Agreed that it was good back then. If you bother to check the history of this forum you would also identify those responsible for the rot. These would include the usual charlatans who even now persist in disseminating misinformation in the guise of educating. Eg Andy's explanation on "equivalance" which is of course ignored by the charlatans here who purport to "educate" that Oly's f2 is just "marketing rubbish", as you put it.
Your post called for a visual comparison and a subjective and the determination of a generic and subjective threshold. So you're right in that there is nothing for me here from a technical perspective. I'll move along when I want.
Well everybody agrees that there is a difference. Its just the extent and everyone's using the same kind of generic and subjectives threshold that you yourself have used in this post.
There is a clear disjunct in context between the subject matter of your first sentence and that in your second. This is again reason for my questioning your motivation.
Do you have a link to this?
Well, I think subjective in photography is important as well because objectivity isn't the full story wherever human beings are concerned (colour perception, for example).
--
Right, my mistake. Didn't see the button 'current cameras/all cameras'
assuming is not enough. in the case of the E3, they did indeed also hott at aperture eight, but with the E-PL1, for instance, they used aperture 5.6. So, assuming isn't the approaxch that should be used when it comes to executing a proper test.
Now, being an amateur that's something I really don't understand. Both cameras have got an FT sensor and so, the 100-percent pictures should also be of the same sitze, shouldnt they? The one with slightly more pixels than the other? Or am I completely wrong, here?
Why the hack should we correct mistakes you have made as we already know that the E-5 produces clearly more crisp pictures than the E-3 - what doesn't say that the E-3 was a poor camera. It just says that progress never stops and that Olympus made good use of this progress.
Also bear in mind that we could compare the E-30 to the E-5.
Er, that's an interesting basis for comparison. Why not compare Olympus Viewer JPEGs or Lightroom JPEGs?
OK. I'll post crops from RawTherapee, as that gets the most detail from the raws -- you are asking about detail, right?
The aperture and shutter speed are the same. The scene isn't quite the same, and the lighting may be different.
The E-5 shot should be slightly larger:
rovingtim appears to be pursuing a religious war against the E-5, for some reason. The facts are not on his side, though -- as you would expect, frankly.
my mind tells me that after attempts to flaunt 700% crops as proof of your already specious argument that I need to be careful of what you think you are doing and what might actually be going on. And Im alarmed that you apparently still dont see what was wrong with that
same lens, different cameras, E3 and E5
The sample scenes are subject to alteration, too. I am also not sure if the lighting is always the same, or if different cameras just produce bad colour casts.
Thanks for the explanation. But I still don't understand the reason for this difference in size. We have got two sensors of the same format, so how can the number of pixels used on this area make an impact on the size of the picture? Rather weird from a logical point of view, I'd say. So, where is the mistake im my thought chain?The E-5 shot should be slightly larger:
(Edit: corrected this size comparison.)
Okay, agreed.
