Phil wrote:
> Some valid stuff there Moose. I think many people (including me) have become
> obsessed with the so called pixel peeping.
>
I still think it's valid for a camera and/or lens that is to be used for
serious work. If you are planning significant crops and/or big prints,
it's important that things are as good as possible at the pixel level.
> I looked at the test and I actually prefer the slightly softer but smoother
> images of the TZ3 as opposed to more detail but noise of other images
> I think that the average punter that buys the TZ3 will be more than happy
> with the quality
>
I expect so too. And if the print tests work out, I may become one of them.
> I have recently been researching lenses and was able to test an £800 top of
> the range lens against a £90 Kit lens, to me, the difference is not night and
> day and certainly not £700's worth in the real World.
>
As you and Andrew have said, a lot of the difference is in the build
quality, and that's worth a lot to many people. The latest 50/1.8 looks
and feels like a piece of junque ready to fall apart - but optically,
it's quite a good lens.
I really think L is primarily about ruggedness, sealing and reliability,
with optical quality still important, but secondary. There are several
instances where it appears that mid line lenses are equal or superior to
the comparable L lenses.
And the 80-20 rule applies to optical quality, as well. About 80% of the
cost of the best is for that last 20% of performance. Maybe even 90-10
these days.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|