Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New Oly DSLR?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 5:44:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Is anyone attending the PMA this weekend? Seen any sign of the rumored new
Olympus DSLR body(ies)?

More about : oly dslr

Anonymous
February 18, 2005 5:57:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Barry Bean" <bbbean@beancotton.com> wrote in message
news:Xns960158F611C96eatmorecotton@207.14.113.17...
> Is anyone attending the PMA this weekend? Seen any sign of the rumored new
> Olympus DSLR body(ies)?

No announcement. Someone mentioned on dpreview that it wasn't much point in
putting high quality lenses on the e-300 and e-1, and got savaged by the Oly
crew for their trouble.

So it looks a though they're VERY pissed off at being stuck with a choice of
the cheap ugly 300 or the outdated e-1
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 5:57:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Knild" <knild@venturenet.com> wrote in message
news:37me4cF4oel87U1@individual.net...
>
> "Barry Bean" <bbbean@beancotton.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns960158F611C96eatmorecotton@207.14.113.17...
> > Is anyone attending the PMA this weekend? Seen any sign of the rumored
new
> > Olympus DSLR body(ies)?
>
> No announcement. Someone mentioned on dpreview that it wasn't much point
in
> putting high quality lenses on the e-300 and e-1, and got savaged by the
Oly
> crew for their trouble.
>
> So it looks a though they're VERY pissed off at being stuck with a choice
of
> the cheap ugly 300 or the outdated e-1


While the sensor in the E300 may indeed be too small, the camera is quite
attractive and the build quality is superb-- it is neither cheap nor ugly.
And as long as a camera produces acceptable results, it is not "outdated",
except perhaps among those who wear the labels of their clothes on the
outside.
Related resources
February 18, 2005 6:17:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <2tadnbUbyrHE1YvfRVn-tw@comcast.com>, xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom
says...
> While the sensor in the E300 may indeed be too small, the camera is quite
> attractive and the build quality is superb-- it is neither cheap nor ugly.
> And as long as a camera produces acceptable results, it is not "outdated",
> except perhaps among those who wear the labels of their clothes on the
> outside.
>


I get a kick (and a LOT of entertainment) out of those who complain about
PLASTIC and BRAND.

The so called plastic used in most Digital cameras is a tough resin designed
to take as much abuse as steel without distorting or cracking. (and it doesnt
get brittle in the cold until the temperature is to low for YOU to bear)

Yes, there are some cheap plastic cameras (for instance think about the
broken battery doors on all the Kodaks we have seen complaints about) but the
plastic used on these larger more expensive cameras is some pretty tuff stuff
and for MOST purposes at least as strong as it needs to be.



--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 8:04:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Knild" <knild@venturenet.com> wrote in message
news:37me4cF4oel87U1@individual.net...
>
> "Barry Bean" <bbbean@beancotton.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns960158F611C96eatmorecotton@207.14.113.17...
>> Is anyone attending the PMA this weekend? Seen any sign of the rumored
>> new
>> Olympus DSLR body(ies)?
>
> No announcement.

You think they'll ever build a sports/PJ camera to challenge the Canon 1D or
the Nikon equiv?
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 8:57:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <37me4cF4oel87U1@individual.net>, Knild says...

> No announcement. Someone mentioned on dpreview that it wasn't much point in
> putting high quality lenses on the e-300 and e-1, and got savaged by the Oly
> crew for their trouble.
>
> So it looks a though they're VERY pissed off at being stuck with a choice of
> the cheap ugly 300 or the outdated e-1

Olympus should launch sooner or later a pro version of the E300,
although I haven't heard anything about it so far.

By the way, the E300 isn't ugly.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 9:05:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c803ce6f7ba0cb998a9dc@news.supernews.com:

> By the way, the E300 isn't ugly.

Yes, it is.

--

Bill
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 10:15:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns96018553190CEWoodchuckBill@130.133.1.4:

>> By the way, the E300 isn't ugly.
>
> Yes, it is.
>

Why would it matter?
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 10:34:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c803ce6f7ba0cb998a9dc@news.supernews.com...
> In article <37me4cF4oel87U1@individual.net>, Knild says...
>
>> No announcement. Someone mentioned on dpreview that it wasn't much point
>> in
>> putting high quality lenses on the e-300 and e-1, and got savaged by the
>> Oly
>> crew for their trouble.
>>
>> So it looks a though they're VERY pissed off at being stuck with a choice
>> of
>> the cheap ugly 300 or the outdated e-1
>
> Olympus should launch sooner or later a pro version of the E300,
> although I haven't heard anything about it so far.
>
> By the way, the E300 isn't ugly.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon


Sorry Alfred - I've seen your galleries and they're terrific, I've read some
of your articles and they're very knowledgeable - but, while beauty is
always in the eye of the beholder, in the eye of this particular beholder
the 300 looks like a cheap & nasty plastic digicam.

What is intriguing is your suggestion that the next Oly will be a
development of the 300, rather than (as everyone seems to expect) a specced
up E-1. You could be right, and it would be fascinating to see what they do
to improve the 300.
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 10:40:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Barry Bean <bbbean@beancotton.com> wrote in
news:Xns960186EA44C67eatmorecotton@207.14.113.17:

> Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:Xns96018553190CEWoodchuckBill@130.133.1.4:
>
>>> By the way, the E300 isn't ugly.
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>>
>
> Why would it matter?
>

It matters to some; not to others. Nonetheless, it is a factor.

