[Leica] 4/3 arguments

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

Its always educational and revealing or enlightening to see such a full or
near full sized file as is rare to see on the LUG. The first one at 1600 is
totally grain and noise free while there is some crispness in the second 400
iso file. How the first got that way is not in the metadata. It appears to
be mushed or smushed. What was it you put though? It almost appears at 1:1
to be jpeged at a severe setting but I have a feeling its not it. Its just
been de noised I would think in Photoshop as that's what I would have done
to it.  Maybe done in the raw stage. I'd not put it through such a high
setting though. Can see see the original without the de noising I'm guessing
it would be many times sharper? I do like the shot but it does have the look
of being overly "stepped on". Amazing at f4 the depth of field of a wide in
the 2x crop format.

--------------------
Mark William Rabiner
Photography
mark at rabinergroup.com


> From: Neal Friedenthal <neal at photoneal.com>
> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 00:13:58 -0400
> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Subject: [Leica] 4/3 arguments
> 
>   Seems that most of the criticism of the 4/3 system has to do with High
> ISO noise, and resolution here are a couple of shots with the Olympus e-p2;
> 
> The one of the cannons was taken at iso 1600 with an Olympus 4/3 7-14mm
> at 7mm,
> 
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/neal+f/misc+photos/artgar+_1+of+1_.jpg.html
> 
> The second, the flag, taken at iso 400 with a Leica 50mm f1.4 Summilux
> 
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/neal+f/misc+photos/flag+_1+of+1__1.jpg.html
> 
> scan down the left side of the flag image on the enlarged version.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information