That's text, of course, which I was quoting.
I wonder if the author really means "little ... additional gain in
*sensitivity that could affect* image quality"? I'm pretty sure he doesn't
mean that sensor size is the only thing that affects image quality.
Joel W.
At 07:26 AM 1/18/2005 +0800, you wrote:
>In a previous message you mentioned:
>
> > Generally, the current technology (and, to some extent, the
> > laws of physics) defines some pixel count above which, for a given sensor
> > size, there is little, if any, additional gain in image quality. I would
> > guess this limit, for the 4/3 sensor size, is somewhere between 5 and 8
> > MP.
>
>That is the point I disagree about, even with the C8080's tiny sensor, it
>hold the 8MP resolution so well that it even comparable to 20D.
>
>C.H.Ling
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joel Wilcox" <jowilcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 2:22 AM
>Subject: [OM] Re: Evolt review
>
>
> > What is the point you are trying to make about sensor size? It must be
> > very obvious, but I am missing it.
> >
> > Joel W.
> >
> > At 10:49 PM 1/17/2005 +0800, you wrote:
> >
> >>First, the E-300 has 4 times the sensor size than the C8080. Second, at
> >>such
> >>low ISO I don't think there is any influence on the resolution, if yes
> >>Olympus would have made the E-300 go down to ISO50.
> >>
> >>C.H.Ling
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Joel Wilcox" <jowilcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, I am actually sticking with the C-8080. My interpretation of the
> >> > review is that the C-8080 bested the E300. The tests were a bit
> >> > mismatched
> >> > because the C-8080 was shot at ASA 50 and the E300 can go no slower
> >> > than
> >> > 100.
> >> >
> >> > Joel W.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|