E-10 vs. D7 point by point psycho analysis

Sorry, but I don't want to single any individual person out for negative comment. I respect the fact that the people put up their images, and I just don't feel right about linking directly to personal stuff for negative reasons (although some have no problem doing the same to me).

On the upside, there haven't been many sample galleries posted and they are all more or less on the first page of the forum as of right now (that forum is substantially less busy than this one, but it's picking up). Just look for the ones that say "Pics" or "Samples"

Ger Bee said:

I more or less agree with all you say.

But I have no interest in wading through rubbish to confirm it is
so - link a few - no more than 3 that you have found and I'll
looksee as those. Thanks.

Click to expand...

DF said:

I know what you mean.......and I think that the subtle "je ne sais
quoi" which makes the D7 images less appealing than the E-10's may
well be largely a matter of dynamic range. If you compare Phil's
measurements for the two (at normal sharpening, ISO = 100 for D7,
80 for E-10), there is a huge difference: D7 = 289:1 E-10 =
545:1

I suspect the eye compensates quickly for differences in hue and
saturation, but perceptually I think there's a very large
unconscious reaction to the presence or absence of a wide dynamic
range. A wide DR creates a subtle but dramatic psychological
impact on the viewer. D7 images just fall flat in this regard.

Just my theory...

Click to expand...

Good theory, it's good to know that I'm not nuts. Or at least I'm not the only one that's nuts.

DF said:

Anyway, stay clear of those Minolta folks, Doctor -- you've become
the scapegoat for their disappointment in their camera.

Click to expand...

That is a very interesting take on the situation. I hadn't thought of that one!

Feel free to link to any of the samples in my album. I can take it Note that there are some high ISO and one exposure problem in there as illustrations, no fair picking on that landscape shot.

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=785850&a=13557347&f=0

Thanks, Bryan

Dr. Gonzo said:

On the upside, there haven't been many sample galleries posted and
they are all more or less on the first page of the forum as of
right now (that forum is substantially less busy than this one, but
it's picking up). Just look for the ones that say "Pics" or
"Samples"

Ger Bee said:

I more or less agree with all you say.

But I have no interest in wading through rubbish to confirm it is
so - link a few - no more than 3 that you have found and I'll
looksee as those. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hey Bryan,

Welcome to Olympus Land. And thanks for the invitation to view your album of D7 samples.

Actually, I like #8 very much (carnival ride on tractor trailer bed?). Great shot, and, as you said, pleasantly free of CA.

Good luck with your camera.

David

Bryan Biggers said:

Feel free to link to any of the samples in my album. I can take it
Note that there are some high ISO and one exposure problem in
there as illustrations, no fair picking on that landscape shot.

Click to expand...

I am looking and will download a few tomorrow and give a bit of time to them. I think they are lacking a little bit in overall sharpness and tonal range. Colour range seems a smidgen lacking too.

But I'd not be calling them bad by any means. Anyway I must download a few and run my own routines on them to see if they suit me. (Rather would have, could have suited me as I'm buying above this).

Bryan,

It takes guts to put yourself out there like that, and I applaud that.

As for the photos, well, some of them are cases in point for me. While most of them are technically good, for example the flower shot fails to capture the level of texture detail and tonal range that I see regularly from E-10 shots.

Overall, the general E-10 user images I've seen are visibly better in the texture, color range and sharpness departments. This is somewhat of an unexpected discovery for me, I had always assumed, and people are fond of saying, that the D7 has excellent image quality.

Dr. G.

Bryan Biggers said:

Feel free to link to any of the samples in my album. I can take it
Note that there are some high ISO and one exposure problem in
there as illustrations, no fair picking on that landscape shot.

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=785850&a=13557347&f=0

Thanks, Bryan

Click to expand...

Dr. Gonzo,

I'm not sure what you guys are saying here. I went to the album, looked at the large version and then downloaded the FULL version and thought it looked a bit soft and a bit too bright, but couldn't see where a bit of levels work and USM wouldn't make it shine?

I did notice something around the edge of the top center petal, but think it may have been some movement? Maybe a little breeze? Looks like a lot of texture detail is present, but just needs to be made to stand out?