--

Bill
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 11:04:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 18 Feb 2005 19:15:28 GMT, Barry Bean <bbbean@beancotton.com> wrote:

>Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:Xns96018553190CEWoodchuckBill@130.133.1.4:
>
>>> By the way, the E300 isn't ugly.
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>
>Why would it matter?

Pictures of models with disgusted looks on their face don't sell well?

....continuing that idea, all pro studio cameras should be bright pink.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 11:04:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> writes:

> On 18 Feb 2005 19:15:28 GMT, Barry Bean <bbbean@beancotton.com> wrote:
>
> >Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >news:Xns96018553190CEWoodchuckBill@130.133.1.4:
> >
> >>> By the way, the E300 isn't ugly.
> >>
> >> Yes, it is.
> >
> >Why would it matter?
>
> Pictures of models with disgusted looks on their face don't sell well?

I dunno, half the model shots I see, the model seems to be sneering at the
camera. A turnoff IMHO, but perhaps others think of it as 'sophistication'.
Of course, there are probably men out there that never notice the models face.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 11:06:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul H." <xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom> wrote in message
news:2tadnbUbyrHE1YvfRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>
> "Knild" <knild@venturenet.com> wrote in message
> news:37me4cF4oel87U1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Barry Bean" <bbbean@beancotton.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns960158F611C96eatmorecotton@207.14.113.17...
>> > Is anyone attending the PMA this weekend? Seen any sign of the rumored
> new
>> > Olympus DSLR body(ies)?
>>
>> No announcement. Someone mentioned on dpreview that it wasn't much point
> in
>> putting high quality lenses on the e-300 and e-1, and got savaged by the
> Oly
>> crew for their trouble.
>>
>> So it looks a though they're VERY pissed off at being stuck with a choice
> of
>> the cheap ugly 300 or the outdated e-1
>
>
> While the sensor in the E300 may indeed be too small, the camera is quite
> attractive and the build quality is superb-- it is neither cheap nor ugly.
> And as long as a camera produces acceptable results, it is not "outdated",
> except perhaps among those who wear the labels of their clothes on the
> outside.


The 300 is entirely acceptable - as a digicam. It's distinctly less
convincing as a DSLR

..All this is pointless, however, in 12 months I predict that new Canon 350
will have so completely captured the lower end of the market that
aberrations like the Oly 300 will have been forgotten by all except those
unfortunate enough to have actually bought one.
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 11:28:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c8017734d849bc39896bc@news.individual.NET...
> In article <2tadnbUbyrHE1YvfRVn-tw@comcast.com>,
> xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom
> says...
>> While the sensor in the E300 may indeed be too small, the camera is quite
>> attractive and the build quality is superb-- it is neither cheap nor
>> ugly.
>> And as long as a camera produces acceptable results, it is not
>> "outdated",
>> except perhaps among those who wear the labels of their clothes on the
>> outside.
>>
>
>
> I get a kick (and a LOT of entertainment) out of those who complain about
> PLASTIC and BRAND.
>
> The so called plastic used in most Digital cameras is a tough resin
> designed
> to take as much abuse as steel without distorting or cracking. (and it
> doesnt
> get brittle in the cold until the temperature is to low for YOU to bear)
>
> Yes, there are some cheap plastic cameras (for instance think about the
> broken battery doors on all the Kodaks we have seen complaints about) but
> the
> plastic used on these larger more expensive cameras is some pretty tuff
> stuff
> and for MOST purposes at least as strong as it needs to be.


I agree with you to a certain extent - but that is mostly because of the
rapid obsolescence of cameras.

Take the E-!, superb build, first class finish, wonderful alloy
construction, etc. BUT, ever advancing technology has turned it into a
dinosaur, what's the point of paying for superb build quality if the sensor,
processor, LCD, etc, are sub-standard in a couple of years time?

Sometimes it's best to treat these things as semi-disposable items and avoid
wasting money on expensive magnesium alloy that just ends up wrapping
obsolete electronics.
February 18, 2005 11:28:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <37n1gmF5dhmstU1@individual.net>, knild@venturenet.com says...
>
> I agree with you to a certain extent - but that is mostly because of the
> rapid obsolescence of cameras.
>
> Take the E-!, superb build, first class finish, wonderful alloy
> construction, etc. BUT, ever advancing technology has turned it into a
> dinosaur, what's the point of paying for superb build quality if the sensor,
> processor, LCD, etc, are sub-standard in a couple of years time?
>
> Sometimes it's best to treat these things as semi-disposable items and avoid
> wasting money on expensive magnesium alloy that just ends up wrapping
> obsolete electronics.
>
>
>


That is (partially) what I meant.

The plastic is at LEAST strong enough to take the knocks of daily use, and
COULD last as long as the owner of the camera, but since most of us geeks
tend to upgrade every couple of years WHATS THE ISSUE????

It seems to me that the feeling comes from how people might feel when they
see you camera... Im far more concerned how they feel when they see the
pictures.

As far as Im concerned beauty is in the eye of the guy writing the check for
that set of prints I just delivered.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 12:39:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9601957607DB9WoodchuckBill@130.133.1.4:

>> Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns96018553190CEWoodchuckBill@130.133.1.4:
>>
>>>> By the way, the E300 isn't ugly.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is.
>>>
>>
>> Why would it matter?
>>
>
> It matters to some; not to others. Nonetheless, it is a factor.

