Moose thus spoke:
> You've gone through several DSLRs in the last few years, looking for
> perfection. Maybe it doesn't exist and you may need to pick the one with
> the least objectionable limitations?
CH pushes the limits more than most people, that's for sure. But I will
agree with him in that everything is a trade-off, but at this stage of the
game with the DSLR product category essentially matured, it is unacceptable
for a higher-end camera to be hindered with these issues.
After all, it isn't like Canon doesn't know how to deal with noise! If they
can get the G10/G11/S90 as quiet as they are with pipsqueek sensors, you'd
think that they could get clean images from the 5Dmk2.
To Moose's statement of "Maybe it doesn't exist and you may need to pick the
one with the least objectionable limitations?" I whole-heartily agree. This
has been my modus operandi and why I continue to use the E-1 in spite of
some serious drawbacks.
Case in point: Last night I photographed a 6mo baby for a customer in their
home. I setup a pair of umbrella'd strobes and wirelessly triggered them
from the E-1. Some pictures were taken with the 14-54, others with the 35-80
and finally some with the 100/2.8. Thirty seconds spent with the flash
meter and I was in business. Later in the evening as I'm downloading images
into the computer my wife asks me, "Will your new digital camera have the
same colors as this one? It better!"
It's a case of "pick your poison".
Could I use more resolution? Absolutely! But, frankly, the E-1 was better
than my focusing ability most of the time anyway, so it's almost a moot
point. Even with the E-1 you can make out facial hairs in an 8x10 print, so
I'm not sure what really is to be gained with more-bigger-better. My
customers are happy with the E-1 shots, so it's hard to justify an upgrade
just for my ego. And it is exactly this kind of photography that pays my
bills...
So, where was I leading with this? Oh, yeah, to Moose's point. There are a
number of considerations when picking a camera. They can include the
following:
1. Lens compatibility
2. Resolution
3. High ISO performance
4. Dynamic Range
5. Handling
6. Color
7. Noise characteristics
8. Ability to handle mixed lighting
9. Features
Each photographer must determine which item is a "must-have, no matter
what". For me, 1,4,5,6 are show-stoppers. If those four aren't right, I
won't consider the camera at all. For others, 2,3 are the show-stoppers and
all else is irrelevant. Yes, resolution is important to me, but not at the
expense of other stuff.
It is unfortunate that for every advance in digital cameras there is a
setback. Take the Canon 7D as an example--this is potentially the most
important UI advance in the Canon EOS line since the introduction of the 1V.
But along with this advance comes a setback in the imaging system. Or in
the case of Olympus, The E-3's UI is horrid in comparison to the E-1, but
the imaging system and features are mostly an advance (except for pattern
noise and reduced Dynamic Range).
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|