4/3 review...count the green rectangles

I just counted the number of GREEN rectangles in the compared to screen of Phil's review (section 21). Here are my findings:

E330: 16
350D: 9
R1: 4

PLEASE NOTE:

Some green rectangles are more important than others.

"Text Comment" and "Supplied Software" are two categories the 350D won GREEN on and the E330 did not receive any GREEN on. These have little impact on the performance of the camera itself.

Instead of receiveing a RED rectangle for lacking live view, the 350D just received a neutral colored one. Phil obviously does not consider Live View to be important, and that is where this camera fails. If the reviewer does not feel your number ONE new feature is important...then your review is doomed fromt eh beginning.

E330 has 1/3 EV steps while the competition has 1 EV steps. Both the R1 and 350D received GREEN rectangles in the ISO area.

The only thing that can account for the E330 not receiving a Highly Recommended rating is that it has more noise at higher ISO than cameras with significantly larger sensors. I think Phil should have said something like this:

"The E330 is clearly a better camera than its competition in most areas of comparisson. Its excessive noise at higher ISO ratings along with its darker than average viewfinder have earned it a Recommended rating rather than a Highly Recommended rating."

This in my opinion is a fair statement which could have been made if the reviewer chose to...Phil chose not to say that however. This is his website, his review, his rules...and I actually agree with his overall recommendation level. The E330 does not deserve Highly Recommended. But his overall conclusion paragraphs seemed to have an air of...well...I'll not say it...

BTW, could those extra Green rectangles not account for the $320 price difference between the 350D and the E330?

Look at how many more green rectangles the E330 got over the R1...I think price differences can be waived for this review...Phil obviously does not.

--

Life is like a roll of TOILET PAPER; the closer you get to the end, the faster it goes.

The review provides the (usually very good) technical stuff and -one- opinion.

You are free to come to a different conclusion. I also do not agree with Phil's conclusion in the E-330 review but I do not need too ;-)

to the green rectangles? Although I do prefer blue (goes better with my eyes).

Chromatic Aberration said:

Look at how many more green rectangles the E330 got over the R1...I
think price differences can be waived for this review...Phil
obviously does not.

Click to expand...

Clearly not, and he says so in his conclusion.

If price differences can be waived, then almost all cameras should receive terrible reviews because they aren't as good as the Canon 1D series or the Nikon D2 series.

I think his conclusions are slightly more intelligent than counting green boxes and ignoring price.

laLady said:

to the green rectangles? Although I do prefer blue (goes better
with my eyes).

Click to expand...

He is talking about this:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse330/page21.asp

Lourens

.n/t.

Cephalotus said:

The review provides the (usually very good) technical stuff and
-one- opinion.

You are free to come to a different conclusion. I also do not agree
with Phil's conclusion in the E-330 review but I do not need too ;-)

Click to expand...

Exactly. If Askey does his job you shouldn't even need to read the "Conclusions" page, you should be able to write it yourself based on your shooting style and requirements. I don't want Askey to sell me on features. Rather I want him to tell me about them and I'll decide the importance of them for myself.

And were you capable of doing that on your own?

Kyle Jones said:

Exactly. If Askey does his job you shouldn't even need to read the
"Conclusions" page, you should be able to write it yourself based
on your shooting style and requirements. I don't want Askey to
sell me on features. Rather I want him to tell me about them and
I'll decide the importance of them for myself.

Click to expand...

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

Given that you've already admitted that "Some green rectangles are more important than others", what is the point of comparing the number each camera received?

You complain that the 350D received green in areas you felt were not relevant to the performance of the camera itself, but fail to note that the same thing could be said of some of the E330's "green rectangles." E330's "shading compensation", "7 display modes" and "RAW development" are examples.

You next complain of the 350D receiving "neutral colored" boxes in areas where you felt they should have been red, but you again fail to note that the same could be said of some of the E330's neutral rectangles. For example, the E330 has the fewest custom functions/set-up menus, fewest AF modes, fewest Af points, slowest X-sync speed, smallest sensor, lowest MP count and highest price in that comparison, yet received no red rectangles for any of those things. (Incidentally, I am not suggesting all of these things are equally important or even necessarily important at all; I'm just making a point about the ridiculousness of counting parameter boxes).

Since you are interested in counting boxes, I'm surprised that you failed to mention that the E330 garnered 7 red boxes on the page you referenced, while another camera on that page had only 2, a substantial difference.

You ask "could those extra Green rectangles not account for the $320 price difference between the 350D and the E330?" In my own humble opinion- absolutely not; at least seven of the green rectangles earned by the E330 are for pretty meaningless parameters as far as my real-world use goes. (Those would be things like optional shading compensation, user-definable jpeg compression, + -5 EV comp, 60-4,000 shutter, 4 levels of manual control on the flash sync, 7 display modes, RAW development, camera dimensions).

