jonoslack
Active member
HI Vivek
It's one of the reasons why I'm always rather sceptical about the usefulness of those kinds of test results.
A good example of what I mean is the A900 - It has LOADS of DR, but it's very important to over-expose if you want it, the highlight detail seems to be recoverable forever, but it's easy to get noisy shadows. The Olympus E3 is just the opposite with blown highlights being the biggest issue, but with shadow detail fairly noiseless.
As for the G1, I DO like the output - colour is good, crisp etc. but I don't know it well enough to be able to make an absolute judgement.
Okay - well, ho hum. I haven't been irritated by it, but I don't feel that I have enough experience with the camera yet to be very sure. Cameras seem to behave so differently with respect to blown highlights and noisy shadows, and it always seems to take some time to get accustomed to the behaviour, and the best way to get the most out of it.Jono, Please clarify if the the DR and noise response are attractive or not with the G1 (excuse me for throwing in the pixel density factor, I honestly did not throw that in as an excuse. In fact I had no idea why I even threw that in!).
Ignore the distraction with terminologies (density, pitch, etc) and let us look at the end result.
It's one of the reasons why I'm always rather sceptical about the usefulness of those kinds of test results.
A good example of what I mean is the A900 - It has LOADS of DR, but it's very important to over-expose if you want it, the highlight detail seems to be recoverable forever, but it's easy to get noisy shadows. The Olympus E3 is just the opposite with blown highlights being the biggest issue, but with shadow detail fairly noiseless.
As for the G1, I DO like the output - colour is good, crisp etc. but I don't know it well enough to be able to make an absolute judgement.