> But not there, at least to my eyes from the images you post. :-) I'll be
> shortly posting at least one bee shot. As I understand it, the Fuji sensor
> system and lenses are at least the equal of the E-M5. I think it can be a
> real step up from the E-510 too.
I wonder what else might be going on here. It is no secret that most
Four-Thirds cameras have dramatically underperformed their pixel
counts. However, I've also noted how images taken with different
formats of cameras (medium vs small, film vs digital) will resize
differently. I'll use both Tina and my film shots as examples. Even
though the resolution of the source image might be ginormous, when we
resize it, it turns to mud.
As stated a few times before, I've found that if I take a scanned
image, run it through a noise-removal process, then downsize it to
equivalent of, say, 6MP camera, the images have that wonderful clean
digital look to them that is then able to be resized upward, downward,
etc., to our heart's content.
The E-M5, the E-P5 and the Fuji X-series have an interesting
characteristic to them that holds contrast well as the image is
resized. I do NOT see it with the Canons, Nikons and Sonys. Mostly the
Fujis and the latest/greatest from Olympus. These resized images just
look sharper. The E-1 has always been one of my bugaboos because in
print the images are sharp enough or even too sharp, but on screen
they tend to be ho hum.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|