly pedantic making it not really possible to carry on much of a worthwhile discussion in this thread. Too bad.