I will agree with you that people may have different priorities and Phil's assessment may not be in line with yours. SO WHAT? Rational people can disagree based on different priorities.

Since you realize that people have different priorities, I find it surprising that you think a sentence like "The E330 is clearly a better camera than its competition in most areas of comparisson," belonged in Phil's review. Because it has more green rectangles? As I wrote, it's also got more red ones than at least one of the two cameras to which it was compared, and we've both agreed that in any case, the parameters listed are not of equal importance to all people.

The best way to see if a camera suits your needs is to get off the d@mn internet, and go out and see/shoot the camera. Read up on it? Sure. But an educated consumer should be making up his/her own mind and drawing his/her own conclusions (preferably by actually using the thing, if possible).

The whining in here of late is beyond childish.

Regards,
Brian

Chromatic Aberration said:

I just counted the number of GREEN rectangles in the compared to
screen of Phil's review (section 21). Here are my findings:

E330: 16
350D: 9
R1: 4

PLEASE NOTE:

Some green rectangles are more important than others.

"Text Comment" and "Supplied Software" are two categories the 350D
won GREEN on and the E330 did not receive any GREEN on. These have
little impact on the performance of the camera itself.

Instead of receiveing a RED rectangle for lacking live view, the
350D just received a neutral colored one. Phil obviously does not
consider Live View to be important, and that is where this camera
fails. If the reviewer does not feel your number ONE new feature
is important...then your review is doomed fromt eh beginning.

E330 has 1/3 EV steps while the competition has 1 EV steps. Both
the R1 and 350D received GREEN rectangles in the ISO area.

The only thing that can account for the E330 not receiving a Highly
Recommended rating is that it has more noise at higher ISO than
cameras with significantly larger sensors. I think Phil should
have said something like this:

"The E330 is clearly a better camera than its competition in most
areas of comparisson. Its excessive noise at higher ISO ratings
along with its darker than average viewfinder have earned it a
Recommended rating rather than a Highly Recommended rating."

This in my opinion is a fair statement which could have been made
if the reviewer chose to...Phil chose not to say that however.
This is his website, his review, his rules...and I actually agree
with his overall recommendation level. The E330 does not deserve
Highly Recommended. But his overall conclusion paragraphs seemed
to have an air of...well...I'll not say it...

BTW, could those extra Green rectangles not account for the $320
price difference between the 350D and the E330?

Look at how many more green rectangles the E330 got over the R1...I
think price differences can be waived for this review...Phil
obviously does not.

--
Life is like a roll of TOILET PAPER; the closer you get to the end,
the faster it goes.

Click to expand...

--
Brian



Digital Image Gallery:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/spiritmist/Brian_G_Digital_Image_Gallery/index.htm

'To quote out of context is the essence of the photographer's craft.' John Szarkowski, The Photographer's Eye

I really do not like all the stuff that has been thrown out about the review ...BUT, in reading it - it is clear that Phil just does not like the camera.

He apparently places a lot more weight on having a perfect image (resolution wise @ high iso) aka 350D.

That seems to be the norm for our generation - perfection rather than reality. Seems to somehow relate to this review.

Yes. Thanks for the review.

Phil Askey said:

Kyle Jones said:

Exactly. If Askey does his job you shouldn't even need to read the
"Conclusions" page, you should be able to write it yourself based
on your shooting style and requirements. I don't want Askey to
sell me on features. Rather I want him to tell me about them and
I'll decide the importance of them for myself.

Click to expand...

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

Click to expand...

The original poster clearly suggests that the E330 is superior to some of the cameras it is compared to. He then explains how 2 of the green rectangles for the 350D are for PC software. Ultimately, he sums it up with a plea for people to stop worrying about the conclusion paragraphs. The camera (in his opinion) does not deserve Highly Recommended status anyway. He simply disagrees with Phil's reasons for the conclusion he came to.

Why are you writing a lengthy scolding of him for stating pretty much what you were thinking?

He is expressing his opinion...

Brian G. said:

Rational people can disagree based on different priorities.

Click to expand...

and you are expressing yours...nice job. Great discourse.

Brian G. said:

Since you are interested in counting boxes, I'm surprised that you
failed to mention that the E330 garnered 7 red boxes on the page
you referenced, while another camera on that page had only 2, a
substantial difference.

You ask "could those extra Green rectangles not account for the
$320 price difference between the 350D and the E330?" In my own
humble opinion- absolutely not; at least seven of the green
rectangles earned by the E330 are for pretty meaningless parameters
as far as my real-world use goes. (Those would be things like
optional shading compensation, user-definable jpeg compression,
+ -5 EV comp, 60-4,000 shutter, 4 levels of manual control on the
flash sync, 7 display modes, RAW development, camera dimensions).

