That is just bizarre. I haven't a clue as to what he is talking about
in that review. Since he seems to think the "studio lighting" and the
lens are important he is apparently confusing sharpness with
resolution. Or maybe his software is counting lit up pixels. In that
case the black bands(unlit pixels) at the top and bottom because of
the 4/3 format and he does not realize it.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Jul 15, 2005, at 4:43 PM, Mark Dapoz wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 rlovison@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> And you took a review which claimed:
>
> "we concluded the EVOLT E-300, using its 14-45mm kit lens, only
> utilized
> 4.55 of its 8 advertised megapixels for imaging. This is an
> extremely low
> score that is inferior to any DSLR we have tested to date and
> much more in
> line with substandard point-and-shoot models."
>
> seriously? There are so many flaws in that "review" that it's hard
> to imagine
> they weren't paid by the competition to write it :-)
> -mark
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|