Canon EOS-300D or Olympus C8080

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Yi Zhao, Aug 2, 2004.

  1. Yi Zhao

    Yi Zhao Guest

    I have been looking to buy a new DC to replace my Minolta Dimage7,
    which is really slow and battery-hungry. The models I am looking at
    are Canon EOS-300D and Olympus C8080. I like Olympus C8080 for its
    super picture quality but then it is not a SLR. I have a Canon EOS
    Elan II SLR and three Canon EF lens, which is a primary reason I am
    looking into EOS-300D. But somehow the picture taken with 300D is not
    as sharp as C8080. Also for most of the daily uses I don't believe I
    will switch lens that often, which offset the SLR benefits a little
    bit.

    What are your experience with these two cameras?

    One feature I have a particular concern is the camera speed, both
    auto-focusing and shutter-releasing. Dimage 7 is really slow in that
    regard. How does C8080 compare with a digital SLR like EOS-300D.

    Thanks,

    -- Yi
     
    Yi Zhao, Aug 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Yi Zhao

    Mark B. Guest

    "Yi Zhao" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I have been looking to buy a new DC to replace my Minolta Dimage7,
    > which is really slow and battery-hungry. The models I am looking at
    > are Canon EOS-300D and Olympus C8080. I like Olympus C8080 for its
    > super picture quality but then it is not a SLR. I have a Canon EOS
    > Elan II SLR and three Canon EF lens, which is a primary reason I am
    > looking into EOS-300D. But somehow the picture taken with 300D is not
    > as sharp as C8080.


    This has been discussed many times before. In general, portable digicams
    have a much more aggresive sharpening algorithm than Canon DSLRs. It simply
    takes a little unsharp mask to bring out the best in the shots. Keep in
    mind, the DReb has a much larger sensor which will make for better low light
    images, far less noisy high ISO, and less CA in high contrast areas.


    >Also for most of the daily uses I don't believe I
    > will switch lens that often, which offset the SLR benefits a little
    > bit.
    >
    > What are your experience with these two cameras?
    >
    > One feature I have a particular concern is the camera speed, both
    > auto-focusing and shutter-releasing. Dimage 7 is really slow in that
    > regard. How does C8080 compare with a digital SLR like EOS-300D.
    >


    I haven't used the Oly, but in general DSLR will be noticeably faster than a
    compact digicam.

    Mark
     
    Mark B., Aug 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Yi Zhao

    Bowser Guest

    "Yi Zhao" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I have been looking to buy a new DC to replace my Minolta Dimage7,
    > which is really slow and battery-hungry. The models I am looking at
    > are Canon EOS-300D and Olympus C8080. I like Olympus C8080 for its
    > super picture quality but then it is not a SLR. I have a Canon EOS
    > Elan II SLR and three Canon EF lens, which is a primary reason I am
    > looking into EOS-300D. But somehow the picture taken with 300D is not
    > as sharp as C8080. Also for most of the daily uses I don't believe I
    > will switch lens that often, which offset the SLR benefits a little
    > bit.
    >
    > What are your experience with these two cameras?


    I held an Oly for about 30 seconds, and based on that, I'd never buy one.
    Why? The damned "zoom by wire." They suck. You move the lever, wait a split
    second, and hope the lens stops with the framing you want. Horrible. Once
    you've used a simple, and effective manual zoom, you can't get used to the
    crappy electrically-controlled zooms on most of the digicams.

    >
    > One feature I have a particular concern is the camera speed, both
    > auto-focusing and shutter-releasing. Dimage 7 is really slow in that
    > regard. How does C8080 compare with a digital SLR like EOS-300D.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > -- Yi
     
    Bowser, Aug 2, 2004
    #3
  4. Yi Zhao

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Yi Zhao <> wrote:
    >I have been looking to buy a new DC to replace my Minolta Dimage7,
    >which is really slow and battery-hungry. The models I am looking at
    >are Canon EOS-300D and Olympus C8080. I like Olympus C8080 for its
    >super picture quality but then it is not a SLR. I have a Canon EOS
    >Elan II SLR and three Canon EF lens, which is a primary reason I am
    >looking into EOS-300D. But somehow the picture taken with 300D is not
    >as sharp as C8080. Also for most of the daily uses I don't believe I
    >will switch lens that often, which offset the SLR benefits a little
    >bit.
    >
    > What are your experience with these two cameras?
    >
    > One feature I have a particular concern is the camera speed, both
    >auto-focusing and shutter-releasing. Dimage 7 is really slow in that
    >regard. How does C8080 compare with a digital SLR like EOS-300D.


