Bob,
I'd say keep trying. I have never made a 16x20 prints from either the
E1 or the 410, but I had no trouble getting 410 files to look sharper
than those I'm used to from the E1, and that the few prints I have
made so far (thanks Larry!) were excellent pretty much out of the box.
I think the sensor is the same in your camera.
Tom
On 23/06/07, Bob Whitmire <bwhitmire@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> As far as I know he is. But we haven't talked about it specifically.
> And he doesn't shoot to sell as I do. That said, he expressed an
> interest in doing true 16x20, but doesn't have the printer so I'm
> guessing if he's done one yet it went to a lab. I'll ask him. That
> said, the more I mess around with my copy of the 510, the more I'm
> convinced it must be a dud. You can't sell a 10MP camera this soft
> and grainy for $799 and expect anyone to buy it. Hell, Phil over at
> DPreview would just put an artist's rendition of a faert on the page
> and call it a review. <g> I thought it must be a settings thing, but
> I've reset the camera to it's factory default and even shooting SHQ
> it's soft as warm butter. And not nearly as tasty. (I put in the
> butter reference because in my advancing years I've learned how to
> eat my words graciously, and with a minimum of ketchup. My sincere
> hope is I get to eat my words about my 510, too.)
>
> --Bob
>
>
> On Jun 23, 2007, at 12:38 AM, Larry wrote:
>
> > s your friend happy with the prints he gets from his K10D?
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|