Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Poinst & Shoot **Professional** photography!

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 8:05:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Alex Majoli points and shoots
Friday, June 3, 2005 | by Eamon Hickey

In 2003, Magnum photographer Alex Majoli shot some big stories for
Newsweek magazine.

He spent a month in China shooting documentary images of daily life. He
was in Congo for two weeks and Iraq for almost two months. In those two
places he was shooting war.

Majoli's images for all three stories drew rave notices, and they
earned him some of photojournalism's most prestigious awards in 2004,
including the U.S. National Press Photographers Association's Best of
Photojournalism Magazine Photographer of the Year Award and the U.S.
Overseas Press Club's Feature Photography Award.

It would seem reasonable to guess that all that award-winning work in
remote and frequently dangerous places must have been shot with big,
fast, bulletproof pro SLR cameras. But in fact, Majoli shot every frame
with Olympus C-5050 digital point-and-shoots -- the same camera your
snap happy Uncle Maury takes to Disney World.

More recently he's been using the Olympus C-8080, along with his older
C-5050 and C-5060 cameras, for many of his assignments, including
shooting in Israel for Vanity Fair and the U.S. presidential elections
for Newsweek.

Majoli acknowledges that most of his photojournalist colleagues think
he's crazy, but he's been shooting with digital point-and-shoots for
three years, developing techniques to deal with their shortcomings and
exploring their unique strengths, which still intrigue him."

Read the rest of the story at
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6...

(PS: cross-posted to to rpe35mm because, duh, there are 35mm P&Ss!)
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 11:13:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

I'm not surprised. It's often been said, an expensive camera, does not make
a professional photographer.

After using both, I prefer a non-SLR digital camera. More, and more, I've
been reading of people switching away from DSLR's, due to excessive expense,
bulk, weight, and the burden of interchangeable lenses.

Bill Crocker



"Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120604735.470787.91360@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> "Alex Majoli points and shoots
> Friday, June 3, 2005 | by Eamon Hickey
>
> In 2003, Magnum photographer Alex Majoli shot some big stories for
> Newsweek magazine.
>
> He spent a month in China shooting documentary images of daily life. He
> was in Congo for two weeks and Iraq for almost two months. In those two
> places he was shooting war.
>
> Majoli's images for all three stories drew rave notices, and they
> earned him some of photojournalism's most prestigious awards in 2004,
> including the U.S. National Press Photographers Association's Best of
> Photojournalism Magazine Photographer of the Year Award and the U.S.
> Overseas Press Club's Feature Photography Award.
>
> It would seem reasonable to guess that all that award-winning work in
> remote and frequently dangerous places must have been shot with big,
> fast, bulletproof pro SLR cameras. But in fact, Majoli shot every frame
> with Olympus C-5050 digital point-and-shoots -- the same camera your
> snap happy Uncle Maury takes to Disney World.
>
> More recently he's been using the Olympus C-8080, along with his older
> C-5050 and C-5060 cameras, for many of his assignments, including
> shooting in Israel for Vanity Fair and the U.S. presidential elections
> for Newsweek.
>
> Majoli acknowledges that most of his photojournalist colleagues think
> he's crazy, but he's been shooting with digital point-and-shoots for
> three years, developing techniques to deal with their shortcomings and
> exploring their unique strengths, which still intrigue him."
>
> Read the rest of the story at
> http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6...
>
> (PS: cross-posted to to rpe35mm because, duh, there are 35mm P&Ss!)
>
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 11:46:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

l e o wrote:
<snip lots>
> And his wish is a camera the size of the C5060 with interchangeable
> fix focal lenses! um... I want that too.

About a year ago I found a website of a Russian bloke who'd hacked the
lens off a Canon G2 and put a Leica M39 lensmount instead.
The main problem he had was that because of the small sensor size
(roughly a quarter that of a 35mm frame), even the widest lens he had
(a 3.5cm Jupiter 12) acted like a a telephoto (about 140mm focal
length, 35mm equivalent) lens.
It did not look that mechanically difficult to do, just an exercise in
frustration, unless you like using long lenses.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 12:36:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Mike Henley wrote:

> It would seem reasonable to guess that all that award-winning work in
> remote and frequently dangerous places must have been shot with big,
> fast, bulletproof pro SLR cameras. But in fact, Majoli shot every frame
> with Olympus C-5050 digital point-and-shoots -- the same camera your
> snap happy Uncle Maury takes to Disney World.


As a pro and presumably talented photographer, for the purposes of the
story he was working on or supporting, he can likely shoot within the
limitations of the camera and the requirements of the magazine.

A couple years ago somebody (Simon Stanmore IIRC) posted about the
Japanese edition of Nat Geo doing the same thing on a story about Soho
(London).

