This would all be true for me too if I were only photographing kid's
birthday parties or shooting landscapes or many other types of
photography. However, two stops on the noise level as well as faster
flash sync times are a big deal for me and Canon has it there. But
you'll notice that I haven't actually bought one yet since I don't
actually like using Canon cameras. We'll see what turns up in the spring.
Chuck Norcutt
AG Schnozz wrote:
>>If Foveon had a better product I'm sure they wouldn't have
>>any trouble getting Oly to buy it. Who needs a better sensor
>>than Oly?
>
>
> I disagree with the basic foundation of this statement. I'm
> having a hard time coming up with REAL disadvantages to the
> Kodak sensor. It isn't quite as "clean" as the Canon CMOS, but
> there is a whole lot less noise-reduction going on too. You can
> see the difference in chroma noise levels--which the Olympus'
> sensor is remarkably clean at. Granted, Canon has nailed down
> the clean-sensor routine pretty well, but that's only ONE
> variable in what makes up "image quality".
>
> I'd appreciate a lesser aggressive AA filter and maybe another
> stop or two of cleaner ISO, but at what point does any of this
> actually affect the final print? We're reaching the point of
> diminishing returns. Sensors will get cleaner and higher
> resolution, but how clean and how much do you need to photograph
> your kid's birthday party?
>
> AG
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|