A believable comparison. Both cameras have approximately the same pixel
pitch (E-1 = 6.8 microns, 40D = 5.7 micron). That would seem to
slightly favor the E-1 but, of course, the Canon has the advantage of
four additional years of sensor/firmware development. Hmm. Does it
take four years to gain one stop on noise?
Chuck Norcutt
Ken Norton wrote:
>
> 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/
|