Olympus Cameras - similar / consistent results from most of their cameras?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Paul D. Sullivan, Aug 4, 2007.

  1. I have an Olympus C5050 and find it has been one of the very best
    cameras I have ever owned. I think the picture quality is
    outstanding and it almost never has red-eye. Colors may not be
    as warm as some other models, like the Canon lines perhaps, but
    nevertheless, I've been very pleased with the 5 mp images it
    produces.

    I'm looking for a new non-DSLR camera with a longer optical zoom
    than 3x, and I'm wondering if I can expect similar picture
    quality from most of the cameras in the Olympus line when
    compared to the C5050.

    I tried a Canon A640 rather extensively and was simply not happy
    with the results. The colors were warmer, but there was a ton of
    Red-Eye in most pics and I felt the flash was weak at best. Even
    with all the adjustments, that 10 mp camera just could not seem
    to generate pics I was that happy with.

    So, I'm wondering if I should stick with Olympus and hopefully
    have a better chance of getting results similar to my C5050.

    Any helpful replies would be appreciated.

    Thank you.
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Aug 4, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul D. Sullivan

    Mark Guest

    "Paul D. Sullivan" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > So, I'm wondering if I should stick with Olympus and hopefully have a
    > better chance of getting results similar to my C5050.
    >
    > Any helpful replies would be appreciated.
    >
    > Thank you.
    >


    I just moved from a C-50 to a Stylus 780. Gave up manual mode and an optical
    view finder but went from 3x to 5x zoom, 5MP to 7.1MP, much larger LCD
    screen, and it fits easily in your pocket (the C-50 was just to fat). So far
    the picture quality appears to be excellent. YMMV.
     
    Mark, Aug 4, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Paul D. Sullivan

    ASAAR Guest

    On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 17:39:18 -0700, Paul D. Sullivan wrote:

    > I'm looking for a new non-DSLR camera with a longer optical zoom
    > than 3x, and I'm wondering if I can expect similar picture
    > quality from most of the cameras in the Olympus line when
    > compared to the C5050.
    >
    > I tried a Canon A640 rather extensively and was simply not happy
    > with the results. The colors were warmer, but there was a ton of
    > Red-Eye in most pics and I felt the flash was weak at best. Even
    > with all the adjustments, that 10 mp camera just could not seem
    > to generate pics I was that happy with.


    Hmm. I posted a reply just a few hours ago to someone asking
    about Fuji's S6000fd/S6500fd, so I'll quote that message shortly,
    but first, here's another quote from the DPReview that was the
    source of the earlier quotes, as it should answer your question
    about the red-eye and weak flash :

    > The pop-up flash has an effective range of around 8.3m (27ft) at
    > wideangle, dropping to 4.6 m (15 ft) at the tele end of the zoom
    > (using auto ISO), fairly impressive (and due in no small part to the
    > fact that the auto ISO goes higher than most cameras). The flash is
    > fairly far from the lens, meaning red-eye is less of a problem than it
    > is with smaller cameras. There's no hot-shoe or external flash option
    > (which is a pity given the S6000fd's excellent overall specification).


    The S6100 also has two color settings. The standard setting is
    the default, and the F-Chrome (I think this is intended to more
    closely resemble Kodachrome film) is describe as increasing the
    contrast and saturation to produce more vivid shots, which might be
    preferred when taking pictures of flowers.

    Now for the earlier message :

    ===================================================
    > Subject: Re: Fuji S6500
    > Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:39:21 -0400
    > Message-ID: <>

    On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:58:35 -0700, Greenbrightly wrote:

    > I was wondering if anyone could share some opinions on this camera?
    > I'm considering buying one as I quite like the look and feel and also
    > the spec.


    The S6000fd/S6500fb is a very nice, reasonably priced camera. I
    haven't used one but I'm pretty sure that it's quite a bit better
    than my similar, smaller, older, 4mp Fuji S5100/S5600 which has been
    a very good performer. DPReview said :

    > It's only when you look at these 'real world' crops that the real
    > advantage of the Super CCD sensor used in the S6000fd is obvious.
    > With all small CCD compacts we see serious smearing of low
    > contrast detail at ISO 200 (sometimes even lower), but the S6000fd
    > manages to keep plenty of texture at ISO 400, and even ISO 800 and
    > 1600 haven't smeared it all away (in fact the noise reduction at 800
    > and 1600 appears to be very similar; you just get more noise at 1600).
    > ISO 3200 is, to put it politely, rather light on detail, and you're
    > certainly not getting the claimed 'full resolution' ISO 3200 output.
    > Still, it's better than anything else on the market...


