Do DSLR's need more PP

[Geoff Chandler]

Just a question, being as I haven't got one yet ~
I have noticed whilst viewing various sites etc that certain DSLR's
seem duller and flatter in presentation (I mean the resulting Photos).
Particulalry the much loved Canon 20D.!!
I have much respect for Canon and Nikon cameras - but often notice that
the 20D in particular seems to produce dull flat pictures, the 350 seems to do better in this respect. (This is not always the case, as a certain person in this Forum got one and continually produces great shots with hers!!)
Now - I know it will vary with lenses, conditions and photographers - so this is a bit of a generalisation.
I read somewhere that the higher up you go the more natural and true the photos - so we may feel more need to post process and even that with some DSLRs it is neccesary with most pictures to plat after the photo is taken.
I may be competely wrong or mislead here, but that wouldn't be ideal for me.
Does anyone have any constructive comments???

[George Riehm]

Just a question, being as I haven't got one yet ~
I have noticed whilst viewing various sites etc that certain DSLR's
seem duller and flatter in presentation (I mean the resulting Photos).
Particulalry the much loved Canon 20D.!!
I have much respect for Canon and Nikon cameras - but often notice that
the 20D in particular seems to produce dull flat pictures, the 350 seems to do better in this respect. (This is not always the case, as a certain person in this Forum got one and continually produces great shots with hers!!)
Now - I know it will vary with lenses, conditions and photographers - so this is a bit of a generalisation.
I read somewhere that the higher up you go the more natural and true the photos - so we may feel more need to post process and even that with some DSLRs it is neccesary with most pictures to plat after the photo is taken.
I may be competely wrong or mislead here, but that wouldn't be ideal for me.
Does anyone have any constructive comments???

It's all about options. On a dSLR you can crank up the picture settings (sharpness, color, etc) to get what you want out of the camera. Most dSLR users prefer to leave the images as close to nuetral as possible and then "season to taste" in post processing.

If I crank up the color and sharpening in my D70 the pictures turn out pretty wild. Point-n-shoot people really like them at 4 x 6 or even 5 x 7, but at 11x14, framed, they seem to like the more neutral shots with just a little adjustment.

Everyones taste is different, and, again, a dSLR allows you to create images the way you like them... in camera or out.

[patrickt]

In my opinion, it isn't the camera that creates the need for post-processing but the photographer. I have seen pictures out of friends' point and shoot cameras that I would have tweaked a little.

More and more DSLR users are shooting raw files where the in-camera processing is virtually nil. Then you do a little post-processing.

[aparmley]

It's all about options. On a dSLR you can crank up the picture settings (sharpness, color, etc) to get what you want out of the camera. Most dSLR users prefer to leave the images as close to nuetral as possible and then "season to taste" in post processing.

If I crank up the color and sharpening in my D70 the pictures turn out pretty wild. Point-n-shoot people really like them at 4 x 6 or even 5 x 7, but at 11x14, framed, they seem to like the more neutral shots with just a little adjustment.

Everyones taste is different, and, again, a dSLR allows you to create images the way you like them... in camera or out.

Very well said right there.

So in short, why yes, yes they do. But its not a fault. There was method behind that madness.

[ReF]

Just a question, being as I haven't got one yet ~
I have noticed whilst viewing various sites etc that certain DSLR's
seem duller and flatter in presentation (I mean the resulting Photos).
Particulalry the much loved Canon 20D.!!
I have much respect for Canon and Nikon cameras - but often notice that
the 20D in particular seems to produce dull flat pictures, the 350 seems to do better in this respect. (This is not always the case, as a certain person in this Forum got one and continually produces great shots with hers!!)
Now - I know it will vary with lenses, conditions and photographers - so this is a bit of a generalisation.
I read somewhere that the higher up you go the more natural and true the photos - so we may feel more need to post process and even that with some DSLRs it is neccesary with most pictures to plat after the photo is taken.
I may be competely wrong or mislead here, but that wouldn't be ideal for me.
Does anyone have any constructive comments???

in general, dslr users seems to like shooting with the settings toned down/ more neutral. the factory settings are also more neutral than point-and-shoot settings, though it depends on the particular model. if you want to copy the look of point and shoot results just crank up the settings in the dslr to the max. i'd still recommend shooting in RAW even if for those that "don't have time to post process."

