Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Comparison: Rebel XT with Kit Zoom versus Olympus C8080

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 1:54:35 AM

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

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/canon_versus_olympus_te...

3 images each
Equivalent focal lengths
100 ISO
WB = auto on both
JPEG output highest each provides
Focusing done manually
Both cameras tripod mounted
Shutters tripped by Olympus remote and Canon self-timer
Controlled lighting environment
Exposures manually set, according to camera matrix readings
August 3, 2005 3:36:24 AM

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

RichA email me @ vince_j69el@hotmail.com

Vince....



"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:p n80f154iiatkcgruocmqrje2e2r2mn27l@4ax.com...
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/canon_versus_olympus_te...

3 images each
Equivalent focal lengths
100 ISO
WB = auto on both
JPEG output highest each provides
Focusing done manually
Both cameras tripod mounted
Shutters tripped by Olympus remote and Canon self-timer
Controlled lighting environment
Exposures manually set, according to camera matrix readings
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 6:43:30 AM

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

In article <pn80f154iiatkcgruocmqrje2e2r2mn27l@4ax.com>, none@none.com
says...
> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/canon_versus_olympus_te...
>
> 3 images each
> Equivalent focal lengths
> 100 ISO
> WB = auto on both
> JPEG output highest each provides
> Focusing done manually
> Both cameras tripod mounted
> Shutters tripped by Olympus remote and Canon self-timer
> Controlled lighting environment
> Exposures manually set, according to camera matrix readings

#1: Your focus is way off on at least two of the Rebel shots.

#2: The shots highlight major differences in DOF, not lens quality.
For example, 7.1mm at f/5.6 on the Oly is going to give a near infinite
depth of field, with objects beyond 2.3 feet being in acceptable
sharpness. Comparatively, 18mm at f/7.1 with the Digital Rebel is going
to have a near sharpness of about 3.5 feet.

This gets worse down the line. At 35mm and f/7.1, the depth of field
will be 2.5 feet TOTAL for the Digital Rebel. At 55mm and f/7.1, you're
less than a foot. The Oly's depth of field at equivalent fields of view
will be 6 feet and 2 feet respectively.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

#3: The Oly has certainly a stronger in camera sharpening regimen. If
it has a "low sharpening" or "no sharpening" mode, please use it when
you repeat the test.

My suggestions to correct this test:

#1: Depth of field variations will ALWAYS occur when you're comparing
point and shoots with HUGE DOFs with dSLRs that have relatively narrow
DOFs. I would set up a test shot that has the camera parallel to a
subject, with most of the scene within about a foot of where you will be
focusing.

My suggestion: set a bunch of random stuff on a table, make sure it is
well lit and more or less parallel with the focal plane of the camera.
Don't let the total distance between the objects and the focal distance
exceed more than six inches in either direction.

#2: Make sure the Oly has it's sharpening set as low as possible, or
turn up the Rebel's to the highest setting (+2).

#3: Take a variety of shots with the Rebel at f/5.6, f/7.1, f/8.0 and
f/9.5. This will test the performance of the lens. Many cheap lenses
are really soft wide open, but sharpen very nicely as you stop down.
Additionally, this will make sure that we're not seeing manifestations
of narrow depth of field.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
August 3, 2005 6:43:31 AM

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

Brian Baird wrote:

>
> #3: Take a variety of shots with the Rebel at f/5.6, f/7.1, f/8.0 and
> f/9.5. This will test the performance of the lens. Many cheap lenses
> are really soft wide open,

I think that's the point.. This cheap lens is soft.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 2:49:57 PM

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3lb0j0F11l4erU6@individual.net...
> Brian Baird wrote:
>
> >
> > #3: Take a variety of shots with the Rebel at f/5.6, f/7.1, f/8.0 and
> > f/9.5. This will test the performance of the lens. Many cheap lenses
> > are really soft wide open,
>
> I think that's the point.. This cheap lens is soft.

Blah BLAH BLAH BLAH blah. Blah blah blah BLAH BLAH.

