Today I did a small test with GRDII and E400. The purpose of this test was to find if the GRDII photos taken in RAW can match with DSLR JPEG?
Of course, none small sensor camera can beat the DSLR and I'm perfectly aware of that. Definitely not in terms of noise performance or dynamic range! But let's say you cannot/don't want to take your trusty DSLR everywhere with you and you still want to take some reasonable quality photos? So I did this small DSLR JPEG/GRD RAW test and it's up to you how you will interpret these results?
Many will say comparing JPEG with RAW is like mixing apples and oranges. Yes, I agree. But because DSLR JPEG output was always good enough for me, I was never forced to use RAW. And because I found that the best result from GRD/GRDII can be obtained from RAW, hence such strange comparison.
Both cameras were set to f3.5 (largest E400 kit lens aperture), ISO400 and focused at the same point (jar with mushrooms). The unsharp objects in E400 photo are not caused by a camera shake or misfocus, but by larger E400 sensor and its smaller depth of field (comparing with GRD small sensor with huge DOF). The GRD RAW was processed with Silkypix (processing parameters are included in the below 7zip file containing DNG).
And what's the result? Except some banding at GRD2 side, I found the RAW file (if well processed) perfectly usable and comparable with DSLR JPEG. Sure, there is more noise and the highlight are worse recoverable. But if you see the below crops (or both full sized files), you will realize that the differences are small. I will repeat this test also with ISO1600.
OK, here are the 100% crops:
And here the full size files..
GRD2 JPEG from SilkypixR0011824_silkypix_dng2.jpg
GRD2 DNG + Silkypix processing parameters GRDII_E400_test.7z
to extract the file, MAC users should have to use one of >these