This reminds me a lot of the way people with 1-2MP cameras complained 3+MP camera images looked so soft to them... I think they just need some sharpening and levels adjustments and they'll look markedly better? Not sure they'll look better than what exits my E-10, but better.

Six of one, half dozen the other in my book. The background looks pretty decent and noise seems to be reasonably low.

I wouldn't buy a D7 based on my impression of the build quality, styling, absolute need for the software processing on each shot, etc. But, I don't think the image quality would scare me off.

I think you should get the D-7.

After 3 days and no response to the generous replies to "All" of your questions one might think that you don't need a serious digital camera that "responds" to the eyes and hand of a good photographer.

Oh yeah! Here is the link to the same post in the Minolta forum.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1024&message=1340782

Dr. Gonzo said:

I'd be interested to see what other E-10ers think. Have a look
around the Minolta forum at the sample galleries that have been
posted and think back about when you first got your E-10. Is it
comparable? Am I hallucinating? Or is it really that hard to get
nice results from the D7?

Click to expand...

You may indeed be hallucinating, which would not surprise me.

I think your problem in particular, is that you are so in love with the e10 that you can see nothing else!.

I just looked at the "franciscan monestery" shots on the Minolta forum, many were the equal of anything I have seen on this forum.

Perhaps your camera has more "bells & whistles", perhaps it has a better rating by Askey, and it may even "look" nicer. But the end result is the photograph produced, and I believe the D7 is equally as good as the e10 in the final analysis. Granted that the d7 is newer than the e10 and owners are still finding out what the camera can do. Check back on the Minolta forum in a month or so!.

Dennis

Dr. Gonzo said:

Bryan,

It takes guts to put yourself out there like that, and I applaud that.

As for the photos, well, some of them are cases in point for me.
While most of them are technically good, for example the flower
shot fails to capture the level of texture detail and tonal range
that I see regularly from E-10 shots.

Overall, the general E-10 user images I've seen are visibly better
in the texture, color range and sharpness departments. This is
somewhat of an unexpected discovery for me, I had always assumed,
and people are fond of saying, that the D7 has excellent image
quality.

Dr. G.

Click to expand...

Well, I asked for it and you gave it to me. Now it is your turn

You had assumed? It is a discovery? You posted maybe 50 (I'm guessing)
times in the Minolta forum about the E-10, and you never looked at any

D7 samples before? Maybe these are just worse than the rest so it is a shock to you? I really find this hard to believe. Houw could you have critisied the D7 so roundly and have never looked at any samples?

And texture in a photograph? What is that? I can see it now...

Introducing the E-10 from Olympus. Now, with that certain ineffable
something, Texture! Yes, Texture. Texture! Texture used to require a
Doctor's prescription, but now you can have Texture in your own home.
"When you are shootin' with Texture, you are shootin' with style." Only
Olympus has Texture, with a sparkling drop of Retzin, that makes your
pictures glow with professionalism and makes your Whites Whiter than
White and Reds Redder than Red. They will Know you are a Pro when you
shoot with Texture, all the Hollywood stars use it, and now you can too!
Sure, other cameras may have old fashioned higher resolution, faster
speeds, better lenses or better color, but if they don't have Texture...
well they don't have IT.

You are going to have to tell me what texture is, beause I don't have it
and even though you can practically see the individual cells in that
flower shot I want some texture on it too; whatever it is. I'll shoot
one for you with some side light to enhance the texture. Texture sounds
like one of those buzz words like "plastic" and "fluid" that you want to
sprinkle throughout your Senior year art history paper to get a good grade.

As for sharpness, since the D7 has demonstrably better (however slight)
resolution than the E-10, you must be talking about perceived sharpness
or contrast. Maybe software sharpening. Perhaps it wasn't clear, but I
took most of the samples on Soft (no) software sharpening at all because

I like the film-like look, and they have not been post- processed unless noted.. Turn off sharpening completely on your favorite camera and see what you get. Is the Texture missing?