Greg
August 4, 2005 6:23:01 AM

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

Mike Murphree wrote:

>
> I just spent over a week with an Oly C-8080 WZ before sending it back.
> It makes little difference how sharp the Oly lens is if the damn camera
> refuses to focus in a normally lit room. Yes, the AF assist light was
> on too and it still would hunt for a few seconds or more if it focused
> at all. Our old Oly C-2020Z runs rings around it indoors when focusing.
> I've considered the Rebel XT, but the handgrip is too small, the kit
> lens is too cheap, and will probably buy a Nikon D50 or D70s with the
> 18-70mm AF-S DX lens instead...
>


Refreshing to see someone doing their own testing rather than -following the
pack-..

--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 6:53:08 AM

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

In article <42F15F79.3CF85F07@killspam.127.0.0.1>,
ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1 says...
> One more point: You'll not fail to note that I have said *nothing* about
> the Oly performance. That's because, like most reasonable posters here,
> I don't bash cameras. Unlike Rich and Stacey.

Same. I don't see anything wrong with the Oly's performance, other than
its results versus the Rebel's results are flawed due to the massive
depth of field differences and in-camera sharpening. And the poor focus
on the part of the user...
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 4:45:49 PM

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

> That's because, like most reasonable posters here,
> I don't bash cameras.
> Colin D.

Good approach Colin, I hope a few more follow your lead

Toa
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 4:45:50 PM

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

Toa wrote:
>> That's because, like most reasonable posters here,
>> I don't bash cameras.
>> Colin D.
>
> Good approach Colin, I hope a few more follow your lead


Yes. Then I wouldn't be afraid to mention what camera I have. :-)

-Mike
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 4:45:51 PM

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

In article <42f175bd$0$36371$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
miwaNOSPAM@cairnscarsound.com.au says...
> Yes. Then I wouldn't be afraid to mention what camera I have. :-)
>
> -Mike

I think I speak for most of us when I say this:

IF your camera makes you happy, it's the right camera for you. The
biggest problem with RichA and Stacey is they insist on telling people
who are happy with their cameras that they are wrong.

When Stacey showed up, I was more than willing to let him/her enjoy the
E300 on the merits of them liking the camera and being comfortable with
it. That went out the window fast. Some people...
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
August 4, 2005 4:45:52 PM

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

Brian Baird wrote:

> In article <42f175bd$0$36371$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
> miwaNOSPAM@cairnscarsound.com.au says...
>> Yes. Then I wouldn't be afraid to mention what camera I have. :-)
>>
>> -Mike
>
> I think I speak for most of us when I say this:
>
> IF your camera makes you happy, it's the right camera for you. The
> biggest problem with RichA and Stacey is they insist on telling people
> who are happy with their cameras that they are wrong.

You actually think I'm going to change YOUR mind? I just hate seeing you and
other preach "Buy a canon kit" and the people end up with this shitty
performing lens in the bargain.


--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 4:45:52 PM

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

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 02:54:58 GMT, Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:

>In article <42f175bd$0$36371$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
>miwaNOSPAM@cairnscarsound.com.au says...
>> Yes. Then I wouldn't be afraid to mention what camera I have. :-)
>>
>> -Mike
>
>I think I speak for most of us when I say this:
>
>IF your camera makes you happy, it's the right camera for you. The
>biggest problem with RichA and Stacey is they insist on telling people
>who are happy with their cameras that they are wrong.

I've only mentioned (as I said before) the kit lens and the Rebel's
build quality. Question; Do you own either and if not, how have I
told YOU what that you are doing wrong?
-Rich
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 8:18:38 PM

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

Brian Baird wrote:
> In article <42f175bd$0$36371$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,

>> Yes. Then I wouldn't be afraid to mention what camera I have. :-)

> I think I speak for most of us when I say this:
>
> IF your camera makes you happy, it's the right camera for you.

Well... It will make me happy when I get some decent glass for it.

-Mike
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 8:18:39 PM

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

In article <42f1b344$0$14607$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
miwaNOSPAM@cairnscarsound.com.au says...
> > IF your camera makes you happy, it's the right camera for you.
>
> Well... It will make me happy when I get some decent glass for it.

Ahh... the allure of good glass.

