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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 27, 2002, 7:19 PM   #31
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 82
Default

I believe it is possible to see shortcomings in camera manufacturers designs from results revealed through exposures at program level (i.e. beginners) and actively encourage distressed owners to persue the company involved with vigour.

Regards,
David
david is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2002, 1:09 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
marcoangels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 243
Default

Thanks for your input, Fenlander, but I still see the pics I mentioned as 'out of focus'...my Oly D490z took very sharp pics and everything was in focus. Sure, it is a 'point and shoot', but I would expect that ,when I shoot a scenery shot with the C-4000 using the 'landscape' mode, it would adjust the aperture so that foreground and background are in focus. I've shot many pics with my C-4000 trying all the various settings and still cannot get a pic as clear as the D490 produced. Also, using the aperture-priority mode and increasing the ap only gave me very dark, under-exposed images. You may be happy with your C-4000, and that's great, but I've been reading an awful lot of complaints about the camera, complaints that I'm not finding with other models and manufacturer's. I'm sure that most of us who are having problems with the C-4000 are not as 'experienced' as you, but the point is, we've all had 'lesser' cameras that performed better with far less effort. Olympus designed this camera for the photographer with not too much experience, hence the 'low price'...they are after 'the masses', not the pro, and too many of us are having problems, which takes the fun out of it.
Ive never had problems with my monitor before, but I cannot make out the name of the library in that pic. I am viewing the 'large' image, not the original, and from that distance , the lettering on the library should be very clear, I know it would be even with a low-end point and shoot film camera, like my wife's and her friends. Maybe you have a very expensive, high-resolution, low dot-pitch monitor that makes those images clear, but to my eyes, they're not 'sharp', except in certain isolated areas of the image.
I detect sarcasm in your posts, Fenlander. Are you on a vendetta to ridicule every post I make? If so, you disappoint me, especially considering your age. This forum was not meant for sarcasm, it's meant to let us all help one another. We're of various experience levels, and you, having 50 years experience should be politely helping, not shooting people down! I don't like my C-4000 and I don't like the Epson printers, both are too much work. That's why there are many various manufacturer's out there. What works for me might not work for you, and I respect your right to your own choices.
Blessings, come on, God loves us all!
Johnny
Blessings, Johnny...
marcoangels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2002, 4:14 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
fenlander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 251
Default

Hi, Marcoangels,

It's not sarcasm - it's pretty open annoyance. I'm getting impatient will all the comment from digicam owners (not just the C4000) who immediately blame the equipment if their photos are not as good as they expect. This seems to be a digital-related phenomenon and I can never remember an equivalent "blame the camera" culture when people used film. If you took a bad picture, you put it down to experience and tried to do better next time. With digitals, it seems that people expect to keep a camera for so short a time that they're prepared to trash the manufacturer and buy another camera.

The library name issue is a case in point. Here is the library name as seen in the full size version, together with a 3x enlarged clip from the "large" version on pbase:



It's pretty clear to me that the fault here is with pbase's resizing algorithm, but you jumped to the conclusion that it was the fault of the C4000 without properly examining the evidence. (If you can't read the name in the upper part of this pic you really do need a new monitor...)

fenlander
fenlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2002, 4:22 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 107
Default

Thank you Fenlander for your first class postings even tho this site is not the best place for them I am finding Dpreview more informative this site needs moderater input against repetitive snipes at the c4000. As a novice I have a long way to go with this camera and recognise my limitations but progress nonetheless
jasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2002, 7:21 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
fenlander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 251
Default

Thanks, jasm. I, too, spend more time in dpreview because the forums are more active, but this thread is holding my interest.

fenlander
fenlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2002, 3:39 PM   #36
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 82
Default

Hi all,
I came across the following article several days ago. I thought this would be an appropriate time to slot it in:

Quote:
January 2003 edition of Personal Computer World (UK).
Group test of nine cameras.

"The Olympus applied the highest compression ratio to its images of all the cameras here, so we were not surprised to find compression artefacts along the edges of the Gerbera petals in our outdoor test. The image was over-exposed; the yellow and orange parts of the flower appeared as the same colour and, as a result, detail was lost. Plastic-wrapped purple flowers were well rendered.
Indoors, the C-4000 seemed to have some trouble resolving brighter colours, making our bright yellow and lime green toys unconvincing and lifeless. Focus was very sharp across the whole image with good detail even in the corners, although there was considerably less detail in highlighted areas. Reflections and metallic textures were well handled, although not quite as well as the Sony."
Best regards,
David
david is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2002, 7:10 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 107
Default

http://www.pcw.co.uk/Products/Hardware/1136862 :?: Rave review from same magazine search and you will find, whatever you want to find.
jasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2002, 7:38 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
fenlander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 251
Default

It would be interesting to know how the camera was set up for the test.

In SQ1 and SQ2, the Olympus does seem to apply a high compression ratio - a 2Mp image on the Oly in SQ1 Normal is about half the size of a similar file on my Fuji 2800.

This doesn't bother me as I always use SHQ. My tests indicate that this uses a jpeg compression ratio of approx 2 (or 98, depending how you look at it) to produce files of around 1.8 to 2.2 Mb for a 4Mp image. That gives about 36 shots on a 64Mb card (a nice familiar number...) Of course, if you're really fastidious you could always use TIFF - if you're also patient and have a bag full of Smartmedia cards.

The C4000's high default contrast has been noted in a number of reviews. However, if this is tweaked in setup to -3 or -4, the problem is minimised. I find the exposure accuracy better than most for subjects of average contrast.

Interesting that the camera's focusing ability is well reported, given earlier comments in this thread.

As I have commented elsewhere, my own strongest reservations with the C4000 concern lens bloom and/or CA (I'm still trying to sort out which is which). I also find the pincushioning to be greater than some reports claim - I have to resort to Panotools to correct distortion much more often than I do with the Fuji. The optical viewfinder really is a poor effort. Mine shows no more than 80% of the image and is canted a couple of degrees anti-clockwise, making it virtually unusable. Finally, I think the system could make a better guess at the number of shots available: with an empty card inserted, it always underestimates by around 50% - but that's trivial.

I see the C4000 as an "end-of-line" model release, incorporating a lot of whiz bangs developed for previous models in the series at a very attractive price. Build quality is so-so and you have to work around the weaknesses. If you're careful, you can get excellent results.

Fifteen years ago I bought a Yashica SLR - one of the first auto-focus cameras to come on the market. I still have it - it's virtually unmarked and takes as good a picture today as ever. It also weighs a ton and lives in its own suitcase. Somehow I don't think many of today's digicams will last as long, but at least you can carry them up a mountain without breaking your back.

fenlander
fenlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2002, 7:43 PM   #39
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 82
Default

The article didn't state other than default settings, auto. I assume that means HQ.

I think you'll find lens bloom can occur anywhere in the picture as in the picture you posted in this thread. And C/A occurs close to the edge. Usually more the leftside for whatever reason.

This phrase "razor sharp" that gets banded about alot, bugs me. I have been eyeing up various monitors ever since being into pc's and I have never seen one yet that I would describe as being even close to "razor sharp."
david is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 2002, 12:42 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
fenlander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 251
Default

It's when you do find a really sharp monitor that you realise how over-sharpened most amateur digital pics are...

I use a Mitsubishi CRT at home but have a very expensive 17" flat screen at work that comes close to "razor sharp". For photos, the CRT is a more pleasing experience, though.

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 2:26 AM.