Moose The Tempter wrote:
> Let me know when you need the 10MP version. :-)
I'm very tempted. Really, I am. From what I've seen, I think the
E-400's sensor is a brutally perfect match for tundra and Alaskan UV
light. Canon CMOS just doesn't cut it and the E-3's sensor just barely
works on it. The E-1 will over-saturate on the reds, but is still
recoverable if you watch the exposure like a hawk.
> Even though "The L1 features the same 7.5 megapixel 'LiveMOS' sensor used in
> the E-330" - Panny, not Kodak, not CCD?
The L1, Digilux3, and E-330 all share the same basic sensor. However,
the E-330 is supposed to have a different filter-stack on the front.
The L1 will out-resolve the E-330 as the AA filter is nearly or
totally non-existent. The image-handling processor stack is wildly
different between the three models too. The image pathway between the
sensor and the raw file is different. A raw file from the E-330 will
require different processing in Lightroom than a raw file from the L1.
Each manufacturer put some secret sauce in the processing chain that
bends the bits a little. I think the E-330 does a good job of handling
reds and yellows without going nuclear in the "golden hour" like the
L1 does.
I've done enough testing and pixel-peeping of the L1 and E-3 files to
see that the L1 pretty much resolves the same amount as the E-3 even
though the E-3 has more pixels. Once in a while the L1 will give moire
on fabric. For those cases, switching to the JPEG file will usually
solve the problem. Of course, the maize problem in Lightroom makes
deep bit-bending on L1 files a non-starter.
But, yes, I can see myself toting an E-400 around on some hikes.
AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|