bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> ...
> I enjoy using my E1, and it has been a great introduction to digital
> photography. BUT (and there has to be a 'but' in a contribution such as
> this), I am increasingly dis-satisfied at what I can get out of it when doing
> landscape photography.
>
> Having, at the ripe age of 70 (just attained)
Congratulations!
> , come into some money after being bought out of the former family home
Congratulations again.
> , I am considering up-grading.
>
> ... But I find that there is not nearly enough detail in my tripod shots, so
> here I am asking.
>
> The E3 has 10 MP, but I have heard that it is not very good at higher ISO
> settings (like the E1).
>
Before worrying about high ISO and various features, consider how
important that detail is to you. Try downloading the standard studio
shots from dpreview or one of the other review sites. I just took a look
at the E-3 vs. the 5D, as layers in PS, so I could flip between them.
There is no comparison. The 5D captures far more detail than the E-3 and
the image just looks cleaner. In fact, more resolution than I think can
be accounted for by the modest difference in number of pixels.
If it were my decision, given your stated criteria of tripod use and
desire for high resolution of landscape detail, I'd be pre-ordering a 5D
II and a couple of inexpensive OM=>EOS adapters. Based on the limited
samples seen so far, I expect that the 5D II will be THE landscape
camera for some time. Only medium format digital backs will exceed it -
at much higher prices.
Beyond adapter use of OM lenses, the choice of a Canon confuses life, as
there are so many lens choices. There is nothing to match the ZD 7-14,
if you have to have super-super wide. I've been quite happy with the
Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 for merely super-wide. Also, shooting on a tripod,
panoramas are quite practical.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|