c-5000 vs. c-5050

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by dwolf, Sep 28, 2003.

  1. dwolf

    dwolf Guest

    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
    dwolf, Sep 28, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. dwolf

    JK Guest

    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/olympus_08292003_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
    JK, Sep 28, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. > 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
    Mike Jacoubowsky, Sep 29, 2003
    #3
  4. dwolf

    George Guest

    And the C4000 has dropped in price again, too. I just got one at Target for
    $338.

    "JK" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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/olympus_08292003_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
    >
    George, Sep 29, 2003
    #4
  5. dwolf

    Ted Rumple Guest

    "dwolf" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > 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!
    Ted Rumple, Sep 29, 2003
    #5
  6. "Ted Rumple" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "dwolf" <> wrote in message

    news:<>...
    > > 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
    Tony Parkinson, Sep 29, 2003
    #6
  7. dwolf

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <>,
    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
    Alfred Molon, Sep 29, 2003
    #7
  8. dwolf

    gr Guest

    "Alfred Molon" <> 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.
    gr, Sep 29, 2003
    #8
  9. dwolf

    Gregg Guest

    Better check out the C-5060 first.


    "Ted Rumple" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "dwolf" <> wrote in message

    news:<>...
    > > 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!
    Gregg, Sep 30, 2003
    #9
  10. dwolf

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <bla8pi$a1uok$-berlin.de>,
    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
    Alfred Molon, Sep 30, 2003
    #10
  11. dwolf

    gr Guest

    "Alfred Molon" <> wrote
    > In article <bla8pi$a1uok$-berlin.de>,
    > 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.


    Will the free plugin work with Elements, or are you referring to the $99
    plugin for Photoshop?
    gr, Sep 30, 2003
    #11
  12. dwolf

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Alfred Molon, Sep 30, 2003
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Chris Gunn
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,483
    David Oddie
    Jul 14, 2003
  2. The Ruzicka Family
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,160
    Chris Gunn
    Jul 12, 2003
  3. The Ruzicka Family
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    962
    The Ruzicka Family
    Jul 11, 2003
  4. Bostjan

    Olympus c-2100,c-5050 and c-750

    Bostjan, Jul 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    910
    Warren Sarle
    Jul 12, 2003
  5. CertExpert..!!!
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,168
    CertExpert..!!!
    Feb 7, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page