>
> Image quality is fine as long as you don't need high ISO or high res.
>
Well, as far as high ISO is concerned, there are tricks that you can play to
get the image quality looking pretty good. Other cameras have some mighty
fine high-ISO performance, but in nearly every case the dynamic range is
limited or the color/saturation/sharpness starts to go to pot.
The laws of physics still apply. When you try to duplicate some of the fancy
processing that other cameras do and limit the
color/saturation/sharpness/dynamic range of the E-1 files to match the
others, the difference in high-ISO performance isn't quite as radical as
you'd expect. When massaged, the E-1 files are comparable to the Canon 40D
at one ISO grade faster. Inotherwords, my ISO 400 files look like 40D ISO
800 files. Without the massaging, the difference is at least two ISO grades.
At ISO 1600 or 3200, neither camera give "excellent" results, but the Canon
files are easier to deal with. At the native ISOs, the Canon is perfectly
clean with absolutely no texture, whereas the E-1 always has some noise
present.
To each his/her own, but I prefer a litle bit of texture to my pictures. I
know there are a couple of people on this list that wig out at the sight of
anything other than glossy-clean window on the world, but I personally don't
get all that bothered about it.
AG (wigless) Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|