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 2:45:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

<dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120617969.575454.320690@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>l e o wrote:
> <snip lots>
>> And his wish is a camera the size of the C5060 with interchangeable
>> fix focal lenses! um... I want that too.
>
> About a year ago I found a website of a Russian bloke who'd hacked the
> lens off a Canon G2 and put a Leica M39 lensmount instead.
> The main problem he had was that because of the small sensor size
> (roughly a quarter that of a 35mm frame), even the widest lens he had
> (a 3.5cm Jupiter 12) acted like a a telephoto (about 140mm focal
> length, 35mm equivalent) lens.
> It did not look that mechanically difficult to do, just an exercise in
> frustration, unless you like using long lenses.
>
I thought about doing something like this for a while, but the problems with
it are almost insurmountable. None of the automatic features of the point &
shoot would work after you were done with it, for one thing. For another
thing, by the time you were done, you would have spent the $2500 in your
time, if nothing else, that you could have spent on a new Leica M6 or M7, so
I lay down for a while with a cold towel on my head, and pretty soon the
thought went away........
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 4:51:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> Mike Henley wrote:
>
>> It would seem reasonable to guess that all that award-winning work in
>> remote and frequently dangerous places must have been shot with big,
>> fast, bulletproof pro SLR cameras. But in fact, Majoli shot every frame
>> with Olympus C-5050 digital point-and-shoots -- the same camera your
>> snap happy Uncle Maury takes to Disney World.
>
>
>
> As a pro and presumably talented photographer, for the purposes of the
> story he was working on or supporting, he can likely shoot within the
> limitations of the camera and the requirements of the magazine.
>
> A couple years ago somebody (Simon Stanmore IIRC) posted about the
> Japanese edition of Nat Geo doing the same thing on a story about Soho
> (London).
>
> Cheers,
> Alan

His method of combating slow buffer is having two cameras strap to his
neck. And Olympus was one of the sponsors. Is this a publicity stunt?
Nevertheless, the type of the photos work within the limit of many P&S.
And his wish is a camera the size of the C5060 with interchangeable
fix focal lenses! um... I want that too.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 5:45:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

William Graham wrote:
> <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120617969.575454.320690@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >l e o wrote:
> > <snip lots>
> >> And his wish is a camera the size of the C5060 with interchangeable
> >> fix focal lenses! um... I want that too.
> >
> > About a year ago I found a website of a Russian bloke who'd hacked the
> > lens off a Canon G2 and put a Leica M39 lensmount instead.
> > The main problem he had was that because of the small sensor size
> > (roughly a quarter that of a 35mm frame), even the widest lens he had
> > (a 3.5cm Jupiter 12) acted like a a telephoto (about 140mm focal
> > length, 35mm equivalent) lens.
> > It did not look that mechanically difficult to do, just an exercise in
> > frustration, unless you like using long lenses.
> >
> I thought about doing something like this for a while, but the problems with
> it are almost insurmountable. None of the automatic features of the point &
> shoot would work after you were done with it, for one thing. For another
> thing, by the time you were done, you would have spent the $2500 in your
> time, if nothing else, that you could have spent on a new Leica M6 or M7, so
> I lay down for a while with a cold towel on my head, and pretty soon the
> thought went away........

That was my conclusion as well.
A nifty idea that is (unfortunately) let down by reality.
I did think of a slightly more useful lens-mount to hack in, 16mm
c-mount.
At least a 16mm frame is almost the same size as a 2/3" ccd and an
almost "normal" lens (17mm fl) is available.
The only problem is that the shutter mechanism may be thicker than the
17.5mm flange to film distance for c-mount (and that I realy can't be
bothered building it).

A better (saner and less fiddley) idea is to lay down the cash and buy
a Pentax ist-ds or Canon 350D if you want a smallish digital camera
with interchangable lenses.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 8:48:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

>Journalist writes
>
> (snip lots of good stuff) ... there are also unresolved
>legal questions for (news and current affairs) publishers that keep some
>insisting on film to be able to prove that images have not been
>unethically manipulated or unfairly cropped.

If you shoot RAW mode then you can provide the original RAW files to
avoid this dilemma.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 9:43:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Bill Hilton wrote:
> >Journalist writes
> >
> > (snip lots of good stuff) ... there are also unresolved
> >legal questions for (news and current affairs) publishers that keep some
> >insisting on film to be able to prove that images have not been
> >unethically manipulated or unfairly cropped.
>
> If you shoot RAW mode then you can provide the original RAW files to
> avoid this dilemma.

Just curious. How is it that a RAW file cannot be manipulated? After
all it is 0s and 1s, right?

