On 11/15/2010 4:39 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Interesting approach, read the detailed analysis.
Those test sites are great, but they don't test the outer limits. But it's what
it does in the field, under less than
ideal conditions, that matters.
> Not sure the new Fuji holds up in IQ as well but the high DR modes are
> interesting.
Well, maybe I chose the better one. :-)
> On Imaging-resource the noise goes up waay faster for the Samsung compared to
> the G11 with further loss of DR.
I know perfectly well it is poorer on noise than the G11. That was a conscious
trade-off on my part. It also has those
funny little, pixel level artifacts that most of these little sensor cameras
have. RAW helped a lot on the A650. I'm
hoping that turning down the in-camera sharpening will help the WB650.
> Perhaps there is an ISO cut off when a cropped G11 would be better than the
> new guy especially with a well processed raw file.
I'm not all that concerned. I expect most of its use will be outdoors in decent
light. In the samples you saw that it
can handle a lot of shadow with correct exposure and processing. I'll probably
test that trade-off point one day when
out shooting.
> Too bad there isn't a hack producing a Raw file for it. Actually I have read
> for at least the S85 there is a service menu that makes the raw file
> available. One hacker then wrote a converter for it. Ugh.
RAW would be nice. I've noticed in DPR reviews of small sensor cameras with RAW
that the DR advantage seems to less than
with large sensors. As to the converter, all one needs do is take a proper
sample shot ans send it to Dave Coffin to be
added to dcraw.
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/
|