> Noise at 400 iso is just about the same on the 5050 and 5060 - much
> noiser than the E-1 at that iso. The 5060 is, indeed, noticeably faster
> than the 5050 in all regards, and having the 28mm equiv is, as you note,
> quite nice - as is the battery. But damn, that f 1.8 -2.4 lens on the
> 5050 is also awfully nice to have. It's a tough call, and very much
> depends on the uses to which you'll be putting the camera. If you want
> to shoot allot of available light, low light stuff, go with the older,
> slower model. But if you're mostly going to be shooting in good light or
> with flash, I'd definitely opt for the 5060.
>
> B. D.
> photos. Depends on what you want. If you want to be able to use AA
> batteries,
> get a 5050.
> If you prefer the better performance of a proprietary battery, get a
> 5060. Or if you want the wider angle lens. The 5050 has been
> criticized for noise issues, which it does have under certain
> settings, just as the E-1 does. Too many pixels in too small a chip.
> It is no different in this respect than the Canon Powershot S50. I
> haven't seen the 5060 criticized for noise issues, but I have read
> less stuff on it to date than I did when the 5050 came out. The C5050
> still had notable shutter lag when I played with one briefly. From
> what I have read and from what I saw an Oly rep demonstrate, the
> shutter lag on the 5060 is noticeably reduced.
>
> If it were me, the faster shutter release, proprietary battery and
> wider angle lens on the 5060 make it much more attractive to me than
> the 5050.
>
> -Stephen.
Before I bought the C5050, I read this site on a comparison of the two.
http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/c5050/c5060-compar.html
A piece from his page gives some of his assessment of the difference in
batteries. The numbers seem to favor the AA's for capacity, if considering
the latest 2200 or 2300 mAh Ni-mh's. Here's a quote from him:
"""""You may see some claims (often repeated by reviewers) that Li-Ion
batteries are replacing AAs in the '5060 because of higher capacity they
offer. Let's scrutinize this. The Olympus BLM-1 is rated at 1500 mAh at
7.2V. Multiply these two numbers, and you get the nominal energy stored:
10.8 Wh (watt-hours, or joules). For comparison, a set of four
state-of-the-art NiMH AAs will deliver 2300 mAh at 4.8V (4 times 1.2V),
which is 11.04 W. Go figure again.
True, the Lithium-ion technology offers higher capacity per volume, so that
the new Olympus BLM-1 is smaller than four AAs it replaces. The camera,
however, was not reduced in size (quite the opposite), so space economy
clearly was not a factor here.
All this said, at least two '5060 users reported, after reading the original
version of this piece, very impressive results on the camera/battery
performance: up to 600 frames from a single charge, with liberal use of the
color monitor. After three weeks of using the camera I also feel good about
how long a battery charge lasts, although this would really need a
quantitative comparison. """""
Anyways, that was a non-issue for me, as changing batteries is not a big
problem for me. I've been changing AA's in camera related gear for many
years now, and have never even thought about any annoyance connected with
it. Neither is storage capacity of any great concern to me, as that of the
AA's, and I suspect of the battery for the C5060, are both perfectly
adequate, and likely very comparable from a practical point of view.
My decision was made on the basis of AA's being available just about
anywhere, and of the cost of buying several. It looks possibly as though I
may be in Bolivia again in February, and may be several hours beyond where
there is even electricity. But even in those places you can usually buy
batteries, as the locals use them for radios. Besides, and more likely, I
can take a fair supply of AA's with me, Nimh's ($6 for a set of 4)
andalkalines (very cheap) , that will also do in the mini mag lite, the t20
or t32, the travel electric shaver, etc. So everybody has different concerns
that they must weigh for themselves.
The 28mm equivalent on the C5060 was very tempting, but the battery issue,
and even more so the lens speed difference, and the adapter tube that
doesn't accept ordinary threads, were the main reasons I decided on the
C5050.
If I had it to do over again though, I'd probably just go for a C4000.
Wayne
< 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 >
|