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 10:03:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

l e o wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
> > Mike Henley wrote:
> >
> >> It would seem reasonable to guess that all that award-winning work in
> >> remote and frequently dangerous places must have been shot with big,
> >> fast, bulletproof pro SLR cameras. But in fact, Majoli shot every frame
> >> with Olympus C-5050 digital point-and-shoots -- the same camera your
> >> snap happy Uncle Maury takes to Disney World.
> >
> >
> >
> > As a pro and presumably talented photographer, for the purposes of the
> > story he was working on or supporting, he can likely shoot within the
> > limitations of the camera and the requirements of the magazine.
> >
> > A couple years ago somebody (Simon Stanmore IIRC) posted about the
> > Japanese edition of Nat Geo doing the same thing on a story about Soho
> > (London).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Alan
>
> His method of combating slow buffer is having two cameras strap to his
> neck. And Olympus was one of the sponsors. Is this a publicity stunt?

I doubt it. He said that he rarely actually needs to do that and most
of the time he doesn't need to shoot 3 per second or whatever it is. I
think he uses Olympus, apart from that his first encounter with it was
a sponsored event by them, simply because they are the best P&S
cameras. The 5050, 5060, 8080 are all award winning P&Sers and best of
their class when it comes to photo quality. Plus they are rugged and
well-built to a high quality standard. Unlike... ermm... a leading
brand I won't name!


> Nevertheless, the type of the photos work within the limit of many P&S.

Henry CB was a P&S in his days!

> And his wish is a camera the size of the C5060 with interchangeable
> fix focal lenses! um... I want that too.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 1:04:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Let me tell ya,
P&S(both film and digital) annoy me.
why?
Because they always lock focus on the wrong subject, over expose
subject in front, focus too slow, dont have needed settings, etc.
let's say you point your P&S between 2 people,
it will focus on the background behind them.
Film disposables dont have that problem, thus their immense popularity.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 1:19:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

>> If you shoot RAW mode then you can provide the original RAW
>> files to avoid this dilemma.

>Siddhartha Jain asks ...
>
>Just curious. How is it that a RAW file cannot be manipulated?
>After all it is 0s and 1s, right?

You can manipulate the file, but not without leaving tracks ... Canon
offers the "Canon Data Verification Kit DVK-E2" for use mainly by law
enforcement agencies showing that courtroom evidence has not been
altered ... "Designed to work with the EOS-1Ds and new EOS-1D Mark II
D-SLR cameras, the DVK-E2 provides the facility to prove that images
taken with the EOS-1D Mark II have not been altered, tampered with or
manipulated in any way."

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/04012903canondvke2.as... if you want
to read up on it.

For less mission-critical applications, magazines and contests that
accept jpegs or prints for the initial screen will then often ask for
RAW files (or original slide film) to check for undue manipulation. I
guess you could fudge the RAW but it hardly seems worth it.

Bill
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 3:15:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:JIFye.40041$Uu4.1557978@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> As a pro and presumably talented photographer, for the purposes of the
> story he was working on or supporting, he can likely shoot within the
> limitations of the camera and the requirements of the magazine.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
--------------

You used a phrase that exactly describes the reason he uses the 8080: "...he
can likely shoot within the limitations of the camera and the requirements
of the magazine..."

A magazine full page image requires ca6 Mpx and the 8080 produces, at best
quality, 8 Mpx (ca 120-150LPI) The same image can be taken, easily, to a
full page in a broadsheet newspaper repro at lower print screen values (ca
75LPI). The same image, again, can produce a 48sheet billboard image at even
lower print screen values (ca 8-10LPI). Considering also that web
presentation is at even lower values than any of the print mediums except
for large poster and billboard sizes, there is no reason to go for better
output for that kind of work. Print screen values, BTW, are related to pixel
dimentions of an image as: resolved pixels = print screen (halftone lines
per inch or LPI) X 1.5 or 2 (in pixels per inch), so scaling to the printed
page and repro type (coated paper, uncoated, pulp, ect) can be easily
estimated directly from an image size in pixels.

NONE of these uses, however, except for smaller ordinary prints (< magazine
full page size) would necessarily be considered "photo print" quality (to
put in a frame and hang on the wall) at those sizes. They are all halftone
image repros not continuous tone prints and in the commercial print world
images are made to "look" better by depending on ink bleed and eye relief
distance (eye distance from the image for normal viewing) rather than pixel
by pixel absolute resolutions.

Once readily available camera designs hit 6 - 8Mpx there was no longer much
reason for PJs to not shoot digital. The issue of timeliness and electronic
transmission of digital image files vs: film pushed the equation firmly into
digital. On the other side of the coin, however, there are also unresolved
legal questions for (news and current affairs) publishers that keep some
insisting on film to be able to prove that images have not been unethically
manipulated or unfairly cropped. These two questions do not necessarily
apply in other applications and uses where the end product has different
requirements (e.g. actual photographic continuous tone wet printing).

