He's made one murkocentric error - the test unit I just sent back was
the SE kit - it came with the 17.5-45mm lens. Not impressed with the
lens - very light and cheap and not as sharp as the 14-45mm. I did a
fast comparison of both of them against the 50/2 macro - unfair, I
know, but have you ANY idea how much better the 50mm was?! Seems like
they halved the cost from the 14-54mm to the 14-45mm and have halved
it again for the new one.
Frankly I had trouble with the camera - it made me realise just how
forgiving the CMOS chip in my 10D is. I was constantly reaching for
the exposure compensation button. With the cheap lens it felt light
and unbalanced and the new design looked much the same on the shelf
as the competition - dull. I liked the E-300 design, iconoclast that
I am. I didn't think the new fider too bad but the display list on
the right side is not too easy to read or even remember - doesn't
make its presence felt. I like a nice big bright reminder that I'm
about to make a mistake.
My cousin and I also did a noise comparison down in the farm shed-
all ISO settings in RAW on 1 second exposures. 200 fine, 400 quite
good, 800 needs post processing and 1600 is not really acceptable at
A4 size, even with de-noising. I'll put my efforts up on my pBase
page soon.
I am now playing with the tiny Ricoh GR-Digital and it is really
something. Details supplied to gear heads and gadget tragics on
request. You'll want this!
AndrewF
On 09/11/2005, at 5:12 PM, Winsor Crosby wrote:
> Jeff Keller's review is up:
>
> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/olympus/e500-review/index.shtml
>
>
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California, USA
>
>
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|