Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > c-5000 vs. c-5050

Reply
Thread Tools

c-5000 vs. c-5050

 
 
dwolf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-28-2003
I'm just about ready to get the 5050.... most likely refurbished... US1
Camera has a nice price... anyway... just trying to compare the 5000 vs the
5050. Anyone have any input on this.. and buying refurbished.. Thanks Joel


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
JK
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-28-2003
The C5000 has a lens that is slow, especially at the telephoto end
(The lens is f2.8-f4.8!). The lens on the C5050 is f1.8-2.6. The C5000
also uses a proprietary lithium battery, while the C5050 uses nimh AA
rechargeables.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/pr/ol..._c5000_pr.html

The C4000 would be a better choice than the C5000 if the C5050 is
too expensive, even though the C400 is 4 megapixels. The C4000
has a lens that is f2.8 throughout the entire zoom range and takes
AA batteries.


dwolf wrote:

> I'm just about ready to get the 5050.... most likely refurbished... US1
> Camera has a nice price... anyway... just trying to compare the 5000 vs the
> 5050. Anyone have any input on this.. and buying refurbished.. Thanks Joel


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mike Jacoubowsky
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-28-2003
> I'm just about ready to get the 5050.... most likely refurbished... US1
> Camera has a nice price... anyway... just trying to compare the 5000 vs

the
> 5050. Anyone have any input on this.. and buying refurbished.. Thanks Joel


My guess is that you'll be able to get a *new* 5050 for a similar price to
the 5000 in the near future, and, as another poster pointed out, the 5050 is
a far more capable camera. The big advantage to the 5000 would be size-
it's definitely smaller & lighter than the 5050.

Advantages for the 5000-

-Small & light. Definitely easier to pack around than the 5050!

-Low price

Disadvantages for the 5000-

-Lens (part 1) Not really a disadvantage, but an example of somewhat sleazy
marketing. Olympus implies the camera will have interchangeable lenses,
when in fact all it has are threads allowing you to add a lens on top of the
one already present.

-Lens (part 2) F2.8 vs F1.8 on the 5050. This can make a significant
difference when you're shooting something that needs a higher shutter speed,
as well as when you want to have less depth-of-field (to selectively focus
on the subject and blur the background and foreground).

-Batteries. The 5000 uses a proprietary battery, while the 5050 uses
garden-variety AA NiMH units. No problem getting a spare battery set if
something goes wrong, as AA NiMH units are available all over the place
(most drug stores even).

-Memory media. I used to think memory was no big deal, but now that I have
a 5050, I see the error of my ways! Smartmedia and XD media simply don't
transfer as fast as a really fast (and now cheap!) CF (compact flash) card.
I've got a 512meg CF card that's blazingly-fast and cost all of $107 in my
5050. I've also used the stock XD card that came with it, as well as smart
media. The CF card blows them away, both in transfer speed from card to
computer, as well as shot-to-shot times once the buffer is filled. The 5000
takes only XD cards according to the press release, while the 5050 takes
smartmedia, XD *and* CF.


There are a number of things that can be manually done on the 5050 that
cannot be on the 5000, but that's almost a wash since some might be
intimidated by the controls on the 5050. However, I should point out that
any nimrod off the street can pick up a 5050 and take great shots using the
default (P) settings on the camera.

Having said all this, there's still one thing more important than everything
else listed here. If you play with each camera, which one is going to make
it more *fun* to take photos? Does one seem to draw you to it more than the
other? It really doesn't matter why, even if it's something as silly as the
style of the body.

PS: Can you tell I own a 5050 and think it's wonderful????

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
George
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-29-2003
And the C4000 has dropped in price again, too. I just got one at Target for
$338.

"JK" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> The C5000 has a lens that is slow, especially at the telephoto end
> (The lens is f2.8-f4.8!). The lens on the C5050 is f1.8-2.6. The C5000
> also uses a proprietary lithium battery, while the C5050 uses nimh AA
> rechargeables.
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/pr/ol..._c5000_pr.html
>
> The C4000 would be a better choice than the C5000 if the C5050 is
> too expensive, even though the C400 is 4 megapixels. The C4000
> has a lens that is f2.8 throughout the entire zoom range and takes
> AA batteries.
>
>
> dwolf wrote:
>
> > I'm just about ready to get the 5050.... most likely refurbished... US1
> > Camera has a nice price... anyway... just trying to compare the 5000 vs

the
> > 5050. Anyone have any input on this.. and buying refurbished.. Thanks

Joel
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Ted Rumple
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-29-2003
"dwolf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> I'm just about ready to get the 5050.... most likely refurbished... US1
> Camera has a nice price... anyway... just trying to compare the 5000 vs the
> 5050. Anyone have any input on this.. and buying refurbished.. Thanks Joel


Both of those cameras suck the white creamy cum out of my cock!
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Parkinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-29-2003
"Ted Rumple" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> "dwolf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> > I'm just about ready to get the 5050.... most likely refurbished... US1
> > Camera has a nice price... anyway... just trying to compare the 5000 vs

the
> > 5050. Anyone have any input on this.. and buying refurbished.. Thanks

Joel
>
> Both of those cameras suck the white creamy cum out of my cock!


and you know that how exactly ?

--
Time travel . . . . . . . . . the way to buy a Home Computer that won't be
obsolete in 6 months




 
Reply With Quote
 
Alfred Molon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-29-2003
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> I'm just about ready to get the 5050.... most likely refurbished... US1
> Camera has a nice price... anyway... just trying to compare the 5000 vs the
> 5050. Anyone have any input on this.. and buying refurbished.. Thanks Joel


Another point is that the 5050 has the RAW file format, which allows you
to obtain better quality pictures.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus4040_5050/
Olympus 4040 resource - http://www.molon.de/4040.html
Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
gr
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-29-2003
"Alfred Molon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
> Another point is that the 5050 has the RAW file format, which allows you
> to obtain better quality pictures.


Yeah, but you have to buy Photoshop to use a plug-in that allows you to do
anything useful with the RAW images off-camera. Since I don't have
Photoshop, my only use for RAW is when I'm not sure what kind of
white-balance, sharpness, saturation, etc. to use. I can use in-camera
editing to set all that stuff afterwards. Otherwise, the only use for RAW is
that it takes up less space than TIFF.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Gregg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-30-2003
Better check out the C-5060 first.


"Ted Rumple" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> "dwolf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> > I'm just about ready to get the 5050.... most likely refurbished... US1
> > Camera has a nice price... anyway... just trying to compare the 5000 vs

the
> > 5050. Anyone have any input on this.. and buying refurbished.. Thanks

Joel
>
> Both of those cameras suck the white creamy cum out of my cock!



 
Reply With Quote
 
Alfred Molon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-30-2003
In article <bla8pi$a1uok$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> Yeah, but you have to buy Photoshop to use a plug-in that allows you to do
> anything useful with the RAW images off-camera. Since I don't have
> Photoshop, my only use for RAW is when I'm not sure what kind of
> white-balance, sharpness, saturation, etc. to use. I can use in-camera
> editing to set all that stuff afterwards. Otherwise, the only use for RAW is
> that it takes up less space than TIFF.


The plugin will also work with Photoshop Elements.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus4040_5050/
Olympus 4040 resource - http://www.molon.de/4040.html
Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Advertisments