--here's one for you.
This was a raw image 2 minutes ago.
NO USM
NO sauration
ALL I did was resize to 800 pixels wide
and add my copyright info.
Full frame with E-10
pretty much exactly what it looked like in life.
It was beautiful. Bright sunny day, flowers everywhere.
The Canon may be a much better camera than the E-10,
but one thing you can't pick on is the color rendition of
the E-10. Not legitamately at least
LOL - I can see the cat and chicken from where I am, and I can assure you that they're okay.
Noise was always the problem - acknowledged, I think, by everyone. Colours was not.
Well, let's just agree that colours are, on the whole, a matter of taste (when not obviously wrong).
They are talking about twice the dynamic range, and almost no noise - from what I hear from users who've tried a pre-production model, this would appear to be true.
Certainly as far as noise is concerned - a function of the small CCD, (and 3 year old technology indeed) I'll stick to my contention that the colours are excellent, though (whilst agreeing that the noise was not!).. But I really don't think that you can use the Exx series as a yardstick for the E1 - the body may be similar, but nothing else is.
True, but the CCD should be able to handle it: the upper limit on the resolution of the E-1's sensor with its 6.8 micron photo-sites is the Nyquist frequency of about 73lp/mm, so it should be able to handle up to 60lp/mm fairly well.
you're making me glad I bought an E-10
Hahahaha! The C750 has a 10x zoom lens, not something that you'd expect to have amazing macro performance since it hasn't a dedicated macro lens. The only thing that the photographer did to help his cause was to enlist the help of a screw on doublet, certainly not the best way to obtain the absolute best closeup performance.The photo i took wasn't a macro glass, FYI, and I didn't crop
Besides, this is no counter. The insect looks fake (very metallic
colors, similar to many consumer digicams). it lack soul.
Impressive as a photographer's feat, but quality wise it lacked
something that most DSLR can produce. Besides, my photo is much
more interesting than just a macro photo of an insect.
--
--you're making me glad I bought an E-10
--Here's one for color:
Sharpened just a little (straight from camera with no sharpening)
in PS.
Tony
--you're making me glad I bought an E-10
Gallery: http://violin.deviantart.com/gallery
certainly not natural light.--Hahahaha! The C750 has a 10x zoom lens, not something that you'dThe photo i took wasn't a macro glass, FYI, and I didn't crop
Besides, this is no counter. The insect looks fake (very metallic
colors, similar to many consumer digicams). it lack soul.
Impressive as a photographer's feat, but quality wise it lacked
something that most DSLR can produce. Besides, my photo is much
more interesting than just a macro photo of an insect.
expect to have amazing macro performance since it hasn't a
dedicated macro lens. The only thing that the photographer did to
help his cause was to enlist the help of a screw on doublet,
certainly not the best way to obtain the absolute best closeup
performance.
It's funny how you like to shift your arguments when you realise
you don't have a point. Your original post was:
"Bigger glass = more light through the lens = more contrast. It's
true for medium format versus 35 mm, it'll be true for 10D versus
smaller glass SLR's.
Beat this with your Olympus E-10: " and you then proceeded to
attempt to prove the point with your desperately low contrast
picture.
Good grief, when someone shows you that you're wrong (those
closeups ARE contrastier and they were taken a camera with
waaaaaaaayy smaller glass than your 50mm prime), even to the extent
of taking you up on YOUR ludicrous proposition in the first place
("Bigger glass = more light through the lens = more contrast.), you
just weasel your way to another point!
You're definitely more entertaining than "Whose Line Is It Anyway?"
tonight!
Thanks for the good laugh.
--Hahahaha! The C750 has a 10x zoom lens, not something that you'dThe photo i took wasn't a macro glass, FYI, and I didn't crop
Besides, this is no counter. The insect looks fake (very metallic
colors, similar to many consumer digicams). it lack soul.
Impressive as a photographer's feat, but quality wise it lacked
something that most DSLR can produce. Besides, my photo is much
more interesting than just a macro photo of an insect.
expect to have amazing macro performance since it hasn't a
dedicated macro lens. The only thing that the photographer did to
help his cause was to enlist the help of a screw on doublet,
certainly not the best way to obtain the absolute best closeup
performance.
It's funny how you like to shift your arguments when you realise
you don't have a point. Your original post was:
"Bigger glass = more light through the lens = more contrast. It's
true for medium format versus 35 mm, it'll be true for 10D versus
smaller glass SLR's.
Beat this with your Olympus E-10: " and you then proceeded to
attempt to prove the point with your desperately low contrast
picture.
Good grief, when someone shows you that you're wrong (those
closeups ARE contrastier and they were taken a camera with
waaaaaaaayy smaller glass than your 50mm prime), even to the extent
of taking you up on YOUR ludicrous proposition in the first place
("Bigger glass = more light through the lens = more contrast.), you
just weasel your way to another point!
You're definitely more entertaining than "Whose Line Is It Anyway?"
tonight!
Thanks for the good laugh.
--
--
--
