what do you suggest. which is better olympus c8080 or sony f828?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by marv, May 7, 2004.

  1. marv

    marv Guest

    marv, May 7, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "marv" <> wrote in message
    news:UpLmc.156721$...
    > what do you suggest. which is better olympus c8080 or sony f828?
    > This guy prefers sony
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/olympus-c8080.shtml
    > But here.. the image quality of sony is questioned
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf828/page21.asp
    >
    > Marv


    I wouldn't buy either!

    Most likely I would buy a Nikon 8700 or a Canon Pro
    Less likely I would buy a Minolta A2
    I wouldn't touch the Sony or the Olympus

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, May 7, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. marv

    nixjunk Guest

    >I wouldn't buy either!
    >
    >Most likely I would buy a Nikon 8700 or a Canon Pro
    >Less likely I would buy a Minolta A2
    >I wouldn't touch the Sony or the Olympus
    >
    >Cheers,
    >David
    >


    Why?
     
    nixjunk, May 7, 2004
    #3
  4. marv

    nixjunk Guest

    >
    >I wouldn't buy either!
    >
    >Most likely I would buy a Nikon 8700 or a Canon Pro
    >Less likely I would buy a Minolta A2
    >I wouldn't touch the Sony or the Olympus
    >
    >Cheers,
    >David
    >


    The Olympus has gotten the best reviews out of the four competitors from what I
    have seen.
     
    nixjunk, May 7, 2004
    #4
  5. "nixjunk" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >I wouldn't buy either!
    > >

    (a) > >Most likely I would buy a Nikon 8700 or a Canon Pro
    (b) > >Less likely I would buy a Minolta A2
    (c) > >I wouldn't touch the Sony or the Olympus
    > >
    > >Cheers,
    > >David
    > >

    >
    > Why?


    (a) because the Nikon 5700 is what I have now, and the Nikon
    lens/sensor/jpeg compression combination produces a highly optimised
    output (for the file size). I would expect the Nikon 8700 to be similar.
    The Canon seems similar to the Nikon, and I wouldn't mind trying one out.

    (b) I have tried one and sent it back - the image quality was only about
    equal to the 5700 and it had numerous other drawbacks. It did have some
    good points as well, such as the manual zoom ring and electronic
    viewfinder, but not enough for me to outweigh the drawbacks.

    (c) Too bulky, heavy or ugly for me. The Sony gets some poor reviews on
    image quality. The Olympus has a limited telephoto zoom range and limited
    LCD movement.

    I may wait for the 2nd generation of 8MP cameras.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, May 7, 2004
    #5
  6. marv

    Paul H. Guest

    Paul H., May 7, 2004
    #6
  7. marv

    nixjunk Guest

    >(a) because the Nikon 5700 is what I have now, and the Nikon
    >lens/sensor/jpeg compression combination produces a highly optimised
    >output (for the file size)."


    Meaning what?

    > I would expect the Nikon 8700 to be similar.
    >The Canon seems similar to the Nikon, and I wouldn't mind trying one out.
    >


    The 5700, according to the dpreview site, produces obviously soft pictures in
    comparison to the Sony F707/F717 and the equivalent Canons.


    >(b) I have tried one and sent it back - the image quality was only about
    >equal to the 5700 and it had numerous other drawbacks."



    The images tests on dpreview show that to be false.


    > It did have some
    >good points as well, such as the manual zoom ring and electronic
    >viewfinder, but not enough for me to outweigh the drawbacks.
    >
    >(c) Too bulky, heavy or ugly for me.



    You buy a camera for it's looks??


    > The Sony gets some poor reviews on
    >image quality. The Olympus has a limited telephoto zoom range and limited
    >LCD movement.



    Olympus opted for a better lens allaround over a longer zoom. The zoom it has
    is more than sufficient for typical shooting situations.


    >
    >I may wait for the 2nd generation of 8MP cameras.
    >
    >Cheers,
    >David
    >
     
    nixjunk, May 7, 2004
    #7
  8. "nixjunk" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >(a) because the Nikon 5700 is what I have now, and the Nikon
    > >lens/sensor/jpeg compression combination produces a highly optimised
    > >output (for the file size)."

