Well, we all say that it's the photographer that creates the picture and
not the equipment. Phil is testing cameras and not very scientifically
from an image capture standpoint (nothing is repeatable). However, it's
a great place to get a look at the technical aspects of images such as
noise. There are lots of wonderful images on <http://myfourthirds.com>
but I'm more interested in seeing things like this:
<http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/?gallery=olympuse300_samples/>
(choose image #16 shot at ISO 1600) and this:
<http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/?gallery=canoneos20d_samples/>
(choose image #18 shot at SIO 3200)
I've just finished printing some 5x7 chucks of these images sized as
though they were pieces of 16x20 prints. Try it, you may be surprised.
The reason I did this is that I desperately needed ISO 1600 last
Saturday to shoot indoors without flash.
Chuck Norcutt
ScottGee1 wrote:
> I'm with Robert on this one. Stopped looking at Phil's pix years ago.
> He does dig into tech issues and isn't afraid to point out
> weaknesses.
>
> ScottGee1
>
>
> On 9/15/05, Robert Swier <robert.swier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>In general, I find it quite useless to review the sample images at dpreview,
>>because they are all terrible. Almost without exception they are all
>>terribly composed and the outdoors shots are usually pictures of nothing
>>taken at mid day with contrasty sun. For instance, if you were to look at
>>the E-1 sample images at dpreview, you'd think the camera joke because all
>>the images are bad. Though, if you were to look at the best images on
>>myfourthirds.com <http://myfourthirds.com>, you'd have exactly the opposite
>>conclusion.
>> That said, I like the fact that dpreview often presents technical
>>information in a more coherent manner than even the manufactures often do.
>> Robert Swier
>>Toronto, Canada
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|