[Geoff Chandler]

Interesting!
I do prefer the natural look, my KM A-200 is more like that, but also has lots of adjustments available. The Oly C-740 also has lots of adjustment and I have it all cranked down to look more natural. So in many ways a dSLR would suit me very well - appart from the size, and carrying all the extra stuff around - which caused me no end of grief when I used to use a film one!!!
When I finally buy one it will have to be fairly compact, and I will need to achieve what I require with as little extra equipment as poss. So choosing lenses will be tricky!
At the moment my only disadvantages with my P&S's are the slower reaction, particulalry in lower light, and the extra noise at higher ISO settings.

[Tyger]

From my little experience, here are my observations....

When i first got my XT i went to the local park and shot in AUTO mode and left the parameters as is also in .jpg format and the results of the colour were very accurate, on 4x6 and 5x7 they were very good in contrast and saturation......this is with the kit lens :) and in good lighting conditions.

Now because i am a freelance graphic desginer i like to post process to get the image "I" want so i do shoot in .Raw with neutral settings and do PP after. However, i've tried adjusting the parameters according to the time of day to see how the pics would come out without PP and i was well pleased. Mind you this was using the 70-200mm f4 and 85mm 1.8.

I guess it depends on a number of things. (which i'm sure you alkready know :)

-camera settings (parameter settings)
-proper exposure
-lighting conditions
-Lens used.

Have a good balance of all these factors and film like colour can be achieved.


Here's agood example of a pic i took a few months back no PP, just good lighting and exposure and the right camera settings. If i'm not mistaken it was taken with my 70-200mmf4. Obviously the original is much more vibrant than the saved for web version :)

http://www.monzoncreations.com/butterfly20001.jpg

[Rhys]

I prefer to use jpeg with my XT. I also tend to hike the settings up by 1 for everything except sharpness which I tend to max. I'm happy with the results. I don't think RAW is a good thing to use because of the extra post processing and extra computing power needed to handle it - not to mention extra storage. I took two photos - one in RAW and one in JPEG. One was 9.6mb and the other 2.3mb. I could see no advantage in the RAW file other than for manufacturers of storage devices.

I take pictures. I used to shoot slides with no post-processing. The post processing available with JPEG far exceeds that available to slide shooters. I never really enjyed darkroom work and don't enjoy photoshop all that much either. Plus I believe a photo is good only if it looks good when it's taken. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If it needs post processing then it needs to be binned and re-shot. If it's not possible to re-shoot then tough and maybe you should take up knitting instead.

[pip22]

"If it needs post processing then it needs to be binned"

That's plain silly. A good photo can easily be transformed into a wonderful one with maybe no more than some cropping and pehaps a little unsharp mask. Even the pros find it necessary to do that. It's what digital imaging is all about, and why many of them shoot raw. Unless you intend to perform post processing there would be no point in shooting raw. Are you suggesting all those raw-shooting pros who edit their work are wasting their time and should scrap all those shots that need tweaking in Photoshop? Absurd!

[Rhys]

"If it needs post processing then it needs to be binned"

That's plain silly. A good photo can easily be transformed into a wonderful one with maybe no more than some cropping and pehaps a little unsharp mask. Even the pros find it necessary to do that. It's what digital imaging is all about, and why many of them shoot raw. Unless you intend to perform post processing there would be no point in shooting raw. Are you suggesting all those raw-shooting pros who edit their work are wasting their time and should scrap all those shots that need tweaking in Photoshop? Absurd!

Yes. They are wasting their time. If they can't take a photo that doesn't need absurd levels of editing beyond cropping/sharpening/colour-correcting/basic filtering then they should take up knitting.

[Chucko]

I disagree with Rhys. Post-processing has long been a large part of the photographer's art, beginning with black-and-white negative film. Much of the impact of Ansel Adams' iconic images was due to his masterful darkroom work, for example.

PP is not only about rescuing bad or mediocre images; it's also about turning the image you captured into the vision you saw.

