Who's telling the truth?
Or the technical issues don't mean a thing after all in the real
world?
--
Rui Bexiga Vale,
Lisboa - Portugal
Hi,
I actually believe that EVERYONE is telling the truth as they see it. I believe Phil to be extremely unbiased. It is just human nature to look for conspiracy when someone challenges our "known" beliefs. I also don't think the overbloswn claims of Oly's marketing helped anyone and fueled the fires.
As to measurements, it reminds of debates between those audiophiles (such as myself) who LOVE the sound of tube equipment in spite of the fact that measurements favor solid state. I remember the cover of Stereophile magazine years ago when comparing a Cary 805 with some also high end SS amplifier stating "if one of these is right, the other must be wrong"
The point is that measurements are an objective way of looking at something in an image which attempts to measure how we PERCEIVE AN IMAGE. The actual perception may have much or little to do with the actual measurement. For example I do not doubt that the noise from an E1 may be measurably greater than that from a 10D or 1D, but is it so low that one cannot notice the difference in the actual finished PRINTED image. Also many photographers these days are printing only a small number of their images, prefering to look at them on monitors, perhaps at sizes unsupported by the number of pixels. how does this affect perception? There is minimal comment about the character of the noise. Is it "clumpy", more in one color channel, or neutral in color?
Enough philosophy, I have been a photographer for almost 40 years using everthing from Leica, Hasselblad, Rollei, Nikon, Olympus, Mamiya and Canon. I have been doing digital before there were available digital SLR and have owned 4 Canon dslr's. The bottom line is because of the ergonomics, weight, balance, lens quality I simply get better photos using the E1. Because of these factors I tend to actually have it with me most of the time (something not true when I was using the 1D as my everyday camera.)
The bottom line is, if it is within the capabilities of the E1 (not requiring 1D level autofocus, 8 fps shooting speed, etc) I doubt anyone could tell the difference between good quality, well composed and well printed images obtained with a 10D, D100, 1D, etc. I do not doubt that one could see differences with the 1Ds printed at 20x30 but that is a 7K monster. By using the E1 with 11-22, I simply get more well composed photos that print beautifully to at least 13x19 than i did with my 1D or with my 10D FOR ME!!!. I still own my Canon glass and will probably try out the 1DII with my 16-35 (about the same range) but the E1 is just a very good camera for a reasonable price. Don't get me wrong, I would prefer higher resolution, lower noise, less artifact and i am glad (I think) that Phil's reviews point some of these things out... I think (lol) so I can look for them in my images and consider them BEFORE I make a purchase. The fact is that I either don't see the noise spoken of, or it is less bothersome in character than that of some other cameras (I think this is the case). As for the resolution, It doesn't appear to be a problem in real images. The simple fact is that all cameras are compromises and I find that the design compromises fit my needs better in this combo, than almost anything available to me now.
I would simply use all reviews as a guide and try the item yourself. Try not to be too jingoisitic about any particular brand. See what meets your needs and fits right in your hands and takes pictures acceptable to you,,, There is NO perfect camera. As my father use to say... "Thats why they make chocolate AND vanilla"
Hope this rambling essay helps and Good Luck
Ed
