popular photography dxo optics pro free 2017

My subjective feeling is that the KP is a huge step forward but the objective figures seem to support that.

Seeing the slight reversion in the NI-treated files I did take a look at the images in great detail and simply noticed that noise levels after profiled noise reduction are almost equal between the K-70 and KP but the KP files simply retained more detail and more color.ĭo with the info what you will, reject it, ridicule it or accept it. The IMGP0290-6 files are K-3 II, the IMGP0759-68 are KP files and the IMGP1372-80 came of the K-70Īgain I say, this has nothing to do with being scientific but what I can say is that the KP files are noticeable less noisy straight out of the raw conversion. JPEGs obtained above out of darktable_exported]$ ls -lh *dt_filtered8.jpg

RAWs converted to darktable_exported]$ ls -lh *dt.jpg I did this once on a simple straightforward DT conversion with minimal noise reduction applied and repeated this after having run all 9 files through NeatImage, allowing NI to profile the noise in each image individually. As all three of these cameras have the same resolution and all three have testfiles available of the same scene under identical lighting, the simple filesize says something about the amount of noise due to the fact jpeg compression works the way it does. Just out of curiosity, I downloaded the raw files off the Dpreview test for the K-3 II, K-70 and KP and performed the totally unscientific and ridiculous test.

To me at least, the KP looks like my next upgrade coming from the K-5 IIs which is nearing the 4 year mark and 40K clicks(even though I had been eyeing the K-70).

Popular photography dxo optics pro free 2017