E1 Full Review In Amateur Photographer

[kevinslegg]

I thought people might be interested to know that this weeks Amateur Photographer magazine have published a full review on the E-1.

In respect of the 'noise' issue, they say that it gives better results than film up to and including ISO 800.

They state that it is good at capturing the finest detail in a 'natural' rather than 'digital' fashion.

In respect of pixel quantity thet state that its results compare very favourably with its 6mil competitors and is distinctly betterthan some of them when it comes to producing 'dramatic' enlargements.

On the negative side they sate that the AF can be confused in some low light situations, and the ESP metering can be fooled by extreme highlights - they suggest in such sitiations the use of spot metering will avoid the problem.

They conclude by saying "...to suggest the E-1 is in some way defective is quite simply wrong. It is more the case that there are so few faults in its performance that the minor points become more noticeable."

They give the E-1 a score of 95 out of 100 made up of Specification 28/30; Build 20/20; Handling 19/20 and performance 28/30.

I understand that their tests reports are available from http://www.testreports.co.uk/photography/ap

 

[buzz light-buster]

those test findings.

There seem to be a fundamental difference between CMOS- and CCD-technology in certain aspects.

Regarding enlargements:

Saw 40 to 60 inch E-1-enlargments - simply stunning.

Sharpness settings for large enlargements may preferrably be set at -3.

I know, sounds contradictive to what we've read here before.

For smaller sizes hard settings may be recommended.

With its dramatic enlargement capability the E-1 has astonishing potential. No need - at least for me - for a 9 or 12mp.

Am, after all, not in the billboard business.

Buzz

 

[DavidMillier]

I buy AP quite frequently, but I must say I find their reviews of digital cameras controversial.

This one wasn't by Damien who can normally be relied upon to slag off anything digital and it was by far the most positive review I've seen them do. But it still contained a number of little errors (or perhaps I should say dubious assertions) about some aspects of the digital process. Frustrating.

AP are not alone in this but these days when I read UK photo rags I'm always left with the lingering feeling that as far as digital reviewing is concerned, they don't hold a candle to DPR.

I don't know how other people feel but I find in general that my sense of respect for journalists was higher in the days when I had no personal knowledge of the facts of a story!

These days I do have some personal knowlege of a few events that have made it to the press (technical & news stories) and I've been surprised at the inaccuracies in the reports - often just basic fact checking you would assume would be expected of a professional writer.

I guess it takes a pretty dedicated individual to produce stuff as generally useful as Phil's reviews...

I thought people might be interested to know that this weeks
Amateur Photographer magazine have published a full review on the
E-1.

In respect of the 'noise' issue, they say that it gives better
results than film up to and including ISO 800.

They state that it is good at capturing the finest detail in a
'natural' rather than 'digital' fashion.

In respect of pixel quantity thet state that its results compare
very favourably with its 6mil competitors and is distinctly
betterthan some of them when it comes to producing 'dramatic'
enlargements.

On the negative side they sate that the AF can be confused in some
low light situations, and the ESP metering can be fooled by extreme
highlights - they suggest in such sitiations the use of spot
metering will avoid the problem.

They conclude by saying "...to suggest the E-1 is in some way
defective is quite simply wrong. It is more the case that there are
so few faults in its performance that the minor points become more
noticeable."

They give the E-1 a score of 95 out of 100 made up of Specification
28/30; Build 20/20; Handling 19/20 and performance 28/30.

I understand that their tests reports are available from
http://www.testreports.co.uk/photography/ap

 

[BJL]

Sharpness settings for large enlargements may preferrably be set at -3.

Meaning the minimum, so probably no in-camera sharpening at all? If you are then sharpening as part of the post-processing and enlargement, I suppose that does not contradict other reports I have read: they talk about +2, but for the sake of images that are ready to use with no further processing.

 

[BJL]

I don't know how other people feel but I find in general that my
sense of respect for journalists was higher in the days when I had
no personal knowledge of the facts of a story!

Ideally, every citizen should witness a significant and somewhat controversial news event, look carefully, and then see how the papers and other media report it. The first time I had this opportunity, I was stunned at the inaccuracies on even simple things like crowd estimates; a few follow-ups have all confirmed. Reading reporting on technical topics that one happens to know about gives the same results.

 

[Dave Oddie]

AP are not alone in this but these days when I read UK photo rags
I'm always left with the lingering feeling that as far as digital
reviewing is concerned, they don't hold a candle to DPR.

