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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 24, 2004, 11:40 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 45
Default Steve's C-765 review?

A very fast (I mean its the first real review I've seen of it) and pretty nice review, letting us understand quite well how the camera works and its features.

BUT, I'm afraid I'm too much of a newbie to draw my own conclutions how this compares to S1 IS for example.
Everyone that tried the C-765 has said its got fast AF and it has this new processor-thing to make it faster and better, but yet Steve says it takes 0.6-0.7 to lock focus. Isn't that just about the same as the S1 that everyone picks on cause its so sloooooow its hardly usable to take pictures with unless static and well lit conditions???

And the freezing EVF...I just read someone saying Canon was the only brand having these problems, but it seems Olympus is just the same here. Is it just as bad or is it a much shorter freeze?

And also how does it compare looking at the pictures, is this a better camera than the S1 (except no IS) or are they about in the same leage, or is the more expensive S1 better?


Also the continous shooting seemed rather lame, only capturing 2-3 shots maximum quality. I think the C-770 will fix that, I've read up to 12 shots for that camera and I really hope thats true, and I want its great movie-mode too (but its identical almost to C-765 so this review was informative for me)

Would be great if someone (Steve?) could clarify these few things for me (and probably some others that wonder too)
Seb74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 24, 2004, 12:45 PM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3
Default

Yes, nice to see a review of this new camera. Glad the EVF freeze was mentioned - these operational details are often overlooked in reviews, but important. Overall seemed a bit vague though - would be nice to know :

- If the new processor makes any difference, and if so how/what.
- Previous models in this series used standard AA batteries, whereas this one uses lithium ion, so an indication of battery life and how it compares to the previous model longer/shorter would be welcome.
- Big zoom compacts typically take longer to power up (extend the lens) than other digicams - would be nice to know if this new generation improves on this.
- The zoom is said to be quiet and smooth (excellent) but there's no mention of how long it takes to zoom from one extreme to the other. The C-750 was said to have a delay lag when activating the zoom switch - has this been addressed in this new model?
- Noise is often a problem in big zoom compacts since they tend to use smaller CCD sensors than other digicams. Noise didn't seem to be mentioned in the article, and all the samples seem to be at ISO 64. I can see noise even in these, so maybe it's a really big problem - would like to know.
- 15 seconds and noise reduction after 1 second sounds like the camera has the potential to perform well for night photography. A night sample and comments would be welcome.

Looking forward to a review of the C-770 - 640x480 MPEG4 @30fps sounds like a more interesting and innovative beast!
adlib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2004, 1:08 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 45
Default

Yes I agree with what you're saying. Noise if probably the largest issue, but S1 is quite noisy too so maybe they are about the same.
Can you maybe explain why they use smaller CCD's in large zoom cameras? Is it an economic issue, or does it have to do with the lens and magnification in some way or what?

And yes, night-shots would be very interresting cause I intend to shoot the moon and such....Steve usually dont make those shots for some reason though.

Oh, and I just found out that mpeg-4 sucks....sort of.....anyway it seems only Quicktime can play them and they cant be edited by programs like VirtualDub and such.
Anyone know some way to edit or convert mpeg-4???
Seb74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2004, 5:05 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3
Default

Something like this I think - I don't know the technical details, but here's my understanding: If you look at a 300mm zoom lens on a traditional 35mm film SLR camera, such a lens is fairly big - it has to produce a focused image circle big enough to cover a 35mm diagonal (the size of a 35mm negative/slide frame). If they make the lens physically smaller, but with the same zoom 'reach', the focused image the lens produces becomes smaller, so the CCD sensor used must be smaller too - it has to fit completely within the focused image circle produced by the lens. Reduce the lens down to compact digicam size and the image that lens is producing must be really tiny, requiring a tiny sensor. The smaller the sensor, the more suseptable to noise. Economics will play a part too - smaller CCD, smaller lens = less glass and other materials, so such a camera can probably be mass produced cheaper...

