Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Olympus

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 1, 2003, 1:24 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4
Default C750 movie length (...and features)

At 320x200 is it 16 s (olympus site and steve's review)
Or more (other reviews)?
dhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 1, 2003, 2:49 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 259
Default

On my c750uz its limited to the size of the media card:

16mb card @ 320x240 with sound on: 46 seconds according to the camera
256mb card @ 320x240 with sound on: 751 seconds (~12.5minutes) according to the camera
512mb card @ 320x240 with sound on: 1503 seconds (~25minutes) according to the camera

I have filmed about a 5minute movie with my camera in the past to see how it all worked/looked. One thing to consider is that the movie mode on a camera like these is a secondary consideration to its primary roll. In other words, they are not the best quality. :?
tkmckay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2003, 4:53 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4
Default

Thanks for the quick reply!

I asked this because I like to make shorts of my little 8 months son every now and then. I had the Olympus d-490z end felt 15 sec movies (without sound) were a bit on the short side.

And if you have time, I have a few more questions for you...


Based on reviews from Steve's Digicams, Imaging Resource, Digital Camera Resource Page among others:

Is it true that the shutter lag is not as good as competition? (a bit slow)

Is it true that the c750 has trouble focusing in low light conditions? If so, did you try the fl-20 or fl-40 olympus flashes? How do they perform?

Do pictures look more grainy (with more noise) than average? Under night conditions? The olympus d520 performed really bad in this area, you can even see the noise in some of steve's outdoor sample shots (in the sky).

Can you take clear shots in the (3 cm) super macro mode or is the normal (7 cm) macro mode better?

Do you have a fair amount of control over the deep or field? Cause I'd like to take clear subjects on out of focus backgrounds here and there...

Is a 256 mb Olympus XD card comparable to say, a 256 24x CompactFlash in terms of speed? durability?

All those questions because I also consider bying a 3x canon A80 which is also 4 MP, has a flipscreen, seems to have very good (5 cm) macro, AF assist light for low light shots, but tends to blow out skies every now an then... (would also buy an addon lens (the canon 2.4x or something telelens)...

Anyways I'm leaning towards the c750 cause I really like the 10X optical zoom feature. But still, low light focusing has to be good...

And...did I mention red eyes? Do you find em often on your indoor pictures (as I did with my d490)? ops:

Thanks in advance!
dhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2003, 8:40 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,910
Default

To take some questions (as a general C-7x0 user, not specific to the 750)...right now the 750 is behind some other ultra zoom digital cameras because the 750 was announced back in March, while most of the others were late summer. The 750 doesn't have focus assist (and I chastise Olympus every time I can get because some of their other high-end digitals have it, and they had it on the C-2100). Like your current Oly, the 750 uses a contast difference focusing method as discussed at http://www.howstuffworks.com/autofocus3.htm If you get the FL-40, it has a focus assist beam that will light up the scene while the camera is focusing (the FL-20 doesn't have it, shame on Olympus again; some third party flashes also have focus assist beams, but they don't always work right with the C-7x0).

As well, shutter lag (time including focusing) is longish and it might be a dissapointment in those unanticipated events (like sports), but you learn how to overcome it (but then you probably know that from your previous digicam experience).

Just want to add that digital cameras in general have a wide depth of field, and it's hard to get a blurred background, in part due to the tiny lens opening.

I personally like the C-7x0 line and (if required) would buy a 750 today, but I'm hoping for a 770 that would counter against all the problems mentioned above. But I have tried many of the ultra zoom alternatives from other companies, and I don't like them...I still like my C-700 and wouldn't trade it for the alternatives.
Mike_PEAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2003, 3:22 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 259
Default

Quote:
Do pictures look more grainy (with more noise) than average? Under night conditions? The olympus d520 performed really bad in this area, you can even see the noise in some of steve's outdoor sample shots (in the sky).
I have had some great night shots with my camera and don't really notice alot of noise. Of cource even during the night I still usually use iso50 for almost all of them so that might have something to do with it. I do however notice sometimes that you can see a little noise most likely cause by hot pixels when taking 16 second expossures. Heres one I took a coupel weeks back:

Thats an 8sec expossure at iso 50, F2.8.
tkmckay is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:49 PM.