As for the flower, as I'm sure you know, monochromatic Blue or Purple
flowers are difficult subjects for any camera. Try a Blue or Purple
flower with the E-10 and see what you get. I've never seen better color
from any camera on Blue flowers than from the D7, but pictures of Blue
flowers are always a little funny with any digital camera and some times

you get a weird halo effect, maybe because there aren't as many Blue sensitive elements in the CCD array (mumble mumble).. Also, because that is a hand held macro shot in the wind, not all parts are in precise focus. Maybe that is where the "texture" went.

Personally, I think that both the D7 and the E-10 have their own
advantages and both can take some excellent shots, I'm surprised that
you are able to (suddenly!) find one much worse than the other.

Bryan

Bryan Biggers said:

Dr. Gonzo said:

Bryan,

It takes guts to put yourself out there like that, and I applaud that.

As for the photos, well, some of them are cases in point for me.
While most of them are technically good, for example the flower
shot fails to capture the level of texture detail and tonal range
that I see regularly from E-10 shots.

Overall, the general E-10 user images I've seen are visibly better
in the texture, color range and sharpness departments. This is
somewhat of an unexpected discovery for me, I had always assumed,
and people are fond of saying, that the D7 has excellent image
quality.

Dr. G.

Click to expand...

Well, I asked for it and you gave it to me. Now it is your turn

You had assumed? It is a discovery? You posted maybe 50 (I'm guessing)
times in the Minolta forum about the E-10, and you never looked at any
D7 samples before? Maybe these are just worse than the rest so it
is a shock to you? I really find this hard to believe. Houw could
you have critisied the D7 so roundly and have never looked at any
samples?

And texture in a photograph? What is that? I can see it now...

Introducing the E-10 from Olympus. Now, with that certain ineffable
something, Texture! Yes, Texture. Texture! Texture used to require a
Doctor's prescription, but now you can have Texture in your own home.
"When you are shootin' with Texture, you are shootin' with style."
Only
Olympus has Texture, with a sparkling drop of Retzin, that makes your
pictures glow with professionalism and makes your Whites Whiter than
White and Reds Redder than Red. They will Know you are a Pro when you
shoot with Texture, all the Hollywood stars use it, and now you can
too!
Sure, other cameras may have old fashioned higher resolution, faster
speeds, better lenses or better color, but if they don't have
Texture...
well they don't have IT.

You are going to have to tell me what texture is, beause I don't
have it
and even though you can practically see the individual cells in that
flower shot I want some texture on it too; whatever it is. I'll shoot
one for you with some side light to enhance the texture. Texture
sounds
like one of those buzz words like "plastic" and "fluid" that you
want to
sprinkle throughout your Senior year art history paper to get a
good grade.

As for sharpness, since the D7 has demonstrably better (however
slight)
resolution than the E-10, you must be talking about perceived
sharpness
or contrast. Maybe software sharpening. Perhaps it wasn't clear, but I
took most of the samples on Soft (no) software sharpening at all
because
I like the film-like look, and they have not been post- processed
unless noted.. Turn off sharpening completely on your favorite
camera and see what you get. Is the Texture missing?

As for the flower, as I'm sure you know, monochromatic Blue or Purple
flowers are difficult subjects for any camera. Try a Blue or Purple
flower with the E-10 and see what you get. I've never seen better
color
from any camera on Blue flowers than from the D7, but pictures of Blue
flowers are always a little funny with any digital camera and some
times
you get a weird halo effect, maybe because there aren't as many
Blue sensitive elements in the CCD array (mumble mumble).. Also,
because that is a hand held macro shot in the wind, not all parts
are in precise focus. Maybe that is where the "texture" went.

Personally, I think that both the D7 and the E-10 have their own
advantages and both can take some excellent shots, I'm surprised that
you are able to (suddenly!) find one much worse than the other.

Bryan

Click to expand...

Not blue but purple. Ahh, the colors of life...
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1620130&a=12515376&p=46142089

Bryan Biggers said:

Well, I asked for it and you gave it to me. Now it is your turn

You had assumed? It is a discovery?

Click to expand...

It is a discovery that the D7 images posted by users leave me flat, yes ...

Bryan Biggers said:

You posted maybe 50 (I'm guessing)
times in the Minolta forum about the E-10, and you never looked at any
D7 samples before?

Click to expand...

... because the ones I looked at before them, such as Phil's, were decent for the most part.

