comparison to a square camera is hard
if your final output requirement is recatangle then the square must be cropped to 11mp
and if your final output is square then a 22mp must be cropped to 16mp
---
I would comment that using ACR for conversion of sinar files IMO looks horrible compared to the native software or silkypix - comparing look/colour across this lot is a joke - even comparing colour side by side would be near impossible with the different optimum softwares for each system
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158590\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes agreed the dark horse in all of this is that each back has its own proprietary software which will hopefully produce a better file than ACR/Lightroom. Geeze, even Canon's DPP does a better job on canon files than other converters.
But as far as square vs 4::5 I think the small side of the 22mp backs is the same pixel count as the p20? That way we could do the framing such that the subject is only the square part of the the larger back and get a more or less pixel for pixel comparison. We'd then are giving the larger back one point already by acknowledging the higher pixel count. I wouldn't assume that the square image has to be cropped, because I'm not cropping mine at all. I like the square format.
Another way to do the comparison would be a no holds barred kind of deal where each person gets to choose their own lighting style, favorite lens, and runs the file through their converter of choice their way. What I'm really saying is there is a learning curve to get the best out of each platform, and probably not a reasonable comparison to just upload some RAW files for people to put into whatever program they like with no prior experience in say what curves make the files pop.
So what are good metrics to evaluate image quality anyway? Sharpness, absence of noise, smooth color transitions, absence of moire, color range, dynamic range, flexibleness of file, visual depth/realness.....