No one is perfect and I suspect neither is DPR.

I think there is room for both.

Mags like AP (well AP in particular) will try and get the best results out of a camera and may even include post processing to do that. They will assertain the best sharpness and white balance settings and give you examples of their best shots and tell you how they got them.

The DPR test shots are all normally taken on the "P" setting or equivalent with all image parameters set to default - even if Phil may make a passing comment during the review that (say) normal sharpness is too hard. In my opinion that then makes the galleries on here next to totally useless.

It may be appropriate for true P&S cameras to be tested on "P" with everything at default, bit not a D-SLR or even a pro-sumer type of camera.

Dave

 

[nick66davis]

I buy AP quite frequently, but I must say I find their reviews of
digital cameras controversial.

This one wasn't by Damien who can normally be relied upon to slag
off anything digital and it was by far the most positive review
I've seen them do. But it still contained a number of little errors
(or perhaps I should say dubious assertions) about some aspects of
the digital process. Frustrating.

For those of us who have not read the AP review would you mind describing some of these errors/dubious assertions??

AP are not alone in this but these days when I read UK photo rags
I'm always left with the lingering feeling that as far as digital
reviewing is concerned, they don't hold a candle to DPR.

I don't know how other people feel but I find in general that my
sense of respect for journalists was higher in the days when I had
no personal knowledge of the facts of a story!

These days I do have some personal knowlege of a few events that
have made it to the press (technical & news stories) and I've been
surprised at the inaccuracies in the reports - often just basic
fact checking you would assume would be expected of a professional
writer.

I guess it takes a pretty dedicated individual to produce stuff as
generally useful as Phil's reviews...

I thought people might be interested to know that this weeks
Amateur Photographer magazine have published a full review on the
E-1.

In respect of the 'noise' issue, they say that it gives better
results than film up to and including ISO 800.

They state that it is good at capturing the finest detail in a
'natural' rather than 'digital' fashion.

In respect of pixel quantity thet state that its results compare
very favourably with its 6mil competitors and is distinctly
betterthan some of them when it comes to producing 'dramatic'
enlargements.

On the negative side they sate that the AF can be confused in some
low light situations, and the ESP metering can be fooled by extreme
highlights - they suggest in such sitiations the use of spot
metering will avoid the problem.

They conclude by saying "...to suggest the E-1 is in some way
defective is quite simply wrong. It is more the case that there are
so few faults in its performance that the minor points become more
noticeable."

They give the E-1 a score of 95 out of 100 made up of Specification
28/30; Build 20/20; Handling 19/20 and performance 28/30.

I understand that their tests reports are available from
http://www.testreports.co.uk/photography/ap

--
kind regards

Nick

http://www.pbase.com/nickjdavis

 

[Robert Marshall]

Its no use to go to that page. All you get is a link to the article, which you then have to pay 3 pounds for.

------------------------------------------

I thought people might be interested to know that this weeks
Amateur Photographer magazine have published a full review on the
E-1...
...I understand that their tests reports are available from
http://www.testreports.co.uk/photography/ap

 

[Richard V Lamprecht]

I buy AP quite frequently, but I must say I find their reviews of
digital cameras controversial.

This one wasn't by Damien who can normally be relied upon to slag
off anything digital and it was by far the most positive review
I've seen them do. But it still contained a number of little errors
(or perhaps I should say dubious assertions) about some aspects of
the digital process. Frustrating.

For those of us who have not read the AP review would you mind
describing some of these errors/dubious assertions??

AP are not alone in this but these days when I read UK photo rags
I'm always left with the lingering feeling that as far as digital
reviewing is concerned, they don't hold a candle to DPR.

I don't know how other people feel but I find in general that my
sense of respect for journalists was higher in the days when I had
no personal knowledge of the facts of a story!

These days I do have some personal knowlege of a few events that
have made it to the press (technical & news stories) and I've been
surprised at the inaccuracies in the reports - often just basic
fact checking you would assume would be expected of a professional
writer.

I guess it takes a pretty dedicated individual to produce stuff as
generally useful as Phil's reviews...

I thought people might be interested to know that this weeks
Amateur Photographer magazine have published a full review on the
E-1.

In respect of the 'noise' issue, they say that it gives better
results than film up to and including ISO 800.

They state that it is good at capturing the finest detail in a
'natural' rather than 'digital' fashion.

