Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    13
    I'm glad that I'm not the only one who feels that the JPGs from the G1 are poor. I also don't like the images from the Nikon D90 because they are so soft. However, the two or three RAW images that Jeff posted from the G1 give me hope. I asked Jeff if he would post at least one low-ISO RAW image to give us a contrast, but he didn't give me a clear answer. If the RAW images are good, then the G1 will be my next major purchase. Everything about the camera sounds fabulous. (When I say RAW, I mean converted-from-RAW, of course.)

    My standard in judging image quality was changed this year by images that I saw from the Sigma DP1. That camera showed me what is possible with the right technology. Cameras with Bayer sensors blur images by default (because of the Bayer pattern and the antialiasing filter), and that's something I really don't like. To make matters worse, I think that camera manufacturers are adding a little extra blur to mask pixel artifacts. Too many reviewers -- and I'm including Jeff in this, as good as his reviews are -- are willing to overlook image softness as a defect. Clean and crisp is what I'm looking for. I'm hoping that the DP2 is improved enough (in its speed and operation) that I'll feel I can get it.
    Last edited by Caleb Murdock; 11-07-2008 at 12:45 PM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by sheyingshi View Post
    @Caleb,

    I use a Oly 510 for product work, usually with the 14-54 f2.8-3.5 or the 50 f2 lenses and have had excellent feedback from my clients. My work doesn't appear above letter size on ads so 10 mpx is sufficient. I always shoot in RAW so color, white balance, etc is adjustable, but I find what comes out of the camera usually works well with possibly a small white balance adjustment and some USM. Jeff's review of the G1 looks very promising image quality wise and I was hoping that the G1 would be priced a little lower so I could use it for my carry-around camera and trade my 510 for an E3. With the adaptor i could use my Zuiko 70-300 f4-5.6 to reach out instead of buying the 70-200, especially as it focuses so slow on my 510 I always manually focus anyway.

    Also, I've sold some Oly 510 photos enlarged to 15" x 20" and they work well even at that size. I don't know what you mean by muddy image quality but to me the Oly color, and when I had one, the Panasonic FZ-50 color was excellent. Have you profiled your monitor?
    I should have responded to your remarks -- sorry.

    The Olympus E-510 was high on my list when it was announced, and I think the image quality is adequate. But as Jeff pointed out (and no other reviewer mentioned this), it can't be used with a power adapter. I can't imagine being constrained by the use of a battery when working in the studio. If the batteries for that camera were priced a little lower, I might have gotten the camera plus a bunch of batteries, but they are expensive. Not only that, but Olympus ships the camera with a SLOW battery-charger. To get the fast battery-charger, you have to buy it separately. I just found that too offensive.

    I don't think my monitor is the problem. It's a high-quality Philips monitor that got excellent reviews when it came out. If the monitor were the problem, then all photos would look poor, but they don't. Some photos look excellent and some look poor, so I know I'm seeing the actual photo quality. I was totally blown away by the images from the Sigma DP1 that were posted on DPReview. Compared to those, everything else looks like mud. So just at the time that the DP1 whetted my appetite for sharp, life-like pictures, all the manufacturers have started adding a little extra blur to their images to remove the artifacts of noise-reduction. In other words, they are going in the opposite direction of the clarity that I want. If I had the money (and the upper-body strength!) I would probably get a medium-format camera.

    One of the reasons I'm seeing more defects than other people is that I have my monitor set to a lower resolution than most people (800 x 600). When you look at photos on a monitor set to a low resolution, you can really see all the defects. Those muddy G1 pictures that I didn't like look a little better when I switch to 1024 x 768 resolution.
    Last edited by Caleb Murdock; 11-09-2008 at 02:23 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •