I was with you all the way, William, until you attacked Khen (as far as
I know a non-native English speaker) for his garbling of an English
expression. Attack him even more vigorously if he's the guy who wrote
the Oly manuals but not for his English usage in an email. Back off a
bit. Have another cup.
But the rest of your criticisms are right on target.
Chuck Norcutt
William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>The E-3 will be extremely close to an effective pixel count of around
>>10.2 to 11Mp. No, the E-3 will not compare directly with its natural
>>rivals if one were to use pixels as a yardstick. It's pretty much
>
> uncannily
>
>>similiar to the battle between AMD and Intel in the computing industry
>>where the former might have a "slower" clockspeed but in effect, runs
>>as fast as the latter.
>>Remember this and remember well, the Four-Third's sensor does not
>>require the same number of megapixels to beat a full-frame 35mm sensor.
>
>
> This is the worst sort of wishful thinking. PROVE IT. That's not a
> rhetorical remark, PROVE IT.
>
> All things being equal, a larger sensor allows more pixels, or larger pixels
> for the same pixel count, or some combination of these, resulting in greater
> resolution, lower noise at high ISOs, or some improvement in both.
>
> Is Olympus party to new laws of optics and physics that other camera makers
> aren't aware of? PROVE WHAT YOU SAY. Don't swallow claims without
> understanding them.
>
> It's worth noting that reviews of the E-500 (which I recently bought, mostly
> because I got a really good deal) have remarked that noise levels above 400
> ISO are not as low as those from cameras with larger sensors. Is anyone
> reading this surprised?
>
> By the way, my "learning curve" with the E-500 has been the longest and
> shallowest, by far, of any product of any type I've ever owned. The camera's
> basic operation is trivial -- you don't need even to glance at the
> quick-start sheet -- but understanding the features well enough to take full
> advantage of them is another matter. The user manual is utter garbage (and
> the manual for the FL-36 flash even worse -- megapixels.net complained about
> it), written by people who understand neither the English language,
> photography, nor this particular camera. (You should have heard the
> insulting response I got from an idiot, not-dry-behind-the-ears
> customer-service managers when I complained.)
>
> I'm in the process of finishing a critical letter, which Vince Marino has
> promised he will read and pass along. No offense, Vince, if you're reading
> this, but Olympus is no different from any other Japanese company -- they're
> so afraid of losing face by being proved "wrong" that they refuse to listen
> to their customers' complaints.
>
>
>
>>Maitani's suggestion for the OM-5 did not pass the mustard
>>with the board.
>
>
> This is OT and perhaps a little too ad-hominem to be justified, but as a
> professional writer, I have to say something about the way people mangle and
> conflate metaphoric expressions.
>
> It should be "did not cut the mustard" or "did not pass muster".
>
> Why do people use such expressions when they haven't given one microsecond's
> thought to what they're saying? Consider the recent condensation of "The
> proof of the pudding is in the eating" to "The proof is in the pudding."
> Don't use words and expressions unless you know what they mean.
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|