In respect of pixel quantity thet state that its results compare
very favourably with its 6mil competitors and is distinctly
betterthan some of them when it comes to producing 'dramatic'
enlargements.

On the negative side they sate that the AF can be confused in some
low light situations, and the ESP metering can be fooled by extreme
highlights - they suggest in such sitiations the use of spot
metering will avoid the problem.

They conclude by saying "...to suggest the E-1 is in some way
defective is quite simply wrong. It is more the case that there are
so few faults in its performance that the minor points become more
noticeable."

They give the E-1 a score of 95 out of 100 made up of Specification
28/30; Build 20/20; Handling 19/20 and performance 28/30.

I understand that their tests reports are available from
http://www.testreports.co.uk/photography/ap

--
kind regards

Nick

http://www.pbase.com/nickjdavis

For some time now I've given up buying Photography Magazines of any sort, mainly becuase they present very little worthwhile information on digital photography and the articles on image manipulation which flood their rags are not worth the paper they are written on. There is a wealth of information to be found by visiting the various forums and absorbing what is good and ignoring the gumph of the trolls. If you really want to learn about digital photography, visit the Sigma Forum and read the posts concerning the resolution tests between the SD9/10. This well presented scientific information informs you of the dificulties facing all digital camera's on the market today.

Below is the verdict by Les Freed who updated the DP preview on October 10. It sums up beautifully the position of the E1 in the market place. In his observation he also remarks on the excelent quality of the images from the E1.

The Verdict

From the very start, Olympus has asserted that the E-1 system was designed specifically for working pro photographers. Many industry observers - and dpreview.com forum regulars - have expressed their doubts about the E-1's "pro" status.

So what is a professional-level camera? By the strictest definition, any camera that produces saleable images is a pro camera, be it a Canon EOS-1Ds or a Diana toy camera. Your own personal definition will depend on your shooting style.

There are other cameras that are clearly better suited for shooting motorsports, including the Canon 1D, Nikon D1H, and the upcoming D2H. These cameras all have much faster frame rates than the E-1, allowing pro photographers more chances to capture that one killer shot. But the E-1 managed to hold its own, delivering a very high percentage of in-focus, properly exposed "keeper" images.

There's no question that the Olympus E system doesn't offer nearly as many lens and flash options as the Canon and Nikon product lines. But on the plus side of the ledger, the E-1 system covers an effective 28 to 400mm (35mm equivalent) with just two light, compact lenses. If you enjoy carrying a bagful of lenses around with you, this isn't your camera. If, on the other hand, you're looking for a capable digital SLR system that lightens your load, the E-1 deserves a hard look.

Les Freed

Richard

 

[DavidMillier]

Hi

I don't have my copy to hand at the moment so I can't quote examples.

But I wasn't referring to specific things they said about the E1's performance as such, rather some of the throwaway remarks about the digital imaging process that if spoken in these forums would keep people arguing for weeks. AP (and other mags) tend to say these things as if they were absolutes without regard to caveats or contrary views.

if I remember correctly, there were remarks made about the supposed technical advantages of the 4/3 specifications that suggested the E1 was unique in its design and this was the reason why it was so good. It semmed to me to be just quoting propoganda in an uncritical way. Others may (rightly) challenge the marketing put out by olympus. Whatever you think of 4/3, the solutions it offers are not entirely unique.

It might even be conceivable that it is good engineering rather than the philosophical approach that explains the E1's strengths!

They also said something about this being Oly's first professional digital - well the Exx series were certainly marketed as professional.

I'm being a bit vague I'm afraid, so I'll post some quotes later.

I buy AP quite frequently, but I must say I find their reviews of
digital cameras controversial.

This one wasn't by Damien who can normally be relied upon to slag
off anything digital and it was by far the most positive review
I've seen them do. But it still contained a number of little errors
(or perhaps I should say dubious assertions) about some aspects of
the digital process. Frustrating.

For those of us who have not read the AP review would you mind
describing some of these errors/dubious assertions??

AP are not alone in this but these days when I read UK photo rags
I'm always left with the lingering feeling that as far as digital
reviewing is concerned, they don't hold a candle to DPR.

I don't know how other people feel but I find in general that my
sense of respect for journalists was higher in the days when I had
no personal knowledge of the facts of a story!

These days I do have some personal knowlege of a few events that
have made it to the press (technical & news stories) and I've been
surprised at the inaccuracies in the reports - often just basic
fact checking you would assume would be expected of a professional
writer.