    > Although the S6000fd's output has a little of the classic 'Super CCD'
    > artefacts look to it and is a touch over-sharpened, there's no denying
    > that it is outperforming the Sony [the DSC-H2] - which is fairly
    > representative of the other 6MP super zooms on the market - by a
    > considerable margin. Edge-to-edge detail is excellent, colors bright
    > but natural and contrast excellent. It's interesting to note that the
    > S6000fd actually produces output that actually looks better at 100%
    > (as here) than the S9000 we tested last year (which has the same lens).
    > Comparing the results would seem to suggest that the lens itself is the
    > limiting factor; it works brilliantly with this 6MP sensor, whereas the
    > S9000's 9MP sensor is simply asking too much of it.


    > More of the same really; the S6500fd's output is starting to show signs of
    > breaking down, but compared to the H2 it looks clean, clear and detailed.
    > Just like the F30, the S6500fd's output at ISO 800 is considerably better
    > than most of its competitors manage at ISO 400 - and some at ISO 200.
    > To have a small-sensor camera capable of producing results that are
    > perfectly usable at ISO 800 is a luxury we have rarely seen before, and
    > something for which Fuji must be congratulated.


    > Comparison cameras:
    >
    > * Fujifilm FinePix S6000fd / S6500fd (6 MP, 10.7x zoom)
    > * Sony DSC-H2 (6 MP, 12x zoom)
    > * Canon PowerShot S3 IS (6 MP, 12x zoom)
    > * Panasonic DMC-FZ7 (6 MP, 12 x zoom)
    >
    > Shots here are of our standard resolution chart (version one or two).
    > This chart allows us to measure the actual performance of the lens
    > and sensor system. It measures the ability of the camera to resolve
    > lines at gradually higher resolutions and enables us to provide a
    > definitive value for comparison purposes.


    here, the S6500 clearly produced more detail than the other
    cameras tested, and DPReview added :

    > Although the JPEGs are a bit over-sharpened, and they don't quite
    > match the F30, the S6500fd sets a new standard for resolution in a
    > 6MP 'super zoom' camera, and out-performs cameras with one or
    > even two million more pixels. There's little, if any moiré and only the
    > merest hint of jagginess on 45 degree diagonals, and overall you can't
    > fail to be impressed with a camera that really does squeeze the
    > maximum detail out of 6 million pixels, across the frame.


    and from the Conclusion page :
    > * Excellent resolution & sharpness
    > * Very good results up to ISO 400, ISO 800 perfectly usable
    > * Class-leading high ISO performance; might not be fantastic,
    > but it's the best you'll get
    > * Very low shutter lag
    > * Comprehensive photographic controls
    > * Excellent battery life
    > * Highly versatile 28-300mm zoom range
    > * Low distortion lens with excellent edge-to-edge performance
    > * Good flash performance
    > * Decent movie mode, can zoom whilst filming
    > * CCD-raw mode and decent raw conversion utility
    > * Fairly fast focus (especially towards the wide end of the zoom range)
    > * AF illuminator
    > * Fast, effective face detection system (bit of a novelty for the serious user)
    > * Large clear screen
    > * Threaded lens for optional wide / tele convertors
    > * Good value for money


    > I must admit I didn't really know what to expect from the S6000fd
    > (having used some of its predecessors), and I was pleasantly surprised
    > to find it was a well designed, well executed and surprisingly versatile
    > photographic tool. It's probably not the best 'point and shoot' model
    > in its class (you'll get better results if you know what you're doing),
    > but the combination of features, output and unusually able high ISO
    > performance means that - whilst far from perfect - it can easily hold
    > its own against some of it's more 'high profile' competitors.


