> OK, one factor I did not take into account is the exposure
> setting
> in camera raw. Both of these images were shot in sequence, but
> I was using spot metering, so the exposure varied. The Raw
> conversion in CS2 was 1 stop more exposure on the first.
Ah, so effectively, this is 1600. Still a bit raspy for even
me, though.
In the world of the Minolta A1, there are variations in
noisiness in sensors. In the A1/A2's case, it has a lot to do
with electronic noise from the camera itself. Probably bad
grounding/shielding or something. Mine isn't as clean as some,
but not as noisy as others. I fully suspect that there might be
variations in the E-1 as well. Joel's picture illustrates a
noise level that is much tighter than what I'm seeing from mine.
In Wayne's E-1 shots, the noise is heavily chroma noise. In
Joel's E-1 shots, the noise is heavily luminance noise.
Wayne's pictures are of what I see with my A1 at that kind of
ISO setting. Something is definitely not "normal".
Another thing about Joel's shot. He tends to "expose to the
right" and may have effectively ended up "pulling exposure"
during conversion. I'll let him explain what his conversion
settings were, but that would also explain the tight luminance
noise and nearly non-existant chroma noise.
AG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|