On 2/21/2010 2:16 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Nice analysis, thank you.? I should have used highend P&S more generically
> rather than G11, though there is some overlap in LX3 and G11 markets.?
Certainly there is an overlap in the general sense. I was just pointing
out that in terms of specifics, the Samsung is much closer to LX3 than G11.
For me, there is little overlap. Much as I might like a wider lens, the
loss of tele is too much for me. I was actually concerned that the
change from 35-210 mm eq to 28-140 would make me fell limited at the
long end. In use so far, on a rather limited range of subjects, that's
not been the case, but 24-60/72 just would not be general purpose for me.
I still have the TC-DC58N, 1.75x tele-adapter I originally bought used
for the A710. That gives a 245mm eq. I've not really tested it myself.
The Lensmate site samples show it to be just about as good as the Canon
designated TC-DC58D, 1.4x converter. Downsampling the 1.75x to the size
of the 1.4x images results in pixel level images with very similar IQ.
If pressed, I'd give the nod to the 1.4x - at 1.4x. On the other hand,
the 1.75x is longer, so for the same subject area, where one can't
sneaker zoom, it captures a bit more detail. And then, I already own it
at a used price. :-)
Canon has not provided or recommended a WA adapter. Lensmate's only
recommendation is for a Sony adapter. The cheap 0.45x adapter I was
using on the A650 is pretty bad on the G11. Soft edges on the horizontal
axis and really soft corners.
The Canon WC-DC58N, 0.7x I already had is better, but not great in the
corners. At full WA on the camera lens, it gives a ~20 mm eq FOV with a
bit of corner vignetting and soft horizontal edges. Zoomed to eliminate
vignetting, it's ~22mm eq. The very far hor. edges are still a bit soft.
At 24mm eq, I think it would be fine.
Of course, carrying and using the aux. lenses is awkward. For most uses
where I will want wider angle coverage, I think panorma. stitching will
be the route to go. I do have the 1.75x in my little bag much of the
time, just in case.
> I have wondered what the Moose thought of top usuable ISO on the G11 with a
> layered NI type of treatment that he does so well.? 400 is about tops for the
> G9? with some exceptions.
>
Using that sort of post techniques, ISO 3200 is actually usable for many
purposes. The JPEGs right out of the camera are fine for the web from a
noise/detail standpoint. I think this sample I posted before shows that.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/G11-ISO3200/IMG_0167.htm>
There are several images in the same gallery shot at ISO 1600. If you
find 400 to be tops for the G9, I'd think you would find 800 on the G11
as good or maybe a bit better and 1600 usable in a pinch. With the right
subject and post, 1600 is surprisingly useful.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|