My point was that there's more to an image than megapixels. Or, as some wag
might say, it ain't the size of the liner, but the motion of the ocean. <g>
I've never used an E-3 because I bailed on Olympus before it ever made it out.
But I did use, and still retain, a number of E-510 images. As I recall, the 510
was an early E-3 Light. It's a good camera, and put out a good image, but when
it comes to noise and Dmax and some of that other stuff, it's not even close.
That said, I put some rather stringent demands on my gear. A more casual user
unconcerned about gallery-quality prints and such might (correctly) not see the
point in all that extra cash for firepower that isn't useful.
As I've said, if I wanted to max out today rather than when I did, and if I'd
ever amassed some really first class Oly glass, I'd switch to Canon in a
heartbeat. There's nothing wrong with Canon gear, and from what I've read here,
it matches up with Oly glass very nicely.
--Bob Whitmire
www.bobwhitmire.com
On Sep 19, 2010, at 5:35 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
> I'm not sure what this comparison is supposed to prove, Bob and Moose. The
> E-1 has a small sensor and not many mp. The D3 has a bigger sensor and loads
> of mp. In between, the E-3 has a smaller sensor and nearly loads of mp.
> I'm willing to bet that it would have shown a proportionate improvement on
> the E-1. How close it would have got to the output of the D3 is anyone's
> guess, but I'm willing to guess that it wouldn't have been far short.
>
> But then, it's only a guess . . .
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|