    After a long research, I finally bought an Olympus 8080 last week, to
    replace (or complement my 5050). Alternatives I considered were the 300D
    and the D70 (with a preference towards the D70). In the end I decided to
    skip the current DSLR generation and get an 8080 for the moment until
    the DSLR I like hits the market.

    The 8080 has very fast startup times and a quite pleasing zoom control
    (for my tastes). The lens zooms very fast from wide angle to the tele
    position.

    The 8080 has an impressive lens with a corner to corner sharpness even
    wide open and very moderate levels of chromatic aberration.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
    Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
    Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
    Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html
     
    Alfred Molon, Aug 2, 2004
    #4
  5. Yi Zhao

    Troy Guest

    Alfred Molon wrote:

    > After a long research, I finally bought an Olympus 8080 last week


    I've *almost* decided to buy the 8080 and further comments on your
    experience with this camera would be appreciated.

    TIA.
    --
    Regards,

    Troy the Black Lab.
     
    Troy, Aug 2, 2004
    #5
  6. Yi Zhao

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Troy <> wrote:
    >Alfred Molon wrote:
    >
    >> After a long research, I finally bought an Olympus 8080 last week

    >
    >I've *almost* decided to buy the 8080 and further comments on your
    >experience with this camera would be appreciated.


    What exactly do you want to know ? I've only be using the camera since
    Friday.

    Negatives would be slow write times to the memory card (after a RAW I
    have to wait for 12 seconds before I can take another shot) and the
    camera is less sensitive to light than my previous 5050 with its F1.8
    lens.

    On the positive side the lens is superb - corner to corner sharpness,
    low CA. I also love its shape and user interface.

    See here a full-res example of what the camera is capable of (1s
    exposure time):
    http://www.ddde.de/P8010250.jpg
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
    Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
    Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
    Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html
     
    Alfred Molon, Aug 2, 2004
    #6
  7. Yi Zhao

    Yi Zhao Guest

    Thanks you all for the reply. It really helps.

    -- Yi
     
    Yi Zhao, Aug 3, 2004
    #7
  8. Yi Zhao

    Troy Guest

    Alfred Molon wrote:

    > What exactly do you want to know ? I've only be using the camera since
    > Friday.


    Nothing specific - just your first impressions of the camera.

    > Negatives would be slow write times to the memory card (after a RAW I
    > have to wait for 12 seconds before I can take another shot) and the
    > camera is less sensitive to light than my previous 5050 with its F1.8
    > lens.
    >
    > On the positive side the lens is superb - corner to corner sharpness,
    > low CA. I also love its shape and user interface.
    >
    > See here a full-res example of what the camera is capable of (1s
    > exposure time):
    > http://www.ddde.de/P8010250.jpg


    Thanks for that.
    --
    Regards,

    Troy the Black Lab.
     
    Troy, Aug 3, 2004
    #8
  9. In article <>,
    Alfred Molon <> wrote:

    > Troy <> wrote:
    > >Alfred Molon wrote:
    > >
    > >> After a long research, I finally bought an Olympus 8080 last week

    > >
    > >I've *almost* decided to buy the 8080 and further comments on your
    > >experience with this camera would be appreciated.

