Is the 35mm f/2.5 Skopar images 100% cropped from 4000dpi scan? If not I
don't know how to compare them.
Not having tested the lens and camera myself I will not comment on the image
quality, especially I found I usually got MUCH better result with RAW on
Olympus images. Over sharpening is usually the cause of noise images, "Auto
Gradation" is another noise source created by Olympus, it will boost up
underexposed images and make them very noisy. Since the images look having
normal exposure besides a low contrast so people may not know they have made
a wrong exposure. I found the problem on the E520 I once owned,
unfortunately "Auto Gradation" is the default ex-factory setting.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dawid Loubser"
> <begin rant>
> This sample image posted by DPReview (warning: huge file) is of the E-P1
> with the new 17m lens at ISO 200 at f/6.3:
>
> http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/olympusep1_preview2/originals/p6160172.jpg
>
> It exhibits pathetic chromatic abberation, and this at f/6.3! I really
> hope this is not representative of that 17mm lens, thus far I am greatly
> unimpressed. I mean, come on, they should have AT LEAST made it an f/
> 2.0 lens
> (since this is a camera with no built-in flash) and the lens
> performance looks
> absolutely crap. My 1976 OM-system 24mm f/2.0 with yellowed elements
> is in a
> complete other league to what I see here. The performance shown here
> would have
> been "OK" if this was a small and cheap f/1.4 lens, but a 35mm-equiv
> non-retrofocus
> f/2.8 lens is kinda hard to mess up, don't you think? For example,
> take the
> (much smaller and cheaper) Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5 Skopar (for Leica M-
> Mount)
> pancake lens - it's faster, and renders a *much* better image, and
> it's an ancient
> design. In fact, I'd take the ISO 800 *film* image below (disclaimer:
> not my images)
> any day over the ISO 200 E-P1 image with the 17mm.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/mbnm57/image/91849557/original
> http://www.pbase.com/image/91851700
>
> Also, the noise at ISO 200 is exceptionally poor, the image quality
> looks at about the same level as a Canon G10 uber point-n-shoot
> (especially if you down-size the G10's image to 12MP, remember it is
> 15MP
> packaged into a much much smaller sensor).
>
> I am, again, thoroughly unimpressed by Olympus' latest effort, nice as
> the
> camera looks. The produced image looks like complete rubbish compared to
> what I am getting with my OM cameras on film, as well as absolutely
> incomparable
> in every respect to what I got with my 2004 Canon 1D MkII Digital SLR
> of five years of sensor design earlier. Not to mention a Canon 16-35mm
> f/2.8
> zoom which, based on the sample I linked to at the top, is a much much
> better lens than the Zuiko prime. Come on - I though Olympus still
> knew how
> to make innovative lenses?
>
> No thanks (for now).
>
> </end rant>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