    >
    > Meaning what?


    A 600KB picture from the 5700 could look as good as or better than a 2MB
    picture from the A2 (under the sam e conditions). This leads me towards
    the conclusion that Nikon have chosen their parameters for JPEG compresion
    carefully, and have chosen them to match the information coming from the
    lens and sensor. The A2 has awful JPEG defects, which have not even
    corrected from the same defects on the A1. RAW is required to use the A2
    fully, and RAW is unacceptable to me.

    > The 5700, according to the dpreview site, produces obviously soft

    pictures in
    > comparison to the Sony F707/F717 and the equivalent Canons.


    I'm not looking at review pictures - I'm looking at the sort of pictures I
    take under the viewing conditions I have. YMMV.

    > >(b) I have tried one and sent it back - the image quality was only

    about
    > >equal to the 5700 and it had numerous other drawbacks."

    >
    >
    > The images tests on dpreview show that to be false.


    Again, I am not reading review sites. I placed the cameras on a tripod
    and took the same pictures. I then compared them on my display under my
    viewing conditions. Occasionally the A2 pictures were better, yes, but
    occasionally the 5700 pictures were better. On average, there was nothing
    to choose, certain nothing which said: Oh, doesn't the 8MB camera produce
    sharper pictures.

    > > It did have some
    > >good points as well, such as the manual zoom ring and electronic
    > >viewfinder, but not enough for me to outweigh the drawbacks.
    > >
    > >(c) Too bulky, heavy or ugly for me.

    >
    >
    > You buy a camera for it's looks??


    If you believe that all the 8MP cameras are approximately equal, then
    functionality, weight and bulk come into the equation. If everything else
    is them equal, you might take the view: I wouldn't want to be seen dead
    with that. Subjective again, I'm afraid. YMMV.


    > Olympus opted for a better lens allaround over a longer zoom. The zoom

    it has
    > is more than sufficient for typical shooting situations.


    They made a marketing choice. I suspect it had little to do with
    providing a better quality, which is more difficult to achieve at the wide
    end rather than the narrow end of the zoom range. What zoom you need
    depends on what you wish to do with your camera. What will suit you. may
    not suit me. Having said that, one of the reasons for my looking in
    detail at the Minolta A2 was that I would have preferred a 28 - 200 zoom
    rather than the 35 - 280mm zoom of the Nikon. I would not be prepared to
    compromise down to the 140mm of the Olympus, though.

    I think we are looking at fine distinctions here - I think that broadly
    all 8MP cameras are similar, although obviously differing somewhat in
    specifications and function. Handling the cameras is also important
    before making a final choice. I don't think that the OP's question of
    "which is better", can be answered, rather I was responding to the "what
    do you suggest" part!

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, May 7, 2004
    #8
  9. marv

    nixjunk Guest

    >A 600KB picture from the 5700 could look as good as or better than a 2MB
    >picture from the A2 (under the sam e conditions).



    I doubt that. Anyway in terms of image quality the A2 appears to be the worse
    of the lot of the 8 megapixel cameras.


    >I'm not looking at review pictures - I'm looking at the sort of pictures I
    >take under the viewing conditions I have. YMMV.



    I wasn't refering to review pictures that you or anyone else could take but
    actual tests that determine qulaity and resolution.

    >Again, I am not reading review sites. I placed the cameras on a tripod
    >and took the same pictures. I then compared them on my display under my
    >viewing conditions. Occasionally the A2 pictures were better, yes, but
    >occasionally the 5700 pictures were better. On average, there was nothing
    >to choose, certain nothing which said: Oh, doesn't the 8MB camera produce
    >sharper pictures.



    I wasn't defending the Minolta camera. I was defending the Olympus which looks
    more and more to be the best of the 8 meg cameras.


    >
    >If you believe that all the 8MP cameras are approximately equal,



    They obviously are not.