You didn't answer the question. A camera is a tool, not a fashion
accessory.
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 12:43:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Barry Bean <bbbean@beancotton.com> wrote in
news:Xns96019F4438BDCeatmorecotton@207.14.113.17:

> Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9601957607DB9WoodchuckBill@130.133.1.4:
>
>>> Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:Xns96018553190CEWoodchuckBill@130.133.1.4:
>>>
>>>>> By the way, the E300 isn't ugly.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it is.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why would it matter?
>>>
>>
>> It matters to some; not to others. Nonetheless, it is a factor.
>
> You didn't answer the question. A camera is a tool, not a fashion
> accessory.
>

I agree, but it is a factor when it comes to sales...especially with
the consumer market. The chic factor does play a role in selling a
camera. I'm not saying that I personally would not buy an ugly camera,
just that it is one of many factors that buyers do consider.

--

Bill
February 19, 2005 12:43:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Xns9601AA6A48E27WoodchuckBill@130.133.1.4>, bwr607@hotmail.com
says...
>
> I agree, but it is a factor when it comes to sales...especially with
> the consumer market. The chic factor does play a role in selling a
> camera. I'm not saying that I personally would not buy an ugly camera,
> just that it is one of many factors that buyers do consider.
>
> --
>
> Bill
>

I find it hard to CARE about a person who would consider how a camera LOOKS
when shopping for a camera.

Its analogous to the guy who says he NEEDS an SUV, but wouldn't consider
driving it in Snow or mud, because he doesn't want it getting dirty.

My Dad (may he rest in peace) used to call them Yuppieschmuks (all one word),
I call them "Status Pidgeons".

I know several that carry around the latest and greatest Canon DSLR and they
dont know an f stop from a tripod. They use a MkII like a point and shoot
and get all their prints done as 4x6 at Wal-Mart (but Im sure they wear dark
glasses so they wont be recognized when they go in to get their pictures.''


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 1:53:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c802ff6cbeec8059896c1@news.individual.NET...
> In article <Xns9601AA6A48E27WoodchuckBill@130.133.1.4>, bwr607@hotmail.com
> says...
>>
>> I agree, but it is a factor when it comes to sales...especially with
>> the consumer market. The chic factor does play a role in selling a
>> camera. I'm not saying that I personally would not buy an ugly camera,
>> just that it is one of many factors that buyers do consider.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Bill
>>
>
> I find it hard to CARE about a person who would consider how a camera
> LOOKS
> when shopping for a camera.
>
> Its analogous to the guy who says he NEEDS an SUV, but wouldn't consider
> driving it in Snow or mud, because he doesn't want it getting dirty.
>
> My Dad (may he rest in peace) used to call them Yuppieschmuks (all one
> word),
> I call them "Status Pidgeons".
>
> I know several that carry around the latest and greatest Canon DSLR and
> they
> dont know an f stop from a tripod. They use a MkII like a point and shoot
> and get all their prints done as 4x6 at Wal-Mart (but Im sure they wear
> dark
> glasses so they wont be recognized when they go in to get their
> pictures.''



Then, to use your automotive analogy, you're saying that a purchaser
shouldn't care about the shape of any car he might be considering
purchasing - as long as it goes, and doesn't break down.

In other words, why would someone prefer a stylish Honda Civic to a Hyundai
Accent? (do they have those nasty little cars in the States?)

Or, when purchasing your last Carpet, or TV, or Sofa, or Table, did you look
at the colours, the shape and the design - or did you just buy the first
thing you saw that was adequate for the task?

Design is important to all of us - and why should we buy ugly cameras just
because they 'do the job'?
February 19, 2005 1:53:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <37na0hF5fc22cU1@individual.net>, knild@venturenet.com says...
>
> "Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c802ff6cbeec8059896c1@news.individual.NET...
> > In article <Xns9601AA6A48E27WoodchuckBill@130.133.1.4>, bwr607@hotmail.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> I agree, but it is a factor when it comes to sales...especially with
> >> the consumer market. The chic factor does play a role in selling a
> >> camera. I'm not saying that I personally would not buy an ugly camera,
> >> just that it is one of many factors that buyers do consider.
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Bill
> >>
> >
> > I find it hard to CARE about a person who would consider how a camera
> > LOOKS
> > when shopping for a camera.
> >
> > Its analogous to the guy who says he NEEDS an SUV, but wouldn't consider
> > driving it in Snow or mud, because he doesn't want it getting dirty.
> >
> > My Dad (may he rest in peace) used to call them Yuppieschmuks (all one
> > word),
> > I call them "Status Pidgeons".
> >
> > I know several that carry around the latest and greatest Canon DSLR and
> > they
> > dont know an f stop from a tripod. They use a MkII like a point and shoot
> > and get all their prints done as 4x6 at Wal-Mart (but Im sure they wear
> > dark
> > glasses so they wont be recognized when they go in to get their
> > pictures.''
>
>
>
> Then, to use your automotive analogy, you're saying that a purchaser
> shouldn't care about the shape of any car he might be considering
> purchasing - as long as it goes, and doesn't break down.
>
> In other words, why would someone prefer a stylish Honda Civic to a Hyundai
> Accent? (do they have those nasty little cars in the States?)
>
> Or, when purchasing your last Carpet, or TV, or Sofa, or Table, did you look
> at the colours, the shape and the design - or did you just buy the first
> thing you saw that was adequate for the task?
>
> Design is important to all of us - and why should we buy ugly cameras just
> because they 'do the job'?


Things that are bought for appearance should look good, I agree. Cameras are
not bought by photographers for appearance, they are bought to take pictures
(one would think).

I can find nothing ugly about a black box with a lens sticking out of it. I
dont spend much time looking AT it only through it.

A haircut should make your hair look better after its done.

The clippers dont NEED to be pretty, nor do the scissors.