Bryan Biggers said:

Maybe these are just worse than the rest so it
is a shock to you?

Click to expand...

No, I don't think these are any worse than most other user photos being posted now.

Bryan Biggers said:

I really find this hard to believe. Houw could
you have critisied the D7 so roundly and have never looked at any
samples?

Click to expand...

My main criticisms of the D7 are, and always have been, related to the basic design issues of the camera -- the EVF and the telescoping lens, for example, both items I would never accept on a camera I wanted to replace my film SLR with. Check back through my postings.

Since you seem to have missed the gist of my post, it means this: I thought I had determined from the beginning (by looking at samples and tests) that image quality was not a "negative" with regards to the D7, which is why it is surprising to me that I am so underwhelmed by the great majority of shots I am seeing.

Bryan Biggers said:

And texture in a photograph? What is that? I can see it now...

Click to expand...

A line or two above that I said "texture detail," so it should not have been very difficult to figure out what I meant. Unless the rules of the english language change in the near future, "texture" in that construction is the adjective and "detail" is the noun. I don't think there's any question that photos can have detail.

Bryan Biggers said:

Introducing the E-10 from Olympus. Now, with that certain ineffable
something, Texture! Yes, Texture. Texture! Texture used to require a
Doctor's prescription, but now you can have Texture in your own home.
"When you are shootin' with Texture, you are shootin' with style."
Texture sounds
like one of those buzz words like "plastic" and "fluid" that you
want to
sprinkle throughout your Senior year art history paper to get a
good grade.

Click to expand...

You're overreacting based on your misinterpretation (deliberate or otherwise).

Bryan Biggers said:

As for sharpness, since the D7 has demonstrably better (however
slight)
resolution than the E-10,
Is the Texture missing?

Click to expand...

Although I specifically responded to your post, my original post referred to D7 shots in general. I have seen a similar lack of texture detail in other images that have been processed in various ways, the most notable of which is running through the image viewer utility. All I can say about that is UGH, I don't like the look at all.

Bryan Biggers said:

As for the flower, as I'm sure you know, monochromatic Blue or Purple
flowers are difficult subjects for any camera. Try a Blue or Purple
flower with the E-10 and see what you get. I've never seen better
color
from any camera on Blue flowers than from the D7, but pictures of Blue
flowers are always a little funny with any digital camera and some
times

Click to expand...

For the record, I have seen purple/blue flowers photographed by the E-10 (have a look through the flower postings on e10day.com for examples) and they exhibit the same tonal range and details present in flowers of other colors.

Bryan Biggers said:

Personally, I think that both the D7 and the E-10 have their own
advantages and both can take some excellent shots, I'm surprised that
you are able to (suddenly!) find one much worse than the other.

Click to expand...

Let me quote from my original post:

"I don't understand what it is."
"I can't put my finger on it."

"... don't have the 'something' I'm used to seeing in photos posted in this forum"

"It's almost too subtle for words, but it makes a lot of difference to the eyes."

You're overreacting again. The differences are subtle, like I said. And yes, it is a sudden realization, because user galleries have only recently started
appearing.

--------------------

Back to what I was saying then, in the original post (and this part is for Dennis too, if he reads it): "Is it really that hard to get nice results from the D7?"

I suspect it may just be. The shots seem to come out of the D7 quite flat. But running them through the image viewer (to me) makes the images grossly saturated and constrasty. So one way or another one manual postprocesing of color is necessary to get a similar result to what I see come straight out of an E-10 -- photos that usually don't need much more than a small "levels" tweak before presentation.

UNLESS .... the D7's limited dynamic range prevents it from actually capturing the subtle variations in tone found on, say, a seemingly "monochromatic" flower. In that case, it's not just hard, it's impossible.

BrianP said:

Olympus E-10 vs. Minolta Dimage 7 comparison

Click to expand...

Brian,

You have obviously done your homework. I had ordered a Minolta D-7 based on pre-production hype and specs. After the dpreview, I seriously reconsidered in large part due to statements in regard to shabby feel/construction quality. I am a longtime Nikon 35mm user. There is nothing like the feel of a quality instrument in your hands. I personally grab my F100 body over all others for just this reason.

