I think it shows the youth of the technology as well as different
philosophies of the camera companies. For instance some companies,
like Fuji, aim for a pleasing, colorful jpg out of the camera that
can go straight to a printer. Others shoot for more accurate color.
Others aim to preserve every bit of information in the image no
matter what it looks like when it comes out of the camera after
conversion from RAW and the jpegs are just for snap shooting. Canon
looks warm. Nikon looks cool. Lower priced cameras like the E-300,
300D or D50 tend to a more brightly colored crisper image more
pleasing to an amateur who is moving up than the more professional
models which tend to be set up more to prevent highlight blowout and
need more work in the software after downloading.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Aug 10, 2005, at 11:01 PM, Ton Maas wrote:
>
> Haven't seen any results from the E300 yet, but the differences
> between the E1 (mine) and the Pentax *istDS (my wife's) are quite
> obvious. Shots from the Pentax need quite a bit more work in
> Photoshop to get to the level of "liveliness" that those from the E1
> have straight out of the camera. Especially at first we couldn't
> believe our eyes.
>
> Ton
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|