[erichlund]

Rhys doesn't work in RAW, so he can't possibly understand the difference between the in-camera tools and the in-software tools. For instance, sharpening: My Nikon D200 gives me 6 options in camera, None, Low, Med-Low, Normal (???), Med-High and High. Unfortunately, in the menu these are listed in the bizarre order Normal, L, ML, MH, H, None. But that's a discussion for another day. In Capture, I have these same options, and I can apply any of them as an alternative to what was set in the camera. That, in itself, is one form of post processing. However, each of these settings applies a specific mix of unsharp mask, which consists of intensity, halo width and contrast threshold (each of which can be specifically applied to a particular band (R-G-B) or the whole gamut. Unfortunately, depending on the conditions, none of these may provide the perfect mix of values for my particular photo. Capture also gives me the option of applying unsharp mask directly, and gives me much more flexibility and control than can be achieved with the camera controls. So, I pick the best camera control I can, but reserve the right to do it better if the camera control doesn't provide optimal results. Of course, how much time I spend on it depends on the importance I place on the particular photo.

I can crop in RAW without losing reference to the original photo and without having to save another copy. I don't do a lot of direct color correction, so I don't know if Capture reflects the fact that there are more bits of data per color in the toolsets (I don't recall seeing the usual 0-255 applied to individual color bands, but I could be wrong). Instead, most of my color correction is done with white balance, since that's where I'm most likely to be in error (One doesn't always have time to set the optimum white balance for each photo).

I'm not sure what he means by the catch all "basic filtering". OTOH, if I took what should be a great photo, but the whites got blown out, with Capture I now have tools where I can POSSIBLY recover what appears to be blown out (this is a new feature). I'm not sure you can do that with a jpg, but Photoshop has had such tools available for RAW processing for quite some time (from what I understand).

The bottom line is Rhys has chosen to restrict his processing to jpg, for reasons known only to Rhys. He then justifies that by saying if you can't get a good jpg, you should take up knitting. He apparently doesn't understand that other people can choose differently than him and still make a valid choice. My wife's two knitting machines are all the knitting we need in our family, and I have no interest in that. So I'll continue to post process by my methods, and Rhys will just have to accept that I choose not to follow his path.

Cheers,
Eric

[Chucko]

in general, dslr users seems to like shooting with the settings toned down/ more neutral. the factory settings are also more neutral than point-and-shoot settings, though it depends on the particular model. if you want to copy the look of point and shoot results just crank up the settings in the dslr to the max.

I think this is a deliberate choice by the P&S makers. For years, consumer photo labs have been printing on high-contrast, high-color-saturation paper to give photos that extra "pop". Likewise, slide film has been biased towards high contrast and saturation, often at the expense of color accuracy. Few photographers have ever complained about this tradeoff. Snapshooters expect the same results from digital; is it any surprise that the P&S makers give it to them?

I tend to be biased towards a more neutral (I don't know if "accurate" is the right word), lower contrast, lower saturation rendition. I used to assemble a photo-heavy newsletter for a car club, and I wanted to be able to make fairly drastic contrast changes so images would "pop" when reproduced on ink and paper. Excessive contrast in the photos I scanned would translate into blocky shadows and burned-out highlights, so I would frequently adjust images for print for a lower contrast to bring out more detail. This has carried over into my DSLR shooting.

i'd still recommend shooting in RAW even if for those that "don't have time to post process."

IMHO the biggest hassle with raw is the effort required to get the best possible rendition. I can understand why novices to raw are overwhelmed; there are a lot of decisions to make and it's easy to screw up an image with the wrong choices. The best advice I can give is to read one of Dan Margulis's Professional Photoshop books, or Bruce Fraser's Real World Camera Raw With Adobe Photoshop CS2, to get a feel for analyzing an image before and after adjustment.

If you like what you're getting from the camera's JPEG conversion, then by all means use it. But a careful raw conversion can often turn a good image into a great one, if you have the time and the patience.

[George Riehm]

Yes. They are wasting their time. If they can't take a photo that doesn't need absurd levels of editing beyond cropping/sharpening/colour-correcting/basic filtering then they should take up knitting.

Somehow that sounds like a change in direction. I'm not sure what "absurd levels of editing" relates to, but most of the people I talk to spend less than 10 minutes on a critical shot that needs a lot of help (and would have been an unrecoverable "binner" shot in JPEG).

I spend less than 2 minutes on "keepers" with minor problems like CA, vignetting, or white balance (less than 10% of my shots), then use custom parameters in NC4.4, or go with what the camera recorded, and batch-convert the rest.