After cancelling my order, I checked this site and found out about the E-10. I then went to my local camera store and held one in my hands. Just holding it, you can sense how well made it is. The near fanatical devotion of the currently installed user base along with their accumulated knowledge was also a decisive factor in my decision. Additionally, the E-10 is slightly further along in its product life-cycle and is starting to be discounted significantly. I would not be suprised if the D-7 sold for under 1K after Xmas.

I'd like to share some of my first impressions of this camera. The transition from using Nikon SLR was quite easy. If this will be your first digicam like me, I would highly recommend the manual which is about average for Nipponese cameras. The images are wonderful. The exposure multisegment metering is not quite up to Nikon F100 but is useful in most situations. Part of the beauty of digital however is the immediate feedback and ability to correct at the time of shooting.

As far as 4 vs. 5 megapixels. The CCD is exactly the same size. Theoretically, and I hope I'm not to badly flamed for this, the individual pixels themselves should be 25% larger and less prone to noise. Whether this is of practical significance, I do not know, How large do you want to enlarge your photos?

One of the things I would change on this camera is the time it takes to write and retrieve images to/from the CF memory. This seems to take forever. The 4 shot buffer really does not limit you much in the acquisition stage. Reviewing your images in the camera, however, seems to take forever. This also seems independant of image size (at least 4 vs. 2 megapixels).

The 28mm and 200mm equivalent focal lengths woud be nice. I am always concerned however about the quality of extreme range zooms. The default ISO equivalent settings on these cameras of either 80 or 100. This is significantly slower than the 400 speed film I am used to shooting. You can use the higher ISO settings at the cost of higher noise. Bracketing of exposures at less than 1/3rd of a stop is a non-issue as far as I am concerned. Correction of less than 1/3rd of an fstop is easily achieved in any image editor. I love my Photoshop Elements by the way.

Whatever you decide as far as camera choice, I hope you have as much fun as I am having. Good luck!

Jeff Shulak

Dr. Gonzo said:

... because the ones I looked at before them, such as Phil's, were
decent for the most part.

Click to expand...

I guess Phil is just really good. Are you sure you aren't looking at these too closely? There are a lot of pixels in there.

Dr. Gonzo said:

Dr. Gonzo said:

I really find this hard to believe. Houw could
you have critisied the D7 so roundly and have never looked at any
samples?

Click to expand...

My main criticisms of the D7 are, and always have been, related to
the basic design issues of the camera -- the EVF and the
telescoping lens, for example, both items I would never accept on a
camera I wanted to replace my film SLR with. Check back through my
postings.

Click to expand...

What does the design of the camera have to do with your inital posting asking for some links to images so that you could prove your points about the images? And where here did I say anything about the design of either camera? I thought that we were talking about images, now you are trying to sidetrack the discussion. Start a new "D7 design is poor thread" if you like. I have my reasons for not buying an E-10. You have your reasons for not buying a D7 related to the design. Your reasons are valid for you. Mine are valid for me. I don't care which camera you or anyone else buys. Bringing your hardware preferences/observations into the discussion of images is not really fair.

Dr. Gonzo said:

Since you seem to have missed the gist of my post, it means this: I
thought I had determined from the beginning (by looking at samples
and tests) that image quality was not a "negative" with regards to
the D7, which is why it is surprising to me that I am so
underwhelmed by the great majority of shots I am seeing.

Click to expand...

Guess all the people with D7s are bad photographers! Maybe all the cameras are defective. I will admit that I have seen some poor shots posted, closeups with the flash of colorless subjects etc. People are just putting up anything at this point.

Dr. Gonzo said:

Dr. Gonzo said:

And texture in a photograph? What is that? I can see it now...

Click to expand...

A line or two above that I said "texture detail," so it should not
have been very difficult to figure out what I meant. Unless the
rules of the english language change in the near future, "texture"
in that construction is the adjective and "detail" is the noun. I
don't think there's any question that photos can have detail.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I still don't get it. They resolve more detail but don't have detail? OK, well I can't argue with that.

Dr. Gonzo said:

You're overreacting based on your misinterpretation (deliberate or
otherwise).

Dr. Gonzo said:

As for sharpness, since the D7 has demonstrably better (however
slight)
resolution than the E-10,
Is the Texture missing?

