I probably should stay out of this, but I can't for the life of me understand
why anyone would be looking at a G11/G12 or the Nikon equivalent for a large
print. You want a large print, you use good large print stuff, like the 5D Mk
II or the D3 or some such. Or, hell, a Phase One! You use a G11 or G12 (at
least in my understanding) when you want to carry a camera without lugging 30
pounds on your back and still get acceptable image quality--at small print or
web-print sizes. If I carried a new G12 I would not try to make a 20x30 out of
anything I took, unless it were to test the limits of Photoshop and Genuine
Fractals. But I might use it for some 7x10s or 5x7s, or images to put on the
web showing all the fun I had on a trip to the Rose of the Shires, where I most
assuredly would not be lugging my Nikon bag around.
--Bob Whitmire
"Art's just fart without the eff."
www.bobwhitmire.com
On Oct 26, 2010, at 12:15 AM, Moose wrote:
> The G11 also has some odd little artifacts viewed at 100%. They aren't
> visible at small to medium print sizes, but are
> bound to show up eventually as print size increases. They are one reason I'm
> not sure about the G11 vs Zuiko on film in
> large prints question.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|