I will agree with you that people may have different priorities and
Phil's assessment may not be in line with yours. SO WHAT?
Rational people can disagree based on different priorities.

Since you realize that people have different priorities, I find it
surprising that you think a sentence like "The E330 is clearly a
better camera than its competition in most areas of comparisson,"
belonged in Phil's review. Because it has more green rectangles?
As I wrote, it's also got more red ones than at least one of the
two cameras to which it was compared, and we've both agreed that in
any case, the parameters listed are not of equal importance to all
people.

The best way to see if a camera suits your needs is to get off the
d@mn internet, and go out and see/shoot the camera. Read up on it?
Sure. But an educated consumer should be making up his/her own
mind and drawing his/her own conclusions (preferably by actually
using the thing, if possible).

The whining in here of late is beyond childish.

Regards,
Brian

Click to expand...

E1derful said:

Why are you writing a lengthy scolding of him for stating pretty
much what you were thinking?

Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't characterize my post as "scolding", and the OP was not "stating pretty much what [I was] thinking" at all. To respond to your post in order:

E1derful said:

The original poster clearly suggests that the E330 is superior to
some of the cameras it is compared to.

Click to expand...

Correct. And he initially bases this on the number of green boxes earned by each.

E1derful said:

He then explains how 2 of
the green rectangles for the 350D are for PC software.

Click to expand...

Yes, he mentions that some 350D green rectangle parameters have "little impact on the performance of the camera itself," and I pointed out that the same is true of some on the E330. Not exactly a bias against the Oly.

E1derful said:

Ultimately,
he sums it up with a plea for people to stop worrying about the
conclusion paragraphs.

Click to expand...

Not exactly. (In fact, he wishes the conclusion paragraph was worded differently). Next he complains "Instead of receiveing a RED rectangle for lacking live view, the 350D just received a neutral colored one," and I pointed out that similarly, deficiencies of the E330 that could reasonably be expected to have "been red" were also neutral. And in fact, those deficiencies were more numerous in the E330. Again, not exactly a bias against the Oly.

The OP then writes "E330 has 1/3 EV steps while the competition has 1 EV steps. Both the R1 and 350D received GREEN rectangles in the ISO area," completely missing the point that green rectangles were given due to ISO performance across the range, not fineness of EV steps.

E1derful said:

The camera (in his opinion) does not
deserve Highly Recommended status anyway.

Click to expand...

Correct. He writes "The only thing that can account for the E330 not receiving a Highly Recommended rating is that it has more noise at higher ISO than cameras with significantly larger sensors." I do not agree with this at all (I think there are a number of other reasons why the E330 does not deserve a HR rating), which I thought would've been obvious from my other post.

E1derful said:

He simply disagrees with
Phil's reasons for the conclusion he came to.

Click to expand...

He does a bit more than that, going so far as to suggest a couple new sentences for him, including this one: "The E330 is clearly a better camera than its competition in most areas of comparisson." That statement is not at all supported, unless he is referring again to the # of green boxes, but we've already established that using the number of any colored box is pretty much meaningless since they do not have equal value and are subjectively assigned anyway.

E1derful said:

Why are you writing a lengthy scolding of him for stating pretty
much what you were thinking?

Click to expand...

As I've written, I wouldn't characterize my post as "scolding" and he wasn't stating anything near what I was thinking on the matter.

E1derful said:

He is expressing his opinion...

Click to expand...

Indeed. There are at least two misleading aspects, however. First, he is selectively picking his facts, as with the colored rectangle assessments. Second, he is expressing his opinions it as if they were fact with statements like:

E1derful said:

The only thing that can account for the E330 not receiving a Highly
Recommended rating is that it has more noise at higher ISO than
cameras with significantly larger sensors

Click to expand...

and

E1derful said:

The E330 is clearly a better camera than its competition in most
areas of comparisson

Click to expand...

That's his opinion, fine. But it is not supported by the actual review.

E1derful said:

Brian G. said:

Rational people can disagree based on different priorities.

Click to expand...

and you are expressing yours...nice job. Great discourse.

Click to expand...

Thank you.
--
Brian



Digital Image Gallery:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/spiritmist/Brian_G_Digital_Image_Gallery/index.htm

'To quote out of context is the essence of the photographer's craft.' John Szarkowski, The Photographer's Eye

BamaPanda said:

He apparently places a lot more weight on having a perfect image
(resolution wise @ high iso) aka 350D.
That seems to be the norm for our generation - perfection rather
than reality. Seems to somehow relate to this review.

Click to expand...

Curious, can you explain your comment about perfection vs. reality and how it relates to Canon 350D vs. Olympus 330?

