FK Olympus wrote:
ISO 200雜訊就很明顯了
D300的ISO800都不會這麼糟糕
E-3使用ISO200在光線較差的情況下，雜訊真的就很明顯了。
另一個缺點...4/3系統的機子好像都沒有FE-Lock，搞得外閃系統有時不如內閃好調整
不過實在沒有理由讓我換家，換到哪家可以用5萬元買到防塵防滴的機器來用？
Windwaker wrote:
看來大家都不喜歡閱讀......連Windwalker我也同樣不喜歡...(恕刪)
你懷疑那兩張是LCD與EVF的比較??
哈..哈...哈......人家說你不懂英文, 給你台階下你不會下, 現在想下都來不及了
這個是image resource的原文:
When shooting JPEGs, the Panasonic G1's 14-45mm O.I.S. kit lens produced about 0.4 percent barrel distortion at wide-angle, which is a good bit below average among the cameras we've tested, and hardly noticeable in most of its images. At the telephoto end, there was hardly one pixel of barrel distortion, practically imperceptible. This is the tendency for the lens to bend straight lines outward (like a barrel -- usually at wide-angle) or inward (like a pincushion -- usually at telephoto). We suspected the camera may be correcting distortion in JPEGs (a good thing for JPEG shooters), so we converted RAW files with dcraw, which does not correct for distortion. (SilkyPix and Adobe Camera Raw both apply distortion correction automatically, so their results are similar to in-camera JPEGs.) As you can see, at wide angle, the barrel distortion is very high at 1.7 percent, however distortion at telephoto is still practically nil.
原文連結在此, 不怕你看, 只怕你不敢看
感謝Windwaker大師, 讓我在螢幕前笑好久
meridian wrote:
你懷疑那兩張是LCD...(恕刪)
我還怕你不回哩，看看你老兄的原文
＂最近panasonic的G1有兩個很可笑的地方, 完全不鳥olympus直射光那套說法
1. 變形不修正, 靠軟體修正變形
2. 不僅不鳥直射光, 還用軟體修正邊緣失光
14-45廣角端修正前, 第三方軟體開啟RAW檔
14-45廣角端修正後, 機身JPEG
由此可見panasonic想走跟olympus完全相反的路
可能Leica都受不了, G1那兩支kit鏡上面已經沒有Leica字樣了XD＂
你當中連結的圖片在這邊
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCG1/DMCG1A7.HTM
看看Viewfinder Accuracy/Flash Uniformity的部分
這是哪一國的JPG/RAW比較圖？
再來看看你現在裡面的內文
When shooting JPEGs, the Panasonic G1's 14-45mm O.I.S. kit lens produced about 0.4 percent barrel distortion at wide-angle, which is a good bit below average among the cameras we've tested, and hardly noticeable in most of its images. At the telephoto end, there was hardly one pixel of barrel distortion, practically imperceptible. This is the tendency for the lens to bend straight lines outward (like a barrel -- usually at wide-angle) or inward (like a pincushion -- usually at telephoto). We suspected the camera may be correcting distortion in JPEGs (a good thing for JPEG shooters), so we converted RAW files with dcraw, which does not correct for distortion. (SilkyPix and Adobe Camera Raw both apply distortion correction automatically, so their results are similar to in-camera JPEGs.) As you can see, at wide angle, the barrel distortion is very high at 1.7 percent, however distortion at telephoto is still practically nil.