    The full review starts at :

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms6000fd/
    ===================================================
     
    ASAAR, Aug 4, 2007
    #3
  4. Paul D. Sullivan

    Pete D Guest

    "Mark" <> wrote in message
    news:TwTsi.28$jk4.0@trndny01...
    >
    > "Paul D. Sullivan" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >> So, I'm wondering if I should stick with Olympus and hopefully have a
    >> better chance of getting results similar to my C5050.
    >>
    >> Any helpful replies would be appreciated.
    >>
    >> Thank you.
    >>

    >
    > I just moved from a C-50 to a Stylus 780. Gave up manual mode and an
    > optical view finder but went from 3x to 5x zoom, 5MP to 7.1MP, much larger
    > LCD screen, and it fits easily in your pocket (the C-50 was just to fat).
    > So far the picture quality appears to be excellent. YMMV.
    >


    YMMV?? He may have non excellent results?
     
    Pete D, Aug 4, 2007
    #4
  5. Paul D. Sullivan

    Guest

  6. Paul D. Sullivan

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <>, Paul D.
    Sullivan says...
    > I have an Olympus C5050 and find it has been one of the very best
    > cameras I have ever owned. I think the picture quality is
    > outstanding and it almost never has red-eye. Colors may not be
    > as warm as some other models, like the Canon lines perhaps, but
    > nevertheless, I've been very pleased with the 5 mp images it
    > produces.
    >
    > I'm looking for a new non-DSLR camera with a longer optical zoom
    > than 3x, and I'm wondering if I can expect similar picture
    > quality from most of the cameras in the Olympus line when
    > compared to the C5050.


    I also used the 5050 extensively, then moved to the 8080 and now am
    using a Sony R1.

    The 8080 has a much better lens than the 5050 (more sharp, less
    chromatic aberrations), but the RAW write times are painfully long (12
    seconds).

    I only initially used the 5050 in JPEG mode, then exclusively in RAW
    mode, because I hated the colours you got from the JPEGs of the 5050. It
    was very hard to get decent colours. With the Olympus 2000 instead you
    got very good colours in JPEG mode.

    With RAW, the output of the 5050 and 8080 is very good. The only thing
    is that in some cases, the 8080 suffers from noise in the sky even at
    lowest ISO. You can fix that with a noise removal software or by using a
    layer technique (double the layers, gaussian blur the top layer with
    radius 6-8, add some gaussian noise with level 1, hide the top layer,
    use the brush tool to selectively make appear the denoised parts of the
    sky of the top layer).

    In your case, unless you want to buy a used 8080 (it's no longer in
    production), try an E410 DSLR with just one lens, perhaps the 18-180.
    You'd have live preview as with the 5050, still a reasonably compact
    size and weight, very fast RAW shooting performance and a 10x zoom.

    Olympus unfortunately no longer make good compact cameras such as the
    5050.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E3X0, E4X0 and E5X0 forum at
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
     
    Alfred Molon, Aug 4, 2007
    #6
  7. Paul D. Sullivan

    SMS Guest

    Re: Olympus Cameras - similar / consistent results from most of theircameras?

    Paul D. Sullivan wrote:

    > So, I'm wondering if I should stick with Olympus and hopefully
    > have a better chance of getting results similar to my C5050.
    >
    > Any helpful replies would be appreciated.


    The Canon S5 IS may be a better choice. If the flash is too weak for
    your needs at least you can use a flash on the hot shoe.

    The Fuji S6000/S6500 is another option, though it suffers from one of
    the major problems with AA batteries, as detailed in the review from
    dpreview.com, "The batteries sit underneath a rather flimsy hinged door
    that has a rather annoying habit of pinging open at the slightest knock
    (there is no lock). More than once I found myself scrambling on the
    floor attempting to retrieve the batteries after the door had 'popped'.
    Stupid, stupid design."

    I've never seen the problem to this extent in Canon's AA powered
    cameras, though replacement battery doors for AA powered cameras seem to
    be a booming business, see "http://www.digitalcamerapartsdepot.com/".

    I guess you could jury-rig some sort of system to keep the batteries
    inside the camera. I hate using tape, it's so tacky (no pun intended). A
    proper battery door has some sort of a slide lock, it doesn't depend on
    a tiny plastic tab to snap into place.

