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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 5, 2002, 8:39 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 668
Default

....sounds like a reasonable assessment.
Excepting the F1.8 lens, not important features to me. The buffer would be nice, but with underwater shots, the speed wouldn't help. [/quote]

Michael without the 32 meg buffer and 3.5 FPS you may miss some great shots to post of Jaws closing in on your but. They would be "priceless"
Gary
Gary Senkus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2002, 9:08 PM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Gary Senkus
....sounds like a reasonable assessment.
Excepting the F1.8 lens, not important features to me. The buffer would be nice, but with underwater shots, the speed wouldn't help.
Michael without the 32 meg buffer and 3.5 FPS you may miss some great shots to post of Jaws closing in on your but. They would be "priceless"
Gary [/quote]

Any strobe I can reasonable afford wouldn't have a fast enough cycle time to matter.

I will get that picture of the shark. It just might be from the back side of the teeth. The camera should survive once you cut it out of the fish.

The literature I have does not have FPS and buffer listed. Where can I get these specs for comparison?


[Edited on 8-6-2002 by Michael_Adkins]
Michael_Adkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2002, 9:25 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 668
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Michael_Adkins
Quote:
Originally posted by Gary Senkus
....sounds like a reasonable assessment.
Excepting the F1.8 lens, not important features to me. The buffer would be nice, but with underwater shots, the speed wouldn't help.
Michael without the 32 meg buffer and 3.5 FPS you may miss some great shots to post of Jaws closing in on your but. They would be "priceless"
Gary
Any strobe I can reasonable afford wouldn't have a fast enough cycle time to matter.

I will get that picture of the shark. It just might be from the back side of the teeth. The camera should survive once you cut it out of the fish.

The literature I have does not have FPS and buffer listed. Where can I get these specs for comparison?


[Edited on 8-6-2002 by Michael_Adkins]
[/quote]
Mike,
go to steves reviews, use the dropdown menu that has them in abc order, then use drop down and select specs.
Gary
Gary Senkus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2002, 9:57 PM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 42
Default

OK, I see the specs, but for the most part they parrot the manual/online literature. The frame rate isn't in the manual.

For the 4040 he lists about 2 fps
For the 3040 he lists about 3.1 fps

But they will be at "default" ie different resolutions, thus they seem reasonable.

No word on buffer size. You had quoted 32Mbyte buffer size earlier. Either I missed it in the specs, or you have an additional source. Not that I doubt you, its just that you have my curiosity piqued.

I guess your statment was that the 3040 had 32Mbytes of buffer. What about the 4040? Is it the same? Where can we find the same info on the 4000?

After I get back from vacation, I'm sure that there will be several reviews. Wouldn't those in the industry get preview models? I certainly haven't seen a review.
Michael_Adkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2002, 10:17 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 668
Default

Mike,
In this numbr drivin consumer society number they can brag abut are easy to find, others that pople must know get quick or no mention on others that are not a must to tell like average buffer. The D-40 does quick mention of its use of only 1 Cvxx or a 2 AA battery capacity, 2.8 Opticle also is not a really brag point compared to other 4 megapixel. Sometimes in steves reviews you will find some of this if you use the drop down and goto his conclusion, my favorite starting lace.
Good Look,
Gary
Gary Senkus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2002, 11:43 PM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 42
Default

Gary,

I figured out how to get the camera to take sequential pictures. (Still new with this thing).

At default resolution of 2048 x 1536 it would fire at maybe 2 FPS and took about 5 shots before pausing to write. At 1600 x 1200 closer to 3 fps and about 7 or 8 shots. Thats "wrist watch" timing, not too accurate. At any rate, since my underwater flash can't cycle that fast, its a moot point. It certainly is faster at lower settings, just as one would expect.

Quite frankly, I'm sure that the frame rate of any camera in this class would be adequate for my needs. My other camera is a Minolta X-700 with no power features.
Michael_Adkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2002, 12:34 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 668
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Michael_Adkins
Gary,

I figured out how to get the camera to take sequential pictures. (Still new with this thing).

At default resolution of 2048 x 1536 it would fire at maybe 2 FPS and took about 5 shots before pausing to write. At 1600 x 1200 closer to 3 fps and about 7 or 8 shots. Thats "wrist watch" timing, not too accurate. At any rate, since my underwater flash can't cycle that fast, its a moot point. It certainly is faster at lower settings, just as one would expect.

Quite frankly, I'm sure that the frame rate of any camera in this class would be adequate for my needs. My other camera is a Minolta X-700 with no power features.
Mike
On buffer, 2040 8 meg, 3040 32, 4000 and 4040 LARGE, believe that its the 32 meg, but size not listed as 1st time buyers compareing with the 3040 may not understand why less fps. Seems like they took the 3000 added some good stuff, brought it up to 4 meg. Did you think abou the Nikon 990 withh its redeye curse? Jaws with all ivory showing and 2 red eyes, could get POTD at this sight.
Good shooting and good choice,
Gary
Gary Senkus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2002, 12:59 AM   #18
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Gary Senkus
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael_Adkins
Gary,

I figured out how to get the camera to take sequential pictures. (Still new with this thing).

