I like the first crop better and, at 2.8 MP there's enough there for a
good 5x7 if not an 8x10.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> Andrew Fildes wrote:
>> ....
>> 12mp compacts are just plain ludicrous.
>>
>
> I disagree. That surprised me when it happened. But experience trumps
> pre-conceived ideas.
>
> As I wrote before, direct comparison of images of the same subject
> proved to me that the 12 mp A650 is a better 6 mp camera than the 6 mp
> F30 for all uses I would put them to except for moving subjects in low
> light.
>
> According to the Thom Hogan review Mike just posted about, the G10
> slightly ups the lowest ISO image quality of the G9 (Which is the same
> imaging system as the A650.)
>
> There's nothing wrong with lots of pixels, if they are decent ones, even
> half decent. As long as I can down sample and beat the best 6mp digi I
> know of, where's the down side?
>
> The up side for me is flexibility. As someone already pointed out, lots
> of pixels means lots of possibilities for cropping without ending up
> with too few pixels. Last Wednesday, I was off to meet some friends for
> lunch. It had just stopped raining, so I jumped in the convertible and
> drove down. As I stepped out of the car, I noticed a small plant trying
> to survive in a crack in the pavement.
>
> Doomed, of course, as this iss a quite busy street, but I liked the
> image, with the plant and street still quite wet and the sun lighting
> them. OK, sure, If I had an assistant to block traffic for a few
> minutes, I could get down on my knees on a wet street, take a really
> careful, thoughtfully composed shot - and go to lunch with wet, dirty
> pants from the knees down. Or I could go home, get the big camera and
> hope the light hasn't gone off... - yeah, right.
>
> As it was, I pulled the A650 off my belt, leaned down a bit, just took a
> shot before the wave of cars from the light that just changed roared up,
> walked on and was exactly on time for lunch (All other participants were
> women, so I was alone for a while. ;-) )
>
> Here are the results of the grab shot:
>
> Full frame - 12 mp - doesn't do much for me. It puts it in perspective,
> but it's a bit blah for me.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Miscellaneous&image=IMG_1169a.jpg>
>
> Cropped to about 23% - 2.8 mp - I get a composition I rather like, with
> plant in relation to worn paving. Details of the oil slick on the water
> become clear, and I like the red rock in the lower left.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Miscellaneous&image=IMG_1169crr.jpg>
>
> Finally, at full, original pixels, I get a composition that focuses on
> the plucky, but doomed plant. There seems to me to be enough detail
> resolved to make the image work at web image size.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Miscellaneous&image=IMG_1169fp.jpg>
>
> I just don't see how I lose anything by having 12 mp, but I do see how
> much I gain.
>
> Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