    >
    > What exactly do you want to know ? I've only be using the camera since
    > Friday.
    >
    > Negatives would be slow write times to the memory card (after a RAW I
    > have to wait for 12 seconds before I can take another shot) and the
    > camera is less sensitive to light than my previous 5050 with its F1.8
    > lens.
    >
    > On the positive side the lens is superb - corner to corner sharpness,
    > low CA. I also love its shape and user interface.
    >
    > See here a full-res example of what the camera is capable of (1s
    > exposure time):
    > http://www.ddde.de/P8010250.jpg


    That's pretty good for a compact camera. I disagree about it being low
    CA, though. Those 4 to 8 pixels of purple will show up in 8.5x11
    prints. Mid-grade SLR lenses don't do that.

    I think the C8080 versus 300D question comes down to size versus
    quality. The 300D produces better images but the C8080 is a lot easier
    to carry. Which one is right depends on what is more important. It was
    tough for me to decide. I'd buy both if I was rich :)
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Aug 4, 2004
    #9
  10. Yi Zhao

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Kevin McMurtrie <> wrote:

    >That's pretty good for a compact camera. I disagree about it being low
    >CA, though. Those 4 to 8 pixels of purple will show up in 8.5x11
    >prints. Mid-grade SLR lenses don't do that.


    Not sure where you see 4 to 8 pixels of CA. Enlarge the image in a photo
    editor (go to 800% as I did) and you'll see that we are in the region of
    1 to 2 pixels, with a worst case of 3 to 4 pixels, but on average less
    than 2 pixels - which you could desaturate, if you are concerned they
    might show up in prints.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
    Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
    Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
    Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html
     
    Alfred Molon, Aug 4, 2004
    #10
  11. In article <>,
    Alfred Molon <> wrote:

    > Kevin McMurtrie <> wrote:
    >
    > >That's pretty good for a compact camera. I disagree about it being low
    > >CA, though. Those 4 to 8 pixels of purple will show up in 8.5x11
    > >prints. Mid-grade SLR lenses don't do that.

    >
    > Not sure where you see 4 to 8 pixels of CA. Enlarge the image in a photo
    > editor (go to 800% as I did) and you'll see that we are in the region of
    > 1 to 2 pixels, with a worst case of 3 to 4 pixels, but on average less
    > than 2 pixels - which you could desaturate, if you are concerned they
    > might show up in prints.


    I was looking at the leftmost pipes, just comparing it to the width of
    the mouse cursor. With Photoshop I see 14 pixels of mild CA and 4
    pixels of strong CA. The window on the right shows 5 pixels of strong
    CA. Blue halos are still vivid when the picture is downsampled to
    1200x900.

    I have an Oly 4040Z and I really got sick of fixing those purple
    fringes. It's one thing that pushed me towards a Canon 300D even though
    I really wanted the portability of Oly's digicams. I wanted better
    image quality at the risk of not always being able to bring my camera.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Aug 6, 2004
    #11
  12. Yi Zhao

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Kevin McMurtrie <> wrote:

    >> Not sure where you see 4 to 8 pixels of CA. Enlarge the image in a photo
    >> editor (go to 800% as I did) and you'll see that we are in the region of
    >> 1 to 2 pixels, with a worst case of 3 to 4 pixels, but on average less
    >> than 2 pixels - which you could desaturate, if you are concerned they
    >> might show up in prints.

    >
    >I was looking at the leftmost pipes, just comparing it to the width of
    >the mouse cursor. With Photoshop I see 14 pixels of mild CA and 4
    >pixels of strong CA. The window on the right shows 5 pixels of strong
    >CA. Blue halos are still vivid when the picture is downsampled to
    >1200x900.


    Perhaps we have a communication problem, because I checked the leftmost
    pipes and couldn't find anywhere 14 pixels of CA. What I found was at
    worst 3 pixels of CA, of which only 2 strong.

    See this section of the image (taken from the leftmost pipes), enlarged
    to 800% to make the individual pixel visible (and countable):

    http://www.ddde.de/P8010250detail.png

    It's 3 pixel of chromatic aberration where I put the arrows; elsewhere
    in the section CA is less strong.