At default resolution of 2048 x 1536 it would fire at maybe 2 FPS and took about 5 shots before pausing to write. At 1600 x 1200 closer to 3 fps and about 7 or 8 shots. Thats "wrist watch" timing, not too accurate. At any rate, since my underwater flash can't cycle that fast, its a moot point. It certainly is faster at lower settings, just as one would expect.

Quite frankly, I'm sure that the frame rate of any camera in this class would be adequate for my needs. My other camera is a Minolta X-700 with no power features.
Mike
On buffer, 2040 8 meg, 3040 32, 4000 and 4040 LARGE, believe that its the 32 meg, but size not listed as 1st time buyers compareing with the 3040 may not understand why less fps. Seems like they took the 3000 added some good stuff, brought it up to 4 meg. Did you think abou the Nikon 990 withh its redeye curse? Jaws with all ivory showing and 2 red eyes, could get POTD at this sight.
Good shooting and good choice,
Gary
Actually, six months ago the 995 was my choice. But with the inexpensive underwater housing for the olympus series, my choice changed. I have serveral friends with the 995 and they like them.

I think I have made a good choice. Time will tell.
Michael_Adkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2002, 1:09 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 668
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Michael_Adkins
Quote:
Originally posted by Gary Senkus
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael_Adkins
Gary,

I figured out how to get the camera to take sequential pictures. (Still new with this thing).

At default resolution of 2048 x 1536 it would fire at maybe 2 FPS and took about 5 shots before pausing to write. At 1600 x 1200 closer to 3 fps and about 7 or 8 shots. Thats "wrist watch" timing, not too accurate. At any rate, since my underwater flash can't cycle that fast, its a moot point. It certainly is faster at lower settings, just as one would expect.

Quite frankly, I'm sure that the frame rate of any camera in this class would be adequate for my needs. My other camera is a Minolta X-700 with no power features.
Mike
On buffer, 2040 8 meg, 3040 32, 4000 and 4040 LARGE, believe that its the 32 meg, but size not listed as 1st time buyers compareing with the 3040 may not understand why less fps. Seems like they took the 3000 added some good stuff, brought it up to 4 meg. Did you think abou the Nikon 990 withh its redeye curse? Jaws with all ivory showing and 2 red eyes, could get POTD at this sight.
Good shooting and good choice,
Gary
Actually, six months ago the 995 was my choice. But with the inexpensive underwater housing for the olympus series, my choice changed. I have serveral friends with the 995 and they like them.

I think I have made a good choice. Time will tell.
Mike,
What houseing did you go with, friends looking for 1 for same series cam. Might need one also, do not dive but when I go to take shower shots ol lady throws wet wash rags. They tend to short out the camera.
Gary
Gary Senkus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2002, 10:00 AM   #20
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Gary Senkus
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael_Adkins
Quote:
Originally posted by Gary Senkus
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael_Adkins
Gary,

I figured out how to get the camera to take sequential pictures. (Still new with this thing).

At default resolution of 2048 x 1536 it would fire at maybe 2 FPS and took about 5 shots before pausing to write. At 1600 x 1200 closer to 3 fps and about 7 or 8 shots. Thats "wrist watch" timing, not too accurate. At any rate, since my underwater flash can't cycle that fast, its a moot point. It certainly is faster at lower settings, just as one would expect.

Quite frankly, I'm sure that the frame rate of any camera in this class would be adequate for my needs. My other camera is a Minolta X-700 with no power features.
Mike
On buffer, 2040 8 meg, 3040 32, 4000 and 4040 LARGE, believe that its the 32 meg, but size not listed as 1st time buyers compareing with the 3040 may not understand why less fps. Seems like they took the 3000 added some good stuff, brought it up to 4 meg. Did you think abou the Nikon 990 withh its redeye curse? Jaws with all ivory showing and 2 red eyes, could get POTD at this sight.
Good shooting and good choice,
Gary
Actually, six months ago the 995 was my choice. But with the inexpensive underwater housing for the olympus series, my choice changed. I have serveral friends with the 995 and they like them.

I think I have made a good choice. Time will tell.
Mike,
What houseing did you go with, friends looking for 1 for same series cam. Might need one also, do not dive but when I go to take shower shots ol lady throws wet wash rags. They tend to short out the camera.
Gary
Won't ask for details

I'm going with the Olympus PT-010 housing. Inexpensive, good for the novice and moderate photographer.

It should be delivered tomorrow.
Michael_Adkins 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 10:41 AM.