Journalist
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 4:07:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

<dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120639535.308818.294390@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> William Graham wrote:
>> <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1120617969.575454.320690@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >l e o wrote:
>> > <snip lots>
>> >> And his wish is a camera the size of the C5060 with interchangeable
>> >> fix focal lenses! um... I want that too.
>> >
>> > About a year ago I found a website of a Russian bloke who'd hacked the
>> > lens off a Canon G2 and put a Leica M39 lensmount instead.
>> > The main problem he had was that because of the small sensor size
>> > (roughly a quarter that of a 35mm frame), even the widest lens he had
>> > (a 3.5cm Jupiter 12) acted like a a telephoto (about 140mm focal
>> > length, 35mm equivalent) lens.
>> > It did not look that mechanically difficult to do, just an exercise in
>> > frustration, unless you like using long lenses.
>> >
>> I thought about doing something like this for a while, but the problems
>> with
>> it are almost insurmountable. None of the automatic features of the point
>> &
>> shoot would work after you were done with it, for one thing. For another
>> thing, by the time you were done, you would have spent the $2500 in your
>> time, if nothing else, that you could have spent on a new Leica M6 or M7,
>> so
>> I lay down for a while with a cold towel on my head, and pretty soon the
>> thought went away........
>
> That was my conclusion as well.
> A nifty idea that is (unfortunately) let down by reality.
> I did think of a slightly more useful lens-mount to hack in, 16mm
> c-mount.
> At least a 16mm frame is almost the same size as a 2/3" ccd and an
> almost "normal" lens (17mm fl) is available.
> The only problem is that the shutter mechanism may be thicker than the
> 17.5mm flange to film distance for c-mount (and that I realy can't be
> bothered building it).
>
> A better (saner and less fiddley) idea is to lay down the cash and buy
> a Pentax ist-ds or Canon 350D if you want a smallish digital camera
> with interchangable lenses.
>
Yes. There's a guy here in town (Salem, Oregon) who makes beautiful prints
with a digital Pentax *ist, and an Epson printer. The lenses are excellent
and reasonably priced.......One could do a lot worse......
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 4:34:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 00:51:01 +0000, l e o wrote:

> His method of combating slow buffer is having two cameras strap to his
> neck. And Olympus was one of the sponsors. Is this a publicity stunt?
> Nevertheless, the type of the photos work within the limit of many P&S.
> And his wish is a camera the size of the C5060 with interchangeable
> fix focal lenses! um... I want that too.

Look at the Epson RD-1. Size of a Leica, plus it takes a staggering array
of lenses.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 7:09:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1120650485.444482.129470@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> If you shoot RAW mode then you can provide the original RAW files to
> avoid this dilemma.
>
--------

The 8080 does not have a RAW save option only TIFF or JPG

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_product_l...
&bc=2&product=961&fl=4

Specs:

Recording Mode(s)
Still image:
EXIF 2.2" TIFF (non-compressed),
EXIF JPEG,
DCF (Design rule for Camera File system) see:
http://tsc.jeita.or.jp/avs/data/cp3461.pdf
Movie mode: QuickTime® motion JPEG

Adjustable Resolutions
3264 x 2448 TIFF, SHQ, HQ
2592 x 1944 TIFF, SQ1
2288 x 1712 TIFF, SQ1
2048 x 1536 TIFF, SQ1
1600 x 1200 TIFF, SQ2
1280 x 960 TIFF, SQ2
1024 x 768 TIFF, SQ2
640 x 480 TIFF, SQ2

Interestingly, especially for a PJ. the operating temperature limits are not
too generous:
Operating Environment
Operation: 32° - 104°F (0° - 40°C), 30 - 90% humidity
Storage: -4° - 140°F (-20° - 60°C), 10 - 90% humidity

Or are the aperture settings in effecting DOF:
Aperture Range f2.4- f3.5 to f8.0 (adjustable in 1/3 or 1/2 EV steps)

MY COMMENT ON THIS : in high relective environments (snow; desert sand; ect)
or where wide DOF (deep focus) was required the shooter would be
manipulating the ISO for these bright scenes vs (normally) selecting smaller
apertures at "X" shutter speeds.

Journalist
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 7:09:23 PM

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

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:09:22 GMT, Journalist-North wrote:

>> If you shoot RAW mode then you can provide the original RAW files to
>> avoid this dilemma.
>>
> --------
>
> The 8080 does not have a RAW save option only TIFF or JPG
>
>http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_product_l...