要不要我翻譯成英文啊
裡面直接講廣角端的變形
G1像是和LX3一樣JPG直接修正
RAW變形就比較明顯
你紅色的部分是講說JPG機身直接修正變形
請問哪段寫沒有直射光啊？
哪裡寫修正邊緣啊
哪邊啊？
不知道是誰要找台階下
睜眼說瞎話到這種地步
我看你和SMC都去修英文吧
才不會一天到晚放無薪假
1. 關於 Windwaker 君認定 meridian 君引用失當一事，應該是誤判。原因是：Windwaker 點選引述圖下方的 “Sample Picture Pages"，而被連到的網頁相關區在討論的正是觀景和閃燈。但是，事實上與 meridian 引用圖相關的討論是之後 meridian 所告知的另一篇 G1 測試報告的後半段（distorsion）。 （若點入原圖，每一張都是 4000x3000 3~6MB 的 JPEG 大圖)
2. 至於 micro 4/3 是否未讓光線近垂直接觸 CCD，小弟並沒有看到有文章特別陳述。即便是 4/3 的官網在介紹 m 4/3 時也沒提到隻字半語。如果小弟是規格的推動者，新的鏡頭仍能保有此特性，一定會大書特書。也難免會讓人聯想因為鏡後距離縮短，角度因此變大。不過 ...... 比較玩味的是這一篇早期的E1 Review，文中提到 O 家的鏡頭平行垂直接觸 CCD。若 m 4/3 鏡頭特性是如此，那就沒有鏡後距離縮短的因素了。
3. 銳利 ..... 只是一個因子；整體的表現，會因眾人口味、用途、諸多考量不同，而有取捨。或許，有極致的機種，但不一定每個人都喜歡或願意擁有。或許正因手邊的器材的不完美，而散發出其特有的風格。就像忠實反應原色有時會被嫌色彩平淡；而色彩略偏飽和還比較討喜。
好 ..... 大家繼續
潛水 ........
cedric8tpe wrote:
2. 至於 micro 4/3 是否未讓光線近垂直接觸 CCD，小弟並沒有看到有文章特別陳述。即便是 4/3 的官網在介紹 m 4/3 時也沒提到隻字半語。如果小弟是規格的推動者，新的鏡頭仍能保有此特性，一定會大書特書。也難免會讓人聯想因為鏡後距離縮短，角度因此變大。不過 ...... 比較玩味的是這一篇早期的E1 Review，文中提到 O 家的鏡頭平行垂直接觸 CCD。若 m 4/3 鏡頭特性是如此，那就沒有鏡後距離縮短的因素了。...(恕刪)
鏡後距越短(應該說鏡片距離sensor越近), 越不可能有直射光, 這是必然的結果
光是不可能全部垂直照射到CCD的, 因為那樣根本不能成像
成像的條件就是要有不同的入射光"交會"在焦平面的某個點, 這樣才有辦法成像
所有的光都平行是不能成像的
這樣的圖國中應該有看過吧, 成像是這樣成像的
meridian wrote:
鏡後距越短(應該說鏡...(恕刪)
是的，那是國中所學的凸透鏡的光跡。可是我們用的鏡頭裡不單單只有凸透鏡還有凹透鏡，加上材質鍍膜不同，非小弟這種等級的人所能推導。
不過參考 4/3 的官網介紹，該網頁最下面三張圖最中間的那一張有個 "Telecentric Optical Systems" 字眼，經搜尋後可參考Telecentric Optical Systems (遠心光學系統) 的解說。若此，是否代表大家在談論的鏡頭的光跡近垂直接觸 CCD，所以不因距離有太大改變？
潛水 ........
Windwaker wrote:
It's proba...(恕刪)
At the upper end of the tonal scale, dynamic range is dictated by the point at which the RGB data "saturates" at values of 255, 255, 255. At the lower end of the tonal scale, dynamic range is determined by the point at which there ceases to be any useful difference between adjacent tonal steps.
What you said isn't true at all.
E3 only has 6.42 f-stop DR if we use the highest image quality standard.
Part of the reason for this is due to the high noise in the dark area, which is unacceptable for large quality prints.
You can check out Image-Resource, DXOMark or other site ranking the camera by dynamic range.
4/3 scored poorly in DR.
DXOMark gave E3 10.5/15. However, even the Canon 10D got 10.9! Nikon D90 got 12.5.
Image-Resource gave E3 10.3 from RAW output and 9.32 from JPEG. Canon 40D got 11.2 from RAW and 10.6 from JPEG.
If you don't agree with Image-Resource, DXOMark, and you think DPReview just don't like Olympus... Which site/article did you read conclude 4/3 as the best DR camera among its competitor?
我的 Blog
http://snowmen-world.blogspot.com/
內文搜尋
從 APP 打開
X