Andrew Fildes wrote:
> Early shots with the E-410 twin lens kit.
> http://www.pbase.com/afildes/a_week_with_an_olympus_e410
>
Nice images all.
But what do they tell me about the camera? All shot in lots of light at
iso 100, and even the modest crop is downsized a lot for the web. I
propose that if I were standing beside you with F30 or A710, and took
the same shots, the results on the web would be of the same apparent
technical quality.
I raise the issue because I'm in a quandary. I'm not interested in the
E-410, but I assume the E-510 has the same sensor system and the IS is
very appealing. I don't even know if I want the 510 to be great or
so-so. So-so means I don't have to consider another system. Great means
I do some thinking about it. I'm still enough of a Zuikohead to want an
Oly digital - but that means new lenses, etc.
So my comments are really less a criticism of your sample presentation
than an expression of frustration that problems with exposure appear to
be delaying the E-410 reviews forever. dcresource says two weeks now
that he has a working production model.
In the meantime, I've started working on images from our recent trip.
One of them shows the kind of samples I would like and a performance to
measure against.
It also answers a tongue in-cheek question you asked a bit ago about why
one would even want interchangeable lenses when working with a 27-300 lens.
http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/HearstCastle/Pool.htm
Tammy 17-35 mm lens @ 17 mm, iso 320
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|