On 6/15/2014 6:23 PM, Willie Wonka via olympus wrote:
... I have put up two pictures on zone10 one made with the A200 and another
with the A65. The A200 is a RAW converted to tiff I believe and the A65 is the
jpeg straight from the camera also converted to tiff just to be fair. I have a
RAW to tiff that wanted to post, but the Schnozz stubbornly refused to give me
an upload permission...:), because the file was huge.
I would like to get the opinion of the pixel peepers amongst you on the picture
quality of the camera (s). I picked this scene, so I could also get an idea of
what the dynamic range and evaluate the metering performance.
Is this like a test - for us? You make it so hard to make a reasonable comparison. By shooting at quite different
effective focal lengths, everything is of different sizes in the two images. JPEG converted to TIFF is not the same as
RAW to TIFF. NR and sharpening default settings in JPEGs aren't necessarily right for a pixel level comparison.
So, it is clear that the A65 makes better images, but not by nearly as much as
I would expect.
From someone used to 16 MB image files, the 24 MB A65 file looks pretty poor. There's some really mushed together
detail in some of the foliage. I don't know if the kit lens is poor. Many are at their widest settings, esp. away from
the center. Or did something bad happen in the journey from sensor to screen? NR?
That camera must surely be up to better than this example.
Bleary Eyed 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/
|