Gearhead!
The modest crop is for the bloody composition, not the quality of the
pixels at two thousand percent. It's soft but dammit it's the
equivalent of over 600mm unstabilised in any way and there's no other
way I could have got the image without drowning. No time to find a boat.
Strangely, my three most favouritist images lately have all been
soft. I'm getting over sharp.
The camera is nice to use. It is better than a compact for noise. It
is light and convenient - I've had the whole kit in my bag this week.
I just switched to the Canon 5D, 70-200/2.8, 17-40/4, 420EX in the
bag 'cos I'm of to see the Dalai lama with the kids tomorrow (don't
know how close I'll get) and wanted to look the goods. And my arm is
sore already.
It is not quite as good as a Canon at high ISO (or a Nikon I
understand). What noisiness there is, is not unpleasant. I haven't
compared it with the earlier chip either because I can't.
I added some portraits - 200 ISO direct flash. Exposure was fine
except when I got a bit distant because the on-board flash is only
10GN - might as well light a match.
http://www.pbase.com/afildes/a_week_with_an_olympus_e410
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 07/06/2007, at 8:31 PM, Moose wrote:
> 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.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|