>
> Interesting, I see noise even at ISO640, I think I have a bad sample.
>
In the final print. Pixel-peeping on-screen and a nice high-quality print on
paper is another thing altogether. For 99% of my portrait/wedding output it
ends up chemically printed by a lab on FCA (or equivalent) in a pearl
surface with a luster coating applied. It's hard to see noise in those
prints even from the E-1 at ISO 800 in sizes up to 8x10". The event
photography is almost always reduced in size for web display or printed in
newsletters and magazines where the noise is non-existent and a non-issue.
Even from E-1 images at ISO 1600. I usually do a little cleansing, but not
much. My E-1 noise-levels are lower because of some tricks learned through
the years with it, but for the average person who hasn't tweeked every gram
out of it, yeah, it's garbage.
I don't mind the fact that these high-MP sensors aren't cleaner than lesser,
older sensors with fewer pixels. With the E-1, the noise is not only there,
but it's BIG noise because the sensor has fewer pixels. The 5Dmk2's
per-pixel noise level isn't much better than the E-1's, but the noise is
positively tiny which means that it disappears in most final prints.
Not all noise is evil. I actually prefer a little bit of it as it provides
texture to the images. I've compared the E-1's noise pattern to that of
other cameras and one thing which is quite apparant is that the E-1's noise
pattern is present throughout the entire tonal sweep, whereas some cameras
are very clean until you get down into the darker tones. This gives a nice
dimensional texture to the image which I particularily like. But that's
strictly a preference thing, not a "better than..." thing. I'm actually
quite interested in the 5Dmk2 because it is actually a bit noisier than some
of the other competitive cameras, but the pattern is more, uh,
Olympus-like. :)
Shhh. Don't tell the Canonistas that otherwise they'll go screaming out the
room and dumping their entire kit to buy Nikons. :)
You can save the time, Modern Photography at least tested the 21/2 and 35/2.
> The 21/2 is actually a F1.91 and 35/2 is F2.0.
>
I had thought that some of my lenses were a bit optimistic too. But
surprisingly, they weren't. Besides, if they were really off, the manual
metering would also be off since you meter wide-open and the camera
extrapolates the exposure for the selected aperture. (when on an OM body).
As to the OM body being a classic design which will probably never be
matched in the digital age, I somewhat agree. I doubt that Olympus has the
stomach to acknowledge the OM system today, and they'd be tickled pink if we
OMinistas would just die off and forget the glory days. It's an all new
brave world and the old perfect no longer applies today. I know Khen cringes
every time I say it, but Olympus has shown an unwillingness to build on past
success but instead chooses to flop around from one bright idea to the next
with no cohesiveness within the line.
However, Leica has proven with the M9 that it can be done and done very
well! And Leica is being rewarded handsomely with sales beyond their wildest
imaginations.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|