Reading mode: Light Dark

Olympus lens department sucks

Go to last post
shown picture wasnt for showing the dof but details and only details , as i said already this picture is wrong posted , the bg is procesed in photoshop..

btw with larger senzor you can blur more bg yes.

all best
kristian
 
well you cant show the resized picture , when you resize noise get lower , e-300 is very noisy at iso 1600 worst than e-1.

all best
kristian
Raist3d said:
And no sharpening. Only false color cancelation (removes some
chroma noise). And the fabled "useless" ISO 1600 LOL.

--
Raist3d
Tools/Gui Programmer - vid games industry, photography student
Click to expand...
 
Great stuff, but I don't know why you've got suckered into the pixel peeping "my dog is bigger than your dog" stuff. Not only is it a futile argument, but you appear to be losing it.

Any modern dSLR will take excellent pictures that will stand big blow ups. The question is, do you want to carry a shed, or will you accept some noise? There is no "correct" answer to that, it depends on the shooter.

However, in my view there are a lot of not especially skilled people buying big heavy cameras that they leave at home, which is stupid. You and I, who are both obviously fairly skilled (sorry to be smug) and fairly obsessive, can make a choice. 4/3rds suits me (or WILL suit me, if the E3 is any good), 35mmFF suits you.

Personally, I'd suggest that any reasonably competent person who wants dSLR advanatges in a format they can actually take with them gets an E400 (in Europe only, which is nuts). Later on they can stump for an E3, or a 5D (or replacement thereof), according to how bonkers they become.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/
 
i am sorry but looks like you dont understand , so if it gets more light what you are getting with that ?

5d for example has better high iso by at least two stops , so then 5d is better for full one stop with lens that is slower by one stop. and plus you can blur bg more.

you dont get much with fast zoom lenses from oly. compared to others sorry...

all best
kristian
Denny Colvin said:
kristian1 said:
one questin to you why f2.8 lens on oly is better than f4 lens on FF ?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
thank you for comment.

i would like to take some landscape shots like yours , but looks like it never works for me , i gess first i need to bay one tripd hehe (still dont have one).

photographing is for us firstly hoby , and camera and lenses are out toys , and i would like to bay 1dmk2 or in future 1dmk2... mostly becouse i louse to much shots becose of AF (350d AF realy isnt good enought).

so i decided to earn money from my pictures (well to try at least) to bay 1dmk2 ,and as i know comapnies like alamy want BIG files with high resolution , but also if i will print for somebody i want it to be at high quality as possible.
those are resons why i want as better images when viewing at 100%.

now i am selling oly. and believe me that i mess e-1 (not e-300) somehow it was more fun then.

all best
kristian
Louis_Dobson said:
Great stuff, but I don't know why you've got suckered into the
pixel peeping "my dog is bigger than your dog" stuff. Not only is
it a futile argument, but you appear to be losing it.

Any modern dSLR will take excellent pictures that will stand big
blow ups. The question is, do you want to carry a shed, or will
you accept some noise? There is no "correct" answer to that, it
depends on the shooter.

However, in my view there are a lot of not especially skilled
people buying big heavy cameras that they leave at home, which is
stupid. You and I, who are both obviously fairly skilled (sorry to
be smug) and fairly obsessive, can make a choice. 4/3rds suits me
(or WILL suit me, if the E3 is any good), 35mmFF suits you.

Personally, I'd suggest that any reasonably competent person who
wants dSLR advanatges in a format they can actually take with them
gets an E400 (in Europe only, which is nuts). Later on they can
stump for an E3, or a 5D (or replacement thereof), according to how
bonkers they become.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/
Click to expand...
 
kristian1 said:
well you cant show the resized picture , when you resize noise get
lower , e-300 is very noisy at iso 1600 worst than e-1.
Click to expand...
YOu were talking about detail. The issue is not how ISO 1600 looks, the issue is that EVEN AT ISO 1600 I have been able to capture a great deal of detail. So at ISO 200 is a given the detail will be much more there.

My point on the 1260x960 you see a lot of detail and yes, there's even more detail at full resolution. The context is not ISO's but detail, which is what you said the Olympus cameras apparently can't do.

I am basically giving evidence to the contrary.
kristian1 said:
all best
kristian
Raist3d said:
And no sharpening. Only false color cancelation (removes some
chroma noise). And the fabled "useless" ISO 1600 LOL.

--
Raist3d
Tools/Gui Programmer - vid games industry, photography student
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Raist3d
Tools/Gui Programmer - vid games industry, photography student
 
--
Barry
 
--
Barry
 
Who wants to be the closer?
--
Barry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top