I guess it takes a pretty dedicated individual to produce stuff as
generally useful as Phil's reviews...

I thought people might be interested to know that this weeks
Amateur Photographer magazine have published a full review on the
E-1.

In respect of the 'noise' issue, they say that it gives better
results than film up to and including ISO 800.

They state that it is good at capturing the finest detail in a
'natural' rather than 'digital' fashion.

In respect of pixel quantity thet state that its results compare
very favourably with its 6mil competitors and is distinctly
betterthan some of them when it comes to producing 'dramatic'
enlargements.

On the negative side they sate that the AF can be confused in some
low light situations, and the ESP metering can be fooled by extreme
highlights - they suggest in such sitiations the use of spot
metering will avoid the problem.

They conclude by saying "...to suggest the E-1 is in some way
defective is quite simply wrong. It is more the case that there are
so few faults in its performance that the minor points become more
noticeable."

They give the E-1 a score of 95 out of 100 made up of Specification
28/30; Build 20/20; Handling 19/20 and performance 28/30.

I understand that their tests reports are available from
http://www.testreports.co.uk/photography/ap

--
kind regards

Nick

http://www.pbase.com/nickjdavis

 

[David Hughes124436]

It's a pity, isn't it, that they don't give away a CD with the magazine with the test report's photo's on it.

I can remember when Digital Photo FX did and it was examining these that sold me on the E-10...

David

 

[DavidMillier]

I complained earlier in this thread (not about the E1, but about the quality of AP's journalism in the E1 review).

Here's some examples of the kind of thing I mean:

• "an imaging company [Oly] that has repeatedly risked both its reputation and financial security in the pursuit of projects that quite often fly in the face of what is considered 'normal'...!"

Comment: this is intended to be flattering to oly but I think it is a blinkered as whilst they have gambled on some products (ZLRs, small SLRs, 4/3); some would consider they have also had their share of blindness (failure to adopt AF, dropping film SLRs) and they have been pretty conservative of late, concentrating mostly on the large range of digital compacts.

• "Not only is it the first new SLR from Olympus for nearly a decade but it is also their first ever digital SLR"

Comment: First ever interchangeable lens SLR maybe, but Oly thinks the E10 and E20 are SLRS...

• "a design [4/3] that has a fundamentally different philosophy....than anything seen to date"

Comment: This is what oly marketing says, but many people here have argued that for all the strengths of 4/3 it may not be quite so radical as oly would have you believe.

• "The 300mm f2.8 is...the only mass produced lens that offers such a long focal length and such a fast max aperture.."

Comment: Is this really a "mass produced lens" and does no other manufacturer have one?

• " Because of the physical size of the sensor, the E1 has an effective 2x focal length magnification factor"

Comment: This is tripe. The so called multiplier only makes any sense at all in the context of cameras like the D100. These cameras accept lenses designed for the 35mm frame which behave differently on the smaller sensor of the DSLR. The multiplier simply gives a clue as to how much differently. The E1 is proud to claim lenses designed specifically for 4/3. It does not use lenses from other formats so there is no multiplier. Admittedly oly have muddied the water a bit by deciding to compare their lenses against the 35mm format and have kinda redefined the meaning of "multiplier" but there is still no excuse for AP to buy this disinformation.

• "Its default resolution sees the E1 producing images sized to 314ppi"

Comment: What on earth can this mean!!! Digital images don't have an intrinsic ppi (or dpi) size. This figure is a variable that is determined by: i)The W x H resolution of the camera (e.g 3000*2000 for a typical 6MP) ii) The amount of interpolation padding added iii)the output size of the final print or screen image. PPI cannot be decided in advance of output!!

• "As we might expect from a pro SLR there is a choice of shooting modes ....program....aperture priority...shutter priority...manual."

Comment: Don't know about you but I expect this in a £200 compact too.

• " E1's generous 128MB buffer"

Comment: Generous? It this really the case for a "Pro SLR"?

• "This internal memory is large enough to enable a max frame rate of 3FPS...the perfect set up for sports and action shots"

Comment: The E1 may prove capable for this work but it is hardly "perfect" when placed alongside the 8FPS of something dedicated to action photography like the forthcoming D2H.

-"Telecentricity...if the angle at which light hits the sensor is too great then there is a lack of information available for that particular area of the image..."

Comment: I think most of us know what this means but a technical journalist is supposed to be able to understand and explain technical principles. This is vague and confused rambling...