I don't have any cash so I stopped dreaming a long time ago.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
August 4, 2005 8:49:59 PM

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

In article <MPG.1d5b4d92cbd6790e989751@news.verizon.net>, no@no.thank.u
says...
> In article <42f175bd$0$36371$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
> miwaNOSPAM@cairnscarsound.com.au says...
> > Yes. Then I wouldn't be afraid to mention what camera I have. :-)
> >
> > -Mike
>
> I think I speak for most of us when I say this:
>
> IF your camera makes you happy, it's the right camera for you. The
> biggest problem with RichA and Stacey is they insist on telling people
> who are happy with their cameras that they are wrong.
>
> When Stacey showed up, I was more than willing to let him/her enjoy the
> E300 on the merits of them liking the camera and being comfortable with
> it. That went out the window fast. Some people...
>

When I shoot, I use a Canon DSLR for the "action" shots, and any one of 3 ZLR
type cameras (none of them Canon, I dont like the Pro-1).

I dont think you can beat a DSLR for low light, and/or fast action shooting
unless you dont mind missing a lot of shots.

I have a Canon because its what happened to be the one I liked at the time I
was buying a DSLR,, Now I have a Canon and a few Canon lenses, but that
wouldnt stop me for a moment from buying a Nikon or Minolta, or even a
Pentax, if they came out with a camera that I saw an advantage in without
adding a drawback.

Sometimes I find the "brand wars" in the group entertaining, and sometimes
they are a bore, but they are always going on in one way or another..

My ZLR cameras are: Sony F 828, Olympus 8080, Fuji S7000.

If my posed shots have no high contrast/backlighting problems the Sony wins
hands down for me, otherwise the Olympus 8080 gets the job. For shots that I
feel it is the "apropriate" camera the Fuji (in RAW mode) gets the job (where
the subject matter contains more landscape than people, of no people at all).

Im a brand whore..... I'll buy any brand that suites (or seems to suite) my
needs.

One other thing I'de like to contribute to the discussion is: If you buy a
DSLR with a "kit" lens, dont expect much, because they dont charge much for
it.. If you dont have High expectations, the camera lens combo will probably
live up to its price point.

--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 11:14:39 PM

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

Brian Baird wrote:

> I wish this was the case. But RichA and Stacey are both major sources
> of BAD INFORMATION on this board. For those who read, but might not
> post, or those who might THINK of posting stupid stuff, I think we have
> a responsibility to call bullshit when we see it.

I think that you're giving a lot less credit to the average reader, if
there is such a thing, than they deserve.

I doubt that if a single person ever took the "advice," or believed a
single post, written by Steve Gionovella (aka George Preddy, Suzie
Quinn, Don Gentile, etc.), Rich A, or Stacey. They are all pathalogical
liars, and they have made that fact abundantly clear to anyone that
reads this group.

Yes, you are correct that those two individuals are major sources of
incorrect, and bad information, but even a newbie can figure that out.
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 11:14:40 PM

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

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:14:39 GMT, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Brian Baird wrote:
>
>> I wish this was the case. But RichA and Stacey are both major sources
>> of BAD INFORMATION on this board. For those who read, but might not
>> post, or those who might THINK of posting stupid stuff, I think we have
>> a responsibility to call bullshit when we see it.
>
>I think that you're giving a lot less credit to the average reader, if
>there is such a thing, than they deserve.
>
>I doubt that if a single person ever took the "advice," or believed a
>single post, written by Steve Gionovella (aka George Preddy, Suzie
>Quinn, Don Gentile, etc.), Rich A, or Stacey. They are all pathalogical
>liars, and they have made that fact abundantly clear to anyone that
>reads this group.
>

I lied about what?
-Rich
August 5, 2005 5:17:45 AM

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

RichA wrote:

> for it. If you are stuck with the kit lens because you can't afford
> anything else, don't blame others for your plight and don't try to
> pretend the kit lens isn't junk.

I've got a 300D, kit lens and the 75-300 mkII USM. I can't afford
anything else, oh woe is me... boo hoo... sniffle...

