daddyo
Forum Pro
I'm a firm believer that photographers need to use the type of equipment that works for them. All the major camera makers produce good quality cameras and lenses, each with strengths and weaknesses.
That said, I am really sick of posts I see by trolls on this forum, as well as rabid anti-four thirds detractors on some of the other forums, stating that the 'tiny' 4/3's sensor has condemned Olympus, et. al. to a dead end future of less than state-of-the-art image capture. I just read some lame post yesterday on the 'Open Talk' forum claiming that the Micro Four Thirds system is just a convenient way for Oly to back out of the 4/3's DSLR 'failure' into a P&S appeal system that (according to this self proclaimed photography sage) is likewise destined to fail.
Give me a break -- why all the negative anti Olympus bias from these wizards? Interestingly, most of these yahoos don't even have links to their own image galleries.
What does this post have to do with E-3 image quality? That's the challenge part. I challenge anyone who is the slightest bit objective (there's the rub) to visit the 'Imaging Resources' website, click on the camera comparison link, and compare the full sized "Indoor Portrait" image captured by the E-3 with ANY of the other cameras listed -- regardless of brand, or price. Then ask yourself, just how much image quality is being missed by the poor, uneducated four thirds shooters.
Now I'm sure that detractors will claim that all kinds of things could have influenced the outcome of the images on Imaging Resource's site. To that response I would say that I take the owner at his word that all images were captured under carefully controlled conditions to make the comparisons as valid as possible.
I really do wish that all the non-constuctive commentary would go away, and that those who prefer non-Olympus brands would just go out and actually take some pictures with their preferred cameras, rather than waste everyone's time beating the anti-Olympus/anti-four thirds drum.
God Bless,
Greg
http://www.imagismphotos.com
http://www.pbase.com/daddyo
That said, I am really sick of posts I see by trolls on this forum, as well as rabid anti-four thirds detractors on some of the other forums, stating that the 'tiny' 4/3's sensor has condemned Olympus, et. al. to a dead end future of less than state-of-the-art image capture. I just read some lame post yesterday on the 'Open Talk' forum claiming that the Micro Four Thirds system is just a convenient way for Oly to back out of the 4/3's DSLR 'failure' into a P&S appeal system that (according to this self proclaimed photography sage) is likewise destined to fail.
Give me a break -- why all the negative anti Olympus bias from these wizards? Interestingly, most of these yahoos don't even have links to their own image galleries.
What does this post have to do with E-3 image quality? That's the challenge part. I challenge anyone who is the slightest bit objective (there's the rub) to visit the 'Imaging Resources' website, click on the camera comparison link, and compare the full sized "Indoor Portrait" image captured by the E-3 with ANY of the other cameras listed -- regardless of brand, or price. Then ask yourself, just how much image quality is being missed by the poor, uneducated four thirds shooters.
Now I'm sure that detractors will claim that all kinds of things could have influenced the outcome of the images on Imaging Resource's site. To that response I would say that I take the owner at his word that all images were captured under carefully controlled conditions to make the comparisons as valid as possible.
I really do wish that all the non-constuctive commentary would go away, and that those who prefer non-Olympus brands would just go out and actually take some pictures with their preferred cameras, rather than waste everyone's time beating the anti-Olympus/anti-four thirds drum.
God Bless,
Greg
http://www.imagismphotos.com
http://www.pbase.com/daddyo
