> I mean that, for instance, my K-5 gets better scores than the much newer E-M5.
We've really gone far past the point of diminishing returns. Over the
past two years, the new cameras are all using sensors with such
exceptional high-ISO performance and high-enough pixels that there is
little reason to complain about any of them. In the area of noise,
they are so far beyond my existing cameras that it's pretty silly. The
typical P&S gets better results in that regard.
So, it comes down to something else. Instead of chasing that 2% of
sensor improvement, we should be back to selecting cameras based
solely on features, capabilities, ergonomics, lenses, etc. If we think
hard enough, we might remember those days before digital when you
selected a camera based on the camera, not based on a brand/model of
film being run through it.
A pro friend here in Iowa shoots with the E-3. Yesterday, he was
showing me some images from a shoot on Saturday that looked very
different (in an awesome way) than the typical look. Why? Well,
Olympus (and Leica) optics for one thing. Converting the files in
Capture One was another. The combination of glass, Olympus image
pre-processing (raw ain't raw), and Capture One pulled colors,
contrasts and intensities out without screwing up the skintones which
pretty much nobody shooting Canon or Nikon and converting in Lightroom
is getting.
In the world of m43, the new GH3 has my attention. But only from an
ergonomics/features perspective. The OM-D has my attention of some of
the same things and image characteristics. However, in the end, I'll
probably just end up with a Canon full-frame system because of other
reasons entirely.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|