I'm assuming you are speaking of the Sony pellicle mirror camera. If so, I
give it high marks. Last Christmas, I got my girlfriend one. She has
essential tremors, a genetic condition that causes one to be shaky, not
unlike the early stages of Parkinson's, for which it is often mistaken, and
treatments are hit and miss at best. NPR listeners will recognize that as
the problem that has plagued Diane Rehm. I chose this one because of the 5
axis stabilization, and it is magic. It takes her from one usable shot out
of a dozen to almost all good ones. She thinks it is magic. She was in the
film days an active amateur photographer, and she has a good eye even though
I'm biased. The files are all great. I've not played with the NR. So far all
I've only seen jepgs, as she is new enough to digital to not comprehend raw
files, but that will come soon.
-----Original Message-----
From: Moose
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 2:08 AM
To: Willie Wonka ; Olympus Camera Discussion
Subject: Re: [OM] A65 request for image quality evaluation.
On 6/15/2014 6:23 PM, Willie Wonka via olympus wrote:
... I have put up two pictures on zone10 one made with the A200 and
another with the A65. The A200 is a RAW converted to tiff I believe and
the A65 is the jpeg straight from the camera also converted to tiff just
to be fair. I have a RAW to tiff that wanted to post, but the Schnozz
stubbornly refused to give me an upload permission...:), because the file
was huge.
I would like to get the opinion of the pixel peepers amongst you on the
picture quality of the camera (s). I picked this scene, so I could also
get an idea of what the dynamic range and evaluate the metering
performance.
Is this like a test - for us? You make it so hard to make a reasonable
comparison. By shooting at quite different
effective focal lengths, everything is of different sizes in the two images.
JPEG converted to TIFF is not the same as
RAW to TIFF. NR and sharpening default settings in JPEGs aren't necessarily
right for a pixel level comparison.
So, it is clear that the A65 makes better images, but not by nearly as much
as I would expect.
From someone used to 16 MB image files, the 24 MB A65 file looks pretty
poor. There's some really mushed together
detail in some of the foliage. I don't know if the kit lens is poor. Many
are at their widest settings, esp. away from
the center. Or did something bad happen in the journey from sensor to
screen? NR?
That camera must surely be up to better than this example.
Bleary Eyed Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|