bs.pearce@xxxxxxx wrote:
> OK, DP review got a particularly good F30. I couldn't find anything to like
> about it. It's slow, and NOISY.
As Rob suggests, you may have a bad one. Here are a few F30 ISO 1600
images I grabbed and tossed on the web. The first three are full frame,
partial crop and full pixel from the same shot.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=F30>
Maybe it's time to finish the ISO 1600 images from that museum visit in
a gallery.
Did I use noise reduction? Sure -after all, this is a small digicam at
ISO 1600. The crucial thing is that the end result is more than just
usable. And it holds up at bigger sizes than the web images.
> Not usable over 400 in good light.
All the shots in this gallery, starting with this one, and except the
first two of the river and the next one, are at ISO 800 with the F10,
which isn't as good in noise as the F30
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Iron4/pages/IRON4029.htm>. A heavily
overcast, slightly rainy, day in the Maine woods.
> The LX2 has its shortcomings, like raw write times and high iso noise, but it
> certainly isn't as objectionable as the baseball sized noise of the Fuji
>
> Want mine? It's for sale.
>
How much, considering it's below par in IQ? ;-)
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|