Richard Lovison wrote:
>I've been fooling around with my wife's D-560 again. These are 2 of
>the better shots:
>
>http://www.simons-rock.edu/~rlovison/temp/Pic1.html
>
>http://www.simons-rock.edu/~rlovison/temp/Pic2.html
>
>
Both very nice! I enjoyed them.
>I was seriously considering purchasing the E-300 kit until I read the
>following review:
>
>http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Olympus-EVOLT-E-300-Digital-Camera-Review.htm
>
>The color rendition and resolution seems to leave a lot to be desired
>though the low $600's price tag for the kit looked attractive.
>
>
A very different sort of review, and sort of hard to interpret. First,
it would appear that the reviewer does or has done a lot of product
photography, where accurate, consistent color rendition is critical. No
photos of anything but test subjects, nothing outdoors or of people. So
he pans the color accuracy, then says :"Surprisingly, the colors which
many digital cameras typically embellish, red and pink (often referred
to as “skin tones,”) are more accurately represented than some cooler
hues, namely blue and green." Hmmm. That's one thing tha the E-1 is
famous for, great portrait skin tones. So what will you e shooting,
people and the outdoors or test subjects under controlled studio
lighting? Taht's why good reviewers provide lots of sample shots under
various kinds of conditions and with various kinds of subjects.
His comments on resolution/sharpness are very poorly worded and
explained. It would appear that what he does is to find the highest
resolution reading from the test chart, then calculate backwards to the
effective pixel resolution. So, for a simple example, if 200 pixels, 100
pairs, don't resolve a 100 lppmm target, but only 70 lppmm, then the
camser is only resolving at 70%. Then he multiplies that times the total
usable megapixels of the sensor and says that the camera "is only using
x.x of its y.y pixels. This is an unfortunate, and I think innacurate,
way to characterize the results.
Beyond that, it says nothing whatsoever about the resolving power of the
camera, but only that of the lens. You may notice that the resolution
tests of the E-300 on dpreview were done with the 50/2, saying "The
optimum 'test lens', a sharp fast prime lens the 50 mm F2.0 Macro was an
obvious choice for us when comparing Four Thirds digital cameras to
other D-SLR's." and concludes, "Good resolution, almost as good as the
more expensive Canon EOS 20D"
So, the test perhaps doesn't speak very well of the resolution of the
14-45 mm lens. And yet... he has labeled the section to include both
resolution, which he tests at high contrast only, and sharpness, which
is a much more subjective combination of resolution, contrast at various
parts of the response curve, edge contrast and other factors. When I
read dpreview tests closely, one part I hardly look at is the high
contrast target resolution tests. I just look at the summary text at the
bottom to find out if there is a problem relative to competitive
camera/lens combos. I think the studio comparison shots and the samples
in the gallery are much more informative about what results one can
expect in normal use.
I think the noise conclusions are also overstated, based on other
reviews and sample images. And that's from someone who thinks the noise
is too high above 200 iso.
This is all in the way of saying with more detail and explanation what
others have said; this review doesn't tell one very much of use.
None of this is in any way an endorsement of the E-300, nor a
recommendation against it, just my reading of some apparent flaws with
the methodology and write-up of this particular review.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|