Your carpet, Tv, furniture ect. are DESIGNED to be looked at. Any large
amount of time spent making a camera look "Pretty" is a waste of r & d that
should be used for making the camera WORK better.

There is not much in the world that is less pretty than my Pentax K1000, but
used properly, and with a little luck, it can take a fine photo.



--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 2:10:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <37mvkmF5cj5rkU1@individual.net>, Knild says...

> What is intriguing is your suggestion that the next Oly will be a
> development of the 300, rather than (as everyone seems to expect) a specced
> up E-1. You could be right, and it would be fascinating to see what they do
> to improve the 300.

Looks like you misunderstood me. I meant that there will be a successor
of the E1, not that Olympus would build a pro version of the E300.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 2:10:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in message


> Looks like you misunderstood me. I meant that there will be a successor
> of the E1, not that Olympus would build a pro version of the E300.<<<





Silly me - I must have indeed, misunderstood you:

>> Olympus should launch sooner or later a pro version of the E300<<

Quite obviously my own poor comprehension of the English language. Sorry.
February 19, 2005 3:32:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Knild wrote:

>
> "Barry Bean" <bbbean@beancotton.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns960158F611C96eatmorecotton@207.14.113.17...
>> Is anyone attending the PMA this weekend? Seen any sign of the rumored
>> new Olympus DSLR body(ies)?
>
> No announcement. Someone mentioned on dpreview that it wasn't much point
> in putting high quality lenses on the e-300 and e-1,

By a canon user who has never used either camera? And if a olympus user
troll posted in a canon group that it's a waste of time putting a good lens
on the 350 rebel no one would even respond?

Yea that's the kind of info people should be pointing to as fact. :-/

It does still seem odd to me why canon users care so much about what other
people choose to use? Oh well it's not likely to stop anytime soon.

--

Stacey
February 19, 2005 3:35:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Knild wrote:

>
> Design is important to all of us - and why should we buy ugly cameras just
> because they 'do the job'?

It's more like if someone made a good working hamer, you wouldn't buy it
because of it's looks? Who cares what it looks like if it drives nails
well. I guess some people just buy what's popular and what other people say
is cool?

--

Stacey
February 19, 2005 3:37:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Knild wrote:

>
>
> beholder the 300 looks like a cheap & nasty plastic digicam.
>

Interesting the insides are diecast metal and the inside of the D-rebel is?

BTW have you ever used one? Of course not, 99% of the people posting their
opinions have never even held one.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 10:25:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Knild wrote:
>
> Take the E-!, superb build, first class finish, wonderful alloy
> construction, etc. BUT, ever advancing technology has turned it into a
> dinosaur, what's the point of paying for superb build quality if the sensor,
> processor, LCD, etc, are sub-standard in a couple of years time?
>
> Sometimes it's best to treat these things as semi-disposable items and avoid
> wasting money on expensive magnesium alloy that just ends up wrapping
> obsolete electronics.
>
>
>
This is a very wise observation.
I bought a 10D and it was obsolete in a year. My car has to be replaced
every 2nd year and my computer operating system? Every day it seems!

Many years ago I pondered over a power tool. Metabo brand which cost 5
times as much as a Black & Decker. My dad suggested I buy 4 Black &
Deckers and throw one away every time I wore it out. Today, some 28
years later, I still have one of Black & Deckers in a box, waiting to
replace the one in my workshop. Now if we could just get a decent lens
on a cheap plastic camera with a decent sensor, I might buy a few of
them and take my dad's advise all over again. ;-)

Doug
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 1:27:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Michael Meissner" <mrmnews@the-meissners.org> wrote in message
news:m3hdk9pqki.fsf@tiktok.the-meissners.org...
> Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 18 Feb 2005 19:15:28 GMT, Barry Bean
>> <bbbean@beancotton.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >news:Xns96018553190CEWoodchuckBill@130.133.1.4:
>> >
>> >>> By the way, the E300 isn't ugly.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, it is.
>> >
>> >Why would it matter?
>>
>> Pictures of models with disgusted looks on their face don't
>> sell well?
>
> I dunno, half the model shots I see, the model seems to be
> sneering at the
> camera.

So maybe we need a camera that looks like a male sexual organ?

--
barry in indy
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 2:50:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37o1h8F57kgtiU8@individual.net...
> Knild wrote:
>
>>
>> Design is important to all of us - and why should we buy ugly cameras
>> just
>> because they 'do the job'?
>
> It's more like if someone made a good working hamer, you wouldn't buy it
> because of it's looks? Who cares what it looks like if it drives nails
> well. I guess some people just buy what's popular and what other people
> say
> is cool?



But Olympus the Olympus hammer seems more like an item from a Fisher-Price
construction kit - notwithstanding the well documented raft of E300 problems
(noise, JPEG artefacts) we now have E-1 owners on DP Review busily excusing
the fact that a supposedly 'top quality' 14 - 54 lens (that retails around
500 GBP) produces vignetting when used with the Olympus flagship camera!

Just what *is* it with you Four-Thirds disciples?! - why is no criticism of
the format tolerated?

Could it (just possibly....) be that you are all aware that Olympus has sold
you a very sick puppy, and desperately take refuge in Askey's syrupy forums
where you can all pat yourselves on the back and exclaim how wonderful the
Emperor's new clothes are? - despite the fact that, in reality, Emperor
Olympus is marching down the road buck naked with his little todger bouncing
from side to side.....
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 8:35:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Knild" <knild@venturenet.com> wrote in message
news:37ong5F50vho4U1@individual.net...
> Just what *is* it with you Four-Thirds disciples?! - why is no criticism
of
> the format tolerated?

