ScottGee1 wrote:
>Chuck, FWIW, I value low noise at higher ISOs. In my experience, a
>faster shutter speed can make the difference between an acceptable
>shot and one that's useless. It can also save a lot of post
>processing time.
>
>
Absolutely! All the talk and photos from the E-1 on the list cause me to
re-evaluate my choice every so often against the E-1 and E300. Every
time, emotion gives way to performance characteristics that are of value
to me and I decide I made the right choice for me.
Another factor is the third party lens availability. For me, this plays
together with low noise at high isos. I'm simply knocked out by the
results I get with the Tamron 28-300 Di on the 300D. That's 480mm
equivalent on 35mm. So it's only f6.3 at 300mm, it's sharp wide open and
I've got the iso to handle it. And it's light and truly hand holdable
right out to the end. I have just never enjoyed tele so much. Having
true long tele just there, without having to plan for it, is a true joy
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/SunsetBodega.htm>.
Out on the porch, sun low in the sky suddenly shoots through trees and
by the side of the house and illuminates a rose. To take it on 35mm, at
least 10 min for BIG tripod, and something to stand on. Or maybe reg
tripod and 300/4.5, oops, need extension tube(s), make that 15 min. In
either case, the light is long gone. Grab 300D and 28-300, hold camera
against porch post, shoot, maybe a minute, light perfect
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/WRose.htm>. Oh, yeah, $370 for the lens.
On 35mm, 500/8 is slower and has that funny oof problem. The 150-500/5.6
is a beast and has to be stopped down for sharpness. And no hand
holding. The 300/4.5 is a nice lens, but much bigger and heavier. Sort
of hand holdable, maybe.
I'm sure the E-1 tele lenses are also great. But, the 50-200 is $900,
only goes to 400mm eq and is no faster for the same image noise on an
E-1. I don't know if its close focus is at long or short end. I'll bet
the 300/2.8 is fantastic, but $6,300, not happening here.
>And maybe I don't use them correctly, but none of the noise reduction
>software programs I've tried provide a look that I like. Either too
>much or too little.
>
The more I use one, the more I learn. They really can be amazingly good.
They will never be as good as inherently low noise.
Not trying to talk anybody into or out of anything, just trying to
answer the question from my personal perpsective and experience. 20D in
a heartbeat. It's noise, lens availablilty and ability to use OM mount
lenses thump the 7D.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|