On Jan 14, 2008, at 11:15 PM, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
<snip>
>
> I would therefore like to hear from people who have experience with
> both the E410/510 and the E3: does the E3 deliver significantly
> better high ISO performance than the other bodies? This is the single
> most important deciding factor for me, as I hate flash and I like low-
> light environments.
>
> TIA,
> Nathan
I have no FF experience, but having shot with both an E510 (a
friend's) and my own E3 (JPGs only, both), the E3 seems cleaner at
1600 (and can do 3200 in a pinch). To me, 800 on the E510 is about as
clean as 1600 on the E3. Things get iffy and murky on underexposure,
but otherwise they look good. Shot an entire dance performance at
ISO1600 on the E3 with the 12-60, L/SF jpgs, if you'd like samples.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|