Following were shot with the "junk" lens plus a dirt cheap +10 close-up
filter.

http://www.pxl8.co.uk/common_darter_02.jpg
http://www.pxl8.co.uk/common_darter_03.jpg
http://www.pxl8.co.uk/common_darter_04.jpg
http://www.pxl8.co.uk/common_darter_05.jpg

--
Andy
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 6:04:44 AM

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

In article <RuydnWx4ipCuLW_fRVnyhg@pipex.net>, spam@noway.invalid
says...
> RichA wrote:
>
> > for it. If you are stuck with the kit lens because you can't afford
> > anything else, don't blame others for your plight and don't try to
> > pretend the kit lens isn't junk.
>
> I've got a 300D, kit lens and the 75-300 mkII USM. I can't afford
> anything else, oh woe is me... boo hoo... sniffle...
>
> Following were shot with the "junk" lens plus a dirt cheap +10 close-up
> filter.
>
> http://www.pxl8.co.uk/common_darter_02.jpg
> http://www.pxl8.co.uk/common_darter_03.jpg
> http://www.pxl8.co.uk/common_darter_04.jpg
> http://www.pxl8.co.uk/common_darter_05.jpg

Those are really good, especially considering the usage of the close-up
filter. How do the 100% crops hold up?

I've given up on macro shots until I can get a decent lens. I get too
much chromatic aberration with my lens/filter combo. It probably would
be less if I lit the subjects better, but I'm an "available light" kinda
guy.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
August 5, 2005 12:36:23 PM

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

Brian Baird wrote:

> Those are really good, especially considering the usage of the close-up
> filter. How do the 100% crops hold up?

http://www.pxl8.co.uk/df_crop.jpg

This is "unprocessed" apart from my normal settings for importing raw
into Photoshop.

> I've given up on macro shots until I can get a decent lens. I get too
> much chromatic aberration with my lens/filter combo. It probably would
> be less if I lit the subjects better, but I'm an "available light" kinda
> guy.

These were available light as well - maybe you should give the kit lens
a go :-)

--
Andy
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 1:25:19 PM

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

In article <xbWdnamWAqBri27fRVnyiw@pipex.net>, spam@noway.invalid
says...
> Brian Baird wrote:
>
> > Those are really good, especially considering the usage of the close-up
> > filter. How do the 100% crops hold up?
>
> http://www.pxl8.co.uk/df_crop.jpg
>
> This is "unprocessed" apart from my normal settings for importing raw
> into Photoshop.

Not bad. The depth of field is paper thin, but you got a decent point
of focus.

> > I've given up on macro shots until I can get a decent lens. I get too
> > much chromatic aberration with my lens/filter combo. It probably would
> > be less if I lit the subjects better, but I'm an "available light" kinda
> > guy.
>
> These were available light as well - maybe you should give the kit lens
> a go :-)

I think I need brighter sun! ;) 
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
August 5, 2005 2:38:48 PM

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

Brian Baird wrote:

> Not bad. The depth of field is paper thin, but you got a decent point
> of focus.

It was shot at f8, 1/250 @ ISO400. I could have closed down another
couple of stops but I've been sticking to f8 to help improve my focus
technique. In that context I'm pleased with the results.

>>These were available light as well - maybe you should give the kit lens
>>a go :-)
>
> I think I need brighter sun! ;) 

Don't we all!

--
Andy
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 3:56:10 PM

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

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 01:17:45 +0100, Andy <spam@noway.invalid> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>
>> for it. If you are stuck with the kit lens because you can't afford
>> anything else, don't blame others for your plight and don't try to
>> pretend the kit lens isn't junk.
>
>I've got a 300D, kit lens and the 75-300 mkII USM. I can't afford
>anything else, oh woe is me... boo hoo... sniffle...
>
>Following were shot with the "junk" lens plus a dirt cheap +10 close-up
>filter.
>
>http://www.pxl8.co.uk/common_darter_02.jpg
>http://www.pxl8.co.uk/common_darter_03.jpg
>http://www.pxl8.co.uk/common_darter_04.jpg
>http://www.pxl8.co.uk/common_darter_05.jpg

