ScottGee1 wrote:
>Chuck, thanks for reminding me about this. Noise is impressively low,
>but I'm not thrilled by what appears to be a lack of resolution.
>Still, given that it was shot at f/2.8, i.e., wide open, it's pretty
>good.
>
>Can we assume Simon used a tripod for his low light shots? If it was
>hand-held, this tells us only about noise. Not sure a 'pod would be
>allowed in that environment.
>
>
Actually, I had decidedly mixed feelings about #10 when deciding whether
to buy the F10. The low light performance is amazing but there is a
funny, sort of smeary quality to the fine detail. However, if you read
the appropriate sections, pages 5, 7, 8 and 9 of the review, and study
the other samples, you will find that resolution is considerably better,
very impressive, in fact, for such a small sensor and lens, up through
iso 400. At 800, the noise reduction starts to kick in and results in a
very slight loss of fine detail, nothing that would be noticeable at
8x10 or maybe even 11x14. At 1600, the noise reduction significantly
reduces resolution, as in #10. Even at that, it is as good as a number
of otherwise comparable cameras at 400. I happily use anything up
through 800 as a matter of course and reserve 1600 for shots I couldn't
otherwise get. Too bad he didn't post another of the same scene shot at
800, you'd see a big difference. Probably didn't have a tripod, so he
couldn't.
There are some full pixel samples here
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Iron4/>. Full pixel crops are: First
at iso 200, sixth at 400, 11th. at 200 and 13th. at 100.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|