it is not about the nominal ISO values that he dialed and it is about the exposure (every preschooler knows that ISO is not part of exposure) - dude gave 2 times more exposure (more light hitting the sensor) to the raw used for v20 ( 1/30s f6.8 vs 1/60s f6.8 )... granted may be there was a stop worse illumination, but I doubt that - it looks like sequential shots...
so he illustrated that the old poor C1 v12 can make the raw that was from twice less exposed (1/60) shot to look like the brand new C1 v20 makes raw from the shot that was twice better exposed (1/30)... hilarious !!!
Sorry my problem is i am a post scholar...
I much prefer the variants without any noise reduction. Even in this particular example, where the noise is really bad. Noise never really bothered me that much compared to the smooshing of details. Everyone has their own threshold, for sure.
There's no free lunch.The only time I find noise reduction a net benefit is in astrophotography. The nature of the subject make noise reduction far more effective in that case. You get a free lunch with astrophotography.
I agree, i have usually no problem with some noise, that is BTW mostly invisible in print.
I have more problems with noise reduction glueing everything together.
In this particular case i think there is a way in beteween...
but anyway, the example you made is clear now.
In the short period i have evaluated C1v20 vs LR classic i see some benefits in the RAW conversion of C1 although LR delivers very clean tiffs with less artefacts.
They are so different that i like to use them both and even mix them together in photoshop for some purposes.
Bu