Hi, again, Moose. I realize that you have a dislike for the 4/3
E-things, and the E-1 is certainly limited in MP. However, until my
corrected eyesight is ready for service, I can't see a whole lot of
difference. I agree that the X-E1 has a much improved sensor, but I
still get halos and artifacts that are at the present limits of my
vision, hence difficult to remove.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
On 1/3/2014 3:38 PM, Moose wrote:
> On 1/3/2014 6:06 AM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
>> Hum. I'm going to disagree. I think the newer version has a lot more going
>> for it than the older shot. There's a continuous tonality that's missing in
>> the E-1 shot, and what to my eye is a more faithful rendition of the bird.
>> But that's just me.
> Nope, you and me both. The overall IQ is much better in the X-E1 image. The
> old one isn't bad; the new one is quite nice.
>
> Howsomever, that's mostly due to the difference in camera, as far as can be
> told from these images. Conclusions about
> lenses from a century apart would require more comparable images taken with
> both on the X-E1. There's obviously a
> difference in rendering, but I can't separate it from the sensor system
> differences.
>
> Smooth Tones 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/
|