>
> >
>>----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Joe Gwinn" <joegwinn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
><SNIP>
> >Even being a die hard Olympus fan, I have to say 10D is at least two stops
>>better than E-1, at ISO100 the noise is not noticable even if you
>>underexpose by two
>>stops and later pull it up; still very low noise at ISO400 and under
>>one stop. The
>>problem is the 10D color does not look as good as the E-1 even with the
>>excellent C1 RAW convertor.
I don't agree with CH on this-he's entitled to his viewpoint as I am
mine, and granted the perception of color is to some (possibly large)
degree subjective, but I love the color of C*n*n's CMOS sensor based
cameras;I prefer it to CCD based cameras including the E-1's which is
still quite nice, butIMHO, doesn't hold a candle to the CMOS sensors.
CH has not posted what his post-capture color post-processing
workflow is, but I have spent the last year getting quite good
control with respect to post, and I am very happy with the quality of
color I am getting, both on the monitor, and most importantly, from
the 2200 (Velvet Fine Art-Yeah!). All capture devices have their
imperfections, and it's up to the photographer to discern those as
part of his production values, and develop a workflow to produce
images whose colors pop, retains shadow and highlight details, and
has dead-nuts neutrals.
<SNIP>
>So the E-1 has worse noise and yet the pictures look better, likely
>due to better color fidelity.
I don't agree that the pictures look better-I find the noise levels
of the E-1 to contribute a significant detriment to the image quailty
at ISOs as low as 400. I find the metering of the E-1 to be quite
neutral, but the images' color tend to be a little cool and flat
for my taste. Color neutrality is good, though, and one of the
biggest pluses I've found is that the E-1 metering produces nicely
balanced histograms.
<SNIP>
>The
>difference in pixel footprint area is about 10%. The 10D uses a CMOS
>sensor, while the E-1 uses a CCD, but these technologies are neck in
>neck. All in all, one would expect substantially similar raw optical
>performance, unless one chip is far noisier than the other, which
>seems unlikely in competing products from major camera manufacturers.
CCD chips are generally noisier than CMOS....no doubt due in part to
the fact that they require higher voltage gains.
>I would have to guess that the 10D does far heavier averaging,
>especially in flat areas, reducing noise at the expense of color
>fidelity. It appears that the 10D may have gone too far in this.
This sounds like a lot of supposition without any facts to me.
Everyone I know who has a 10D loves the color quality, as does every
review I've ever read. The E-1 has many nice qualities, it meters
very well, produces lovely photographs with nice histograms and
neutral colors that don't require a lot of post-processing, but it
also suffers notably from balky autofocus, slow write times, some
poor design and ergonomic features, and unacceptable levels of
noise. I think it's a quite a good first attempt, but it's not a
knockout, and I find some things wanting about it. I hear the E-1
replacement will be quite nice, though, and address many of the
shortcomings of the E-1...it is supposed to come out this fall. I
always enjoy using it and taking photos with it, but I think of it as
a camera that's almost there, but not quite....in that respect its a
bit disappointing.
Here are Phil Askey's comments, which, as I have used the camera
extensively over three days, I couldn't agree with more...
*If you're going to be critical (and I normally am) you see a
superbly designed camera which isn't achieving its full potential."*
-Stephen.
--
2001 CBR600F4i - Fantastic!
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|