    > then
    >functionality, weight and bulk come into the equation. If everything else
    >is them equal, you might take the view: I wouldn't want to be seen dead
    >with that. Subjective again, I'm afraid. YMMV.
    >


    I could never take such a view about something I consider as merely a tool.


    >They made a marketing choice. I suspect it had little to do with
    >providing a better quality,"



    Why would you suspect that?

    > which is more difficult to achieve at the wide
    >end rather than the narrow end of the zoom range. What zoom you need
    >depends on what you wish to do with your camera. What will suit you. may
    >not suit me. Having said that, one of the reasons for my looking in
    >detail at the Minolta A2 was that I would have preferred a 28 - 200 zoom
    >rather than the 35 - 280mm zoom of the Nikon. I would not be prepared to
    >compromise down to the 140mm of the Olympus, though.



    I'll take better image quality over a longer zoom all of the time.


    >I think we are looking at fine distinctions here - I think that broadly
    >all 8MP cameras are similar, although obviously differing somewhat in
    >specifications and function.



    Not according to the reviews, which the ones I have read so far favor the
    Olympus.


    > Handling the cameras is also important
    >before making a final choice. I don't think that the OP's question of
    >"which is better", can be answered, rather I was responding to the "what
    >do you suggest" part!
    >


    In terms of image quality it can be answered. Image quality can be measured.
     
    nixjunk, May 7, 2004
    #9
  10. "nixjunk" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >A 600KB picture from the 5700 could look as good as or better than a

    2MB
    > >picture from the A2 (under the sam e conditions).

    >
    >
    > I doubt that. Anyway in terms of image quality the A2 appears to be the

    worse
    > of the lot of the 8 megapixel cameras.


    You may doubt it - I've seen it. If you are right about the image quality
    being the worst, it is a pity because the camera is innovative in many
    ways.


    > I wasn't defending the Minolta camera. I was defending the Olympus which

    looks
    > more and more to be the best of the 8 meg cameras.


    The limited zoom and viewfinder swivel would drop the Olympus from my
    personal list.


    > >They made a marketing choice. I suspect it had little to do with
    > >providing a better quality,"

    >
    >
    > Why would you suspect that?


    Because most of these things are marketing, not engineering driven. Look
    at firmware - it costs nothing to provide more features but marketing will
    want to "differentiate" the "Pro" from the "Pro Plus" model.

    > I'll take better image quality over a longer zoom all of the time.


    ... and image quality was one of the things that pursuaded me to stick with
    Nikon. But if you need 280mm, then even better image quality in a 140mm
    lens isn't going necessarily to get you the best picture. Suppose you
    were offered a 2:1 zoom. 35 - 70mm say?

    > >I think we are looking at fine distinctions here - I think that broadly
    > >all 8MP cameras are similar, although obviously differing somewhat in
    > >specifications and function.

    >
    >
    > Not according to the reviews, which the ones I have read so far favor

    the
    > Olympus.


    But the reviews differ, and are not an absolute be-all and end-all. Your
    own needs must surely be factored into the purchase choice?

    > > Handling the cameras is also important
    > >before making a final choice. I don't think that the OP's question of
    > >"which is better", can be answered, rather I was responding to the

    "what
    > >do you suggest" part!
    > >

    >
    > In terms of image quality it can be answered. Image quality can be

    measured.

    But the present image quality measures are very poor, and in any case
    image quality alone is not a sufficient reason to choose one camera over
    the other. For example, some people have complained that a camera is too
    small to operate, or cannot be used when wearing gloves. The perfect
    image quality is no good if you can't operate the camera!

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, May 7, 2004
    #10
    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. Karuzo

    C8080 vs. F828

    Karuzo, Apr 27, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    927
    Larry
    May 3, 2004
  2. marv
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    296
  3. marv
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    362
    Steven M. Scharf
    May 7, 2004
  4. Niels Thorsen

    Olympus C8080

    Niels Thorsen, May 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    487
    Niels Thorsen
    May 15, 2004
  5. Yi Zhao

    Canon EOS-300D or Olympus C8080

    Yi Zhao, Aug 2, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    710
    Alfred Molon
    Aug 7, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page