> Lovely stuff, Ken.
Thank you. The image worked out much better than I've ever managed to
achieve before. It's a neat spot where the trail does a little hoopdy
around a knoll. Actually, I've not been able to get the gradients
right with any other camera.
> Not "still". The camera is new to AG.
Correct. Another E-1 and the E-300 and E-400 made it to the Zone-10
Living History Farm. The E-300 has been the big surprise. Honestly,
the camera design was somehow inspired by the Ford Edsel. How to make
a great vehicle fail to sell because it looks like it just ate a
lemon. Nothing really wrong with the camera other than the grip shape.
But the camera looks like they took the clay mockup and set it in the
yard and ran a lawn mower over it. And then had "Pimp my Ride" do the
cosmetics.
But the sensor is REALLY nice. More to that in a minute.
> Also the 14-54 lens used for this shot.
I suspect that this lens has had maintenance done to it and wasn't put
back together exactly right. The 14-54 never was Parfocal, but this
one seems even more exaggerated than I remember. Any focal length
adjustment requires refocusing. The results are still outstanding, but
the lens can never be used for video, that's for sure. The zoom ring
is so smooth and light, I'm in heaven with that. The 14-54 is really a
wonderful lens.
> The E-400, never sold in the US/Canada, turned out to just be stopping by, on
> its way from Piers to Ken. :-)
I think this foster child may have found a permanent home. I really
like this little camera. I just haven't shot with it because I don't
have a battery charger yet (or spare battery), so it's been used only
around home. The 14-42 lens feels just right on this camera. Maybe I
can score an old E-Pen for the battery and charger. I've always wanted
to take one of those, scavenge everything out and graft it into this
in-op OM-1 that I have here in my junk box.
OK, back to the sensor. A couple things of note: The Kodak sensor'd
cameras tend to go just a little cyan with the blue skies. A slight
hue adjustment will bring that back into line, but there is a bit of
Kodachrome going on there. The big advantage is that the shadows don't
develop the nasty blue cast that most CMOS sensors have. Attempts to
correct that colorcast are usually thwarted as any adjustment there
tends to turn everything else Trump Orange. The Kodak CCD sensors keep
shadows not only more neutral, but the blue cast is far easier to
address without skewing the rest of the image into colors the human
eye doesn't recognize.
Another Kodak feature I like is that the greens are far more
"complete" right out of the box. With other cameras, I need to crank
the saturation and also de-blue the greens. Kodak CCD images tend to
already be around Provia color before you even touch anything. Not
everything can be fixed in the computer, nor is everything "wanting"
to be fixed in the computer.
Now, let's talk sharpness. ChrisT was asking about in-camera TIFF. I
wouldn't bother. I think that Olympus' development algorithm is so
poor at capturing pixel sharpness that I would highly recommend
avoiding old raw converter engines. Even the latest/greatest Olympus
Workspace algorithm isn't even coming close. Adobe FINALLY has a
converter (Version 5) that achieves a "pixel sharpness" with these
Kodak CCD cameras that is stunning. This specific image is one that is
"pixel sharp".
AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|