The C-8080 does not have a RAW option listed on that web page.
But it does support RAW files and the full PDF manual (downloadable
from Olympus's support section) provides quite a bit of information
about it. It allows more than I realized, such as editing RAW
images in-camera (change white balance, etc.) and saving to another
output file format.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 9:23:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Mr.Happy" <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1120665858.923157.47420
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> Because they always lock focus on the wrong subject, over expose
> subject in front, focus too slow, dont have needed settings, etc.
> let's say you point your P&S between 2 people,
> it will focus on the background behind them.

Not all P&S are created equal. For example, the prosumer models from Nikon
have for years had selectable focus points.

I can't imagine the settings that you would miss on those models.

--
Matti Vuori, <http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/mvuori/index-e.htm&gt;
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 4:01:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Bill Hilton wrote:
> >> If you shoot RAW mode then you can provide the original RAW
> >> files to avoid this dilemma.
>
> >Siddhartha Jain asks ...
> >
> >Just curious. How is it that a RAW file cannot be manipulated?
> >After all it is 0s and 1s, right?
>
> You can manipulate the file, but not without leaving tracks ... Canon
> offers the "Canon Data Verification Kit DVK-E2" for use mainly by law
> enforcement agencies showing that courtroom evidence has not been
> altered ... "Designed to work with the EOS-1Ds and new EOS-1D Mark II
> D-SLR cameras, the DVK-E2 provides the facility to prove that images
> taken with the EOS-1D Mark II have not been altered, tampered with or
> manipulated in any way."
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/04012903canondvke2.as... if you want
> to read up on it.


Yep, googled and found this adobe document that says pretty much the
same thing. Interestingly, it points out that film is more prone to
untraceable manipulation than digital RAW images.
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/digital_image_int...

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 5:48:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Mr.Happy" <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120665858.923157.47420@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Let me tell ya, P&S(both film and digital) annoy
> me.
> why?
> Because they always lock focus on the wrong
> subject, over expose subject in front, focus too
> slow, dont have needed settings, etc. let's say you
> point your P&S between 2 people, it will focus on
> the background behind them.

Not the (few) P&S cameras that I use.

> Film disposables dont have that problem, thus their
> immense popularity.
>

Well, yes - they just plain don't focus at all, but rely on DoF at their
hyperfocal distance to get most things sharp 'enough' for a 6"x4" print. I
have P&S cameras that will give 11"x14"s perfectly happily - which is where
the disposable will be left in the dust. On the other hand, people who are
buying disposables probably only want 6x4s, so they have the right tool for
their particular application and everyone is happy.


Peter
July 7, 2005 5:52:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:1120697803.37632.0@doris.uk.clara.net...
> "Mr.Happy" <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120665858.923157.47420@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Let me tell ya, P&S(both film and digital) annoy
>> me.
>> why?
>> Because they always lock focus on the wrong
>> subject, over expose subject in front, focus too
>> slow, dont have needed settings, etc. let's say you
>> point your P&S between 2 people, it will focus on
>> the background behind them.
>
> Not the (few) P&S cameras that I use.
>
>> Film disposables dont have that problem, thus their
>> immense popularity.
>>
>
> Well, yes - they just plain don't focus at all, but rely on DoF at their
> hyperfocal distance to get most things sharp 'enough' for a 6"x4" print.
> I
> have P&S cameras that will give 11"x14"s perfectly happily - which is
> where
> the disposable will be left in the dust. On the other hand, people who
> are
> buying disposables probably only want 6x4s, so they have the right tool
> for
> their particular application and everyone is happy.
>

Yeah, but the guy has a point when he says that autofocus is a pain.

There is a feeling of control when manually focusing an SLR. I really like
the prism focusing in the Spotmatics and ESes--very precise and, to my eyes,
less frustrating than trying to line up the two images on a split image
focusing screen. I am never certain if I've aligned the images exactly, but
the prism is easy--when the shimmering disappears, I know I'm spot on.

I tried a Canonet rangefinder from the 70s and I was not at all comfortable
with the split image rangefinder screen. Plus, I came to realize that I
preferred an SLR because I could see exactly what the lens saw. I make a
habit of scanning my eye all around the edges of the viewfinder, to be
certain that there is no litter of out-of-place items showing within the
frame, and rangefinders just don't cut it for me. I would not be very happy
with a Leica M or the new Zeiss Ikon. And it cost me only $45 to find out.

With my Olympus Stylus and my Nikon Lite Touch, I have to rely upon the
camera's decision as to what is in focus, and it gives me a feeling of
detachment from the process--I push the button, and I *hope* that I was
aiming properly so the camera could determine what to focus on.

