Are the cameras both set to identical settings? White Balance, file capture
(RAW, I assume), sharpness, contrast, saturation, all of which should be off.
And the ISO set as low as possible, with all post-processing turned off too.
The differences between the two images look a lot like focusing issues, or
over-sharpening in the E10. How about re-running the test shots with very
careful controls. Perhaps the edges should be of objects at infinity? That
would eliminate any DOF issues, as the shorter focal length of the E10's lens
will have more EOF than the E-1.
Skip
>
>Subject: [OM] My New E-1
> From: "Mark Z." <zbrokers@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 05:40:19 -0800
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C3A74D.25210FF0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>
>
> Good Day Everyone,
>
>
>
> I picked up a E-1 Saturday to replace my E-10 and decided to put it to
>test against the E-10 in similar circumstances. Needless to say the results
>were a little confusing and at the same time disappointing for the E-1...or
>at least I think so.
>
>
>
> I purchased the unit with the standard 14-55mm and the 50mm macro lens. I
>have the entire extra lens set that go with the E-10 so comparison is close.
>
>
>
> For comparison, I took each camera and the same focal point and similar
>settings and shot my pic's. The RAW format was used to take the originals,
>and the issues transferred to the JPEG's. What bothers me and it seems to
>happen with both lens is that there is distortion in the lens (pardon my
>lack of proper definition).
>
>
>
>http://home.comcast.net/~zbroker/e10111003.jpg is the shot taken with the
>E-10 non-magnified (About 200K in size)
>
>
>
>http://home.comcast.net/~zbroker/e111102003.jpg is the shot taken with the
>E-1 non-magnified (About 200K in size)
>
>
>
>http://home.comcast.net/~zbroker/E-Test1.jpg is the crop of the E-1 (notice
>the lack of definition and contrast)
>
>
>
>http://home.comcast.net/~zbroker/E-Test1.jpg is the crop of the E-10 (much
>clearer contrast and definition)
>
>
>
>I have similar results with other shots where I find that the E-1 can't
>quite make the grade as far as focusing goes (or is it truly depth of field
>issue?).
>
>
>
>One strong point though is the incredible sensitivity of the CCD on the E-1!
>I took some night shots under ambient light with both cameras and similar
>settings and the ability of the E-1's CCD to pull in light far outweighs the
>E-10.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C3A74D.25210FF0
>Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><html>
>
><head>
><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
>
>
><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">
>
><style>
><!--
> /* Style Definitions */
> p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
> {margin:0in;
> margin-bottom:.0001pt;
> font-size:12.0pt;
> font-family:"Times New Roman";}
>a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
> {color:blue;
> text-decoration:underline;}
>a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
> {color:purple;
> text-decoration:underline;}
>span.EmailStyle17
> {font-family:Arial;
> color:windowtext;}
>@page Section1
> {size:8.5in 11.0in;
> margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
>div.Section1
> {page:Section1;}
>-->
></style>
>
></head>
>
><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
>
><div class=Section1>
>
><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier
>New"><span
>style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'> </span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier
>New"><span
>style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'> Good Day
>Everyone,</span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier
>New"><span
>style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'> </span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier
>New"><span
>style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'> I picked up a E-1
>Saturday to replace my E-10 and decided to put it to test against the E-10 in
>similar circumstances. Needless to say the results were a little
>confusing and at the same time disappointing for the E-1...or at least I think
>so.</span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier
>New"><span
>style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'> </span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier
>New"><span
>style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'> I purchased the unit
>with the standard 14-55mm and the 50mm macro lens. I have the entire
>extra lens set that go with the E-10 so comparison is close.</span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier
>New"><span
>style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'> </span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier
>New"><span
>style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'> For comparison, I
>took each camera and the same focal point and similar settings and shot my
>pic's.
>The RAW format was used to take the originals, and the issues transferred to
>the JPEG's. What bothers me and it seems to happen with both lens is that
>there is distortion in the lens (pardon my lack of proper
>definition).</span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier
>New"><span
>style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'> </span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier
>New"><span
>style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'><a
>href="http://home.comcast.net/~zbroker/e10111003.jpg";>http://home.comcast.net/~zbroker/e10111003.jpg</a>
>is the shot taken with the E-10 non-magnified (About 200K in
>size)</span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier
>New"><span
>style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'> </span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier
>New"><span
>style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'><a
>href="http://home.comcast.net/~zbroker/e111102003.jpg";>http://home.comcast.net/~zbroker/e111102003.jpg</a>
>is the shot taken with the E-1 non-magnified (About 200K in
>size)</span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier
>New"><span
>style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'> </span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier
>New"><span
>style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'><a
>href="http://home.comcast.net/~zbroker/E-Test1.jpg";>http://home.comcast..net/~zbroker/E-Test1.jpg</a>
>is the crop of the E-1 (notice the lack of definition and
>contrast)</span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier
>New"><span
>style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'> </span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier
>New"><span
>style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'><a
>href="http://home.comcast.net/~zbroker/E-Test1.jpg";>http://home.comcast..net/~zbroker/E-Test1.jpg</a>
>is the crop of the E-10 (much clearer contrast and
>definition)</span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier
>New"><span
>style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'> </span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier
>New"><span
>style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>I have similar results with
>other shots where I find that the E-1 can't quite make the grade as far as
>focusing goes (or is it truly depth of field issue?).</span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier
>New"><span
>style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'> </span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier
>New"><span
>style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>One strong point though is
>the incredible sensitivity of the CCD on the E-1! I took some night shots under
>ambient light with both cameras and similar settings and the ability of the
>E-1's CCD to pull in light far outweighs the E-10.</span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier
>New"><span
>style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'> </span></font></p>
>
><p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
>font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p>
>
></div>
>
></body>
>
></html>
>
>------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C3A74D.25210FF0--
>
>
>
>< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
>< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
>< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|
![http://home.comcast.net/~zbroker/e10111003.jpg"](http://home.comcast.net/~zbroker/e10111003.jpg"){kind=link}
![http://home.comcast.net/~zbroker/e111102003.jpg"](http://home.comcast.net/~zbroker/e111102003.jpg"){kind=link}
![http://home.comcast.net/~zbroker/E-Test1.jpg"](http://home.comcast.net/~zbroker/E-Test1.jpg"){kind=link}