Typically I can correct and batch convert a days shooting (150-200 shots) in about 1.5 to 2 hours. Actual seat time at the computer is only about 30 minutes the rest is computer batch processing. There are times when I go back and play with some shots a little more, but I did that with JPEG's as well, only with more work, and poorer results.

Nikon Capture 4.4 is pretty fast, nicely matched to the camera, does a great job, and is updated frequently. I'm not sure how that relates to Canons software, but batch results in NC4.4 are much better than RSE1.13 or UFRAW. No surprise there.;)

The great thing about RAW originals is that, as RAW processors improve, add features, and as my own skills improve I have the RAW original to work with. There have been a lot of improvements to most of the RAW processors out there, in just the past year, and it can only get better in the future. How about a software image stabilizer, dynamic range enhancement, and a host of other RAW based tools? I'm starting to look at my JPEG library as lost images.

The way I have come to look at it is; Having a good negative (RAW) is generally better than having a good print (JPG).;) Hard drive space is cheap (~$90 for 250GB or about 42,000 frames from my dSLR)...

... and my Fry's cheepo Semperon 2800+ with ECS600 motherboard (~$80), and 1GB of DDR PC3200 RAM (~$80) works just fine. I take about 15,000 frames a year so I'm good for about 2.5 years. By then I may have a 12MP camera, and 400GB HDD's should be around $100.

Anyway... My opinion. Food for thought. Your milage may vary. (insert your cliche here)

[ReF]

lots of great points everybody.

chucko: "Post-processing has long been a large part of the photographer's art, beginning with black-and-white negative film. Much of the impact of Ansel Adams' iconic images was due to his masterful darkroom work, for example.

PP is not only about rescuing bad or mediocre images; it's also about turning the image you captured into the vision you saw."

i've also read that about ansel adams. he was VERY concerned about the finished product and he was right to be. i've never heard anyone say that his original unprocessed photos must have looked like crap or that they shoulda been trashed. presentation goes a long way.

george: "I'm not sure what "absurd levels of editing" relates to, but most of the people I talk to spend less than 10 minutes on a critical shot that needs a lot of help (and would have been an unrecoverable "binner" shot in JPEG).

I spend less than 2 minutes on "keepers" with minor problems like CA, vignetting, or white balance"
i may spend a lot of time processing critical shots in Photoshop, but for some reason I spend very little time in RAW processing. It's not the RAW processing that slows me down at all, rather it's picking out the best images and/or touching them up to "perfection" (which can mean something different to everyone).

george: "The great thing about RAW originals is that, as RAW processors improve, add features, and as my own skills improve I have the RAW original to work with. There have been a lot of improvements to most of the RAW processors out there, in just the past year, and it can only get better in the future. How about a software image stabilizer, dynamic range enhancement, and a host of other RAW based tools? I'm starting to look at my JPEG library as lost images."

this is one of the major reasons why i shoot RAW. EXAMPLE: at one point barrel distortion correction had to be corrected in 8bit mode, or you would have to shell out crazy $$$ for high end dedicated software. Now it can be done in not just 16bit mode, but in RAW with adobe raw. I'm still using the free panotools plug-in (which does a great job) to correct my 15mm fishy's distortion, but i will upgrade to cs2 when my bank account recovers my recent purchases. it's not just for fisheye lenses either - full frame shooters are likely to encounter more distortion and everyone runs into perspective distortions every once in a while.

george: "The way I have come to look at it is; Having a good negative (RAW) is generally better than having a good print (JPG)"

another good point.

eric: "other people can choose differently.......and still make a valid choice"

a great way to look at things. i've personally been keep an open mind (with the help of my awesome girlfriend) and have learned so damn much. i've started to understand and like things that I previously disliked, and have seen how many times i've been wrong when i assumed too much or just plain thought my opinions were right "just because." sound corny, but would you (not you eric) rather know more, or less?

on that note, i've looked into editting JPEG files more (those from an dslr at least) and have found that you can still do a great job processing them on photoshop (no experience with competing products). i shot an object with the wrong white balance and 1 stop underexposure in RAW, then saved an untouched photo in JPEG and another version corrected in RAW. next i opened both in photoshop and processed the uncorrected JPEG. the results were surprisingly comparable, though it took a lot more effort in photoshop and the RAW corrected image still looked a little better. not very thorough, but the JPEG image turned out a lot better that i thought (i used to shoot and correct JPEGs but they turned out so much worse. Maybe it was because these JPEGs were from a dslr and the others from point and shoots??). i've no doubt that people who shoot exclusively in JPG are still getting outstanding output, but there's still no denying that RAW will provide more flexibility, especially with the advancements in RAW processing that are happening everyday.

