Thanks for posting that. Personally I think he's way, way, off.
I took a quick look to see what was available with higher resolution than an
E-300. A C*non 5D will give about 19% more resolution for "normal" aspect
ratio images. The 5D has more going for it than resolution but $3000 vs.
about $700? I think the E-300 / E-500 is what Olympus had in mind.
His belief that bigger CCD's will always be better ... ? When small is good
enough, small wins. Cost is very important.
-jeff
(too bad C*non didn't re-think the aspect ratio)
----Original Message Follows----
From: Richard Lovison <rlovison@xxxxxxxxx>
I came across the following post in the dpreview Olympus SLR forum. I
thought I'd post it here to see what you technical ones think of it.
Richard
*******************************************************************************The
imaging CCD used in the 4/3rds dSLRs is smaller than the APS and
"full-frame" sensors used by competing manufacturers. Any technological
advances for improving signal to noise ratio or dynamic range of the 4/3rds
size chip can also be applied to the larger sensors used by the competition.
Therefore, 4/3rds dSLRs will always lag behind the competition in image
quality. Of course, this argument applies only to 1-chip cameras. If 2 or 3
imaging sensors are used in the dSLR - it becomes a whole new ballgame.
snip
For an illustration, examine the optical path diagram for
the Minolta RD-3000, which is a 2-chip dSLR design from 5 years ago:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/rd3000.html
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|