On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Ken Norton<ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry? E-3 isn't really much better at high ISO than the E-1? Still
>> running on the fumes of denial I see. We need a serious get-together.
>>
>
>
> LOL, yes just a hint of denial. Just a hint....
>
> Seriously, I am extremely pleased with the high-ISO images I see from the
> E-3 except for one issue. There is visible banding with the E-3 where my
> E-1 remains random-noise without the banding. But ISO 1600 is very usable
> whereas ISO 800 is the practical limit with the E-1, except in really aweful
> light. At issue for me, is that I can work with random-noise patterns, but
> the banding is pretty much a show-stopper.
I have seen some banding of a sort on high ISO shots in terrible light
(as in not much) where in effect I'm trying to get an image at 3200
which really needs 6400 or 12800. I use the lightest NR setting,
though I doubt that has anything to do with banding.
As you know, I like Studio 2 for RAW conversion. Don't know if that's
a factor as honestly my percentage of shots at 1600 or above is
perhaps 1 in 1000. Even at ISO 100 I don't often get into situations
where IS is really engaged. My experience, such as it is, is that the
330 was sensational noise-wise to the E-1 and the E-3 is lots better
than the 330. But I guess I don't really have much experience with
noise issues in real earnest.
Joel W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|