Olympus C-740 - opinions? telephoto?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Earl Lewis, Aug 3, 2003.

  1. Earl Lewis

    Earl Lewis Guest

    I've just purchased an Olympus C-740 Zoom. I am not even an amateur
    photographer, just the last computer nerd in the US who didn't have a
    digital camera yet. I am very impressed by the photos I'm getting
    (what do I know, I never was much interested before), but somewhat
    disappointed by not finding any discussions about this model on this
    newsgroup. I suppose this model is not aimed at high end
    photographers, rather guys like me who are mostly click-and-shoot?

    I'm interested in getting a telephoto lens for it, Olympus sells a
    TCON-17, which requires a CLS-4 adaptor tube for this camera.
    This lens weighs the better part of a pound, and upon looking at the
    threads it's intended to screw onto, I'm wondering about how much
    stress this weight will put on the barrel that moves in and out to
    'zoom' the camera. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
    Earl
    Remove no_spam to reply email
     
    Earl Lewis, Aug 3, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Earl Lewis

    Paul Bech Guest

    Yes, 17X ?!?!?!
    If you must the axtra lens does not mount to the main lens, it is mounted
    around it.


    Silvio Dante wrote:

    > Earl Lewis <> staggered into the Bada Bing and
    > slurred:
    >
    >>I'm interested in getting a telephoto lens for it, Olympus sells a
    >>TCON-17, which requires a CLS-4 adaptor tube for this camera.
    >>This lens weighs the better part of a pound, and upon looking at the
    >>threads it's intended to screw onto, I'm wondering about how much
    >>stress this weight will put on the barrel that moves in and out to
    >>'zoom' the camera. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

    >
    > I think 10x zoom is enough.... you want 17x !!!!
    >
    > I don't think screwing on the lens will have any effect on the moveable
    > barrel. I used a screw on lens with an Oly 3030 and never had any problem.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "She's so fat, her blood type is Ragu."
     
    Paul Bech, Aug 3, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. (Earl Lewis) writes:

    > I've just purchased an Olympus C-740 Zoom. I am not even an amateur
    > photographer, just the last computer nerd in the US who didn't have a
    > digital camera yet. I am very impressed by the photos I'm getting
    > (what do I know, I never was much interested before), but somewhat
    > disappointed by not finding any discussions about this model on this
    > newsgroup. I suppose this model is not aimed at high end
    > photographers, rather guys like me who are mostly click-and-shoot?


    With minor variations, the Olympus C-7xx ultra zoom models are pretty
    similar.

    The high end point and shoot market is exactly who the camera is aimed
    at. The camera is too bulky to fit in a shirt pocket, so it is not
    compact by today's standards. You need to carry a camera bag, so you may
    as well lug along a filter adapter and a polarizing filter. The 3
    megapixel CCD will give you pretty fair prints up to 8x10. The 10x
    optical zoom is an impressive piece of glass for a point and shoot
    camera.

    Some of the camera's features work very well, some don't. The viewfinder
    blanks out when you press the shutter, so the automatic sequential
    exposure feature is pretty useless. I really wish it had a sports finder
    for action shots. There is no external flash sync, so additional strobes
    have to be triggered with a photocell. OTOH, the zoom has a very nice
    macro mode, and the camera has excellent manual control options.

    > I'm interested in getting a telephoto lens for it, Olympus sells a
    > TCON-17, which requires a CLS-4 adaptor tube for this camera.
    > This lens weighs the better part of a pound, and upon looking at the
    > threads it's intended to screw onto, I'm wondering about how much
    > stress this weight will put on the barrel that moves in and out to
    > 'zoom' the camera. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?


    Your zoom lens is already a telephoto lens that is pushing into super
    telephoto territory. Try walking instead of zooming. No amount of
    magnification will substitute for camera position. If you are willing to
    move around, most shots can be taken with no telephoto at all. However,
    you should definitely get the CLS-4 and a polarizing filter.

    You could also switch your resolution to 1024x768 and enable the digital
    zoom. That will give you adequate resolution for a 4x6 print, and triple
    the magnification of your ultra zoom.

