Thanks, Moose.
I meant that I had not completely accepted that I was back with µ43 cameras,
after several years without; I wasn’t saying that I had found any flaws, only
that I hadn’t yet looked as hard as I ought for them.
Your comparison between the results on DPR is very interesting. The other
point of comparison is usability: Oly long ago went the way of an odd interface
which I found irritating. Fuji has always been very flexible and has adjusted
various functions with firmware updates – in response to its customers’
requests. I’ve always liked the Lumix way of doing things, though . . .
Chris
> On 30 Nov 16, at 23:53, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Congrats! I hope you both enjoy it and get great pix!
>
>> I am not totally sold on the transition of formats from APS-C,
>
> I've had a hard time figuring why people believe there is such big a
> difference. The formats essentially the same height, but different widths. So
> a 4/3 sensor with the same pixel count actually has a slightly higher nominal
> resolution. Not enough to make a meaningful difference in practical
> resolution, but there is just no loss, either.
>
> A bit ago, before Fuji and Oly moved to higher MP sensors, I succumbed to
> paranoia from all the posts here and elsewhere about their wonderfulness. So
> I downloaded Raw sample files of 16 MP Oly and Fuji sensors from dpreview,
> stacked on layers in PS, so I could flip instantly between them. At 100%,
> looking very closely, with the most difficult parts of the target, there were
> some quite small differences. Oly was a tiny bit better on some, Fuji on
> others. If I had to, I'd have given the prize to the Oly, but really, there
> was no meaningful difference.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|