On 11/14/2010 11:09 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
> Thanks for that summary of tests and results, Moose.
> I'm really glad that you have found a useful tool; I see that it was joint
> first in a "Compact Shootout" on DPR.
Not hard to choose between the two, as the Casio emphasizes rapid shooting, but
has about the worst IS, the Sammy has
perfectly adequate frame rate for me and about the best IS and they are
otherwise pretty evenly matched. In my use, the
IS has proven to be close to amazing, as you may have noticed if you read my
lengthy commentary or looked at the shot
data. 1/20 @ 360 mm eq. and the only blur is subject motion! WOW
> I would have worried about the size of the sensor vs the megapixels (50mp/cm2
> according to DPR), but the results, as you say, are impressive.
That is indeed a concern. It's part of the reason I didn't consider other
cameras, like the Fuji 300 that Andrew
mentions. Just look closely at the DPR shootout, and you'll see that there are
variations in performance in various
categories that I could never know about without tests. And they don't always
get better with a new model; mostly, but
not always. Just look at the shootout IS test page and tell me you could have
know which would be winners and losers
without it. Any of these light, little cameras with long lenses and only LCD
viewfinders would be far less useful
without good IS
If one wants to peer at one's images at 100% (or more), these cameras aren't
likely to please. I'm one of those 100%
pixel peepers, but decided that I could either back off that or get used to IQ
weaknesses in order to get images great
for web and for reasonable sized prints, that I would otherwise miss.
> These are delightful shots, ... However, I am interested to note that the
> older girl's arm shows speckling at anything other than the normal
> magnification; I zoom my screen and see strange colours appear in the skin
First question is why are you looking at 200%? :-) Really. The larger
original size image has been down sampled, then
sharpened for the presentation size. The algorithms in browsers for increasing
viewing size are designed for speed, not
quality. The image at 100% is already one image pixel to one screen pixel, so
all viewing it at 200% does is create a
bunch of groups of four pixels for each one. At worst, they will be just the
same as the original. At best, some
guessing based on surrounding pixels will shade the individual values. There
isn't anything more to see.
You are quite right about #68. This was not a shoot with the main purpose of
getting good images. It was about testing
the camera's limits. #s 60 & 68, and many others, were about finding out about
what I can do with it in high DR
situations. Although the EXIF says -0.7 EV, that's misleading. Using Shutter
priority, fixed ISO and the maximum lens
opening at 360 mm forced them to be about four stops underexposed.
I did that to see if I could keep the very bright elements in direct sun from
blowing out and still get usable quality
for the rest of the image. Did I care about the highlights, or even this
particular shot? Not much. I just wanted to see
what was possible. As it turns out, I was able to hold the highlights. The
histogram of the original just kisses the
top. And I was able to get a pretty nice looking exposure of the rest of the
image by pulling up the shadows.
Tonal detail down that far on such a small sensor camera is inevitably
compromised with noise. It also suffers from the
fewer digital values available for each stop down on the low end, reducing
tonal subtleties. And yet, it made for a
perfectly good image.
#68 was a further test to see if anyone noticed the noise. You win. I've
temporarily added a copy of the original, as it
looks out of the camera,
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=SFBayArea/BlakeHouse/WB650_First_Shots&image=SAM_0068.jpg>
and one with noise reduction using NeatImage, which will soon replace the
original in the gallery.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=SFBayArea/BlakeHouse/WB650_First_Shots&image=SAM_0068NIia70.jpg>
I think it takes care of your problem without sacrificing anything at this size.
>> 69. Light or dark?
> Light
Thanks.
> I note your requirement for long telephoto in the lens, but I am reasonably
> happy with my short zooms (LX3 and G12). However, I will go for the tele
> converter for the G12, when I can find one at a reasonable price.
I've used the teleconverters (and WA ones). The whole process is just awkward
for me. Much less convenient than just
dropping one camera in its belt holster and plucking the other out. And I'm not
wild about the image quality. Go to
http://www.lensmateonline.com/ and look at their samples. Well, foo! They seem
to have dropped their samples image
gallery. You should go there anyway, if you opt for a aux, lens, as their
adapters are MUCH nicer than Canon's.
Anyway, they used to have a great gallery comparing images from various Canon
and other auxiliary lenses where one could
also download samples for closer study. I was able to compare the TC-DC58N aux.
lens I have to the TC-DC58D Canon
recommends for the G10-12.
The TC-DC58D is only 1.4x, for 196 mm max, while the TC-DC58N is 1.75x, for 245
mm. Down sampling the 1.75x sample and
comparing it to the 1.4x one, I concluded that they were very close to
equivalent at 1.4x, although subtly different. So
I decided to stick with the lens I have and its longer reach.
Still, although I've carried around the adapter and lens many times, I've yet
to take a shot with them on the G11 except
in tests, and only a handful on its predecessors.
You may imagine that the aux. lens is smaller than it is. Here's a comparison
with the Samsung camera.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Tech/Misc&image=IMG_1838ia.jpg>
Adapter plus lens is both
longer and wider than the camera, and much deeper. It's a really odd shaped,
awkward package that's quite nose heavy and
there's just no convenient way to carry it short of a shoulder bag. The 1.4x
converter is slightly smaller, but not
enough to make a significant difference.
And thanks for looking!
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