    --
    http://home.teleport.com/~larryc
     
    Larry Caldwell, Aug 3, 2003
    #3
  4. (Silvio Dante) writes:

    > I think 10x zoom is enough.... you want 17x !!!!


    The 1.7x telephoto extender won't give him a 17x zoom, it will just give
    him a 10x zoom with an apparently longer focal length. With the adapter
    mounted, he will lose his wide angle capability.

    > I don't think screwing on the lens will have any effect on the moveable
    > barrel. I used a screw on lens with an Oly 3030 and never had any problem.


    I don't think Olympus recommends using the telephoto extender with the
    C-7xx series. I don't know if it is optically incompatible (I suspect)
    or if it will not mount properly.

    --
    http://home.teleport.com/~larryc
     
    Larry Caldwell, Aug 3, 2003
    #4
  5. Earl Lewis

    Earl Lewis Guest

    On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 15:31:47 GMT, Larry Caldwell <>
    wrote:


    >>The 1.7x telephoto extender won't give him a 17x zoom, it will just give
    >>him a 10x zoom with an apparently longer focal length. With the adapter
    >>mounted, he will lose his wide angle capability.


    Interesting, I too suspected that the total magnification would equal
    17x. Ummm... what the hell is a 'longer focal length'? From semantics,
    I'm guessing that you wouldn't need to focus as often as you move
    toward or away from the target. But since the camera uses some kind of
    auto-focusing feature, that wouldn't seem to be of much help to me?

    >>I don't think Olympus recommends using the telephoto extender with the
    >>C-7xx series. I don't know if it is optically incompatible (I suspect)
    >>or if it will not mount properly.


    Near as I can figure it IS incompatible with the 720 and 730, but
    compatible with the 740.

    >The high end point and shoot market is exactly who the camera is aimed
    >at. The camera is too bulky to fit in a shirt pocket, so it is not
    >compact by today's standards. You need to carry a camera bag, so you may
    >as well lug along a filter adapter and a polarizing filter. The 3
    >megapixel CCD will give you pretty fair prints up to 8x10. The 10x
    >optical zoom is an impressive piece of glass for a point and shoot
    >camera.
    >
    >Some of the camera's features work very well, some don't. The viewfinder
    >blanks out when you press the shutter, so the automatic sequential
    >exposure feature is pretty useless.


    > I really wish it had a sports finder
    >for action shots.


    Yeah! I found that out already trying to shoot flying model planes!
    Like shooting at an F16 with an AK47? You have to GUESS when to press
    the camera shutter (how much to lead the thing).

    >There is no external flash sync, so additional strobes
    >have to be triggered with a photocell. OTOH, the zoom has a very nice
    >macro mode, and the camera has excellent manual control options.
    >
    >> I'm interested in getting a telephoto lens for it, Olympus sells a
    >> TCON-17, which requires a CLS-4 adaptor tube for this camera.
    >> This lens weighs the better part of a pound, and upon looking at the
    >> threads it's intended to screw onto, I'm wondering about how much
    >> stress this weight will put on the barrel that moves in and out to
    >> 'zoom' the camera. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

    >
    >Your zoom lens is already a telephoto lens that is pushing into super
    >telephoto territory. Try walking instead of zooming. No amount of
    >magnification will substitute for camera position. If you are willing to
    >move around, most shots can be taken with no telephoto at all.


    > However,
    >you should definitely get the CLS-4 and a polarizing filter.
    >


    Why come should I want to do that?

    >You could also switch your resolution to 1024x768 and enable the digital
    >zoom. That will give you adequate resolution for a 4x6 print, and triple
    >the magnification of your ultra zoom.


    I'm already using 1024x768 cause that's the monitor resolution I use,
    and it gives me more shots - 70 something on a 16mb xdPicture card. I
    didn't realize that reducing the size of the pic would increase my
    magnification. I guess I need a camera school - or to haunt this
    newsgroup for a while.
    Earl

    Remove no_spam to reply email
     
    Earl Lewis, Aug 3, 2003
    #5
  6. Earl Lewis

    Charlie D Guest

    > Larry Caldwell wrote:
    > > The high end point and shoot market is exactly who the camera is aimed
    > > at.


    JK < wrote:
    > Not really. Most experienced photographers want a camera with a faster
    > lens(f2.8 or faster throughout the entire zoom range), and would rather
    > have a lens with less of a zoom range that is sharper.