Click to expand...

Although I specifically responded to your post, my original post
referred to D7 shots in general. I have seen a similar lack of
texture detail in other images that have been processed in various
ways, the most notable of which is running through the image viewer
utility. All I can say about that is UGH, I don't like the look at
all.

Click to expand...

OK. You don't have to use it though. You can use Photoshop or Qimage or set the saturation higher (choose from three levels) and don't do anything to them.

Dr. Gonzo said:

For the record, I have seen purple/blue flowers photographed by the
E-10 (have a look through the flower postings on e10day.com for
examples) and they exhibit the same tonal range and details present
in flowers of other colors.

Click to expand...

The E-10 is has perfect color of Purple and Blue flowers then. Excellent. the first digital camera to do so. I'd like to hear other's opinions from people who like to photograph flowers as I do though.

Dr. Gonzo said:

Dr. Gonzo said:

Personally, I think that both the D7 and the E-10 have their own
advantages and both can take some excellent shots, I'm surprised that
you are able to (suddenly!) find one much worse than the other.

Click to expand...

Let me quote from my original post:

"I don't understand what it is."
"I can't put my finger on it."
"... don't have the 'something' I'm used to seeing in photos posted
in this forum"
"It's almost too subtle for words, but it makes a lot of difference
to the eyes."

You're overreacting again. The differences are subtle, like I said.
And yes, it is a sudden realization, because user galleries have
only recently started
appearing.

--------------------

Back to what I was saying then, in the original post (and this part
is for Dennis too, if he reads it): "Is it really that hard to get
nice results from the D7?"

Click to expand...

Gee, I just point the camera and press the button!

Dr. Gonzo said:

I suspect it may just be. The shots seem to come out of the D7
quite flat. But running them through the image viewer (to me) makes
the images grossly saturated and constrasty. So one way or another
one manual postprocesing of color is necessary to get a similar
result to what I see come straight out of an E-10 -- photos that
usually don't need much more than a small "levels" tweak before
presentation.

UNLESS .... the D7's limited dynamic range prevents it from
actually capturing the subtle variations in tone found on, say, a
seemingly "monochromatic" flower. In that case, it's not just hard,
it's impossible.

Click to expand...

Well, I can't argue with you about this, and I can't disprove intangibles that only you can see, you can't put your finger on or understand, and I can't and don't want to tell you what you like. It is a no win situation for me, and I don't really feel any compelling need to convince you or anyone else about the D7 shots. If you like them, fine, if not fine. I'll leave you all to work it out for those who care; most here already have an E-10 and I don't see why they just don't have fun with it.

I certainly don't mind if you or others continue to use my samples for your arguments, that is what they are there for. If I think that I have anything to contribute, or if people have questions, I'll jump in. I've added a few new ones, and if anyone wants some specific shots they could send me an e-mail, I'd be happy to (try to) oblige with my limited skills and all the problems that the camera has and all I think that I could use a close up portrait, for one thing.

Thanks, Bryan

Dr. Gonzo said:

Overall, the general E-10 user images I've seen are visibly better
in the texture, color range and sharpness departments. This is
somewhat of an unexpected discovery for me, I had always assumed,
and people are fond of saying, that the D7 has excellent image
quality.

Click to expand...

It mght be worth waiting a bit. The number of D7s out there
and being used actively is probably a small fraction of the number
of E-10s while the number of shots taken will be an even smaller
fraction. Serious users are probably still experimenting and getting
a feel as to how to get the best out of the machine.

----------------
Andrew.

I was debating between E-10 and D-7. E-10 was little bit too mcuh for me and I am just starting photographing. This is my first didigtal camera. by no means do I know everything. I am just learning what dynamic range, aparture, iso and all of it is I am totaly new, but I am also willing to show some of the photos of mine. Remeber this is a newbie taking these photos, after having a camera for 3 days. As you can see shot 2 and 3 suck big time but what I like is the colors and macro shots in this camera, so I hope you enjoy and let me know if you think that these photos are flat. I am not going to be offended after all I wanted to get E-10 if it were only at the same price Anyway here are my photos. Photoshop took them down to 600x450 resolution from Automated web setup, but if he pictures are interesting and you want them for futher inspection, i can send you them in the original Fine jpg size of 2560x1920 resolution.
http://www.marioj.com/mario/photos/frameset.htm
my email [email protected]

let me know what you think.

