Thanks Dan. One comment/question below:
On Nov 17, 2007 3:30 PM, Dan Mitchell <danmitchell@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Thanks Dan. If you A-B some shots a 3200, can you include a flash
> > version for comparison as well next time? It appears that the E-3
> > holds good edge sharpness at 3200, which is kind of the only thing
> > that matters to me, since noise is a fairly minor problem in itself.
> > Can't tell for sure because the 3200 version is the best one already
> > in terms of edge sharpness. Your version, if it is full pixels, looks
> > like it would actually print OK as is, noise and all.
>
> Okay, here you go -- with/without flash, near/far, and in the dark /
> in the light. Noise 'reduction' turned on, ie second dark frame, or
> whatever it means; noise filter turned all the way off. (in-camera NR
> seems to work fairly well; setting it to 'high', re-taking the
> dark_close_flash shot now, there's basically no noise that I can see).
>
> http://www.danielmitchell.net/temp/e3_3200_dark_close_flash.jpg
> http://www.danielmitchell.net/temp/e3_3200_dark_close_no_flash.jpg
> http://www.danielmitchell.net/temp/e3_3200_dark_far_flash.jpg
> http://www.danielmitchell.net/temp/e3_3200_dark_far_no_flash.jpg
> http://www.danielmitchell.net/temp/e3_3200_light_close_flash.jpg
> http://www.danielmitchell.net/temp/e3_3200_light_close_no_flash.jpg
> http://www.danielmitchell.net/temp/e3_3200_light_far_flash.jpg
> http://www.danielmitchell.net/temp/e3_3200_light_far_no_flash.jpg
The last pair is the most helpful to me, but it appears that they are
switched (the flash one appears to be the non-flash, and vice versa)?
Joel W.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