Same with my digicam--it focuses on whatever is dead center, but neither the
LCD screen nor the optical window has any markings to show precisely where
that spot is. There is a certain amount of guesstimation--and for me it
would be easier to just focus the damned thing myself.

And that business of locking the focus by holding the shutter button
partially down, then recomposing the shot--being careful not to let up on
the button, nor to press it too hard and shoot before I'm ready--is a royal
pain. I am too sensitive to it--it is quite distracting.

Most of my work is cityscapes, landscapes and architectural shots--all
things that don't move and don't require the ability to lock focus
quickly--so autofocus is not high up on my list of desirable features. It
is so pleasant to be able to just turn the focusing ring on an SLR lens and
to see the results instantly in the viewfinder. No fuss. Never a mistake.

All that autofocusing gives me an uncomfortable feeling. Especially since I
shot manual focusing lenses for 24 years before I ever used autofocus.
Perhaps if my first exposure to photography had been with newer equipment
I'd not be so uncomfortable with it.
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 7:26:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

>The 8080 does not have a RAW save option only TIFF or JPG

Wrong. As an owner of the camera I can verify it certainly does do RAW
files, even if Oly's site doesn't mention it. Save times are very
slow, so like Doug says, it's not much use if you are after a lot of
images in a short time, but it's fine for 'set up' images.

>Interestingly, especially for a PJ. the operating temperature limits
>are not too generous:
>Operation: 32° - 104°F (0° - 40°C), 30 - 90% humidity
>Storage: -4° - 140°F (-20° - 60°C), 10 - 90% humidity

Those are recommendations, and any electronic camera is going to
struggle as those limits are exceeded, let alone one that is not really
intended for 'frontline' photojournalistic use. And it can fit in a
(large) coat pocket.. Mine handled 45C conditions (4 days in a row)
recently without ill effects (altho the images seemed to get a little
noisier.. (O:) 

>Or are the aperture settings in effecting DOF:
>Aperture Range f2.4- f3.5 to f8.0 (adjustable in 1/3 or 1/2 EV steps)

Diffraction effects become too great at over f8 on small sensors, so
the experts say. And f8 on a lens that is in fact a 7-36mm zoom
(28-140 equivalent) is plenty d-o-f for most people's needs. Even a
photojourno's, I would have expected...
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 1:37:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Wrong!

The Oly 8080 shoots in RAW mode. It is relatively slow to empty the buffer,
but for landscape work this isn't a major problem.

Doug

"Journalist-North" <journalist-north@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:CuSye.93358$Vo6.30676@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1120650485.444482.129470@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> If you shoot RAW mode then you can provide the original RAW files to
>> avoid this dilemma.
>>
> --------
>
> The 8080 does not have a RAW save option only TIFF or JPG
>
> http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_product_l...
> &bc=2&product=961&fl=4
>
> Specs:
>
> Recording Mode(s)
> Still image:
> EXIF 2.2" TIFF (non-compressed),
> EXIF JPEG,
> DCF (Design rule for Camera File system) see:
> http://tsc.jeita.or.jp/avs/data/cp3461.pdf
> Movie mode: QuickTime® motion JPEG
>
> Adjustable Resolutions
> 3264 x 2448 TIFF, SHQ, HQ
> 2592 x 1944 TIFF, SQ1
> 2288 x 1712 TIFF, SQ1
> 2048 x 1536 TIFF, SQ1
> 1600 x 1200 TIFF, SQ2
> 1280 x 960 TIFF, SQ2
> 1024 x 768 TIFF, SQ2
> 640 x 480 TIFF, SQ2
>
> Interestingly, especially for a PJ. the operating temperature limits are
> not
> too generous:
> Operating Environment
> Operation: 32° - 104°F (0° - 40°C), 30 - 90% humidity
> Storage: -4° - 140°F (-20° - 60°C), 10 - 90% humidity
>
> Or are the aperture settings in effecting DOF:
> Aperture Range f2.4- f3.5 to f8.0 (adjustable in 1/3 or 1/2 EV steps)
>
> MY COMMENT ON THIS : in high relective environments (snow; desert sand;
> ect)
> or where wide DOF (deep focus) was required the shooter would be
> manipulating the ISO for these bright scenes vs (normally) selecting
> smaller
> apertures at "X" shutter speeds.
>
> Journalist
>
>
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 1:22:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Tony Polson wrote:
> "Doug Robbins" <crobbins6@triad.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Wrong!
> >
> >The Oly 8080 shoots in RAW mode. It is relatively slow to empty the buffer,
> >but for landscape work this isn't a major problem.
>
>
> The 8080 is a great camera, with remarkably low noise considering the
> sensor size. It is far less affected by noise than all the other 8 MP
> "prosumer" P+S cameras.