    Why "not really?"
    I don't consider "point and shooters," even high end ones to be
    experienced photographers.

    --
    Charlie Dilks
    Newark, DE USA
     
    Charlie D, Aug 3, 2003
    #6
  7. (Earl Lewis) writes:
    > On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 15:31:47 GMT, Larry Caldwell <>
    > wrote:


    > >>The 1.7x telephoto extender won't give him a 17x zoom, it will just give
    > >>him a 10x zoom with an apparently longer focal length. With the adapter
    > >>mounted, he will lose his wide angle capability.


    > Interesting, I too suspected that the total magnification would equal
    > 17x. Ummm... what the hell is a 'longer focal length'? From semantics,
    > I'm guessing that you wouldn't need to focus as often as you move
    > toward or away from the target. But since the camera uses some kind of
    > auto-focusing feature, that wouldn't seem to be of much help to me?


    No, not 17x magnification. The 10x zoom means the longest focal length
    is 10x as long as the shortest focal length. That is from moderately
    wide angle to super telephoto, but the lens magnification runs from about
    0.8x to about 8x. If you stick a 1.7x multiplier in front of that, you
    get about 1.3x to 13x.

    The focal length is exactly what it says - the distance behind the lens
    that the image comes into focus. A short focal length is wide angle,
    while a long focal length is a telephoto. A zoom lens can change its
    focal length, while a fixed focal length lens can't. Focusing a lens
    does not change its focal length, it just adjusts it to its focal length
    so the image will be sharp. Zooming changes the focal length.

    > > I really wish it had a sports finder
    > >for action shots.


    > Yeah! I found that out already trying to shoot flying model planes!
    > Like shooting at an F16 with an AK47? You have to GUESS when to press
    > the camera shutter (how much to lead the thing).


    I'm thinking about tinkering up something that will attach to the tripod
    mount and at least let me track a moving object in the center of the
    frame.

    > > However,
    > >you should definitely get the CLS-4 and a polarizing filter.
    > >


    > Why come should I want to do that?


    Polarizers let you control light reflection and scatter, and light
    reflection and scatter is what your camera records.

    > >You could also switch your resolution to 1024x768 and enable the digital
    > >zoom. That will give you adequate resolution for a 4x6 print, and triple
    > >the magnification of your ultra zoom.


    > I'm already using 1024x768 cause that's the monitor resolution I use,
    > and it gives me more shots - 70 something on a 16mb xdPicture card. I
    > didn't realize that reducing the size of the pic would increase my
    > magnification. I guess I need a camera school - or to haunt this
    > newsgroup for a while.


    Reducing the size of the pic doesn't give you more magnification, but it
    keeps the digital zoom from doing damage to your photo. A digital zoom
    will make a terrible mess out of a full resolution photo, because it is
    blowing up a 1 megapixel image to 3 megapixels. You are better off to
    just shoot at 1 megapixel, and let the digital zoom use real CCD data
    instead of making up stuff. I shoot with the digital zoom disabled, but
    if you prefer the lower resolution, there is no reason for you to keep it
    turned off. That would give you almost 40x magnification without the
    camera adding any crap.

    --
    http://home.teleport.com/~larryc
     
    Larry Caldwell, Aug 4, 2003
    #7
  8. Earl Lewis

    gr Guest

    "Larry Caldwell" <> wrote
    >
    > The other option is those pathetic little 3x optical zooms, which aren't
    > much better than a fixed focal length lens. That is your low end point
    > and shoot market.


    I'd say the low end P&S is the fixed focal length cameras. Why do you call
    the 3x zooms "pathetic" and low-end? That range of focal length is pretty
    standard for zooms, even for expensive lenses. (Granted, the quality of the
    lens is reflected in the price.) The Olympus ultra-zooms are really about
    the only digicams that offer zooms much more than 3x, but they're no more
    "high-end" than similarly priced P&S's from other manufacturers.
     
    gr, Aug 4, 2003
    #8
  9. (gr) writes:

    > I'd say the low end P&S is the fixed focal length cameras. Why do you call
    > the 3x zooms "pathetic" and low-end? That range of focal length is pretty
    > standard for zooms, even for expensive lenses.


