This appears to be a completely unfair comparison, on at least two
fronts...
A. The E-10 has the Nikon beat 1.96 : 1 on total pixels or 1.4X's
as many pixels in each dimension... which alone indicates a
definite advantage for the E-10, further the E-10 lens is sharper,
and this can be demonstrated from resolution targets in various
reviews. The E-10 should win hands down. It's not even a fair
contest. If you want to see the Nikon win something lets talk
noise...
Those relatively larger sensors on 2MP cameras do
have a real advantage there compared to 3.3MP sensors of the same
physical size.
B. The shots simply aren't framed the same. The FOV is much wider
on the E-10 shot... The Nikon shot is using 2MP to cover only
about 2/3 the width of the image the E-10 is framing which has the
effect of making the Nikon appear to have the equivalent of more
than a 4MP sensor... (Math: 1600 = 2/3X, X=2400... so in effect,
the 2MP sensor has the apparent resolution of a 2400x1800 sensor
used to frame the same image as the E-10 did...) So much for
objection A...
As Jono said, you are in fact turning the comparison upside down
and granting the 2MP more pixels per square foot of subject than
the E-10 and then further compounding that in your comparison
crops...
I'd say that Jono had it knocked from the start. The areas of
comparison are "unfair", the E-10 sample should contain 1.96
"times" as many total pixels as the Nikon sample. The focus issue
is the other problem. The E-10 has a much shallower DOF and
sharpness falls off much more quickly outside that DOF even at F5.6
or so. So choosing an off center or off point of focus area for
comparison is a problem.
To do a comparison of this sort without having the same person
frame the same scene and focus on the same spots with a tripod to
eliminate any chance of motion blur is rather pointless. Further,
it's rather irresponsible to say the E-10 failed to deliver the
goods when it seems more likely that the tester failed to deliver
the goods... We shouldn't be so quick to blame the tools.
I think you have to admit this isn't a fair comparison.(in more
than one way, 2MP vs. 4MP isn't exactly fair.) If it was, the
selected areas would have to be as follows: the E-10 sample would
have to be 1.4 X's wider and 1.4X's higher in pixels than the Nikon
sample... (2240/1600 = 1.4X's, as does 1680/1200...)
I hope my points have been made. I'd very much like people to do a
bit more research before they make such inflammatory statements
concerning a piece of equipment. Frankly, it makes those with
legitimate concerns about a product look like they belong in the
same category as those who don't research carefully what they're
presenting. In fairness, that's because those who read such
comparisons don't often do the work to check them either...
Excal, this isn't meant to knock you, but I think this sort of
thing does us a disservice as a group. I intend no malice. I
think if you went back out to the same spot with a print of the
Nikon image and framed the same image with the E-10 you see the
difference if you compared the SAME area from each print or file...
Preferrably the area at the point of focus, not off center.
