Read it here: http://kenrockwell.com/olympus/e-p1.htm
And he made a very short and very provocant Leica D-Lux4 review after playing only 3 minutes with camera!
Read it here: http://kenrockwell.com/olympus/e-p1.htm
And he made a very short and very provocant Leica D-Lux4 review after playing only 3 minutes with camera!
*Please also check your spam folder if you don't get the confirmation mail. And mark the mail as "non-spam" to see the future newsletter.
6 Responses
although i share many thoughts with ken rockwell hes is not always right:
“…and if I want serious results from a small camera, I shoot the Nikon D40 which has a sensor with double the area of the Olympus E-P1”
is simply wrong….
I think Ken Rockwell is a bit out of his mind, his articles, while contain a form of logic, sound like they are written by an angry 10-year old, or in case of Nikon equipment, like a 10-year old that have been handed a candy
“I shoot the Nikon D40 which has a sensor with double the area of the Olympus E-P1”
E-P1 sensor (active area) = 17*13.5mm = 229.5mm^2
D40 sensor* = 23.7*15.6mm = 369.72mm^2
369.72/229.5 = 1.611
1.611 =/= 2
*Unsure as to if this is the active area or just the sensor size. So the difference might even be slightly less.
Sorry, that should have been 17.3*13= 224.9 . Which still gives you a difference of 1.644.
Also the sensor itself is 18*13.5=243 . Going by that [369.72/243] you get 1.521.
Well, that’s his opinion, but he has a point too…..
Maybe, he’ll change his mind when he’s used it , LOL :D.
….and he stomped that D-lux4 pretty hard, but that’s the truth :(.
Three minutes fiddling the Leica to not actually having the Olympus camera yet. That’s sad. What was the point of that E-P1 thing other than getting his ads up? I’d rather drive syringes under my toenails than click on anything on that site.