    3x zooms were standard equipment 20 years ago, before CAE. A 3x zoom
    today just means either the manufacturer wasn't willing to spend any
    money on the lens, or they wanted to keep the camera shirt pocket size.
    Don't get me wrong, there is a lot to be said for a camera that will slip
    into a shirt pocket. If you are not carrying a camera, there is no way
    you can get the shot, and one focal length beats hell out of none.

    > (Granted, the quality of the
    > lens is reflected in the price.) The Olympus ultra-zooms are really about
    > the only digicams that offer zooms much more than 3x, but they're no more
    > "high-end" than similarly priced P&S's from other manufacturers.


    The competitive cameras are the 4 and 5 mp models with less glass
    but extended digital zooms. Those are also high end for point and shoot
    cameras. If you stay within the optical range of their lenses, they will
    outperform the ultra zooms. If you need the extra focal length, they
    don't do as well. In either case, your next step up is a digital SLR.

    --
    http://home.teleport.com/~larryc
     
    Larry Caldwell, Aug 4, 2003
    #9
  10. Earl Lewis

    Greg Guest

    I'm using an Olympus C-750 with 10x optical and 4x digital zoom.
    The optical zoom is very sharp right up to 10x and the digital zoom is OK up
    to 2x.
    10x optical and 4x digital requires a sturdy tripod and a very light touch
    on the shutter button !
    Overall I am very impressed with the camera.
    Greg

    "gr" <> wrote in message
    news:bgm21i$q1lp5$-berlin.de...
    > "Larry Caldwell" <> wrote
    > >
    > > The competitive cameras are the 4 and 5 mp models with less glass
    > > but extended digital zooms. Those are also high end for point and shoot
    > > cameras. If you stay within the optical range of their lenses, they

    will
    > > outperform the ultra zooms. If you need the extra focal length, they
    > > don't do as well. In either case, your next step up is a digital SLR.

    >
    > I've never tried the ultra-zooms, but from what I've read, the picture
    > quality is pretty good even at the long focal range. Surely, an optical

    zoom
    > at 9x has to be better than a 3x optical + 3x digital zoom (even if the
    > digital zoom camera has an extra megapixel). I agree it's always better to
    > get close than to zoom, but there are times when getting closer just isn't
    > an option.
    >
    > Digital SLRs are not in the same price-range as P&S's, so they're not

    really
    > an option for most people. Most of the P&S market appears to be a

    trade-off
    > between compactness, zoom-range, and feature set.
    >
    >
     
    Greg, Aug 4, 2003
    #10
  11. Earl Lewis

    JK Guest

    Larry Caldwell wrote:

    > (JK) writes:
    > > Larry Caldwell wrote:

    >
    > > > The high end point and shoot market is exactly who the camera is aimed
    > > > at.

    >
    > > Not really. Most experienced photographers want a camera with a faster
    > > lens(f2.8 or faster throughout the entire zoom range), and would rather
    > > have a lens with less of a zoom range that is sharper.

    >
    > So you are saying you really want a digital SLR with interchangeable
    > lenses?


    I would if they weren't so expensive. Perhaps in a few years I might buy one?


    > That is not a point and shoot camera, though they all come with
    > an automatic mode.
    >
    > The other option is those pathetic little 3x optical zooms,


    LOL! 3x is fine. Many experienced photographers produced great images
    using a small number of prime lenses.

    > which aren't
    > much better than a fixed focal length lens. That is your low end point
    > and shoot market.
    >
    > As for sharpness, stop down to f8 and the OM zoom sharpens right up.


    LOL! F8? What do you do in low light situations? Do you always
    carry a tripod and hope the subject doesn't move? How far will
    your flash reach if the lens is f3.7 at telephoto(and especially
    when you stop it down to f8)? That makes the ultra telephoto
    slow lens not very useful in many situations.

    >
    >
    > > > he camera is too bulky to fit in a shirt pocket, so it is not
    > > > compact by today's standards. You need to carry a camera bag, so you may
    > > > as well lug along a filter adapter and a polarizing filter.

