I haven't done any controlled tests, but anecdotally there are big
differences. In a nutshell, the E20 will do an excellent 8x10 and a
reasonable 11x14. The 4000ED will do an outstanding 13x19 (the largest I
can print on a single piece of paper). I also have two poster size prints,
scanned on the 4000ED and cut into 4 pieces by the Epson print driver.
26x38 roughly. Overwhelmingly good. From the proper viewing distance,
you're blown away. They're both flowers. Over our bed we have a white
hibiscus blown up to, what, 10X, no it has to be more. The detail is
incredible. Every little piece of the stamen just jumps out -- and leaves a
shadow on the flower. The E20 could never approach it. Never.
But, I'm not looking for that in digital. Yet. The 1Ds might be close.
I still thought that Olympus would up the game a bit. 9MP. Wide angles.
Something!
The weight comparison is interesting, and makes the E-1 more appealing (1/2
the weight of the 10D!).
The challenge is that there isn't a single store within 20 miles of me that
will have both in stock and let me compare.
Tom> Tom,
> I believe you have both an E-20 and 4000 dpi scanner. Have you ever
> compared the E-20's 5MP image against an OM shooting the same image on
> film and scanned at 4000 dpi.
>
> I agree with you about the E-1's price being too high but it does have
> some interesting technology in the body. My concern was the 5MP image.
> It just doesn't seem enough to challenge film. Am I right or wrong?
> Anybody else want to comment specifically on resolution?
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|