Quoting from the below referenced comparison: "when observing 8 x 10-inch
prints made from each camera - held roughly a foot away - the difference is
clearly noticeable. The 5D produces sharper images with more observable
detail, even at 8 x 10. The results obviously become more pronounced as the
print size is increased."
But, as the bard noted centuries ago, there _is_ a rub.
Also quoting from the same comparison: "The shots were taken without any
in-camera sharpening, shooting the D200 in Normal and the Canon EOS 5D in
Neutral Parameters."
If you've read enough about these cameras, you know that the D200 has been
noted to have a particularly soft image absent in-camera sharpening, more so
than a lot of cameras. I daresay based on what I've read about the D200, my
E-1's images will look crisper than the D200 if tested the way these folks
tested them. What they don't tell you in this review is that depending on
what you take pictures of and when you are taking them, you need to adjust
the D200's sharpening, or just plan to let Photoshop handle it later.
When reading camera reviews on the web, one must be _extremely_ careful
because more folks than not suffer near debilitating cases of cranial-rectal
inversion syndrome and they're not ashamed to show it. <g>
Just my $0.02
--Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Richard M. Smith
You probably have already seen this.
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Nikon-D200-vs-Canon-EOS-5D-Head-to-
Head-Review-/Performance--Image-Quality.htm
Dick Smith
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|