    > >
    > > You will also need a tripod, especially if you plan to use the lens
    > > at its telephoto end in conditions other than the brightest sunlight.
    > > The lens is f3.7 at the telephoto end. At 380mm equivalent,
    > > figure on using a shutter speed of at least 1/500th of a second
    > > if you want sharp images while hand holding the camera.

    >
    > Fortunately, the light little compact cameras don't require much of a
    > tripod. A little 6" plastic jobby with extendable legs only weighs about
    > 4 ounces and tucks right into the camera bag. My brother even came up
    > with one that has a velcro strap that will tie it to lamp posts or fire
    > hydrants. You can also plant it against a wall or table. Nobody expects
    > to take low light super telephoto shots hand held with a $400 camera.
    >
    > > That
    > > will require plenty of light, even if you are using the ISO 400
    > > mode. Perhaps if the camera had a low noise ISO 1600
    > > or even ISO 800 mode, and the lens was faster than f2.8
    > > at the telephoto end, the long zoom would be much more
    > > interesting? Even then, the sharpness of 10X zoom lenses
    > > are no where near those for lenses with a 5x or smaller zoom
    > > range.

    >
    > Certainly a fixed focal length lens or near-fixed can be pretty sharp,
    > even when they are molded plastic. That's why they are so cheap.
    > Admittedly, the Olympus ultra zoom is pretty soft in the corners when it
    > is wide open, but the center of the field is nice and sharp. Stop down a
    > couple stops and you get nice edge to edge sharpness.


    That makes the lens not very useful in many situations.

    >
    >
    > If you just read reviews, you will never learn how to operate a camera.
    > If you look at the EXIF data on the photos where reviewers "discover" the
    > corner softness of the zoom lens, you will see that they never bothered
    > to switch it out of Auto mode, even though Olympus offers a depth of
    > field preferred landscape auto exposure mode right there on the top of
    > the camera that would have given much better results.
    >
    > > > You could also switch your resolution to 1024x768 and enable the digital
    > > > zoom.

    >
    > > UGH!

    >
    > That is preferable to the interpolated graininess that digital zooms
    > introduce into the picture. If you start at a lower resolution, at least
    > you will hold that resolution throughout the digital zoom range. If you
    > try to hold full CCD resolution, a digital zoom just adds crap to your
    > photo.
    >
    >
    > --
    > http://home.teleport.com/~larryc
     
    JK, Aug 4, 2003
    #11
  12. (JK) writes:
    > Larry Caldwell wrote:


    > > 3x zooms were standard equipment 20 years ago,


    > 20 years ago, experienced photographers wouldn't even think of
    > using a zoom lens. Now many will use high quality 3x ones.


    One wonders where you were 20 years ago, when the 35-105 or 35-135 zooms
    were so common. I still regret passing up a 24-48 zoom when I had the
    chance to buy it.

    There were a few situations where a zoom would not serve, like long lens
    sports photography or low light, and zoom lenses were practically
    nonexistent for medium format, but the only photographers who didn't have
    one or more 35mm zooms in their kit were the ones who just were not
    keeping up with modern technology.

    > > before CAE. A 3x zoom
    > > today just means either the manufacturer wasn't willing to spend any
    > > money on the lens, or they wanted to keep the camera shirt pocket size.


    > Or they wanted good image quality.


    How much image quality do you get when you have to crop half of your
    frame out of the shot, or kick in a digital zoom? You need to quit
    photographing test patterns and get out in the real world.

    > Digital zooms are worthless. One can "zoom" in Photoshop for the same
    > effect.


    Which is why an optical zoom is superior.

    > > Those are also high end for point and shoot
    > > cameras. If you stay within the optical range of their lenses, they will
    > > outperform the ultra zooms. If you need the extra focal length, they
    > > don't do as well. In either case, your next step up is a digital SLR.

    >
    > Or a film slr and a film scanner.


    Of course. Film is still superior to digital, though with enough CPU and
    a good printer they can produce pretty good movie screen sized images
    today. The tradeoff is money. A film SLR and film scanner that will
    outperform a $500 digital camera will cost you a whole lot more than
    $500.

    --
    http://home.teleport.com/~larryc
     
    Larry Caldwell, Aug 4, 2003
    #12
  13. Earl Lewis

    Charlie D Guest

    In article <>,
    Larry Caldwell <> wrote:

    > I still regret passing up a 24-48 zoom when I had the
    > chance to buy it.