Dr. Gonzo said:

It takes guts to put yourself out there like that, and I applaud that.

As for the photos, well, some of them are cases in point for me.
While most of them are technically good, for example the flower
shot fails to capture the level of texture detail and tonal range
that I see regularly from E-10 shots.

Overall, the general E-10 user images I've seen are visibly better
in the texture, color range and sharpness departments. This is
somewhat of an unexpected discovery for me, I had always assumed,
and people are fond of saying, that the D7 has excellent image
quality.

Dr. G.

Bryan Biggers said:

Feel free to link to any of the samples in my album. I can take it
Note that there are some high ISO and one exposure problem in
there as illustrations, no fair picking on that landscape shot.

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=785850&a=13557347&f=0

Thanks, Bryan

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Dennis,

I hope you're as liberal with your blasting of the D7 as you are with the E-10 for the many posts I've been seeing lately about D7 focus problems. Some of them sound awfully familiar.

Your friend,
Dr. G.

Dr. Gonzo said:

Dennis,

I hope you're as liberal with your blasting of the D7 as you are
with the E-10 for the many posts I've been seeing lately about D7
focus problems. Some of them sound awfully familiar.

Your friend,
Dr. G.

Click to expand...

Why did you assume that I would not agree that the D7 had problems?
Did you assume that I would be like you and bury my head in the sand?
Is this an admission that the e10 has focus problems? )
I presume that by your statement " Some of them sound awfully familiar"
that you have finally admited (on the oly forum) that the e10 has "a" problem?.

You see Gonzo the difference between you and I is that I can admit that the d7 ( which I do not own) and the e10 ( which I will never own) are not perfect. Both cameras will have problems to a greater or lesser degree, thats life Gonzo, nothing is perfect.

Incidently re the end result of these cameras, I will state here quite catergorically that if you and I were presented with 3 photographs of a landscape, taken with an Olympus E10, a Minolta D7 and a Fuji 6900, neither you or I would be able to asertain which photo came from which camera.

Dennis

I have lots of fun with you Dennis. You're a good playmate.

Dennis P O'Neil said:

Why did you assume that I would not agree that the D7 had problems?

Click to expand...

Because when someone says their D7 is better than any given camera in some area, you never step in to comment. Face it, you're as biased as anyone.

Member said:

Did you assume that I would be like you and bury my head in the sand?
Is this an admission that the e10 has focus problems? )

Click to expand...

No, and I persist today that properly working E-10s (and properly working E-10 owners) don't.

Member said:

I presume that by your statement " Some of them sound awfully
familiar"
that you have finally admited (on the oly forum) that the e10 has
"a" problem?.

Click to expand...

You presumed wrong. I mean that since the problems sound similar in some cases (some people find focus problems while others disavow them), it is likely not an inherent problem with either camera. It's probably either a quality control/defective camera issue or a difficulty the particular user is having.

Member said:

You see Gonzo the difference between you and I is that I can admit
that the d7 ( which I do not own) and the e10 ( which I will never
own) are not perfect. Both cameras will have problems to a greater
or lesser degree, thats life Gonzo, nothing is perfect.

Click to expand...

"Why do you assume that I would not agree the E-10 has problems?"

I never said it was perfect, I have specifically referred to the strengths of the E-10 by name. It's convenient to read into what I write, but it shows more of your motivations than mine.

Member said:

Incidently re the end result of these cameras, I will state here
quite catergorically that if you and I were presented with 3
photographs of a landscape, taken with an Olympus E10, a Minolta D7
and a Fuji 6900, neither you or I would be able to asertain which
photo came from which camera.

Click to expand...

That would depend largely on the size of the print, I'd say. I assume you're talking about prints, because actual image files could easily be sorted by pixel dimensions. If you blew up the images to a size where the relative interpolation levels were more visible, you'd have a better chance of differentiating the three.

Here's another take: If I showed you a picture of a hummingbird that filled more than half the frame, you can be pretty sure the E-10 took the picture =)