On 1/3/2014 2:25 PM, Jim Nichols wrote:
> Hi, again, Moose. I realize that you have a dislike for the 4/3
> E-things,
That may be overstating the case. I've looked at various of them several times,
but they always lost out to
alternatives, for me. When Oly got it together in IQ with the E-M5, I jumped
right back on board.
> and the E-1 is certainly limited in MP.
For moderate size prints and web images, that's enough MPs. I bought a 6 MP
Canon Rebel instead of the E-1, and got a
lot of excellent images from it. The Canon is about the same pixel density as
the E-1, but my images from it are cleaner
than yours because of different technique.
You have run into limitations because:
1. You use moderate ISOs.
2. You don't reduce noise first, or use poor NR.
3. You crop extensively, so much of the 5 MP is lost.
4. You process in PSE.
None of these individually, or perhaps even a couple, is much of a problem. Put
them together, and you get that odd
look, both slightly crunchy and slightly smeary at once, that happens when an
E-1 image is pushed beyond its limits.
> 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,
Indeed! Far better suited to what you shoot. Still, lower ISOs when possible
and good NR before further processing
should make it even better.
> but I
> still get halos and artifacts that are at the present limits of my
> vision, hence difficult to remove.
Ah well, that's strictly up to the limitations of the software and your
discretion in using those sliders. :-)
No Angels Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|