[coldrain]

Just a question, being as I haven't got one yet ~
I have noticed whilst viewing various sites etc that certain DSLR's
seem duller and flatter in presentation (I mean the resulting Photos).
Particulalry the much loved Canon 20D.!!
I have much respect for Canon and Nikon cameras - but often notice that
the 20D in particular seems to produce dull flat pictures, the 350 seems to do better in this respect. (This is not always the case, as a certain person in this Forum got one and continually produces great shots with hers!!)
Now - I know it will vary with lenses, conditions and photographers - so this is a bit of a generalisation.
I read somewhere that the higher up you go the more natural and true the photos - so we may feel more need to post process and even that with some DSLRs it is neccesary with most pictures to plat after the photo is taken.
I may be competely wrong or mislead here, but that wouldn't be ideal for me.
Does anyone have any constructive comments???
Basically, it is like this: With a DSLR you do not NEED to post process more, but a DSLR ALLOWS for more post processing. Most DSLR's do not enhance contrast or apply sharpening filters a lot like in "compact digital cameras". This allows a lot more room for post processing ( doing sharpening and such yourself, with more control and better tools).
Some DSLR's do however process already quite a lot (Nikon D70(s), D50... they sharpen and enhance contrast a bit to give a higher resulting resolution. This does result in sharpening and sometimes moire artifacts, though). Some are on the middle ground (Canon 350D, 20D) and some give a very soft feel (Pentax *istDS).
You can put sharpening, saturation, contrast all up in the cameras though (and down too), so you can determine for yourself what you prefer. When you put all settings up on a 20D, you will get that P&S result you are used to, when you put them down you can reach the best results,but with some post processing to do to get your desired "punch".

[Norm in Fujino]

I have read--somewhere--don't have the quote on me, that manufacturers of digital cameras used to assume that users of dSLRs were more experienced photographically , and thus more savvy to post-production issues, and as a result WANTED to have more control over their own developing. In response, the manufacturers deliberately designed dSLRs with a more neutral level of sharpening and saturation than they put into their consumer P&S cameras. [I put "used to" in italics above because with the advent of the sub-$1000 dSLR, it's certainly no longer assured that the mass of dSLR buyers are in fact more experienced.]
That was the rationale, so I read, for the softer, duller appearance of out-of-camera JPEGs from some brands of dSLR, a fact that seems to disappoint some first-time dSLR buyers.

There's little for Rhy's comment about binning except binning :o , since as others have pointed out, being able to control the entire imaging (=shooting + developing) process is for many of us the whole point of photography. If someone, anyone (not necessarily Rhys), claims that a camera should produce some ideal of representation, she is merely abandoning her responsibility for the final image to the tastes and opinions of nameless engineers and technicians hidden away in labs somewhere.
That's a legitimate option for many--which is why we have P&S cameras and Wallmart photo print centers . . . but no thanks. "Give me control or give me golf!"

[ReF]

There's little for Rhy's comment about binning except binning :o , since as others have pointed out, being able to control the entire imaging (=shooting + developing) process is for many of us the whole point of photography.
that's a good one. i totally forgot that it is common for film shooters to develop their film with specific methods in order to "enhance" the image. it's just like tweaking RAW files, except you only get one chance to do it right with film processing.

[George Riehm]

"Give me control or give me golf!"

That about sums it up.;) Which is why I have trouble shooting photos on the golf course.

[erichlund]

lots of great points everybody.

<snip>

on that note, i've looked into editting JPEG files more (those from an dslr at least) and have found that you can still do a great job processing them on photoshop (no experience with competing products). i shot an object with the wrong white balance and 1 stop underexposure in RAW, then saved an untouched photo in JPEG and another version corrected in RAW. next i opened both in photoshop and processed the uncorrected JPEG. the results were surprisingly comparable, though it took a lot more effort in photoshop and the RAW corrected image still looked a little better. not very thorough, but the JPEG image turned out a lot better that i thought (i used to shoot and correct JPEGs but they turned out so much worse. Maybe it was because these JPEGs were from a dslr and the others from point and shoots??). i've no doubt that people who shoot exclusively in JPG are still getting outstanding output, but there's still no denying that RAW will provide more flexibility, especially with the advancements in RAW processing that are happening everyday.
I can't disagree with this. It just doesn't work for me at this point. There's something abstract about editing jpg versus the connection to the photo I get when editing in RAW format that makes more sense to me. OTOH, as I get more sophisticated in my RAW editing, I'm sure I'll then be more comfortable with editing jpgs, since there are a lot of similarities. I don't think I've ever said jpg is bad, nor am I implying any such connotation, either way, from you, but we all work with what we are most comfortable with.

