How do you know that?  How do you know that the JPEG routines aren't
simply smoothing the image more in the lower sensor levels?  If that is
the case, a high-key, "exposed to the right" 1600 JPEG is not going to
be very smoothed.

Huh.  That's vaguely interesting on its own, but since it's kind of
silly to shoot straight to jpg if you're trying to preserve detail on
any digital camera, doesn't really do more than raise an eyebrow for
me.

... *blink* ...

Do you mean to tell me that this entire conversation has been about
the quality of the in-camera jpg conversion, and that you just don't
like the smoothness level applied?!  That's a very different issue
from your original claim.

Shoot RAW, and manage it yourself.  If you're concerned that P&S
cameras do better straight to jpg, feel free to pick up a P&S.
They're there (and optimized specifically for) people that want a
simplified shooting experience.  I haven't heard anyone complain about
jpg detail level before on a 20D, but since people regularly complain
about lack of saturation and contrast shooting straight to .jpg, I'll
cheerfully concede that if thats how you primarily want to shoot, you
should look at a different (and probably much cheaper) camera.

Which they do, actually
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml),
though you're missing the point.  A given sensor, given a particular
amount of light, is going to be able to extract a given amount of
signal off of it, while generating a constant amount of noise.  Detail
is effectively signal to noise ratio in this context (we'll ignore
lens-specific issues of resolution to avoid confusion).  Increasing
the amount of light hitting the same sensor increases the amplitude of
signal, while noise is constant.  Ergo, additional light means
additional detail available to the sensor.

This should be trivially demonstrable in a simple thought experiment
(or if you like, you can actually try it yourself): start 10 stops
under by shutter speed, at a given aperture and ISO.  Keep decreasing
your shutter speed one stop at a time.  Note the increasing level of
detail as more light comes in?

That's what you seemed to be implying was superior to using ISO1600,
because ISO1600 would "sacrifice detail" even when there's not enough
light to use ISO100...  but since you've admitted above that there's
no problem with the sensor or the firmware on the RAW images, and the
camera isn't actually losing detail, I'm not sure what you're upset
about at this point.

I'm hardly a Canon cheerleader.  I've shot Canon, Nikon, Olympus, and
Minolta at this point, and have had nice and not so nice things to say
about each of them.

I have no idea exactly what is meant by "7 stops under" here, not
having seen what Scott wrote, but if he's talking about a shot
relative to correct exposure at ISO100, f/8, and a given (relatively
slow) shutter speed, and still getting some detail on an image 7 stops
of shutter speed faster, yes, the Canon 20D can do that (actually, I'm
pretty sure a D2X can get at least 6, as well).  You get 4 stops going
to 1600, then will be recovering an additional 3 stops via level
boosting in Photoshop.

That won't be a *good* picture, mind you, but there will be
significant detail still available.

Stacey blithers some more:

I'll repeat myself:  you are an ineducable nitwit.

But hey, if you "like" looking at noise, you are certainly free to add
some back to the image.  Why, I'll even write a program to do it!  I'll
call it the "DetailEmphasizer(TM)" and make it a PhotoSlop plug-in, and
sell it to brainless nitwits like you for $100 a pop.  Maybe a special
$500 "Professional" version -- for those so-called 'pros' who need that
'film' look...

These are straight out of the camera.  These are not meant to be any
kind of real test, but rather to show what I see.

Unlike what some would claim I have not been stating that there is no
difference at ISO 1600, I have been saying that I have not seen it,
there is not much more then I can do.

The ISO 1600 photo to me does not look at all bad, what can I say, I
pointed the camera pushed the button and this is what I got.  The EXIF
data is all intact for anyone who want to see the particulars.

Scott

maybe camera shake in ISO 100 pic?

It might be a deal-killer for people who want to shoot in weaker light,
or crop out parts of images, or print larger.

My very first digital camera was in many ways much like film, you could
not see the photos on any kind of screen, the only display was an LCD
that showed how many photos you had left on the card.  The card would
hold 12 photos, so you have to be careful what you shot, after that the
similarities end, it would take about 2 seconds to do its auto focus
thing and then after the photo was taken it would take a couple more
seconds to store it on the card.  Although thinking about it I am not
sure what the auto focus time for a point and shot film camera is, I
have never owned one.  I owned, well still do, a compact 35mm but it
was a manual focus camera, a range finder in fact.

Stacey you are a real piece of work, a while back when you were getting
bashed for using the E300 I defended you and the E300.  Yes the E300
can make great photos, I have always said that. I have also pointed out
that you can run it at a lower f number then a larger sensor camera and
get same DOF, making the lower sensitive not just an issue.

But when I also defend the Canon against a ridiculous test that was
going to show the FZ20 was better then the 20D I defended the 20D.

Now you claim that I am bashing other cameras, the E300 is a fine
camera, you on the other hand are a jerk.  To you if anyone says
anything good about the 20D you take it as an attack on you and your
camera.

I have said and shown with two photos that the 20D has a dynamic range
over 7 stops, perhaps you don't understand what dynamic range is, it
does not mean that you can get a good photo 7 stops under.  If you
spend less time being a jerk and a bit more time using your own camera
you might see that it also has more then 7 stops of dynamic range.

If you recall I showed the 7 stops of dynamic range when someone was
claiming that the dynamic range of digital cameras was limited to about
5 stops, I did in anyway make any statements that showing over 7 stops
of range was something that only a Canon camera could do, it happens to
be the camera I have.

If you need help finding your 7 stops of range ( some what over really)
I would be glad to show you test photos that reviews have done that
show this range.  What the real range of the E300 is I don't know, the
reviews seem to only take the photos in jpg mode, which yes does lower
the dynamic range of a good digital camera.

You so abrasive that even when you do make a valid point you do it in
such a way that no one is going to listen to you.  You don't seem at
all interested in having a dialog but rather just want to scream at
anyone who is not saying bad things about Canon cameras, and of course
this includes just about everybody.

Take a few deep breaths and try to have one day where you are not mad
at the world, go out and take some photos and enjoy.

Scott