Joel Wilcox wrote:
> There's still hope. They only gave it 4 out of 5.
> Only three focus points instead of five (I've got my E-1's three shut
> down to one),
AS do I with the slightly higher number on the 300D. One is usually the
right choice for me. The three points isn't even an issue for me.
> and at higher ISO's it has -- guess what -- starts with an "N."
>
Speaking of the 'N' word, I'm back in quandryville. Yesterday, a good
friend came to get a massage and I babysat her 3 1/2 month old girl.
Since she is only breastfeeding so far, the little one was quite hungry
and very vocal about it, by the end, so the baby went in to nurse on the
massage table. A few minutes later, I was called in to take a pic of
very relaxed mom with very relaxed daughter lying on her with nipple
still in mouth.
It was just too dark in the massage room when I went in and flash was
out of the question. It would ruin the soft warm look and scare the
baby, probably mom too, in her post massage condtition. With the
overhead light on, there was light for a shot, barely, but the AF was on
the edge. So I went to manual focus and 1600 iso and took a few shots of
just the baby and a couple of shots of mom and baby.
Now I just grabbed the 300D with my slow zoom, so one could argue that
faster glass would have saved the day. But even at 1/50 sec. and just
below wide open, 77mm (123nn eq.) and f5 for the baby alone and 32mm
(51mm eq.) and f4.5 for both, DOF was iffy. Because of the physical
setup, the DOF just wasn't there. I could go grab a Zuiko 50/1.4 for the
wider shot, but I'd end up at the same f-stop. Fortunately, one shot
focused on the baby's face and one on the mother's profile did the
trick. Drop the in focus mom face into the other image and voila, both
are in focus - magic image!
Shutter speed was a bit iffy too. For the longer fl shot, where
something faster than 1/50 was really indicated, I simply took several,
and lucked out, with one perfectly focused on the eyes and without
motion blur.
So the point is, I would never have been able to get the shot I wanted,
and was lucky enough to make, with any of the current E system bodies.
Just as I wouldn't go to 3200 on the 300D for this shot, 1600 on an
E-x(xx) would be just too noisy for the look I wanted, or way too soft
if I went JPEG. As it is, the slight iso 1600 noise isn't bad and can be
corrected if I want without losing too much detail. These turned out
great, and the shot of the two of them is going to be a joy for them all
their lives.
Then I got to thinking how often I am shooting where it's a bit too
dark, pushing the possibilities. I REALLY wanted the E-330 press release
to be true. "The effectively enlarged photosensitive area thereby helps
to provide superior image quality, as well as higher sensitivity with
less noise." Yet it's no better than the earlier E bodies.
So now I'm faced with a dilemma. E-330 for easier shooting in normal
light and super macro capability, or another Can*n for low light AF and
iso performance? The sample images show the 5D to be really astonishing
at iso 3200, with decent AF in practically darkness.
By the way, Walt and Andrew, if you get this far, reviewers are saying
how small and dim the E-330 finder is. Is it significantly worse than
the E-1 and E-500, or is this just a reaction to the big LCD?
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|