    I hope it was the Vivitar Ser. 1

    --
    Charlie Dilks
    Newark, DE USA
     
    Charlie D, Aug 4, 2003
    #13
  14. (Greg) writes:

    > I'm using an Olympus C-750 with 10x optical and 4x digital zoom.
    > The optical zoom is very sharp right up to 10x and the digital zoom is OK up
    > to 2x.


    I'm sure the 4 mp CCD helps a lot with the digital zoom. Doesn't the 750
    give you a max 4x digital zoom?

    > 10x optical and 4x digital requires a sturdy tripod and a very light touch
    > on the shutter button !


    I use the self timer a lot for long shots. That allows the use of a
    light weight tripod without wiggle. Doesn't the 750 also have an IR
    receiver for an IR remote? I thought Olympus added back all the doodads
    that they took off of the C-700.

    > Overall I am very impressed with the camera.


    OK, I have never seen the camera, just photos of it. Where do they hide
    the hot shoe? Is it under that cover looking thingy on top?

    --
    http://home.teleport.com/~larryc
     
    Larry Caldwell, Aug 4, 2003
    #14
  15. (Charlie D) writes:
    > In article <>,
    > Larry Caldwell <> wrote:
    >
    > > I still regret passing up a 24-48 zoom when I had the
    > > chance to buy it.

    >
    > I hope it was the Vivitar Ser. 1


    No, it was a Zuiko. I have always resisted the temptation of aftermarket
    lenses.

    --
    http://home.teleport.com/~larryc
     
    Larry Caldwell, Aug 4, 2003
    #15
  16. Earl Lewis

    Greg Guest

    "Larry Caldwell" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > (Greg) writes:
    >
    > > I'm using an Olympus C-750 with 10x optical and 4x digital zoom.
    > > The optical zoom is very sharp right up to 10x and the digital zoom is

    OK up
    > > to 2x.

    >
    > I'm sure the 4 mp CCD helps a lot with the digital zoom. Doesn't the 750
    > give you a max 4x digital zoom?


    Yes, 4x digital 10x optical.

    > > 10x optical and 4x digital requires a sturdy tripod and a very light

    touch
    > > on the shutter button !

    >
    > I use the self timer a lot for long shots. That allows the use of a
    > light weight tripod without wiggle. Doesn't the 750 also have an IR
    > receiver for an IR remote? I thought Olympus added back all the doodads
    > that they took off of the C-700.


    Thanks for the tip... and yes it does come with a remote.

    >
    > > Overall I am very impressed with the camera.

    >
    > OK, I have never seen the camera, just photos of it. Where do they hide
    > the hot shoe? Is it under that cover looking thingy on top?


    Yes right on top of the pop-up flash !

    Greg
     
    Greg, Aug 4, 2003
    #16
  17. Earl Lewis

    JK Guest

    They were also quite cheap. I bought them all used. I think I paid less
    than $400 for the three.

    JK wrote:

    > The series one primes are good. I have a Series One 135mm f2.3
    > and 200 f3. I also have a Series One 70-210 f2.8-4 zoom.
    > Nice lenses, but quite heavy! The Series One primes are so sharp!
    >
    > Charlie D wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > > Larry Caldwell <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > I still regret passing up a 24-48 zoom when I had the
    > > > chance to buy it.

    > >
    > > I hope it was the Vivitar Ser. 1
    > >
    > > --
    > > Charlie Dilks
    > > Newark, DE USA
     
    JK, Aug 5, 2003
    #17
  18. (gr) writes:

    > The Olympus ultra-zooms are really about
    > the only digicams that offer zooms much more than 3x,


    The Minolta DiMage 7xx cameras have a 7x zoom and a 4.9 MP CCD. It is
    also a high end point and shoot. The Minolta zoom is a bit more wide
    angle than the Olympus zoom, but has an almost identical aperture range.
    --
    http://home.teleport.com/~larryc
     
    Larry Caldwell, Aug 5, 2003
    #18
  19. Earl Lewis

    Earl Lewis Guest

    On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 15:31:47 GMT, Larry Caldwell <>
    wrote:

    > (Earl Lewis) writes:
    >
    >> I've just purchased an Olympus C-740 Zoom. I am not even an amateur
    >> photographer, just the last computer nerd in the US who didn't have a
    >> digital camera yet. I am very impressed by the photos I'm getting
    >> (what do I know, I never was much interested before), but somewhat
    >> disappointed by not finding any discussions about this model on this
    >> newsgroup. I suppose this model is not aimed at high end
    >> photographers, rather guys like me who are mostly click-and-shoot?