Actually, the problem isn't the green rectangle count. It is the content and validity of green rectangle status. Since the E-330's main distinction is its viewfinder systems, that is an interesting place to look. It gets a red box there for "small, dark". The 350D is "medium".

Now in the "pro/con" section of the respective reviews, the E-330's optical finder is called "very small" and the 350D is called small. Bother are in the "con" section.

But if you look at the actual specs, you can see that the 350D starts with appies a .8x magnification to a 95% coverage 22.2 x 14.8mm screen. That equates to 95% coverage of 17.76 x 11.84mm.

The E-330 has a .93x magnification on a 17.3 x 13.0mm screen which equates to 95% coverage of a 16.09 x 12.1mm screen.

Note that the effective heights are essentially the same. The difference in finder size is that the 350D is wider by the amount that the 3:2 format is wider.

As for finder darkness or lightness, there is no measurment. The E-330 screen should, "on paper" be darker because there is an aditional partially silvered mirror and the finder delivers slightly higher magnification. So how much darker? I'd guess half a stop? Does that matter in real life? I dunno. Its less than the difference you should see when you zoom an f/3.5-4.8 lens from fastest to slowest. Best to compare for yourself in a store.

The point? You have to be very careful about evaluative comments (they can be inconsistent) and evaluative "checkbox" lists (they many not be telling you exactly what you think they are). You have to take some time and analyze these things if they are important to you. The review gives you the tools. You must take the time to use those tools if it matters. If you rely on the evaluative comments or checkbox lists offered in the review, you can sometimes get the wrong impression.

I'm not suggesting that reviews should avoid evaluative comments or evaluative "checkbox" lists. They are useful. But readers need to consider their limitations.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

And the merry-go-round goes for another revolution...

The green box observation is interesting. The E-330 looks to have some real advantages over the 350 and R1. I would buy it.

Personally, I don't think Phil helps himself by putting forth strongly subjective comments to close out a review. People remember what is said first and last, and by far they remember emotionally loaded comments (highly subjective comments) best of all. That is unquestionably how brians sorts information. I believe it is naive of Phil to believe that most readers will take his words with a grain of salt and base buying decisions on the actual merits of the camera (many of which were displayed quite well in his review). So green boxes aside, people will remember Phils closing comments most vividly because they are highly subjective. I'll try to be productive in my examples rather than evil.

"The introduction of the E-330 confused us." (Was it as confusing as the 30D? Maybe a better way to say the same thing in a more objective way would be: 'We don't know if the E-330 is going after first time users of DSLRs that prefer live preview or competing for a niche segment of Macro, underwater, or street photographers.'

"It was difficult to see where this new camera fit into the current digital SLR market." More objective possiblity: 'It will be interesting to see where the E-330 fits into a already crowded market and if the new unique features will indeed be worth the price tag for buyers.'

"It's still not as nice a camera to use..." (Gosh, I've used the 350XT). More objective equivalent statment: 'It handles differently than a traditional shaped DSLR like the E-500.'

Well then, that's the first paragraph. In my opinion Phil deserves the heat for his very subjective comments to an otherwise objective review.

Cheers, Seth

--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?

--
http://www.wallygoots.com

SirSeth said:

Personally, I don't think Phil helps himself by putting forth
strongly subjective comments to close out a review.

Click to expand...

Yep - that's the crux of it really.

SirSeth said:

"The introduction of the E-330 confused us." (Was it as confusing
as the 30D? Maybe a better way to say the same thing in a more
objective way would be: 'We don't know if the E-330 is going after
first time users of DSLRs that prefer live preview or competing for
a niche segment of Macro, underwater, or street photographers.'

"It was difficult to see where this new camera fit into the
current digital SLR market." More objective possiblity: 'It will be
interesting to see where the E-330 fits into a already crowded
market and if the new unique features will indeed be worth the
price tag for buyers.'

"It's still not as nice a camera to use..." (Gosh, I've used the
350XT). More objective equivalent statment: 'It handles
differently than a traditional shaped DSLR like the E-500.'

Click to expand...

Good examples.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

Now that the E330 is out being used and reviewed perhaps it is useful to revisit this interesting pre-release interview with two Olympus product managers. It provides some perspective about Olympus’ motivation, the state of the technologies being used, market size and pricing considerations and future directions.

I hope it is not breaking with protocol to link to the interview from here.

Interview With Olympus Product Managers Richard Pelkowski and Sally Smith Clemens:

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Interview-With-Sally-Smith-Clemens-Product-Manager-and-Richard-Pelkowski-Product-Manager-DSLRs-at-Olympus-/Part-One.htm

Rereading this interview it struck me that the conflicted and conflicting reactions to the camera were not unexpected. The idea that it is not the camera for everyone was not rejected.

Phil,

Let it rest.