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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 24, 2002, 12:28 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
marcoangels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 243
Default

I didnt see that photo before...I guess Dave's C-4000 is a good one. Mine won't take sharp prints like that...Johnny
marcoangels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 24, 2002, 10:47 AM   #22
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6
Default

Do you think there are quality control issues at Olympus? My C-4000 out of the box works great. I haven't had any focus issues except at extremely low light. I must have got a good one.
Pipeman597 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 24, 2002, 11:17 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
fenlander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 251
Default

Funny thing - I've got an Epson Photo printer, too - and I get along very well with it...

For the record, I generally leave all the "tweak" settings on the C4000 at nominal except contrast, which I normally set to -3. I prefer to do sharpening and contrast adjustments in software, not let the camera do it. I always shoot in the highest res/lowest compression mode I can - normally SHQ. Most shots then get adjusted in PaintShop Pro before I use Irfanview's Lanczos filter to reduce the size to 1280x960 for a screen display version.

When shooting I mostly use an aperture priority mode and prefer to use f5.6 or smaller, even at the expense of a slower shutter speed.

For printing, I use Qimage with my Epson 870. Generally I use Qimage's default settings for interpolation and sharpening. If I have a problem at the printing stage, it's usually because the image is TOO sharp.

I find it is better to have images a little soft and a little flat (possibly even a touch under-exposed) from the camera: that way all your options remain open at the post-production stage. Once an image is over-sharpened or its contrast boosted to the point of burn-out in the highlights, there is little that can be done with it. I'm sure I have better control over these processes on my PC than I would have if I let the camera do it all.

fenlander
fenlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 24, 2002, 12:58 PM   #24
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 82
Default

Hi pipeman597, yes I do think there are quality control issues at olympus (and with other makes would not surprise me) because I have had besides the c4000 two c40's and they gave different results and had different faults, both returned to shop.

Hi fenlander, I really only wish to use my camera to take pics to view on my monitor. This can display upto 1600x1200 but I normally view at 1024x768. It is iiyama vision master pro 400 17".

I have seen the sample pics on Steve's Digicams for c4000 and it seems that this camera bleaches out highlights at the default setting. Though I don't understand if this is why the contrast needs to be reduced so much, as recommended on another website review of this camera.

I kind of look upon the member dave1's pics as a benchmark to what this camera should do (for all owners) and try to produce likewise results. For example, his pic in the link above. Bit difficult here in London at the moment because the weather is so bad (no surprise there anyway!) and all the leaves are off the trees! I consistently get under par (and less sharp) results in comparison. I have tried spot focus, manual focus etc. All what you have said in advice does not help me understand why his pics can be manipulated somewhat and downsized and resampled and still look sharp without hardly any dreaded jaggies.

All the best to one and all,

PS dave1 if your ears have been burning lately you know why.
PSS (if there is such a thing) mine:
http://www.hereat.freeserve.co.uk/view.jpg

:roll: David
david is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2002, 7:25 PM   #25
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1
Default

These are pics from two different C4000s ... I'm a newbie, and I can't seem to find anything wrong or different in terms of focus, etc. between both of them. I do notice the CA (red/green spread, and occasional purple fringing) a lot. Is there any way to combat this, or am I just resigned to deal with it?

In any case, here you are:

http://www.pbase.com/dinglehoser/random_stuff&page=1
Dinglehoser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2002, 1:17 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
marcoangels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 243
Default

Well, I see focus problems big time at your gallery...in your first pic, the leaves on the trees, especially the tree on the left, are not clear at all...in your 4th pic, the 2 male mallards are fuzzy and in your 6th pic, I cannot read the name of the library and notice how the grass to the left is out of focus, about the only thing in focus is the yellow sign...these are the same problems many of us are having with our C-4000's...welcome to the club!
marcoangels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2002, 6:26 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
fenlander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 251
Default

Let's get real here!

Pic 1: Evidently taken on a dull day, hence f2.8. Sharpness is not great, but it's IMPOSSIBLE to judge focus on the basis of trees unless you know the state of the wind and whether or not the trees were in motion. No verdict on this pic.

Pic 4: The duck in the foreground is sharp, as is the water. The exposure was 1/60 and the 2 mallards were MOVING! The shutter speed used is too slow to freeze movement: it is this you are seeing, not a lack of focus. Verdict: pic is sharp.

Pic 6: What version of the picture are you looking at? - try the original. The name of the library is the Mark O. Hatfield. The poster on the right offers free food and drink and martinis "shaken not stirred". At f4.5 the pic is sharp from the leaves on the tree in the foreground to the clock on the library. Verdict: sharp.

Let's remember that some skill is required on the part of the photographer - contrary to popular opinion, the camera still doesn't do absolutely everything. The C4000 is best used on Spot focus - iESP is not intelligent enough to do a good job. Read the section on focusing (p58 of the manual on the CD). Remember the effect of aperture on depth of field. Remember that more fuzzy pictures are caused by unsteady hands or moving subjects than by camera faults.

Above all, remember the old saying about workmen and their tools. The C4000 is NOT a point and shoot camera - to get the best out of it, you have to understand some basic photographic principles.

fenlander
fenlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2002, 6:26 PM   #28
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 82
Default

Hiya Dinglehoser,
Some of your pictures are really good. I find it difficult to evaluate them from a camera performance point of view because they are compressed and you have a lot of subjects that needed a fairly slow shutter speed.
Good luck.
Regards,
David
david is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2002, 6:35 PM   #29
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 82
Default

Hi fenlander,
Oh yes, the c4000z is a point and shoot camera. It has a auto program setting for this very purpose. If Olympus can't get it right, it is not the consumers responsibilty to carry the can back for their failings.

Many regards,
David.
david is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2002, 6:52 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
fenlander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 251
Default

David,

For years there have been cameras that offer full control of exposure and focus to the photographer - SLRs, not just digicams. All of these have a P)rogram mode as well, so in a sense, they're all point-and-shoot. However, if you only ever use them in this mode, there's little point paying the extra for the bells and whistles.

A true point and shoot camera is one that does ONLY that. I have a Fuji 2800, which I consider to be point and shoot and a C4000 which isn't.

Program mode takes away just about all the decisions about exposure. Unfortunately, this means that many camera users never learn the photographic basics, and if they're happy with the results they get from their P&S cams, that's fine. However, there are some things a P&S doesn't do: you still have to compose your picture; you still have to point the lens at the right place to focus the shot AND lock the focus in if you then recompose the frame. In some particular situations, P&S doesn't cope well - a sports photographer wants fast shutter speeds, a landscape photographer wants depth of field. In P mode the C4000 usually picks f2.8: a photographer would avoid f2.8 unless there was a good reason to use it.

What I see in this thread is SOME folks blaming their cameras for the results of their own lack of technique. In nearly 50 years of taking pictures I've had a lot of duds - and they've nearly all been my own fault. (Next biggest offender has been useless labs that turn good pictures into mush.)

fenlander
fenlander 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 5:57 PM.