Canon Powershot Pro 1 Vs. Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom

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

In article <d9uu4j$1ve$1@sunce.iskon.hr>, °..Jan Plexy..° says...
> Which of theese two cameras is better choice?

It depends...

The reviews say that the 8080 has the better lens. The Pro 1 is more
compact and has more zoom range. Personally I went for the camera with
the better lens.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/

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

In article <HsGwe.10984$jX6.5324@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Rick
says...
> Bottom line: 8MP on a 2/3" sensor results in horrid purple
> fringing and excessive noise, regardless of the manufacturer
> or lens. If you really need that kind of resolution go for a
> 6MP (or higher) dSLR.

That's not my experience with the 8080. Purple fringing is quite low and
noise low enough, if you shoot al lowest ISO (which is the ISO at which
a camera with a 2/3" should be operated).
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/

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

Rick said:
>Bottom line: 8MP on a 2/3" sensor results in horrid purple fringing and
>excessive noise, regardless of the manufacturer or lens. If you really
>need that kind of resolution go for a 6MP (or higher) dSLR.

'Bottom line'? Anyone who uses 'bottom line' as their introduction,
and then offers generalisations such as those above, should maybe get
out more - or at least offer some explanation and justification.

The Oly 8080 has very little problem with any purple fringing - it has
*never* been obvious in any of my prints, and I often push it to 13"
x19" if the image justifies it. Just look for yourselves at the image
samples at dpreview and other places, and also check for comparisons
that show the 8080's ZOOM against DSLR's *prime* lenses, eg here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page27.asp

Can you point to the purple fringing? Perhaps Rick has only seen the
Sony and Nikon 8Mp efforts..

What little fringing there *is*, is demonstrated here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ol [...] page16.asp

and in their summary of the lens/sensor performance it doesn't even
rate a mention, amongst these comments "Great lens...mature image
processing...good color balance...all amounts to a very good
performance from the C-8080. In this case the lens really has made the
camera...Thanks to smart noise reduction the C-8080 also keeps noise at
higher sensitivities in check...something not all eight megapixel
digital cameras can achieve... had no major complaints about the
C-8080's image quality and found no specific issues which needed
further analysis...."

Also look here - compared to Canon DSLRs fitted with 50/1.4 prime
lens....

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page26.asp

Here, dpreview also says "It's not as silky smooth as the EOS 20D
(despite being set to ISO 50) but it's certainly not noisy." For me,
who shoots almost everything at ISO50 and has little use for higher
ISO's, noise is not an issue, but I don't claim to be everyone. IF
your style involves low-light shooting, then yes, the noise at ISOs
over 100 may be an issue. Purple fringing is definitely NOT *horrid*
with the 8080 - in fact the Nikon and Canon DSLR kit lenses are far,
far worse in this regard.

The 8080 isn't the greatest camera ever built, but it has some very
good points. I don't particularly like it's menu operation, and there
are other annoyances - like poor battery-life indication and the silly
way it changes the display from EVF to LCD when you least want it..

But purple fringing? Nope.
Noise problems? Yes, *could* be an issue if you shoot low-light and
print large. But is the Canon better in either area? No, it has worse
(yes Rick, *worse!*) purple fringing despite only being a 5Mp, and the
noise at ISO400 looks very similar to me. And of course you are
comparing a 5Mp with an 8Mp, so the Oly will outresolve it by a
comfortable margin and give more 'headroom' for effective noise
reduction.. But if you never print beyond 11x8, that might be a moot
point.


That's *my* bottom line.

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

I'm with Mr. Stratus on this one..

The FL lens on the Pro 1 is terrific and I have *never* found any fringing
in my images.
I have taken some incredible macro shots, battery life goes on forever
(well.. a hell of a long time anyway) - It's a very nice compact camera that
has everything.

Doug


<stratus46@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120106668.008579.218900@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

°..Jan Plexy..° wrote:
> Which of theese two cameras is better choice?
>
> Thanx

OK, I have a Pro 1 so there is my bias.

I have spent (too) many hours looking at the 'red brick building' on
Steve's Digicams. Look at the mortar between the vertically mounted
bricks. The spiral wrapped cable at the top of the frame is worth
noting. Check the red letters on the 'no parking' sign. Check the
street sign and the number on the dumpster. Now compared to a DSLR,
they have room to improve but they're both some of the better P&S.

When I got this camera and took a picture of my little girl, my wife
said 'now THAT looks good' and then kind of took it over.

On the negative side, the macro function doesn't work too well. Manual
focus is a little cumbersome. I read that the battery life is a problem
but it hasn't been a problem for me. It doesn't do too well with a lens
filter (casts shadows with the flash).

BUT, I would buy it again.
Glenn Gundlach