Post (hide subjects)	Posted by	When
The review is in - E300	Nonproductive1	Jan 10, 2005
The expected "Recommended" rating is in :-)	Bram Bos	Jan 10, 2005
Re: The expected "Recommended" rating is in :-)	hello goodbyte	Jan 10, 2005
Re: The expected "Recommended" rating is in :-)	mcvector	Jan 10, 2005
Not a troll, but...	malc	Jan 10, 2005
Re: Not a troll, but...	bradleys	Jan 10, 2005
High ISO? Me, never!	CG Anderson	Jan 10, 2005
Re: High ISO? Me, never!	swardo	Jan 10, 2005
Re: High ISO? Me, never!	bradleys	Jan 10, 2005
Re: High ISO? Me, never!	mcbevin	Jan 10, 2005
These people buy an E-300	Bram Bos	Jan 10, 2005
Re: These people buy an E-300	mcbevin	Jan 10, 2005
Re: These people buy an E-300	Bram Bos	Jan 10, 2005
Re: These people buy an E-300	Quest21	Jan 10, 2005
Re: These people buy an E-300	mcbevin	Jan 10, 2005
And a proper zoom ring...	skallas	Jan 12, 2005
25 years? Kodachrome 300?	Steve Bingham	Jan 10, 2005
Pushed?	CG Anderson	Jan 10, 2005
Re: High ISO? Me, never!	malc	Jan 10, 2005
Re: Not a troll, but...	swardo	Jan 10, 2005
Re: Not a troll, but...	bradleys	Jan 10, 2005
Re: Not a troll, but...	Olivia T. BvG	Jan 10, 2005
Re: Not a troll, but...	Bram Bos	Jan 10, 2005
troll here	Jahfakin	Jan 10, 2005
Re: troll here	Chris Alcala MD	Jan 10, 2005
Re: The expected "Recommended" rating is in :-)	dgrogers	Jan 10, 2005
Re: The expected "Recommended" rating is in :-)	pallsopp42	Jan 10, 2005
Re: The expected "Recommended" rating is in :-)	Jahfakin	Jan 10, 2005
Re: The expected "Recommended" rating is in :-)	Bram Bos	Jan 10, 2005
Re: The expected "Recommended" rating is in :-)	Cdn Goose	Jan 13, 2005
Noise	Simon Courcha	Jan 10, 2005
Re: Noise	Jahfakin	Jan 10, 2005
Re: Noise	Bram Bos	Jan 10, 2005
Re: Noise	Jahfakin	Jan 10, 2005
Re: Noise	Simon Courcha	Jan 10, 2005
Re: The review is in - E300	OM Fan	Jan 10, 2005
Re: The review is in - E300	epsdigital	Jan 10, 2005
Re: The review is in - E300	Alan Wu	Jan 10, 2005
yes, that makes sense...	Jogger	Jan 10, 2005
Re: yes, that makes sense...	Ron Parr	Jan 10, 2005
Re: yes, that makes sense...	lglass	Jan 10, 2005
How about SSWF?	Dick Rijken	Jan 10, 2005
Re: yes, that makes sense...	mcbevin	Jan 10, 2005
Re: The review is in - E300	Phil Askey	Jan 10, 2005
Re: The review is in - E300	Bruce-K	Jan 10, 2005
I partly agree / high ISO	Cephalotus	Jan 10, 2005
Re: I partly agree / high ISO	theponja	Jan 10, 2005
Re: The review is in - E300	epsdigital	Jan 10, 2005
Thanks for the review Phil	ken White	Jan 10, 2005
Re: The review is in - E300	Ron Parr	Jan 10, 2005
High ISO -- its about more than just noise	Jeff	Jan 10, 2005
Right on Jeff!	jrg	Jan 10, 2005
Re: High ISO -- its about more than just noise	Ron Parr	Jan 10, 2005
Re: High ISO -- its about more than just noise	Sheld	Jan 10, 2005
Re: High ISO -- its about more than just noise	Jeff	Jan 10, 2005
ISO 1600 rocks!	Dick Rijken	Jan 10, 2005
Re: right on dick! n/t	jrg	Jan 10, 2005
Re: ISO 1600 rocks!	RNPhoto	Jan 12, 2005
Great review! Thanks, Phil.	Steve Bingham	Jan 10, 2005
Re: The review is in - E300	Scott Larson	Jan 10, 2005
Time to bite the bullet	OM Fan	Jan 11, 2005
Re: The review is in - E300	Robert From San Diego	Jan 10, 2005
From a canon 20D user	Howie Mudge	Jan 10, 2005
Makes a great "8080 Mk2" Howie	AdamT	Jan 10, 2005
Re: Makes a great "8080 Mk2" Howie	lensman	Jan 10, 2005
Re: The review is in - E300	Nonproductive1	Jan 10, 2005
Re: The review is in - E300	Don Karner	Jan 10, 2005
Re: The review is in - E300	Bram Bos	Jan 10, 2005
Re: The review is in - E300	colin britton	Jan 10, 2005
Overall, a nice review	Kevin Barrett	Jan 10, 2005
Re: The review is in - E300	pumacheung	Jan 10, 2005
No b/w samples	John Brewton	Jan 10, 2005
Noise measurements in reviews	DSPographer	Jan 10, 2005
Re: Noise measurements in reviews (table corrected)	DSPographer	Jan 10, 2005
Re: Noise measurements in reviews (table corrected)	swardo	Jan 12, 2005
Re: Noise measurements in reviews (table corrected)	DSPographer	Jan 12, 2005
Re: The review is in - E300	Quest21	Jan 10, 2005
How big should it be???	Robert From San Diego	Jan 11, 2005
Re: How big should it be???	Quest21	Jan 11, 2005
but that was suppose to be why 4/3 was an advantage	swardo	Jan 12, 2005
Re: but that was suppose to be why 4/3 was an advantage	Bram Bos	Jan 12, 2005
Isn't NYC beautiful? (nt)	detefon	Jan 11, 2005

Forum

Parent

First

Next unread

Keyboard shortcuts:

FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads

Color scheme? Blue / Yellow

Editorial content

Product database

Community

FLICKR	150
Would you move to a full frame DSLR?	150
* this week through your m43 - 2013.05.20 *	84
Why is the 55-210 so big?	74
Sony A mount cameras could go mirrorless in 2014	67
Do you change lenses in the fields?	66
OMD Shutter shock revisited...and a possible ...	63
To owners of M4/3 and D-SLRs: which came first?	51
Pentax FF rumor gaining steam	51
stolen D800 in Paris.	45
My Friend + his daughter for retouch	44
Why does my photo lack detail...?	44
Macro lens for micro four thirds, any good choice?	40
Has digital stitching made high megapixel ...	40
Struggling with new AF-S 80-400mm	35
I sold my Canon...	34
It's time to stop whining about Adobe. . .	32
NYC Nightscapes	27
Wife Dropped My 2 Week Old RX100 :(	27
*Monday Macro/Closeup 20 May 2013*	27