The advantage of the MPEG4 format is the image quality *for a given data rate* (especially at low data rates) is supposed to be far better than most other compression systems. If implemented well it should be an ideal format for digicam movie clips. The popular DivX codec is based on MPEG4 - be interesting to see if DivX can play back movies created with this camera. MPEG4 is not a good editing format - probably OK for cuts only editing with no recompression - but since for the first time it should enable a reasonable amount of full resolution (640x480 30fps) video to be recorded by a digicam I'm not complaining. Of course we won't know how good it is until we see it...
adlib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2004, 5:31 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 45
Default

Thanks for the explanation. That means there wont ever be a 10x zoom camera this size with much less noise (at least not with the current CCD-technology).

Well, we have already seen it in action (that japanese or whatever theater clip that was posted in dpreview forum).

Looks very good with mpeg-4, the only problem (and thats a HUUUUGE problem) is that its impossible to edit or convert that stupid file that will only play in Quicktime and nothing else.

Tried VirtualDub, TMPGEnc, lots of players like WMP, BSPlayer, PowerDVD and so on, even installed some mpeg-4 codec and other things, but still impossible to open it in some editing software

If there is no solution for this I probably will take my movies uncompressed. Better 1 minute that I can edit all I want than 10 minutes I cant do shit with


Well well, lets hope Steve will check this thread and give us some answers about the camera

Edit: Seems like the C-770 is a fast camera and good in low-light
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...essage=8541065
Seb74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2004, 7:16 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3
Default

Thanks for the link! I just tracked down that theatre sample you mentioned, and it does look good - though my computer struggles to play it smoothly - I guess 1GHz is just not enough horsepower . Roughly 15MBytes per minute - that's a data rate of 2048kbits/sec including audio. So you should get around 30 minutes of video at that quality on a 512MB card. Nice. MP4 Audio sounds not bad either...

Although MPEG4 video, just like MPEG1 and MPEG2, is not an ideal format for editing because it's already heavily compressed, there's nothing in the format itself that would prevent editing. It's just a case of finding an editing tool which supports the .mp4 format.

I've seen a comment in a forum suggesting the next version of the "3ivx muxer and splitter" will support cutting .mp4 files...

On the other hand maybe the camera ships with some suitable editing software on the CD?

Alternatively perhaps try a more mainstream package - for instance I think Adobe Premiere supports QuickTime editing.
adlib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 9:23 AM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 45
Default

I would also like to know if its possible to carry the C-765/C-770 in your pocket?
Of course, it depends on the pockets, I'm not talking tight jeans here, but rather large pockets (not extreme though lol).

Might it be possible, or is it so that even if the pockets are barely the needed size the lens might be damaged being pressed down a pocket since its a bit loose???
I dont know how these cameras work and how vulnerable they are compared to normal compact-cameras that you can do what you want with

Damn I dont have a real mail-address....posting on dpreview would have been so much nicer. In here nothing happens at all almost
Seb74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 10:57 AM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 63
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seb74
Can you maybe explain why they use smaller CCD's in large zoom cameras? Is it an economic issue, or does it have to do with the lens and magnification in some way or what?
And yes, night-shots would be very interresting cause I intend to shoot the moon and such....Steve usually dont make those shots for some reason though.
Oh, and I just found out that mpeg-4 sucks....sort of.....anyway it seems only Quicktime can play them and they cant be edited by programs like VirtualDub and such.
Anyone know some way to edit or convert mpeg-4???
larger ccd => larger objective, and people want small cameras so to use a "large" objective they shrink the lcd and the objective in size.
mpeg4 doesn't suck.
aliquis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 1:00 PM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 63
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seb74
Tried VirtualDub, TMPGEnc, lots of players like WMP, BSPlayer, PowerDVD and so on, even installed some mpeg-4 codec and other things, but still impossible to open it in some editing software
Tried - http://www.videolan.org/ ?
aliquis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 1:21 PM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 63
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seb74
Might it be possible, or is it so that even if the pockets are barely the needed size the lens might be damaged being pressed down a pocket since its a bit loose???
I dont know how these cameras work and how vulnerable they are compared to normal compact-cameras that you can do what you want with
I've heard many people think you should use a uv-filter for protection, it's only just a little over 100sek so it's not expensive and also gives better photos.
Secondly i can give you an area51.se e-mail addy if you want to, just mail me at [email protected] with your weird e-mail address and i'll fix it. Make up some username and password and consider it done.
aliquis 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 6:23 PM.