The Fuji f810 has less noise than the 8080. See the dpreview where they
compared the two. The newer Fuji f10 has even less noise though no RAW.
Though I adore my f810 I already have the f810's future upgrade on my
wishlist.

And not only that, but the resolution is remarkable. From dpreview "It
may not look it, but the FinePix F10 is something of a revolution, and
is probably the first time a compact camera has really shown the
potential offered by Super CCD for high resolution, high sensitivity
and low noise.... . All-in-all you cannot fail to be impressed by the
high ISO performance of the F10, which really can claim - for now - to
sit in a class of its own... Fuji's Super CCD technology has always
been very good at capturing very fine high contrast detail, and the new
sensor in the F10 (working with the lens, of course) takes things to a
new high, producing one of the highest test chart resolutions we've
ever seen from a compact camera. As well as outperforming **all** the 7
megapixel compact cameras we've tested to date, the **F10 is also
outresolving most 8MP models too** - and with only the tiniest amount
of visible moiré at the very highest frequencies. Very impressive
indeed."

Fuji is really in a league of its own now with its sensors. I wish
Olympus too would adopt Fuji sensors.

>
> The reason I replied wasn't to state that, but to warn people thinking
> of buying one that the 8080 is in very short supply.

Sounds like a pending upgrade then?

I wonder what it would be like.
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 2:54:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Doug Robbins" <crobbins6@triad.rr.com> wrote:

>Wrong!
>
>The Oly 8080 shoots in RAW mode. It is relatively slow to empty the buffer,
>but for landscape work this isn't a major problem.


The 8080 is a great camera, with remarkably low noise considering the
sensor size. It is far less affected by noise than all the other 8 MP
"prosumer" P+S cameras.

The reason I replied wasn't to state that, but to warn people thinking
of buying one that the 8080 is in very short supply.
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 2:56:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"l e o" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:VVFye.18113$eM6.6237@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Mike Henley wrote:
>>
>>> It would seem reasonable to guess that all that award-winning work in
>>> remote and frequently dangerous places must have been shot with big,
>>> fast, bulletproof pro SLR cameras. But in fact, Majoli shot every frame
>>> with Olympus C-5050 digital point-and-shoots -- the same camera your
>>> snap happy Uncle Maury takes to Disney World.
>>
>>
>>
>> As a pro and presumably talented photographer, for the purposes of the
>> story he was working on or supporting, he can likely shoot within the
>> limitations of the camera and the requirements of the magazine.
>>
>> A couple years ago somebody (Simon Stanmore IIRC) posted about the
>> Japanese edition of Nat Geo doing the same thing on a story about Soho
>> (London).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alan
>
> His method of combating slow buffer is having two cameras strap to his
> neck. And Olympus was one of the sponsors. Is this a publicity stunt?
> Nevertheless, the type of the photos work within the limit of many P&S.
> And his wish is a camera the size of the C5060 with interchangeable fix
> focal lenses! um... I want that too.

I do notice he carries 6 cameras in order to combat equipment failure. Do
olympus cameras die that quickly? Perhaps two canon 1d mkII would be
better.
July 9, 2005 9:50:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <1120882930.654843.208260@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
casioculture@gmail.com says...
> > The reason I replied wasn't to state that, but to warn people thinking
> > of buying one that the 8080 is in very short supply.
>
> Sounds like a pending upgrade then?
>
> I wonder what it would be like.
>

I made and inquiry about an Olympus 8080 at a local retailer recently (for a
relative who wants one, and doesn't buy stuff on-line). They told me they
would get in touch if they got the camera in stock.

I got an e-mail from them yesterday telling me that they were sorry to inform
me the 8080 was discontinued and no more were coming from Olympus.

Since there was no attempt to sell me some other camera included in the note,
I am inclined to believe them.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 5:29:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120882930.654843.208260@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...



Tony Polson wrote:
> "Doug Robbins" <crobbins6@triad.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Wrong!
> >
> >The Oly 8080 shoots in RAW mode. It is relatively slow to empty the
> >buffer,
> >but for landscape work this isn't a major problem.
>
>
> The 8080 is a great camera, with remarkably low noise considering the
> sensor size. It is far less affected by noise than all the other 8 MP
> "prosumer" P+S cameras.

The Fuji f810 has less noise than the 8080. See the dpreview where they
compared the two. The newer Fuji f10 has even less noise though no RAW.
Though I adore my f810 I already have the f810's future upgrade on my
wishlist.