If Rhys wants to work only in jpg, that's his (valid) choice. I'd just prefer he not tell me to go knit because my workflow is different (and perhaps more complex) than his.

Cheers,
Eric

[Warin]

I have been shooting a WHL team this season. Their printers have asked me to shoot in jpeg, as it makes their work easier when they set the shots up for the program centerfolds. I have, until now, complied with their wishes.

I am thinking, however, about switching to RAW, and doing one extra step before I send the files to them, namely a batch convert to jpeg. The images are ok, but I cant tweak them as much as I would like.

I also find the attitude that PP is somehow sinful to be funny too... and it seems to keep cropping up. I think one of the last threads I posted on this summer before the semester started was a similar rant, and my answer is the same: Photoshop doesnt let you do a lot more (in terms of post processing. Wholesale alteration is a different story) than a skilled darkroom artist can do. Period.

[Geoff Chandler]

I think if I were taking critical profesional photos I would shoot it Raw and do lots of PP'ing
But I don't! - so, for now, I'm with Rhys - I take in jpeg and usually on the middle setting - and on holiday (snaps) at 5mp not 8mp - I can always switch setting s for a special shot.
If I take a quality pic - I bump up the quality and shut down the tweaks as I see fit. I have to say that one setting does NOT fit all situations. (apprt form the fact that my 2 cameras are very different at default and have been more or less adjusted in opposite directions to achieve similar looking photos). On my A-200 I change from daylight to Auto white in daylight, I sometimes up the Saturation or contrast, or even nudge the filter one notch - depending on the lighting. In summer it workes better with +1 blue as it tends to become more warm otherwise, in winter this is not neccesary.
I do a little pp work and agree that it can be used creatively to get a desired effect - sometimes it is only after the photo is seen on the screen that an idea comes to me.
But for the usual every day I try to take natural looking shots and twiddle the camera controls to get the picture I want - maybe a little tweak afterwards if I think a good picture can be made great.
Going back to the dSLRs - which all this applies to anyway - it just struck me, for eg that the EOS 350 pics I have seen - always look really good - but the 20D shots seem to always look like they were inderexposed and dull.

[coldrain]

The 350D and 20D make photos that are almost identical. It depends on the lens and chosen settings what the difference may be. So your impression of the 20D is wrong.

[NewTekBuzz]

That is like saying that your pontiac grand am is faster then my pontiac grand prix. the one thing that you forgot to mention is that my grandma was driving the grand prix. Is makes ALL the differece in the world as to who is behind the wheel (camera ;) )
give us some examples that your talking about. are you looking at just a few sites with the same people all the time or are you looking at a few hundred sites.
If you like the look of the XT... then by all means, buy the XT :p

Myself I try to stay away from PP's :D but thats just me.

The beauty of digital is you can take 50 shots and you only have to keep the ONE you really want. I keep every picture that I take... HD space is cheap. I like to go back and look at the settings of that pic that didnt turn out... so next time I will try and avoid the same problem.

Tim

[Geoff Chandler]

The 350D and 20D make photos that are almost identical. It depends on the lens and chosen settings what the difference may be. So your impression of the 20D is wrong.
Not a problem - it's just what I see...In fact I have been able to guess the camera on several occasions.
Bottom line - in almost all but one person I know's pictures - the 20D looks like it's under exposed - but hey! what do I know? I'm just a P&S photographer these days!
What I really think, instead of asking everyone, is that the defaults are a bit different - I have checked when they were using the same lens - maybe the 20D has lower contrast and saturation and sharpness in favour of better fine detail, this could result in a duller looking pic, but it blows up better. Conversly - the 350 is a tad more punchy.
Carry on Guys - it's a good subject to chew over. I've said all I have to say.