<snip>

You see this in various forums and discussion groups. Have you ever looked
into the Sigma dpreview forum?!

I don't see the attraction in 4/3, it's like they took the worst possible
approach for digital, all for a small decrease in the body and lens
size/weight. The supposed advantage of being able to mix lenses and bodies
from different manufacturers sounds good on the surface, but in reality you
can already find after-market lenses for all digital SLRs anyway.

4/3 will probably go the way of Disc film and APS, before long. It's doomed
by Nikon and Canon not adopting it.
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 8:43:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Knild" <knild@venturenet.com> wrote in message
news:37n07nF5gd0ntU1@individual.net...

> All this is pointless, however, in 12 months I predict that new Canon 350
> will have so completely captured the lower end of the market that
> aberrations like the Oly 300 will have been forgotten by all except those
> unfortunate enough to have actually bought one.

Canon and Nikon already have more than 90% combined market share in digital
SLRs. I see the Nikon D70 and the Canon 350D as capturing >95% of the
low-end, with the other manufacturers fighting for the remaining 5%, until
they get tired of losing money.

Konica-Minolta might introduce a lower cost image-stabilized model for the
low-end segment. At least Konica-Minolta has a selling point for the Dynax
7D, it's just too expensive.
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 9:20:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:WUKRd.5921$x53.862@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Knild" <knild@venturenet.com> wrote in message
> news:37n07nF5gd0ntU1@individual.net...
>
>> All this is pointless, however, in 12 months I predict that new Canon 350
>> will have so completely captured the lower end of the market that
>> aberrations like the Oly 300 will have been forgotten by all except those
>> unfortunate enough to have actually bought one.
>
> Canon and Nikon already have more than 90% combined market share in
> digital
> SLRs. I see the Nikon D70 and the Canon 350D as capturing >95% of the
> low-end, with the other manufacturers fighting for the remaining 5%, until
> they get tired of losing money.
>
> Konica-Minolta might introduce a lower cost image-stabilized model for the
> low-end segment. At least Konica-Minolta has a selling point for the Dynax
> 7D, it's just too expensive.




Yes, I think that you're correct. What seems quite obvious is that Canon
(and no I don't own one....yet) will respond aggressively to every challenge
to their crown - like the 350D answer to the D70.

Nikon will probably answer back - but other players (especially Olympus)
simply won't have the resources to compete with the design resources &
marketing power of the big two.

Which means that some useful features, like Olympus pixel mapping & sensor
cleaning, will die out.

Quite why Olympus chose to go down the insane Four-Thirds route is anyone's
guess - but it should be obvious by now that it's a blind alley, without
even the promised smaller cameras to help compensate for the noisy images
and over priced lenses.

As for Panasonic launching a Four-Thirds body - believe it when (if) you see
it. They're not fools, and it's one thing to give verbal support to
Olympus - but quite another to plough good money into a format that will
never be a 'professional' standard, and is self-evidently failing.

Put it this way, it's one thing to spend a few hundred dollars/pounds on a
300 with kit lens and just use it like a good quality point & shoot for a
couple of years until it's time to change - but you'd have to be a huge
optimist to start paying out the thousands demanded by Olympus for their
quality lenses, lenses that will be useless when the Four-Thirds systems
finally rolls over and dies.
February 19, 2005 11:14:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

> "Knild" <knild@venturenet.com> wrote in message
> news:37ong5F50vho4U1@individual.net...
>> Just what *is* it with you Four-Thirds disciples?! - why is no criticism
> of
>> the format tolerated?
>
> <snip>
>
> You see this in various forums and discussion groups. Have you ever looked
> into the Sigma dpreview forum?!

What's more interesting to me is why people who have never used either feel
a need to "critisise" something they have never used?

>
> I don't see the attraction in 4/3,

Then it's obviously not something =you= should buy.. What's so complex about
that?


--

Stacey
February 19, 2005 11:22:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Knild wrote:

>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:37o1h8F57kgtiU8@individual.net...
>> Knild wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Design is important to all of us - and why should we buy ugly cameras
>>> just
>>> because they 'do the job'?
>>
>> It's more like if someone made a good working hamer, you wouldn't buy it
>> because of it's looks? Who cares what it looks like if it drives nails
>> well. I guess some people just buy what's popular and what other people
>> say
>> is cool?
>
>
>
> But Olympus the Olympus hammer seems more like an item from a Fisher-Price
> construction kit

Why? The Drebel is ALL plastic through and through while the E300 is die
cast metal with a "plastic" cover. Again have you ever even handled one? Of
course not. I guess if it doesn't look like a canon EOS it's ugly and
cheap? :-)

> - notwithstanding the well documented raft of E300
> problems (noise, JPEG artefacts)

> we now have E-1 owners on DP Review
>

And your point for posting to the DP review forum about a camera you've
never owned, used or even seen in person is..... Personally I'm not going
to waste my time reading forums about a camera I'm not interested in using.
Seems odd canon users seem so concerned about the other makers products?

>
>produces vignetting when used with the Olympus flagship camera

News to me. This is starting to sound like Canon FUD.

> Just what *is* it with you Four-Thirds disciples?! - why is no criticism
> of the format tolerated?
>

What's with you CANON users attacking anything that isn't made by canon? Why
do regular canon users FLOOD other groups bashing anything non-canon?

And yes, canon users are SO willing to listen to complaints about their
camera's from nikon etc users. So I guess you won't care if I said I think
the canon Dslr's images look plastic?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 4:41:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote ...

> Have you ever looked into the Sigma dpreview forum?!