    >
    >With minor variations, the Olympus C-7xx ultra zoom models are pretty
    >similar.
    >
    >The high end point and shoot market is exactly who the camera is aimed
    >at. The camera is too bulky to fit in a shirt pocket, so it is not
    >compact by today's standards. You need to carry a camera bag, so you may
    >as well lug along a filter adapter and a polarizing filter. The 3
    >megapixel CCD will give you pretty fair prints up to 8x10. The 10x
    >optical zoom is an impressive piece of glass for a point and shoot
    >camera.
    >
    >Some of the camera's features work very well, some don't. The viewfinder
    >blanks out when you press the shutter, so the automatic sequential
    >exposure feature is pretty useless. I really wish it had a sports finder
    >for action shots. There is no external flash sync, so additional strobes
    >have to be triggered with a photocell. OTOH, the zoom has a very nice
    >macro mode, and the camera has excellent manual control options.
    >
    >> I'm interested in getting a telephoto lens for it, Olympus sells a
    >> TCON-17, which requires a CLS-4 adaptor tube for this camera.
    >> This lens weighs the better part of a pound, and upon looking at the
    >> threads it's intended to screw onto, I'm wondering about how much
    >> stress this weight will put on the barrel that moves in and out to
    >> 'zoom' the camera. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

    >
    >Your zoom lens is already a telephoto lens that is pushing into super
    >telephoto territory. Try walking instead of zooming. No amount of
    >magnification will substitute for camera position. If you are willing to
    >move around, most shots can be taken with no telephoto at all. However,
    >you should definitely get the CLS-4 and a polarizing filter.
    >
    >You could also switch your resolution to 1024x768 and enable the digital
    >zoom. That will give you adequate resolution for a 4x6 print, and triple
    >the magnification of your ultra zoom.


    How come Photoshop tells me that a 1024x768 pic has a print size of
    14" x 10"? But you're saying 4x6? What am I missing?

    I am loathe to experiment and find out myself, as I own a 1993
    dot-matrix printer. I can't print in any color. As long as it's black.
    As you can see, I'm not too interested in accumulating pics on paper.
    EArl
    Remove no_spam to reply email
     
    Earl Lewis, Aug 5, 2003
    #19
  20. (Earl Lewis) writes:
    >
    > How come Photoshop tells me that a 1024x768 pic has a print size of
    > 14" x 10"? But you're saying 4x6? What am I missing?


    Resolution. You could print it 20x30 if you want to, and if you stand
    far enough away that it is really small, it might not even look that bad.

    > I am loathe to experiment and find out myself, as I own a 1993
    > dot-matrix printer. I can't print in any color. As long as it's black.
    > As you can see, I'm not too interested in accumulating pics on paper.
    > EArl


    Photography is about experimenting.

    --
    http://home.teleport.com/~larryc
     
    Larry Caldwell, Aug 5, 2003
    #20
    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. Pacovsky

    olympus 740-750 help

    Pacovsky, Jul 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    378
    Steve King
    Jul 19, 2003
  2. Perry Babin

    Olympus C-740 with Polarizer

    Perry Babin, Aug 22, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    400
    Jarhead
    Aug 23, 2003
  3. Kim/Dreamspinner3

    Olympus c-740 vs Minolta Dimage ZI, Opinions?

    Kim/Dreamspinner3, Jan 1, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    645
    Tech Guy
    Jan 1, 2004
  4. Jimmy Smith

    100mm telephoto vs telephoto macro

    Jimmy Smith, Jun 22, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    3,229
    Bill Hilton
    Jun 23, 2004
  5. Replies:
    6
    Views:
    475
    nospam.don
    Jul 27, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page