And not only that, but the resolution is remarkable. From dpreview "It
may not look it, but the FinePix F10 is something of a revolution, and
is probably the first time a compact camera has really shown the
potential offered by Super CCD for high resolution, high sensitivity
and low noise.... . All-in-all you cannot fail to be impressed by the
high ISO performance of the F10, which really can claim - for now - to
sit in a class of its own... Fuji's Super CCD technology has always
been very good at capturing very fine high contrast detail, and the new
sensor in the F10 (working with the lens, of course) takes things to a
new high, producing one of the highest test chart resolutions we've
ever seen from a compact camera. As well as outperforming **all** the 7
megapixel compact cameras we've tested to date, the **F10 is also
outresolving most 8MP models too** - and with only the tiniest amount
of visible moiré at the very highest frequencies. Very impressive
indeed."

Fuji is really in a league of its own now with its sensors. I wish
Olympus too would adopt Fuji sensors.



A friend has the the F10. No thanks. They have gone all out to hype the
low(er) noise, but to the detriment of other image characteristics. The pics
are really not that good.

Anyone seen output from the Verve 800 yet??
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 5:29:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"g n p" <gpaleo@ath.forthnet.gr> wrote:
>
>The Fuji f810 has less noise than the 8080. See the dpreview where they
>compared the two.


So which manufacturer do you think sponsors the "review" site?

;-)
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 12:25:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

g n p wrote:
> <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120882930.654843.208260@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> Tony Polson wrote:
> > "Doug Robbins" <crobbins6@triad.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Wrong!
> > >
> > >The Oly 8080 shoots in RAW mode. It is relatively slow to empty the
> > >buffer,
> > >but for landscape work this isn't a major problem.
> >
> >
> > The 8080 is a great camera, with remarkably low noise considering the
> > sensor size. It is far less affected by noise than all the other 8 MP
> > "prosumer" P+S cameras.
>
> The Fuji f810 has less noise than the 8080. See the dpreview where they
> compared the two. The newer Fuji f10 has even less noise though no RAW.
> Though I adore my f810 I already have the f810's future upgrade on my
> wishlist.
>
> And not only that, but the resolution is remarkable. From dpreview "It
> may not look it, but the FinePix F10 is something of a revolution, and
> is probably the first time a compact camera has really shown the
> potential offered by Super CCD for high resolution, high sensitivity
> and low noise.... . All-in-all you cannot fail to be impressed by the
> high ISO performance of the F10, which really can claim - for now - to
> sit in a class of its own... Fuji's Super CCD technology has always
> been very good at capturing very fine high contrast detail, and the new
> sensor in the F10 (working with the lens, of course) takes things to a
> new high, producing one of the highest test chart resolutions we've
> ever seen from a compact camera. As well as outperforming **all** the 7
> megapixel compact cameras we've tested to date, the **F10 is also
> outresolving most 8MP models too** - and with only the tiniest amount
> of visible moiré at the very highest frequencies. Very impressive
> indeed."
>
> Fuji is really in a league of its own now with its sensors. I wish
> Olympus too would adopt Fuji sensors.
>
>
>
> A friend has the the F10. No thanks. They have gone all out to hype the
> low(er) noise, but to the detriment of other image characteristics. The pics
> are really not that good.

Would you please care to elaborate especially since your opinion is at
odds with most if not all reviews I had read. What "other image
characteristics"?

>
> Anyone seen output from the Verve 800 yet??
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 1:39:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121009118.640294.256290@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...



g n p wrote:
> <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120882930.654843.208260@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> Tony Polson wrote:
> > "Doug Robbins" <crobbins6@triad.rr.com> wrote:
> >
>.........................................................................
.........................................................................>
>
>
> A friend has the the F10. No thanks. They have gone all out to hype the
> low(er) noise, but to the detriment of other image characteristics. The
> pics
> are really not that good.

>Would you please care to elaborate especially since your opinion is at
>odds with most if not all reviews I had read. What "other image
>characteristics"?

Lack of fine image detail at higher ISO, a lot of purple fringing, nasty
contrast and peculiar chromatic rendering (off the top of my head, I don't
have the pics in front of me...).
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 11:17:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <1120665858.923157.47420@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Mr.Happy" <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Let me tell ya,
> P&S(both film and digital) annoy me.
> why?
> Because they always lock focus on the wrong subject, over expose
> subject in front, focus too slow, dont have needed settings, etc.
> let's say you point your P&S between 2 people,
> it will focus on the background behind them.
> Film disposables dont have that problem, thus their immense popularity.

Well, let's all buy those DSLRs built like a tank and weigh about the
same. Didn't he just tell ya?
QUOTE
Majoli acknowledges that most of his photojournalist colleagues think
he's crazy, but he's been shooting with digital point-and-shoots for
three years, developing techniques to deal with their shortcomings and
exploring their unique strengths, which still intrigue him."

You're using a film disposable, I guess? And you're American, I guess?
Drive an SUV? Well we all know where this is leading...
!