Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> No, I think your use of JPEGs is just fine. You'd have to save and
> reload them multiple times before there would be any noticeable effect
> on quality. Given that these are 100% crops I'd say that 1600 and 3200
> aren't too bad.
Yeah, it's certainly not perfect, but it's very usable.
As I said, in-camera NR works pretty well -- here's a couple of
full-frame samples at 3200 with NR on, dark environment again (1/6th at
f5 at 3200), flash off/on; these are the whole images, so biggish downloads:
http://www.danielmitchell.net/temp/e3_3200_flash_off_nr_on.jpg
http://www.danielmitchell.net/temp/e3_3200_flash_on_nr_on.jpg
There's certainly some classic NR-ish loss of detail; on the flash-on
one, look in the top right at the rolled-up mat behind the pole, for
instance, or the top of the wicker basket thingy in the bottom right,
but it's not always that bad; the text on the lefthand side of the
pinkish snowboard is just fine.
I made a quick print of the flash-on one, and at 8.5x11, it's
certainly usable. There's problems, but only because I know what I'm
looking for, and because there's things in the image that really suffer
from NR. I think with the right subject, you could get away with an
awful lot.
Oh, and while I'm here, a better IS comparison -- 50-200@200, 1/60th
second, hand-held, but taken as carefully as I could both times --
again, full-size crops:
http://www.danielmitchell.net/temp/e3_is_off.jpg
http://www.danielmitchell.net/temp/e3_is_on.jpg
Again, IS isn't magic, but I reckon I could use the second shot in a
pinch -- and "400mm" at 1/60th is not bad going.
-- dan
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