    3 pixels out of 3264, when printed at A4 (30 x 22 cm) is a 0.3 mm
    structure. To notice it you will need a loupe.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
    Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
    Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
    Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html
     
    Alfred Molon, Aug 6, 2004
    #12
  13. In article <>,
    Alfred Molon <> wrote:

    > Kevin McMurtrie <> wrote:
    >
    > >> Not sure where you see 4 to 8 pixels of CA. Enlarge the image in a photo
    > >> editor (go to 800% as I did) and you'll see that we are in the region of
    > >> 1 to 2 pixels, with a worst case of 3 to 4 pixels, but on average less
    > >> than 2 pixels - which you could desaturate, if you are concerned they
    > >> might show up in prints.

    > >
    > >I was looking at the leftmost pipes, just comparing it to the width of
    > >the mouse cursor. With Photoshop I see 14 pixels of mild CA and 4
    > >pixels of strong CA. The window on the right shows 5 pixels of strong
    > >CA. Blue halos are still vivid when the picture is downsampled to
    > >1200x900.

    >
    > Perhaps we have a communication problem, because I checked the leftmost
    > pipes and couldn't find anywhere 14 pixels of CA. What I found was at
    > worst 3 pixels of CA, of which only 2 strong.
    >
    > See this section of the image (taken from the leftmost pipes), enlarged
    > to 800% to make the individual pixel visible (and countable):
    >
    > http://www.ddde.de/P8010250detail.png
    >
    > It's 3 pixel of chromatic aberration where I put the arrows; elsewhere
    > in the section CA is less strong.
    >
    > 3 pixels out of 3264, when printed at A4 (30 x 22 cm) is a 0.3 mm
    > structure. To notice it you will need a loupe.


    Different gamma and black point, I suppose. There's a faint blue haze
    all over that area.

    The right side of the image is where there's the most damage. The CA
    stands out even when the picture width is scaled to 8 inches (physical).
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Aug 7, 2004
    #13
  14. Yi Zhao

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Kevin McMurtrie <> wrote:

    >Different gamma and black point, I suppose. There's a faint blue haze
    >all over that area.


    Here are the RGB pixel values on a line starting from the CA, going from
    right to left:

    255,255,255 (the white line before the CA)
    99,150, 231 (the CA starts)
    16,24,156 (here the CA is strongest)
    0,40,107 (CA here is already less visible)
    41,56,82 (here already the CA is virtually invisible, although there is
    some blue content)
    41,48,66 (this might classify as faint blue haze)
    33,40,49 (this is more or less grey)

    It's basically two to three pixel of visible CA - I'm not counting the
    one or two pixels of faint blue haze, which you don't notice anyway.

    >The right side of the image is where there's the most damage. The CA
    >stands out even when the picture width is scaled to 8 inches (physical).


    There the CA is indeed stronger, with a worst case of 3 to 4 visible
    pixels where the lampholder is (the emphasis being on "visible" - I'm
    not counting here the blueish haze). Outside of this worst case area the
    visible CA is on average within two pixels.

    Anyway, the aberration here is only blue - it's not the typical purple
    on one side and green on the other side type of CA, which was typical of
    the Olympus 4040 I used a three years ago.

    Lastly, if you read Phil Askey's review of the 8080 at
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusc8080wz/page16.asp

    he also reaches a similar conclusion:

    "As noted in our other eight megapixel reviews almost all cameras
    whichuse this 2/3" type eight megapixel CCD exhibit some amount of
    purple fringing. And while it was possible to force visible fringing
    from the C-8080 in on our standard test chart we struggled to find an
    everyday shot which demonstrated strong fringing, so overall the C-8080
    seems to have purple fringing at least under control."
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
    Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
    Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
    Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html
     
    Alfred Molon, Aug 7, 2004
    #14
    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. marv
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    409
    David J Taylor
    May 7, 2004
  2. marv
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    296
  3. marv
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    362
    Steven M. Scharf
    May 7, 2004
  4. Rob James

    Upgrade from EOS 500 to EOS 300D - keep lenses ?

    Rob James, Jun 27, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    710
    Skip M
    Jun 27, 2004
  5. fatboybrando

    EOS 300D & EOS 300D Rebel

    fatboybrando, Mar 26, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    590
    fatboybrando
    Mar 26, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page