To be honest, no. I've never really concidered buying a Sigma camera or
lenses.

A valid question might be: why do you go there? Is the trolling particularly
good in that forum?

> 4/3 will probably go the way of Disc film and APS, before long. It's
> doomed
> by Nikon and Canon not adopting it.

By that reasoning, Pentax, Minolta, and every other DSLR maker is also
doomed because Canon and Nikon haven't adopted their mounts, either.

Sorry Steven, if I've exposed any glaring flaws in your overly simplistic
ramblings... try another lure.
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 4:41:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Basic Wedge" <basic-wedge@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:7VRRd.438090$Xk.147175@pd7tw3no...
>
> "Steven M. Scharf" wrote ...
>
>> Have you ever looked into the Sigma dpreview forum?!
>
> To be honest, no. I've never really concidered buying a Sigma camera or
> lenses.
>
> A valid question might be: why do you go there? Is the trolling
> particularly good in that forum?
>
>> 4/3 will probably go the way of Disc film and APS, before long. It's
>> doomed
>> by Nikon and Canon not adopting it.
>
> By that reasoning, Pentax, Minolta, and every other DSLR maker is also
> doomed because Canon and Nikon haven't adopted their mounts, either.
>
> Sorry Steven, if I've exposed any glaring flaws in your overly simplistic
> ramblings... try another lure.

Steven is a troll of the highest order. He is innacurate at best and
downright lies at other times.
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 5:08:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37q72jF5hss0eU1@individual.net...
> Knild wrote:
>
>>
>> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:37o1h8F57kgtiU8@individual.net...
>>> Knild wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Design is important to all of us - and why should we buy ugly cameras
>>>> just
>>>> because they 'do the job'?
>>>
>>> It's more like if someone made a good working hamer, you wouldn't buy it
>>> because of it's looks? Who cares what it looks like if it drives nails
>>> well. I guess some people just buy what's popular and what other people
>>> say
>>> is cool?
>>
>>
>>
>> But Olympus the Olympus hammer seems more like an item from a
>> Fisher-Price
>> construction kit
>
> Why? The Drebel is ALL plastic through and through while the E300 is die
> cast metal with a "plastic" cover. Again have you ever even handled one?
> Of
> course not. I guess if it doesn't look like a canon EOS it's ugly and
> cheap? :-)
>
>> - notwithstanding the well documented raft of E300
>> problems (noise, JPEG artefacts)
>
>> we now have E-1 owners on DP Review
>>
>
> And your point for posting to the DP review forum about a camera you've
> never owned, used or even seen in person is..... Personally I'm not going
> to waste my time reading forums about a camera I'm not interested in
> using.
> Seems odd canon users seem so concerned about the other makers products?
>
>>
>>produces vignetting when used with the Olympus flagship camera
>
> News to me. This is starting to sound like Canon FUD.
>
>> Just what *is* it with you Four-Thirds disciples?! - why is no criticism
>> of the format tolerated?
>>
>
> What's with you CANON users attacking anything that isn't made by canon?
> Why
> do regular canon users FLOOD other groups bashing anything non-canon?
>
> And yes, canon users are SO willing to listen to complaints about their
> camera's from nikon etc users. So I guess you won't care if I said I think
> the canon Dslr's images look plastic?<<<


You seem to have been seized by the idea that I am a Canon owner. I am not,
I've never owned a Canon brand camera (although it's very probable that I'll
end up buying the new 350D or 20D)

The whole point of my interest in all the DSLR's at that price point is that
I'm actively in the market for a new camera after rashly giving away my E10
to a family member.

So, if I'm anything, I'm an ex-Olympus owner - and destined to stay that way
because of their current product offerings.

I have tried out the 300 in a local store - messed about with it for over an
hour, and to me it just looked and felt like a P&S on steroids - and, Boy!,
it seemed one ugly Mother to me!, in fact, it seemed even bigger than its
true size because of the rectangular shape! That cheesy metal shroud over
the top (black on the one I saw, not brown, as in some pictures) just seemed
to put the tin lid on top of a truly nasty package.

The lenses (I also tried the 14 -150) looked and felt EXACTLY as you would
expect a product of the Shanghai Lucky Sunshine Camera Company to be (mind
you, to be fair, I also saw a cheap Nikon lens that seemed just as bad)

I realise that I've been a bit spoiled by the superb engineering of the E10,
and I also realise (as per my previous post) that it's no good paying for
high quality castings that will soon be out of date - but, honestly, from
what I can see the lower end of the DSLR market is being swamped by cheap
tat, and Olympus have made a significant contribution to the decline in
standards with their 300.

OK, so the camera I eventually end up with will be plastic, and the build
quality will be a far cry from what I've been accustomed to - but the noise
levels and JPG compression problems manifested by the 300 just seem to add
insult to injury.

That leaves the E1 of course - but the problem with that is the high
likelihood of the death of the Four-Thirds standard, which will leave me
high and dry with two or three very expensive lenses ( which I just know
I'll have to purchase to get the best from the camera) when the E1 body
finally bites the dust.

So, you see, I really not just trying to be contentious for the sake of it -
I really am putting a lot of thought into buying a good quality camera with
reasonably priced quality lenses, and which has a long term future ahead of
it.

Using that criteria, whether you Canon/Nikon or loathe them, it seems that
they are really the only game in town.
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 6:40:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Basic Wedge" <basic-wedge@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:7VRRd.438090$Xk.147175@pd7tw3no...

> By that reasoning, Pentax, Minolta, and every other DSLR maker is also
> doomed because Canon and Nikon haven't adopted their mounts, either.