    Why on earth so many ZLRs use AA batteries, when virtually all SLR
    cameras have moved to the more reliable and higher-performance Li-Ion
    batteries is a mystery.

    Steve
    "http://batterydata.com/"
     
    SMS, Aug 4, 2007
    #7
  8. Paul D. Sullivan

    Chris Luck Guest

    Re: Olympus Cameras - similar / consistent results from most of theircameras?

    ASAAR wrote:
    > The S6100 also has two color settings. The standard setting is the
    > default, and the F-Chrome (I think this is intended to more closely
    > resemble Kodachrome film)...


    Fuji emulating Kodak? Er, don't think so.
    Hint: the front of your S6000 shouts out - "FUJIFILM". :)

    --
    Regards,
    Chris Luck

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
     
    Chris Luck, Aug 4, 2007
    #8
  9. Paul D. Sullivan

    Chris Luck Guest

    Re: Olympus Cameras - similar / consistent results from most of theircameras?

    ASAAR wrote:
    > The S6100 also has two color settings. The standard setting is the
    > default, and the F-Chrome (I think this is intended to more closely
    > resemble Kodachrome film)...


    Fuji emulating Kodak? Er, don't think so.
    Hint: the front of your S6000 shouts out - "FUJIFILM". :)

    --
    Regards,
    Chris Luck

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
     
    Chris Luck, Aug 4, 2007
    #9
  10. Paul D. Sullivan

    Chris Luck Guest

    Re: Olympus Cameras - similar / consistent results from most of theircameras?

    ASAAR wrote:
    > The S6100 also has two color settings. The standard setting is the
    > default, and the F-Chrome (I think this is intended to more closely
    > resemble Kodachrome film)...


    Fuji emulating Kodak? Er, don't think so.
    Hint: the front of your S6000 shouts out - "FUJIFILM". :)

    --
    Regards,
    Chris Luck

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
     
    Chris Luck, Aug 4, 2007
    #10
  11. Paul D. Sullivan

    Guest

    Apologies for the triple-post - Teranews is playing up.

    --
    Regards,
    Chris Luck
     
    , Aug 4, 2007
    #11
  12. Paul D. Sullivan

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 18:32:05 +0100, Chris Luck wrote:

    >> The S6100 also has two color settings. The standard setting is the
    >> default, and the F-Chrome (I think this is intended to more closely
    >> resemble Kodachrome film)...

    >
    > Fuji emulating Kodak? Er, don't think so.
    > Hint: the front of your S6000 shouts out - "FUJIFILM". :)


    Not emulating a Kodak film so much as taking advantage of a term
    that's probably quite familiar to many photographers, and many of
    them will subconsciously understand the association even if they
    don't examine it very closely.

    The question remains, does the F-Chrome setting more closely
    emulate Kodachrome than the standard setting or not? If so, then
    from a marketing standpoint Fuji did well. Kodachrome is much more
    familiar to most people (even non-photographers, thanks to Paul
    Simon) than any Fuji film, and Fuji tapped into that recognized
    association without having to mention the "Koda" part of the name,
    substituting it with 'F', for "Fuji", of course. It would have been
    quite stupid to use "Fuji's Kodachrome" for the alternate color
    mode. Using "F-Chrome" is a good deal smarter. :)
     
    ASAAR, Aug 4, 2007
    #12
  13. Paul D. Sullivan

    Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    > The question remains, does the F-Chrome setting more closely
    > emulate Kodachrome than the standard setting or not?


    No, it emulates (or tries to) Fuji's own FujiChrome Velvia, though
    I've not
    found anything from Fuji themselves which specifically states that.
    But it
    would be odd for them imitate a competitor when they already have a
    well
    respected brand - and colour (tending to blue) - of their own.

