Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: My eyes are deceiving me

Subject: [OM] Re: My eyes are deceiving me
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:12:08 -0400
Yes, you're smoking rope but I don't think it's your eyes that are 
deceiving you.  Here are a few simple stats.  Number of pixels per 
square millimeter of active sensor area for each of three cameras:

400D - 30,740

E-1  - 22,374

5D   - 14,960

Note that the E-1 pixels are 37% larger than the 400D pixels.  They 
should be quieter but aren't.  Note that 5D pixels are twice the size of 
400D pixels.  They should be quieter and are.  Also telling is that 
Canyon didn't increase the pixel count on the 30D which preceeded the 
400D by only a couple of months.  But the 30D typically sells to a more 
discerning buyer who may realize that pixel count ain't everything.

I don't think you can draw any conclusions from anything Phil has said 
because he hasn't given you comparative data for the raw files.  All you 
can say is that Canyon does pretty good JPEG processing in-camera.  And 
keep in mind that the 3200 ISO images Moose has shown are processed from 
raw files and are not in-camera JPEGS.

Regardless of the firmware/software technology, bigger pixels should be 
paying bigger dividends.  The Moose and I have opted for big pixels.  No 
E-thing will ever have big pixels.

Chuck Norcutt


AG Schnozz wrote:

> Oh, the horror. Say it ain't so, Joe.

<snip>

> Has it all been a lie?
> 
> Hold the presses.
> 
> In Phil's 400XTi review, he reveals for the first time the
> difference in noise between JPEG and RAW files. Yowza.  Those
> RAW files do look a lot like my E-1 files.  That shadow noise is
> bad!
> 
> What am I, a RAW shooter, supposed to make of all this?  I'm
> being serious here!  I never really had that much of a problem
> with noise in my E-1 and I can get creamy smooth images if I
> want them--just through the conversion process.
> 
> Other than the obvious resolution improvement, are we really
> that bad off not going Canon?
> 
> Granted, at the highest ISO's (1600, 3200) even the RAW files
> are noticably cleaner with the Canon, but at 800 they are barely
> better.
> 
> Thoughts?  Am I smoking something that's clouding my vision?



==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz