na strane 28 uplne dole pise

This is an interesting comparison mainly because where the 40D's RAW output looks a lot crisper than its JPEG output, running the E-3's RAW files through ACR brings little, if any advantage in terms of detail or sharpness. Having spent quite some time with the E-3's raw files (using both Olympus Studio 2.0 and ACR) it's become obvious that this isn't a case of 'not enough sharpening', but appears to be a slightly stronger than average anti-alias filter on the E-3' sensor, which limits the potential to capture sharp detail to what you see here. Probably not an issue for most users, but something pixel-peepers might find hard to swallow.
teda hovori, ze porovnaval vystup aj z olympusackeho softu oproti acr, co sa ostrosti tyka, a vystupy mal priblizne rovnake. na dalsich stranach je porovnanie rawu oproti L10, ktora ma udajne rovnaky snimac a z acr lezu ostrejsie fotky z L10 ako z E3, pri rovnakych nastaveniach. cim to je?

ale uz by mohli prejst s porovnavania jpegov na rawy


mozes sem prosim ta dat ukazky 10 az 40 sekundovych expozicii z ruky na eq. 200mm? ve to uz netreba stativ