Hello, I've seen pics from the Oly 2000 on other sites, like dreamarts, and they look far better than the ones in your comparometer. I guess this is because you used a pre-production model while they used the final version? In any case, is there a chance you could reshoot the photos with the final version when you get one? For an example, please compare these indoor shots with the ones you took: http://www.dreamarts.co.jp/magazine/nishikawa/contents/990328/

-- Benoit (foo@bar.com), April 27, 1999

Answers

Thanks for the note, Benoit. (And your generous support of this forum!)

We're waiting to hear from Oly about the image-quality issues you (and others) have noted. We'll DEFINITELY be re-shooting as soon as we get a full-production model. We always do this when we're working with prototypes, even though it's an *enormous* pain: We re-shot all our DC260 images 'way back when, and are even now awaiting delivery of our full-production sample of the CoolPix 950, so we can re-shoot all those shots as well. Whenever Oly can get us a production unit of the C-2000 Zoom, we'll do a reshoot for that, too.

Thanks for the note on the dreamarts indoor pics, I'll check them out, see what version firmware they were shot with, which may give some indication of how much difference there may be between their unit and the one we used. - I'll report back here after I've had a chance to look at them!

-- Dave Etchells (web@imaging-resource.com), April 28, 1999.

Really appreciate the effort you put into your reviews. Here's another site showing excellent lowlight 2000 performance: http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/pc/docs/article/990428/200vs.htm

The Oly has a lens that is twice as fast, 2.0-2.8, vs nikon's 2.6- 4.0.

-- Benoit (foo@bar.com), April 29, 1999.

I am also interested in the most accurate comparison of image quality between the Nikon 950 and the Olympus 2000.

Have downloaded images from many areas of both and am leaning toward the Olympus which seems to be clearer with better color density.

This site is a great resource and the concept of the Comparometer is an excellent one. My problem is that the description of exactly how they get the same image from both cameras is not clear. I have searched the entire website and there is way to e- mail this site with a question - so I am asking it here.

One more suggestion - since image quality is extremely important to me (do larger size prints), I hope that more of the new 2.3 and higher megapixal cameras will be included in the comparisions - Ricoh RDC- 5000 sounds very interesting (2.3 mega). I have also downloaded images from the 2.3 Fuji 2700 which were very impressive. Anther entry is the 2.1 Sony Cybershot P55.

Anyway - this a great site and I plan to visit often. Thanks for doing such a great job.

Edward Woods

-- Edward Woods (woods@clarityrec.com), May 02, 1999.

Ed- Sorry for the difficulty finding a mailto link! - We have them scattered about, but obviously not enough, or prominent enough! There's a description of our test approach available from the Comparometer itself - Go to it, and scroll all the way down to the bottom of the Nav bar, where you'll see a big yellow exclamation point. Click it and you'll get a (typically verbose ;-) description of how we test, and how we arrived at the set of test targets we use. (The short answer to your question of the images all being the same is that some of the shots are taken of posters - not ideally representative of "live" shooting conditions, but guaranteed to be * absolutely* consistent from shot to shot. Other shots (which do vary) are of live subjects, such as the "far" shot in the individual camera reviews, and the outdoor and indoor "portrait" shots.

-- Dave Etchells (detchells@imaging-resource.com), May 10, 1999.