    Some enthusiasts here are quite convinced -
    http://www.flickr.com/groups/42389815@N00/

    --
    Regards,
    Chris Luck
     
    , Aug 4, 2007
    #13
  14. Paul D. Sullivan

    Rich Guest

    On Aug 3, 8:39 pm, "Paul D. Sullivan" <> wrote:
    > I have an Olympus C5050 and find it has been one of the very best
    > cameras I have ever owned. I think the picture quality is
    > outstanding and it almost never has red-eye. Colors may not be
    > as warm as some other models, like the Canon lines perhaps, but
    > nevertheless, I've been very pleased with the 5 mp images it
    > produces.
    >
    > I'm looking for a new non-DSLR camera with a longer optical zoom
    > than 3x, and I'm wondering if I can expect similar picture
    > quality from most of the cameras in the Olympus line when
    > compared to the C5050.
    >
    > I tried a Canon A640 rather extensively and was simply not happy
    > with the results. The colors were warmer, but there was a ton of
    > Red-Eye in most pics and I felt the flash was weak at best. Even
    > with all the adjustments, that 10 mp camera just could not seem
    > to generate pics I was that happy with.
    >
    > So, I'm wondering if I should stick with Olympus and hopefully
    > have a better chance of getting results similar to my C5050.
    >
    > Any helpful replies would be appreciated.
    >
    > Thank you.


    You are living in the past. Olympus P&S cameras today are no better
    than Kodak. The days of high quality P&S from Olympus are long gone,
    because they know they can make more money selling junk to the
    clueless.
     
    Rich, Aug 5, 2007
    #14
  15. Paul D. Sullivan

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 15:54:48 -0700,
    wrote:

    >> The question remains, does the F-Chrome setting more closely
    >> emulate Kodachrome than the standard setting or not?

    >
    > No, it emulates (or tries to) Fuji's own FujiChrome Velvia, though
    > I've not found anything from Fuji themselves which specifically
    > states that.
    > But it would be odd for them imitate a competitor when they already
    > have a well respected brand - and colour (tending to blue) - of their own.


    Fuji's F-Chrome setting may well be trying to emulate FujiChrome
    Velvia, but you've missed my point. If the "Chrome" type films have
    similar color characteristics (Kodachrome, Fujichrome, Anscochrome,
    Agfchrome, etc.), F-Chrome would not be emulating Kodak's film, but
    the type of film that the Chromes represent. By not calling Fuji's
    'vivid' color mode FujiChrome but F-Chrome instead, they make it
    easier for those oldies more familiar with Anscochrome to associate
    F-Chrome with Anscochrome, and those more familiar with Kodachrome
    to associate F-Chrome with Kodachrome. Fuji would just be providing
    a nice hint to their older camera users as to what that F-Chrome
    setting represents if they haven't used it before or haven't read
    the manual. Fuji could have called it F-Color, F-Spectrum or
    F-Bright instead, that wouldn't be nearly as suggestive.

    I'm not particularly familiar with color film (I tended to shoot
    much more B&W), so as far as I know, the "Chrome" might refer more
    to the developing process, or what chemical brew was needed, than to
    the film's color characteristics, but for now I'll consider that a
    must more remote possibility.
     
    ASAAR, Aug 5, 2007
    #15
  16. Paul D. Sullivan

    Chris Luck Guest

    Re: Olympus Cameras - similar / consistent results from most of theircameras?

    ASAAR wrote:
    > Fuji's F-Chrome setting may well be trying to emulate FujiChrome Velvia,
    > but you've missed my point. If the "Chrome" type films have similar
    > color characteristics (Kodachrome, Fujichrome, Anscochrome, Agfchrome,
    > etc.), F-Chrome would not be emulating Kodak's film, but the type of film
    > that the Chromes represent.


    That would be slide/transparency film.

    > By not calling Fuji's 'vivid' color mode FujiChrome but F-Chrome instead,
    > they make it easier for those oldies more familiar with Anscochrome to
    > associate F-Chrome with Anscochrome, and those more familiar with
    > Kodachrome to associate F-Chrome with Kodachrome.


    Nah. It just makes it easier to put a stylised "F" on a button. :)

    > Fuji would just be providing a nice hint to their older camera users as
    > to what that F-Chrome setting represents if they haven't used it before
    > or haven't read the manual.


    It's flattering to think that Fuji would be so considerate of grey-beards
    like myself but I'm not convinced I/we figure so prominently in their target
    market. I dare say they are using the "Chrome" description with digital in
    the same way it was used with film, i.e. suggestive of something bright 'n
    shiny.

