I've been experimenting with it on the E-300 and the D-50. I have a
19' TFT monitor which is pretty faithful and comparing shots done in
sRGB and aRGB taken in .jpeg mode, I can't tell the difference. I
have a pretty good color sense, so I don't think it's that.


Here's a thought: My Nikon manual tells me that when I shoot jpegs in aRGB,
that nugget of information regarding color space is included in the EXIF
data. If the viewing/printing hardware/software is intelligent, it will
read the color space from the EXIF data and automatically compensate. Maybe
what you're witnessing is the photos after being automatically compensated
for color space. The auto compensation should theoreticaly bring any photo
shot in any color space back to pretty much a baseline color gamut, I would
think. Sort of like adjusting white balance to compensate for different
colored light sources to remove any light-induced color cast and present the
photo in light-neutral color.



Mode III is the sRGB space with a higher saturation of colors, especially
greens. It affords more vivid landscapes.

Now here's something else. Do you use graduated neutral density
filters when you shoot landscapes? The one problem that I've noticed
with the Oly and the Nikon is that the zonal metering systems have
trouble metering sky vs ground and vice versa. I bought a set of B&W
GNDFs and noticed a definite improvement in what I'm shooting.

I don't, although it's the correct solution for dealing with bright skies
and darker ground. It seems to be even more important with digital, with
its lower dynamic range than print film. Digital dynamic range has often
been compared to transparency film. Sometimes the effect of a GNDF can be
simulated to a small degree in your editing software, but I've had limited
success with it. I finaly got around to buying a good quality (B&W)
circular polarizer. I used to always shoot landscapes with a polarizer back
in my film days, and finally broke down and got one for my Nikon 18-200
lens. I haven't had much time lately to shoot with it


I can bracket WB in ORF (RAW) so I'm not sure I understand your
comment. All RAW does is put the basic image data with the widest
possible amount of color composition - white balance is more of a
correction by the camera so if you correct or bracket WB in RAW, that
is reflected in the data.

Yes/No?

Well, shooting in raw sort of renders bracket shooting for either exposure
or WB somewhat moot, since in the conversion process you can easily do
multiple conversions of the same raw shot with various exposure and white
balance adjustments, with little or no detrimental effect to the resulting
jpegs. After-the-fact bracketing, if you will. In fact, that, in my
opinion, is the primary advantage to shooting raw. What I was trying to
communicate was that much of that same effect of doing multiple raw
conversions with various EV and WB adjustments can best be simulated when
shooting jpegs by using EV bracketing and WB bracketing while you shoot.
This is essentially the same thing as doing multiple conversions from raw,
it's just that it is done in the camera, and results in multiples of jpegs
on the card. It's a better way to allow for such adjusments than not
bracketing jpegs and expecting to get the same range of possible results by
post-editing a single non-bracketed jpeg shot of a scene in your editing
software. If I think I'm shooting an outstanding scene, I'll usually shoot
a single raw shot (for a given composition), and then bracketed jpegs, and
then see what comes out best in post-editing. My limited experience has
typically favored one version of the bracketed jpegs for the scene over the
raw shot, but not always. Which is why I do both in that situation. But
for everyday shots, I don't bother with raw.



Much of this can be accomplished by
shooting JPEG's with exposure and WB bracketing. Beyond this feature, I
find raw to be a bit over-hyped and more trouble than it's worth. Not
surprisingly, I don't find raw the most compelling reason to shoot with a
DSLR (there are a few higher-end point and shoots that also allow raw
shooting). These are my reasons for preferring a DSLR format camera:

All valid points and good ones, but I still think that a p-n-s can be
as effective as a DSLR even at lower resolutions - not in all
situations I'll grant you, but within their basic technologies, they
can be a great tool for those situations where you need to get a
picture or as you said, a backup.

Currently, I keep the D-50 in the truck along with a Oly C-7070 as a
backup. I use my Oly E-330 for those special situations in which I
want to make sure I get the best image I can. It's a personal choice
- back in the film days, I had the OM series cameras and liked them
much better than the F-1 that I inherited. That just translated over
to the digital space with the E-1, which I still use occasionally, and
subsequently to the E-300 which I gave to one of the kids when I
bought the E-330. Another kid will get the E-330 when my Christmas
present shows up. I bet you'll never figure out that that will be.
:)


E-500?

We ought to set up a photography competition sometime - we have a lot
of people with decent cameras and the willingness to use them. I'd be
willing to give some web space on my site to set something like that
up.

Hmmm - must give that some thought.

I'm in.