Hi Theodoros,
Do you have any proof for that?
BTW, I'm aware of some tweaking in some cases, as this shows up in autocorrelation. My understanding is that Nikon has no bias on their digital data which is hiding half of the noise (as far as I understand). All CMOS cameras probably use correlated double sampling, but I wouldn't exactly call that tweaking.
I would presume that MFDBs also do some things that could be called tweaking, but it may possibly be done in raw conversion and to a lesser extent in the ASIC.
Can you be a bit more specific on the issue?
Best regards
Erik
No Erik, I can't be more specific than I have been last time we were on a conversation for the same matter, just do the test I proposed then..., take your wedge, scan it, print it on transparency, tune the profile so that it agrees with your monitor at more than 95%, reprint it, put it in front of a backlit (use a fluorescent studio light) light, reshoot it, reprint it, re-do the calibration, put the final one in front of the light and do the test I suggested for linearity! (I don't have to repeat the procedure, do I?) Is that good enough? If it's not "what the hey"! And of course you are right that MF makers have started doing the same...
Who is the one who can't see that on the images that "Guillermo" posted, the DSLR has its noise reduction active even on the RAWs? Can't you see the softness? JESUS! Regards, Theodoros.
P.S. That is EXACTLY why DXO DR measures are "wrong for photography" since they have to do with "test noise acceptance" and it's also the reason why ALL BACKS (even the oldest) will beat any DSLR in highlight DR by at least a stop.