    --
    Regards,
    Chris Luck

    p.s. If this message gets through - Apologies to Teranews, it was
    Thunderbird that was screwed. I think I've kicked it back into shape now.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
     
    Chris Luck, Aug 5, 2007
    #16
  17. Paul D. Sullivan

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 07:39:05 +0100, Chris Luck wrote:

    >> By not calling Fuji's 'vivid' color mode FujiChrome but F-Chrome instead,
    >> they make it easier for those oldies more familiar with Anscochrome to
    >> associate F-Chrome with Anscochrome, and those more familiar with
    >> Kodachrome to associate F-Chrome with Kodachrome.

    >
    > Nah. It just makes it easier to put a stylised "F" on a button. :)


    Could be. I'm rather fond of the "F" button. Putting only a
    small number of functions in the "F" menu takes most of the sting
    out of having to use a menu rather than having dedicated buttons.


    >> Fuji would just be providing a nice hint to their older camera users as
    >> to what that F-Chrome setting represents if they haven't used it before
    >> or haven't read the manual.

    >
    > It's flattering to think that Fuji would be so considerate of grey-beards
    > like myself but I'm not convinced I/we figure so prominently in their target
    > market. I dare say they are using the "Chrome" description with digital in
    > the same way it was used with film, i.e. suggestive of something bright 'n
    > shiny.


    Maybe Fuji's designers are aging and they put the mnemonic clue
    there for themselves, not for you! :)
     
    ASAAR, Aug 5, 2007
    #17
  18. Thank you

    > I just moved from a C-50 to a Stylus 780. Gave up manual mode
    > and an optical view finder but went from 3x to 5x zoom, 5MP to
    > 7.1MP, much larger LCD screen, and it fits easily in your
    > pocket (the C-50 was just to fat). So far the picture quality
    > appears to be excellent. YMMV.
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Aug 5, 2007
    #18
  19. Appreicate the reply.

    I wish the C5050 was indicative of the level of quality they had
    maintained. It has been a wonderful camera. If it had an 8x or
    higher zoom, I think I'd be content to live in the past for a
    while longer.

    With Canon out of the picture, so to speak, I'm not sure what
    other brand to go with. :(

    > You are living in the past. Olympus P&S cameras today are no
    > better than Kodak. The days of high quality P&S from Olympus
    > are long gone, because they know they can make more money
    > selling junk to the clueless.
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Aug 5, 2007
    #19
  20. > The Canon S5 IS may be a better choice. If the flash is too
    > weak for your needs at least you can use a flash on the hot
    > shoe.


    That may be a decent option. The addition of a hot shoe is
    certainly a bonus.

    > I've never seen the problem to this extent in Canon's AA
    > powered cameras, though replacement battery doors for AA
    > powered cameras seem to be a booming business, see
    > "http://www.digitalcamerapartsdepot.com/".
    > I guess you could jury-rig some sort of system to keep the
    > batteries inside the camera. I hate using tape, it's so tacky
    > (no pun intended). A proper battery door has some sort of a
    > slide lock, it doesn't depend on a tiny plastic tab to snap
    > into place.
    > Why on earth so many ZLRs use AA batteries, when virtually all
    > SLR cameras have moved to the more reliable and
    > higher-performance Li-Ion batteries is a mystery.


    I really do like AA batteries, from a cost and compatibility
    standpoint at the very least, and also because of the flexibility
    and convenience.

    I can understand the appeal of more modern solutions, but still
    find AA to be worth consideration.

    Thanks much.
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Aug 5, 2007
    #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. Ric
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,485
    Malke
    Sep 18, 2005
  2. Dan Sullivan
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    1,397
    Dan Sullivan
    Jan 4, 2004
  3. Kirill Ponazdyr
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    689
    Danny Rich
    Jul 19, 2004
  4. Dany P. Wu
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,248
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro
    Feb 1, 2004
  5. Chaudhry Nijjhar

    Any similar Webcam broadcasting site similar to youtube

    Chaudhry Nijjhar, Feb 19, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    706
    Chaudhry Nijjhar
    Feb 19, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page