Olympus C-8080 better than E-300??

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

I noticed in resolution tests that the
lens of this prosumer camera produced sharper
shots than either the low or higher end ZD
Olympus DSLR zoom lenses. In fact (on DPreview,
anyway) it's picture quality was on-par with
a Canon D20. Not bad for a fixed-lens prosumer.
It looks like they hit some kind of lens "sweet
spot" with it. I know the conventional wisdom
is that you don't pick a fixed-lens camera if you
can get a DSLR, but that one seems to be a good
choice, and there is no dust problem to worry about.
-Rich

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

RichA wrote:

> I noticed in resolution tests that the
> lens of this prosumer camera produced sharper
> shots than either the low or higher end ZD
> Olympus DSLR zoom lenses.

The "problem" the E300 has af far as sharpness is from excessive/poor in
camera processing trying to silence the noise police looking for noise at
100% on screen images (which has nothing to do with how they look on an
8X10 print).The sensor used has a higher dynamic range than the Cmos
sensors other DSLR's use which helps keep highlights from being blown out
etc. Yes it has more noise but of the two, I'll take noise over a narrow
dynamic range as the noise can be fixed, missing information can not.

The raw files processed in the right raw conversion software are REALLY
sharp and the higher end ZD lenses are noticably better than the 14-45 made
in china kit lens.

That said the 8080 is a good camera but has slower AF and trying to manually
focus a non-SLR camera is a PITA. Plus It can't go as wide as the 11-22 ZD
which is what killed it for me.

BTW there is no dust problems to worry about with the E300 either....

--

Stacey

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

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 00:44:29 -0500, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>
>> I noticed in resolution tests that the
>> lens of this prosumer camera produced sharper
>> shots than either the low or higher end ZD
>> Olympus DSLR zoom lenses.
>
>The "problem" the E300 has af far as sharpness is from excessive/poor in
>camera processing trying to silence the noise police looking for noise at
>100% on screen images (which has nothing to do with how they look on an
>8X10 print).The sensor used has a higher dynamic range than the Cmos
>sensors other DSLR's use which helps keep highlights from being blown out
>etc. Yes it has more noise but of the two, I'll take noise over a narrow
>dynamic range as the noise can be fixed, missing information can not.

Compared to film cameras, I figured all digitals were still a pathetic
joke when it comes to containing "white blowout."

>
> The raw files processed in the right raw conversion software are REALLY
>sharp and the higher end ZD lenses are noticably better than the 14-45 made
>in china kit lens.

What is the upload time for them? I know with my prosumer C-3040, a
tiff file (the few it can hold) takes a huge amount of time to store
in the camera. The little red light flashes for about 30 seconds.
And that is only a 3.3meg image.

>
>That said the 8080 is a good camera but has slower AF and trying to manually
>focus a non-SLR camera is a PITA. Plus It can't go as wide as the 11-22 ZD
>which is what killed it for me.

Speed for me isn't much of an issue. Widefield shots could be. But
more likely telephoto shots would be an issue. 100mm equivalents just
aren't enough and those "clip on" adapter tele lenses give me the
creeps.
>
>BTW there is no dust problems to worry about with the E300 either....

I wondered about how well that ultrasonic thing worked.
-Rich