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
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|