I'd like to comment on a few points here. These are just my thoughts on
digis at this time and the c2500 in particular. Negative comments (if
any :>) would apply maybe more forcefully to competing cameras.
Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
> Several of you have asked recently whether any of us owned the new
> C-2500 and what we thought of it. Someone had also queried about a
> rumor that the batteries would only last about 20 minutes. (Not true as
> you'll see) I don't own any digital camera but I was recently talking
> to a good friend (Jon McGrew) who just bought one and asked him if he'd
> be willing to share his impressions with us. What follows are his
> comments:
>
> Chuck Norcutt
> Woburn, Massachusetts, USA
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for your note, Chuck. I have been using my new Olympus
> C-2500L digital camera quite a bit (...I took over 150 pictures while
> I was in Pittsburgh last weekend, 70 of which I had posted on a
> website the next evening), and I am quite pleased with it. I think that
> Olympus did a very good job.
I looked at the camera briefly at the Boston photo show when I was there
last week. It looks to be one of the top digis available. And it
reminds me very much of another Olympus camera, which I'll id later.
Of course, at 1712x1368 it is still far inferior to film.
>
> The camera uses both SmartMedia cards Compact Flash cards. My
> one chief complaint is that they didn't go the one slight extra step and
> also allow the use of Compact Flash Type II cards. If they had done
> that, I could have used the IBM Microdrive hard drive in the camera,
> which is faster, bigger, and cheaper than equivalent solid state cards.
> I ended up with the 32MB SmartMedia card which is supplied with the
> camera and an additional 128MB Compact Flash card. A full-resolution
> picture can be stored as an uncompressed .TIF file; at that rate, it's
> about 8MB per shot, so those two cards give me about 20 shots--
> in other words, a roll of film.
Two cards (160 mBytes) = 20 shots. That's not a roll of film, but more
like 1/2 a roll of film. So, 4 cards is more like it per roll. Gotta
buy and carry a lot of those (fairly delicate) babies. Or buy and carry
a laptop. And 8 MByes per uncompressed full res photo - that's about 1/5
of the necessary size for a high quality large blow up on a laser
printer. 8x10s on dye-sub, yeah it'll certainly do that pretty well.
> Storing an 8MB shot is fairly slow,
> even
> on the solid-state cards,
Shoot ...Wait... shoot...Wait... This still isn't my style.
although the camera can take additional shots
> while the writing is taking place (it has 16MB of internal memory).
> But the IBM Microdrive would have made that substantially faster.
The IBM microdrive is another big step for digital, no doubt.
>
> However, that complaint aside, I think it's a very good product. At
> full
> resolution (1712x1368 pixels), I am able to print an 8x10 photo on an
> inkjet printer (at 170 dpi). I have an Epson 900 inkjet printer, and
> the
> photos come out looking very good. I also have an Alps MD-5000
> printer, so I got the dye sublimation upgrade when I got the Olympus
> camera. Output from that printer is very slow, but the results are
> essentially photographs.
What is the archivibility of the dye-sub prints?
>
> I am using the supplied Ni-MH rechargeable batteries in the camera,
> and it looks as though they will be good for 100 shots or so (at least
> at
> medium resolution... it takes more time to store the bigger pictures).
100 shots = appx 3 rolls film. And this is at medium resolution.
> But so that I could keep shooting, I also bought a belt-clip battery
> pack
> that is supposed to be equivalent to about ten times the life of the
> four
> AA batteries. So far, I haven't needed to use that pack much-- the
> internal batteries are working fine.
>
> I also got the add-on FL-40 flash, and recommend it highly. It extends
> the completely automatic operation of the camera, even zooming when
> the camera lens zooms. Or, of course, as with the camera, it can be
> used in a much more manual fashion if you wish. Good product.
Those of us with IS-3s will immediately recognize the FL-40 flash. It's
a modified G-40. I agree that it is a very good flash.
>
> I spent an afternoon and evening --over eight hours-- taking over 80
> shots last weekend, nearly all of them with the add-on flash, and the
> one set of batteries in the camera (plus the one set in the flash unit)
> provided more than enough power, even with lots of zooming and
> reviewing shots on the LCD monitor... in other words, normal operation.
>
> I bought the camera at a computer store in midtown Manhattan. I went
> to B&H Photo/Video in Manhattan to get some of the accessories.
> When I asked about the accessory telephoto lens, the clerk told me
> that they have it, but he wouldn't sell it to me for that camera... he
> said
> that I won't like it. It's a good lens, he said, but it was made for
> other
> camera models, and on the C-2500L he told me that it causes
> vignetting.
B&H is right. Again, the IS-3 owners will recognize it as the 1.7x
screw-on telephoto multiplier. This is also a good product. I don't
know if it vignettes on the C-2500. It will on the IS-3, but only if
you don't zoom it out all the way to 180mm. And the vignetting actually
creates a nice circular framing or masking device at shorter focal
lengths.
He said, I know you won't like it. Wait for newer lenses
> to come out from Olympus.
Where have I heard this before? :>)
George
>
> I bought a circular polarizing filter in another department in that same
> store, and yep, even that causes some vignetting at full zoom. I guess
> I need a larger filter and a step-up ring.
>
> I am pleased at the progress that has been made with digital cameras
> in the past year or two. Things are looking good.
>
> Regards.
> --Jon
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|