"You can also customise the top and rear control wheels for each of the...shooting modes"

Comment: Maybe true but it is hardly original, many cameras can do this already.

"It is worth re-iterating that this is the first ever DSLR from Olympus..."

Comment: Huh????!!!!

Sorry guys if this sounds like nit picking but AP is a long established and reputable mag and I believe they should be pressured into responsible journalistic standards. If a poster on these forums tried lines like these they would be very quickly picked up on.

What do you think??

 

[Jono Slack]

HI Dave
How the devil are you!

I think that the trouble with most of these statements is that they are incomplete rather than actually wrong - and surely in a 3 or 4 page review it just isn't possible to go into enough detail to explain and qualify each statement (let's face it, even Phil's 30 page reviews leave a lot out). Whilst I agree that lots of these statements would cause fire and brimstone to fall on the head of the poster, I think some of your comments might as well (although I actually agree with most of them).

I was flipping through a copy of photography magazine from 2002 whilst sitting on the throne last night - they were reviewing the D60 and came up with something like:

"Of course the results are not as good as film, but will satisfy many users" - phew! how many caveats can you think of to a statement like that!

What seems to me more remarkable and encouraging about this review, is AP giving a 95% score to the camera and actually liking it.

But I'm afraid there is a real truth that most of us who've been hanging around here for a couple of years know more about digital photography than hacks on photo mags.

Kind regards

What do you think??

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

 

[DavidMillier]

Hi Jono

I agree it was an enthusiastic review, it just disappoints that professional journalists give away so easily that they haven't actually mastered the technicalities on which they are paid to write!

I think that the trouble with most of these statements is that they
are incomplete rather than actually wrong - and surely in a 3 or 4
page review it just isn't possible to go into enough detail to
explain and qualify each statement (let's face it, even Phil's 30
page reviews leave a lot out). Whilst I agree that lots of these
statements would cause fire and brimstone to fall on the head of
the poster, I think some of your comments might as well (although I
actually agree with most of them).

I was flipping through a copy of photography magazine from 2002
whilst sitting on the throne last night - they were reviewing the
D60 and came up with something like:
"Of course the results are not as good as film, but will satisfy
many users" - phew! how many caveats can you think of to a
statement like that!

What seems to me more remarkable and encouraging about this review,
is AP giving a 95% score to the camera and actually liking it.

But I'm afraid there is a real truth that most of us who've been
hanging around here for a couple of years know more about digital
photography than hacks on photo mags.

Kind regards

What do you think??

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

 

[advid]

....I've written to AP on a couple of occasions over the years to ask if they could 'up' their reviews a bit more for technical buffs (like us)....

I've also mentioned for them to take a look at this (dpreview) site for how Phils reviews go into just about every detail and leaves no stone unturned. They say 'it's lack of printspace in the magazine - they can't extend their reviews any more than the 8 page (big pics) that they are doing now....

It's a pity, isn't it, that they don't give away a CD with the
magazine with the test report's photo's on it.

I can remember when Digital Photo FX did and it was examining these
that sold me on the E-10...

David

--
OLY- E10 OLY-2100 B300
http://www.pbase.com/gallery/advid/2100

 

[BJL]

... They say 'it's lack of printspace in the magazine -
they can't extend their reviews any more than the 8 page (big pics)
that they are doing now...

This is a valid partial defence: it suggests to me that they should follow the practice of some other print outlets, which are responding to internet publishing by having more extended versions available online, and perhaps for separate mail-order or electronic purchase. Many photo mag's used to function mainly to advertise cameras and such, now they can function to advertise their own more detailed reviews and reports.

 

[DavidMillier]

It's all very well saying AP saying there isn't enough space but in the E1 review they waste the entire first column with some 'literary' waffle talking about TV magicians, and weirdos who climb Everest or walk to the North Pole.

The purpose of this is so they can (leisurely) spin the yarn that Oly are a particularly innovative and risk taking company...which leads into how innovate and brave the E1 & 4/3 is.

It's all very well but you can see from the opening that the aren't just judging the camera in front of them on technical grounds but trying to make a journalistic splash.

Very tabloid, really.

I've also mentioned for them to take a look at this (dpreview) site
for how Phils reviews go into just about every detail and leaves no
stone unturned. They say 'it's lack of printspace in the magazine -
they can't extend their reviews any more than the 8 page (big pics)
that they are doing now....

It's a pity, isn't it, that they don't give away a CD with the
magazine with the test report's photo's on it.