They look pretty good, but then macro shots tend
to be a bit more forgiving than normal shots.
That's why P&S cameras that produce mediocre regular
shots can often produce outstanding macro shots.
-Rich
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 3:57:22 PM

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

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 08:36:23 +0100, Andy <spam@noway.invalid> wrote:

>Brian Baird wrote:
>
>> Those are really good, especially considering the usage of the close-up
>> filter. How do the 100% crops hold up?
>
>http://www.pxl8.co.uk/df_crop.jpg
>
>This is "unprocessed" apart from my normal settings for importing raw
>into Photoshop.
>
>> I've given up on macro shots until I can get a decent lens. I get too
>> much chromatic aberration with my lens/filter combo. It probably would
>> be less if I lit the subjects better, but I'm an "available light" kinda
>> guy.
>
>These were available light as well - maybe you should give the kit lens
>a go :-)

As a side issue, does anyone out there produce screw-on macro lenses
that are achromats? Most appear to be singlets, which always add CA.
-Rich
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 7:07:01 PM

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

> don't blame others for your plight and don't try to
> pretend the kit lens isn't junk.
> -Rich

Everything is relative, even relatives. What you may consider to be junk
others can (and obviously do) consider to be a perfectly acceptable lens.
It all depends on what one expects. You expect something that isn't there,
others expectations are met with what they have.

I fail to see why you continue on this tack, it gets nowhere. It'ld be a
bit like me calling your wife fat and ugly. It would serve no purpose other
than to rile you. Also I would have no basis for my accusation as I've
never met your right hand

Toa
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 7:07:02 PM

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

In article <1123211223.1457b11d90a3e82efad8437cbaae2be5@teranews>,
toa1614@gmail.com says...
> Also I would have no basis for my accusation as I've
> never met your right hand

Zing!

--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 9:23:31 PM

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

In article <gu27f1ptemo8aehoa0pna4p0bm2sf5j521@4ax.com>, none@none.com
says...
> That's why P&S cameras that produce mediocre regular
> shots can often produce outstanding macro shots.

I find exactly the opposite to be true with my point and shoots.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 2:30:15 AM

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

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:23:31 GMT, Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:

>In article <gu27f1ptemo8aehoa0pna4p0bm2sf5j521@4ax.com>, none@none.com
>says...
>> That's why P&S cameras that produce mediocre regular
>> shots can often produce outstanding macro shots.
>
>I find exactly the opposite to be true with my point and shoots.

Really? How often do you get that annoying "burned out" folliage look
with a macro shot? You know, where the tops of trees seem to be
disintigrating because of excessive saturation of pixels in the sensor
where the bright sky meets the leaf edges? It see that with most P&S
cameras.
-Rich
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 9:11:55 AM

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

In article <r288f1l792g334t8dcah7sbikm4cg9djp5@4ax.com>, none@none.com
says...
> >I find exactly the opposite to be true with my point and shoots.
>
> Really? How often do you get that annoying "burned out" folliage look
> with a macro shot? You know, where the tops of trees seem to be
> disintigrating because of excessive saturation of pixels in the sensor
> where the bright sky meets the leaf edges? It see that with most P&S
> cameras.

Are you going to ever make a valid statement?

You can burn out highlights just as easily in a macro shot if your
lighting isn't even.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 9:11:56 AM

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

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 05:11:55 GMT, Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:

>In article <r288f1l792g334t8dcah7sbikm4cg9djp5@4ax.com>, none@none.com
>says...
>> >I find exactly the opposite to be true with my point and shoots.
>>
>> Really? How often do you get that annoying "burned out" folliage look
>> with a macro shot? You know, where the tops of trees seem to be
>> disintigrating because of excessive saturation of pixels in the sensor
>> where the bright sky meets the leaf edges? It see that with most P&S
>> cameras.
>
>Are you going to ever make a valid statement?
>
>You can burn out highlights just as easily in a macro shot if your
>lighting isn't even.

Sure, but you don't encounter that very much in macro work, at least
not like you do with landscapes therefore macro is more forgiving
than other camera work, for the average shot. The only real issue is
dof.
-Rich
!