Completely different situation. The 4:3 format, with the tiny sensor, was
designed to be cheap to manufacture, at the expense of image quality. Pentax
and Minolta aren't hampered by having to use the small sensor.

Pentax and Minolta will likely continue with sub-10% market share, but if
the market is big enough, that may be enough. There is no compelling reason
to buy an E-1 or an E-100.

> Sorry Steven, if I've exposed any glaring flaws in your overly simplistic
> ramblings... try another lure.

Sorry, but you haven't exposed any flaws yet.
February 20, 2005 6:40:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

> "Basic Wedge" <basic-wedge@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:7VRRd.438090$Xk.147175@pd7tw3no...
>
>> By that reasoning, Pentax, Minolta, and every other DSLR maker is also
>> doomed because Canon and Nikon haven't adopted their mounts, either.
>
> Completely different situation. The 4:3 format, with the tiny sensor,
..

You do realize it's only 2mm shorter than the "Large" canon sensor? Yea
that's "tiny". LOL


>There is no compelling
> reason to buy an E-1 or an E-100.

And how many times have you cleaned your sensor? :-) Don't even pretend that
isn't an issue.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 1:41:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37qvqeF5haio1U1@individual.net...
> Knild wrote:

>> The lenses (I also tried the 14 -150) looked and felt EXACTLY as you
>> would
>> expect a product of the Shanghai Lucky Sunshine Camera Company to be
>> (mind you, to be fair, I also saw a cheap Nikon lens that seemed just as
>> bad)
>
> You mean the 40-150 and while it's made in japan, that's another =bottom
> of
> the line= lens. But of course you feel the bottom end canon lenses "feel
> great"?<


I did, of course, mean the '40 -150' lens - the one with 'Made In China'
plastered all over it (presumably, to match the 'Made In China' sticker on
the 300, itself)

I can tell you with honesty that the 40-150 was Pants! - it refused time
after time to focus correctly in the store(even when the store owner tried
it) but still indicated correct focus.



> Yes if you're going to shoot at ISO 800 and 1600, buy something else<<

Like a 350D, for instance?..


.. >>At 400
> and below, the noise isn't an issue.<<

Big Deal (perhaps they should put a sticker on the box -'Warning, this
current generation DSLR is shite above 400 ISO'?



>> That leaves the E1 of course - but the problem with that is the high
>> likelihood of the death of the Four-Thirds standard,
>
> Says you <<

Are you a betting woman? - I give Four-Thirds two more years tops - wait
until later this year when Panasonic quietly withdraw from their non-binding
verbal agreement with Olympus to build Four-Thirds kit.

As for the 300 - you're in luck. The new Canon looks set to obliterate the
300 sales, but not before Olympus have engineered a desperate round of price
reductions to try and save their ailing format. So, if you really do love
your 300 you'll be able to puck up a couple of spare bodies (and probably
lenses) at very advantageous prices.




>>>and if the camera works well for your uses, why would you need to
> replace it?<<

Because even the miracle of Olympus technology can't make the thing last
forever (not that you'd want it to last forever, being so outdated already)
and the end of Four-Thirds will mean being stuck with some pretty expensive
lenses that have absolutely no new camera to fit them on.

Don't believe it? - tell that to Sony who had to eat a huge slice of humble
pie when they dropped their own (technically superior) Beta VCS format and
had to licence VHS from their bitter rival, JVC.

Product success is not always about technical superiority - and, in the case
of Four-Thirds, that particular technology has proved to be deficient in
virtually every area. so why on earth do you think it will survive?<<



>>This BS sounds like<<
> just another canon troll to me<<

Sorry, I leave the trolling to people like Olympus DSLR forum member 'Wally
Oz' - who is currently trolling in the Pentax DSLR forum - despite recently
complaining to the loathsome Phil Askey about alleged trolling in the
Olympus forum (which, I believe, got a couple of people thrown off)

So, obviously, you don't necessarily have to be a hypocritical bastard to
own an Oly DSLR - but it seems to help.
February 21, 2005 4:30:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Knild wrote:


>
>
> I did, of course, mean the '40 -150' lens - the one with 'Made In China'
> plastered all over it

The one I tried (and returned to buy the better 50-200) said made in japan
on it. I don't believe any of the 40-150's were made in china so something
is fishy here... This lens is good for a fairly cheap consumer zoom, I
wanted something faster that was -sharp- wide open and shouldn't expect a
$250 lens to do that..


>
> I can tell you with honesty that the 40-150 was Pants! - it refused time
> after time to focus correctly in the store(even when the store owner tried
> it) but still indicated correct focus.
>

Oh BS.. Here's a shot done with that 40-150 lens, does this look out of
focus to you?

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/duckies.jp...

I shot a gig card of images with it testing and none were even close to
being out of focus.



>
> So, obviously, you don't necessarily have to be a hypocritical bastard to
> own an Oly DSLR - but it seems to help.

Interesting that you claim to be "looking for a dSLR" but aren't interested
in seeing full size sample shots? Why am I not surprized..


