At 04:03 PM 5/27/2005 -0400, you wrote:
> > Tom, I'd be happy to oblige a challenge if an acceptable third-party could
> > figure out how one compares the two captures to come to a judgment. I
> > would certainly have nothing to lose, as no one probably believes the E-1
> > would match your camera anyway.
> >
> > Joel W.
>
>
>I came across as a pompous ass, which may be true, but I didn't intend it in
>this situation.
I didn't think so. I thought it was a reasonable response to what you
viewed as a preposterous claim. And my response to you was serious, but
not to make you feel bad. I think it would be fun!
I just don't know how to compare the two cameras on the basis in which it
was suggested. RAW files Photoshoped or rendered by the manufacturers
software? 16x20 prints or 8x10? I think you'd probably have to allow
interpolation to get a comparable size for print purposes if you want to
compare big prints, and interpolation certainly can't improve the E-1
capture, but then there are lots of technical/artisan decisions about
saturation, sharpening blah blah blah. Tough to level the playing field
for such a comparison, which makes me wonder how much thought Puts really
put into his statement.
Joel W.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|