Hi Steen,

Thank you very much. When I wrote the review, I decided that as the camera had been out for a while that it made absolutely no sense to attempt to do a 'nuts and bolts' review that places like DPReview do. Not only had it been done, but honestly, they have resources and time to dedicate to doing this that I just don't have.

LOL, I hope that the moral of the story, after reading it though is more than 'Oly isn't so bad after all' though. The camera did what I needed it to in every single place. Yes, the camera has had some challenges, but honestly, they all do. The question is - does the tool (the camera) get the job done? The answer for me was a definite 'yes.' It has a feature set that I don't see in any other camera in the price-range. Where it has challenges (like high ISO noise, a problem that Oly has had since before 4/3 and some DR issues), it also has places where it surpasses. For example, a truly affordable SLR system with a huge focal length. The in-body stabilization is also great - something I wish the Big Two would incorporate on their own.

I think the thing that has been a double edged sword is the very format that Olympus has chosen (the 4/3 format). A lot of folks have been complaining since it first came out that the chip size was too small to generate high quality high iso images. Based on pixel size along, I do not believe that to be true. For example, the E-520 and the Canon 50d have exactly the same pixel size. The 50d has - at least relative to the 40d, about the same image noise with a chip that has 50% more pixels. It leads me to believe that the problem is not inherently the chip format, but either the software or the person developing the chip.

James