My interpretation was that Olympus was claiming that the tiny sensor
cells used to get 10 million pixels were just as good as the not quite
as tiny sensor cells used to get 8 million pixels. They probably feel
the market place is quite happy with the performance of 8 Mpixel
cameras and want to head off criticism that the 10 Mpixel sensor have
sacrificed desireable performance just to get to 10 Mpixels.
I think Olympus was seeing a lot of criticism for the quite old
E-1design not having been updated. They wanted to show fourthirds has
many developments going on. Probably the production costs, yields, and
delivery date of the sensor used in the E-400 didn't reach the goals
they had. Rather than completely drop it they sold it in a limited
market.
... but anyone's guess is at least as good as mine.
-jeff
On 3/6/07, Frank van Lindert <Frank.van@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Moose. Thank you (and all the others replying to my posting) for
> the information.
> I am still wondering why Olympus itself made the comparison between
> 410 and 400, coming up with the sentence
>
> "The new 10-million pixel Live MOS sensor reproduces images with rich
> gradations equivalent to an 8-million pixel CCD"
>
> I cannot understand it in another way than that the images of a
> 10-million CCD must be "richer in gradations" than the 10-million NMOS
> or 8-million CCD, according to Olympus' statement.
>
> It is also hard to see why two cameras (being almost each others
> lookalikes) should have different sensors. Why didn't Olympus build
> the E-400 around the MOS sensor as well, only leaving out the live
> view? The E-410 development must have been in progress when they
> marketed the E-400, so it would have been cheaper to use MOS for both
> cameras.
>
> Frank.
>
> Frank van Lindert
> Utrecht NL.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|