Hope you don't mind if I jump in. Noise is a personal thing. There
are some people who have a stroke if they see any at all. Others
don't mind a little as long as it is not obtrusive and prefer the
image unsoftened by noise reduction, either in the camera or
afterwards on the computer.
Another aspect of noise is where you see it. Contrary to what a lot
of people believe you can see more on a good monitor than you can on
a good print. So people look at a full sized image at a higher ISO on
a monitor and do the "Aha, I see noise" bit. In most cases if you
print the image or display it on a computer screen at a size that you
lets you see the whole image you will never see noise. Dot spread in
the print reduces the impact of noise as does downsizing for computer
display or a smaller print. I don't think noise is an important
consideration for buying a DSLR.
Others things are more important, like the features you want on the
body, the lenses you will have available to you and the ergonomics.
When I bought my Nikon D100, the E-1 still was not out and was not an
option. I handled a Canon 10D and it reminded me too much of an F1 I
had in the past and which I ended up dumping in favor of an OM4T.
Just did not fit my hands and felt clumsy to me. And I don't like
crudeness of the knurled wheel on any of the Canon digitals. I took
to the Nikon right away. Really, really refined, even more than the
OM4T. The brand new Pentax felt good to me too, but I opted for the
model that had been out a while and had a good track record for
reliability.
The point I was trying to make when suggesting looking at the full
sized images for the tests at dpreview was that you don't really see
these differences in the pictures to any great extent. I know that
noise level measurements for Canon dslrs are almost always lower than
those for Nikon, but I take essentially noise free pictures all the
time. A lot of the "differences" in measurements do not really amount
to much. Sort of like kids arguing over a cars that have 260 horse
power or 270 horsepower. The rest of the car is more important than
the difference. Reviews of the A1 were not overwhelmingly positive on
image quality, but you have seen the enthusiasm for the CAMERA by AG
and seen examples of the stunning pictures he has taken with it.
If I were buying right now I would also consider the Konica-Minolta
because it has been praised so highly by people who are used to using
mechanical cameras. It has real controls on it and is relatively free
of the need for menu consulting. They have really thought about what
made people love their mechanical cameras and have tried to apply
that to their digital. The image stabilization is just gravy.
The important thing is to handle the cameras as much as possible and
try to get one that feels good to you and easy to use without
constantly referring back to a manual. (Where Do they hide the on/off
switch on a Canon digicam? :-) )
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Jul 16, 2005, at 12:31 PM, Richard Lovison wrote:
>
> AG,
>
> The E-1 also seems to "suck pond water" when it comes to noise levels
> at higher ISO settings though seems to be better than the E-300. In
> the real world, has this been a problem for you? Between the Ca*on
> 350D and the E-300, at the moment, I'm leaning more toward the 350D
> though I wonder if I'll regret not having the auto sensor cleaning.
> BTW, do these things come with a flash card or is that another initial
> expense?
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|