I can remember when Digital Photo FX did and it was examining these
that sold me on the E-10...

David

--
OLY- E10 OLY-2100 B300
http://www.pbase.com/gallery/advid/2100

 

[Sam Berry]

I actually bought AP yesterday, and having read the article, DMiller is going easy on them. I have only read AP recently, and have never been impressed with the articles but the E-1 review is apalling. Every single standard function was heralded as a revolution in photography. The title of the article is "E is for excellent".

Both large sample shots are portraits. The ISO800 one is only shown after conversion to greyscale because it "displays a slight cast" because of the fluorescent lighting. Custom WB anyone? RAW? The shot had also been genuine fractaled to A3. There is obvious clipping on the highlights which goes unnoticed.

The sample crops (from A3) from the ISO 100 image look obviously digital. This is probably AP's interpolation's fault more than the camera. They then proclaim that "Enlarging specific areas reveals just how good the e-1 is at capturing the finest detail in a natural rather than digital fashion." You have to see the crops though.

It blabs about "The camera's impressive processing and outstanding resolution has perfectly captured the fine detail in the clock face of Big Ben's tower" next to a small (unknown) crop showing a red fringe around the edge and with none of the numerals visible.

I could go on for a long time. Suffice to say they milk the telecentricity BS for all it's worth. "This, it would appear, has solves many of the issues that have so far compromised digital-imaging capture including, most importantly, those regarding image quality."

This is without a single comparison to ANY other camera in the entire review, let alone pictures from a rival camera. Every single shot is from the E-1. It compare E-1 shots with other E-1 shots.

I have nothing against the camera, but this review is more a published worshipping than a useful review. I look forward to Phil and Dave's reviews.

The first page after the contents and the inside of the back cover are both full page E-1 ads.

 

[buzz light-buster]

there is some debate in this thread about the reliability of journalists.

I wonder who is more reliable - journalists, who's blood instinct it is to be critical, but not naiv -, or some of the commentators around here, who once in a while turn out to be more emotional and "brandist" than working, straight minded photographers.

to those concerned: please stop elevating yourselves above these and those magazines and reviews and comments and whatsoever.

people around here are able to judge for themselves.

many people and reviews give valuable hints - if necessary, prove your counter-points with facts and prints, and not just wise talk.

b.

 

[DavidMillier]

I tried to be restrained as this IS the oly forum and I have already upset too many people here in the past

But after I read the article I was boiling...

I have read a lot of criticism of US mags for being wary of advertisers but I've not really come across this from UK mags.

I couldn't say if that was really the issue here but it was certainly a poor quality review.

I normally find the established UK mags a bit anti digital but they certainly seem to be waking up to the revolution in the last year. But I think such an uninspired review does their readers a disservice and I wish they'd employ a reviewer who can demonstrate a more obvious understanding of the digital medium....

I actually bought AP yesterday, and having read the article,
DMiller is going easy on them. I have only read AP recently, and
have never been impressed with the articles but the E-1 review is
apalling. Every single standard function was heralded as a
revolution in photography. The title of the article is "E is for
excellent".

Both large sample shots are portraits. The ISO800 one is only shown
after conversion to greyscale because it "displays a slight cast"
because of the fluorescent lighting. Custom WB anyone? RAW? The
shot had also been genuine fractaled to A3. There is obvious
clipping on the highlights which goes unnoticed.

The sample crops (from A3) from the ISO 100 image look obviously
digital. This is probably AP's interpolation's fault more than the
camera. They then proclaim that "Enlarging specific areas reveals
just how good the e-1 is at capturing the finest detail in a
natural rather than digital fashion." You have to see the crops
though.

It blabs about "The camera's impressive processing and outstanding
resolution has perfectly captured the fine detail in the clock face
of Big Ben's tower" next to a small (unknown) crop showing a red
fringe around the edge and with none of the numerals visible.

I could go on for a long time. Suffice to say they milk the
telecentricity BS for all it's worth. "This, it would appear, has
solves many of the issues that have so far compromised
digital-imaging capture including, most importantly, those
regarding image quality."
This is without a single comparison to ANY other camera in the
entire review, let alone pictures from a rival camera. Every
single shot is from the E-1. It compare E-1 shots with other E-1
shots.

I have nothing against the camera, but this review is more a
published worshipping than a useful review. I look forward to Phil
and Dave's reviews.

The first page after the contents and the inside of the back cover
are both full page E-1 ads.