Again this looks like canon FUD to me.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 7:53:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37tdgsF5eo61mU1@individual.net...
> Knild wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> I did, of course, mean the '40 -150' lens - the one with 'Made In China'
>> plastered all over it
>
> The one I tried (and returned to buy the better 50-200) said made in japan
> on it. I don't believe any of the 40-150's were made in china so something
> is fishy here... This lens is good for a fairly cheap consumer zoom, I
> wanted something faster that was -sharp- wide open and shouldn't expect a
> $250 lens to do that..
>
>
>>
>> I can tell you with honesty that the 40-150 was Pants! - it refused time
>> after time to focus correctly in the store(even when the store owner
>> tried
>> it) but still indicated correct focus.
>>
>
> Oh BS.. Here's a shot done with that 40-150 lens, does this look out of
> focus to you?
>
> http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/duckies.jp...
>
> I shot a gig card of images with it testing and none were even close to
> being out of focus.
>
>
>
>>
>> So, obviously, you don't necessarily have to be a hypocritical bastard to
>> own an Oly DSLR - but it seems to help.
>
> Interesting that you claim to be "looking for a dSLR" but aren't
> interested
> in seeing full size sample shots? Why am I not surprized..
>
>
> Again this looks like canon FUD to me.
>
> --
>
> Stacey

Wow, Stacey, that image says a lot. That was taken with the E300, huh?
There is absolutely no detail in the male's feathers, and the female's have
a bad case of jaggies. There's a lot of noise in the water, at what ISO was
this shot? And that's certainly not a full size sample shot, either, is it?
If that's a representation of what the camera can do, then maybe those guys
who don't like it are right.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 11:05:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37tdgsF5eo61mU1@individual.net...

> The one I tried (and returned to buy the better 50-200) said made in Japan
> on it. I don't believe any of the 40-150's were made in china so something
> is fishy here... This lens is good for a fairly cheap consumer zoom, I
> wanted something faster that was -sharp- wide open and shouldn't expect a
> $250 lens to do that..

>> I can tell you with honesty that the 40-150 was Pants! - it refused time
>> after time to focus correctly in the store(even when the store owner
>> tried
>> it) but still indicated correct focus.
>>
>
> Oh BS.. Here's a shot done with that 40-150 lens, does this look out of
> focus to you?
>
> http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/duckies.jp...;<<


No - but it does look VERY heavily 'de-noised' - you sneer at 'plastic'
images from Canon, yet that particular shot makes them look like the sort of
ducks that McDonalds give away with their Happy Meals!

Presumably, if the 300 wasn't so inherently noisy there would be nod need to
smother them in Noise Ninja or Neat Image?

Your claim about the origin of the lens is interesting - the one I saw
(which is presumably typical of UK stock) was most definitely made in China.
I've no reason to call you a liar, so it would seem that the 40-150 has at
least two sources (Japan & China) with the Japanese version being the better
(naturally) of the two.


> Interesting that you claim to be "looking for a dSLR" but aren't
> interested
> in seeing full size sample shots? Why am I not surprized..<<

I've no objection to receiving your images - this address isn't vaild, of
course but I'll send you an email address for you to reply to.


> Again this looks like canon FUD to me.<<

What did you think of the image samples from the 350D? - getting ready to
sell your Oly 300?....
February 21, 2005 12:34:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <ERkSd.33537$xt.12725@fed1read07>, shadowcatcher@cox.net says...
>
> Wow, Stacey, that image says a lot. That was taken with the E300, huh?
> There is absolutely no detail in the male's feathers, and the female's have
> a bad case of jaggies. There's a lot of noise in the water, at what ISO was
> this shot? And that's certainly not a full size sample shot, either, is it?
> If that's a representation of what the camera can do, then maybe those guys
> who don't like it are right.
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>
>
>

I had thought I wanted the E-volt until I took a couple of test pictures with
one... Im now saving for the new DRebel... Should have it by April.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 6:30:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <37tdgsF5eo61mU1@individual.net>,
Stacey <stephe_k@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>Here's a shot done with that 40-150 lens, does this look out of
>focus to you?
>
>http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/duckies.jp...

What did you use to downsample it? Whatever it was, it seems to have done a
nasty job on the female's wings.
February 21, 2005 11:02:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Chris Brown wrote:

> In article <37tdgsF5eo61mU1@individual.net>,
> Stacey <stephe_k@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>Here's a shot done with that 40-150 lens, does this look out of
>>focus to you?
>>
>>http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/duckies.jp...
>
> What did you use to downsample it? Whatever it was, it seems to have done
> a nasty job on the female's wings.

And it's only at 60% quality, I wasn't trying to show what the camera can do
but that the lens can focus right..
--

Stacey
February 21, 2005 11:05:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Knild wrote:


>>
>> http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/duckies.jp...;<<
>
>
> No - but it does look VERY heavily 'de-noised' -

?? why because the rest of the image is out of focus? This was shot wide
open so isn't going to have much in focus and is a highly compressed jpeg.

Funny one person looks at jpeg artifacts and says noise, you say
de-noised! :-) Quess I should have said it was from a canon and listened
to something different?

--

Stacey
February 21, 2005 11:09:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:


>
> Wow, Stacey, that image says a lot. That was taken with the E300, huh?
> There is absolutely no detail in the male's feathers,

It was shot wide open.. The male isn't in the focus plane so you're right,
there is no detail in his feathers..

It's also a 75Kb compressed jpeg, not a "full size shot. This was just a
quick resample and compress to show that this lens can focus, not how good
or bad the image quality is..

--

Stacey
February 22, 2005 4:47:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Chris Brown wrote:

> In article <37tdgsF5eo61mU1@individual.net>,
>
> What did you use to downsample it? Whatever it was, it seems to have done
> a nasty job on the female's wings.


You're right, thanx. This software did OK before on less radical
downsampling, but it didn't work too great for one this small. Played with
some PS actions I found and this looks better. Have any tips on
downsampling? So far I've been mainly been just printing stuff.

http://www.villagephotos.com/members/viewimage.asp?id_=...


--

Stacey
!