That's clear and reasonable, Bob. I was only remarking on the vagueness of the
comparison between E-1 and D3 shots. Your comment was related to the quality
of Olympus results, you see, and it seemed to be based on the difference
between the E-1 and the D-3.
I'll be interested to see, I must admit, what the E-5 is like. I do like the
12mp sensor in the GF1, or at least the results it seems to provide.
Chris
On 21 Sep 2010, at 20:36, Bob Whitmire wrote:
> 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.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|