Ok, now I understand. Your answers tell me you place a very high
priority on resolution and that some lenses don't measure up to the
resolving ability of the 5D or 1DsII.
I very much like high resolution too but that's not the reason I own a
5D. I'd own a 5D even if was only 8MP. As I've said here I think
several times I place a lot of emphasis on the camera's ability to focus
quickly and accurately in near dark conditions. The 5D is as much an
improvement over the 20D in that department as the 20D was over the 10D.
The full frame sensor, viewfinder and interchangeable screens are also
important to me regardless of the resolution specifics. Different
strokes for different folks.
Chuck Norcutt
Jeff Keller wrote:
> I don't have a precise judgement of quality. I'm seldom happy with my
> own 35mm film images that were taken on film faster than ISO100 and I
> prefer Velvia to Provia ... thus my personal 35mm Velvia standard. My
> experience has been that the film loaded in my OM affects my perceived
> quality much more than which Zuiko is mounted on my camera. I wasn't
> happy with the first few images I took with a Tamron SP 60-300
> compared to my often used Zuiko 50-250. Similarly I definitely prefer
> the Tamron 80-200/2.8 over the Tokina 80-200/2.8.( I consider the
> Tamron 80-200/2.8 and Zuiko 50-250/5 to be different but of comparable
> qualitiy.) Thus my own vague standard of a good Zuiko on Velvia or
> better...
<snip>
>
> Yes, when judging a lens I'm putting a lot of weight on the comments
> of tests performed using a 1DSII. You are using your 5D as your first
> choice of camera. I'm still using mine as "film" for my Zuikos. My
> vague quality standards would seem pretty odd to you.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|