Last updated 12/21/04 (fixed a few typos) My
latest Pronto CCF (zipped
version).
|
Olympus
C-2000Z New! |
|
This site, which began in the
fall of '96, is for my informal observations, tips, links, photos, and
criticisms (good and bad) of the various digital cameras I have used.
Naturally, this is a moving target! If you have a suggestion, or comment,
feel free to Email me.
A Little Background
I'm Mike
Lynch, digital camera (and other assorted tecno-gadgets) nut. I develop
software for the newspaper and publishing industry in beautiful Lake Havasu City, AZ (new
home to the London
Bridge). The weather here is always easy to predict--hot and sunny. Believe
it or not you really do get used to this kind of heat (at least I have). I used
to think, when living back east, that 95 degrees Fahrenheit was incredibly
hot--now that's not even hot enough to go for a swim! Enough about me, on to
the digital cameras.
Digital Camera Trials and Tribulations
I have been using digital cameras for
several years now. I began with an Epson Photo PC which was used
for work (not a good camera for that, I know). Although many have criticized
this camera, I was amazed at what it could do (in its time of course). But,
more important, it was enough to get me hooked on digital photography. I should
note that while growing up I looked up to Superman, not Jimmy Olsen. So don’t
expect professional analysis of film Vs. digital. I do find myself learning
more about traditional photography, but I’m learning it from the digital side
first. This is kind of ironic if you think about it. What follows is my
firsthand experiences with a number of digital cameras. Even though I didn't
keep most of the cameras, it is important to note that I don't "hate"
any of them. They all fill a different niche in the digital camera arena. Click
on any of the camera pictures to take you to the manufacturer's web site for
that particular camera (if still available).
Olympus D-300L (November, 1996)
In early November of 1996, I bought an Olympus D-300L.
Several images on this page came from that camera. The two images below were
shot at the "High" resolution of 1024 x 768. They were then reduced
to 640 x 480 to cut down on file size (the dragon was then cropped). No other
image manipulation was performed.
|
|
|
|
The
London Bridge in Lake Havasu City, AZ. |
Entrance to the English village. |
I ended up getting rid of (later regretting)
the D-300L after about two months. I did so because I thought the lens was a
little too wide for my tastes, the color seemed off, and there was no control
over JPEG compression. However, looking back at my D-300L's images, they aren't
bad for a consumer digital camera from '96.
Top
Ricoh RDC-2 (December, 1996)
After the Olympus I got the RDC-2 thinking it was the answer to my
perceived problems with the D-300L. I loved the hi-tech look of this camera.
This was also my first introduction to video-out on a digicam--something that I
used a lot initially, then less and less so. I did like many of the cool
features this camera had (it always drew a crowd in public). However, I didn't
really care for its image quality (it was excellent at macro shots though). I
found myself missing the D-300L's sharp images. I know some have praised (and
still others agree with my assessment) the Ricoh's image quality, I thought it
lacked detail. So, I returned this camera, before I was stuck with something I
figured I wouldn't be happy with (Although I kind of hated to see this one go
too!).
Top
Canon PowerShot 600 (January, 1997)
After the Ricoh I became convinced that my
real pursuit was of image quality. Nothing else mattered. That being the case,
at the end of January, 1997, I bought the PowerShot. The Canon had an
uncompressed mode so was capable of images that were (in my opinion, at that
time) even better than the D-300L's (even though at a slightly lower
resolution). It also had a more normal lens rather than the wide-angle of the
D-300L--something I thought I'd appreciate. The camera had no "cool"
features (except sound recording which was useless when using the PCMCIA Hard
Drive) of prior cameras. No LCD, no video out, and it was quite large and
bulky. Still, I was through chasing down digicams (for awhile) and decided to
hold on to this a bit.
I did like the images I was getting, but
soon grew indifferent to the thing (neglecting it, if you will). The PowerShot
600 had a rechargeable battery that, while nice, always seemed to die on me
when I needed it most (and you couldn't just throw in some AA's). In addition,
charging the battery was an overnight affair. Yes, I could have bought an extra
battery, but my interest in this camera was beginning to wane.
Then, even the lens started to get to me. I
often couldn't get my shot because of the lack of a wide-angle lens. Yes, you
can buy a wide-angle adapter to attach to the camera (adding even more bulk),
but I was not going to invest anymore in this puppy. I now decided that maybe
the wide-angle of the D-300L wasn't so bad after all--more of the scene is
better than not capturing it at all! I finally sold the PowerShot in early
September of '97--this time I had no regrets.
Top
Ricoh RDC-300 (September, 1997)
After the Canon I thought I'd get back to a
camera with real digital camera features. The RDC-300
seemed like a quick fix. This time the size of the camera was smaller than the
RDC-2 and seemed even "cooler" looking. It had 4 megabytes of on-
board memory (no chance for expansion, but it seemed enough to me, back then),
so was ready to go, right out of the box. It fit in my shirt pocket with
ease--no problem taking the camera everywhere. However, the RDC-300 had only
640 x 480 resolution, so I soon outgrew it (I really have nothing but praise
for the little gem though). I (sadly) exchanged it for a (higher-priced) Kodak
DC-120, a mere 10 days later.
Top
Kodak DC-120 (September, 1997)
I had heard about the DC-120 (before it was released)
about the time I bought the Canon PowerShot 600. After its
release, and initial reviews, I felt I should have waited for it instead of
getting the Canon. So, all the time I had the PowerShot I was wanting the
Kodak. Basically, I think I built myself up for a let down.
I was convinced the Kodak was going to be my
dream camera. When I finally got it I was disappointed. I didn't like its large
size (having the RDC-300 right before it didn't help). I hated
the user interface (numerous button presses to accomplish simple tasks--even to
just delete an image). I was completely disappointed by the LCD--it was as if
Kodak just slapped it on the back as an afterthought (again, having the RDC-300
right before this camera made the LCD seem that much worse). Worst of all, most
of my "people" shots seemed to be very grainy and/or blurry. When I
learned that with the macro mode you had to manually set the focus by inputting
the number of inches away from the subject, I just said no--this marriage was
over. I actually was glad to see this camera go.
It wasn't until I examined some of the shots
I took with it that I realized I may have judged the DC-120 prematurely (same
old story). Sample shots on the web sure do look good. Maybe I got a defective
camera? I still think the skin tone shots were too grainy for me (and that just
may be intentional since they don't look bad from a distance). I knew I
wouldn't be using the manual settings much, so wouldn't miss them as features
(many like the DC-120's manual exposure controls). The bottom line is that you
often judge digital cameras by your own expectations--which works both ways.
I've seen many first time digicam users who, not expecting much, are thrilled with
their cameras. These same cameras (to me anyway--I won't mention brands but
will say that one of them is a rather large supplier of watches) are quite low
in quality (not necessarily price). Yet the users are happy--I guess that's
what it's all about.
Top
Olympus D-320L (September, 1997)
(sample photos)
Well I'd finally come full circle! After a
year of digital photography I was right back where I began (albeit with a newer
model). I received this camera a day or two after its release. After all my
experimenting I knew that had I just stayed with the D-300L in the first place,
I could have saved myself a lot of time and effort. (Then again maybe it's the
pursuit that's the fun part.) Plus, the D-320L
had some nice improvements over the D-300L. It had video out, better LCD,
removable memory, higher quality JPEG mode, and more. I felt like I was
home again. Back to a small (smaller than the D-300L), high quality, digital
camera. I was upset that one of my most wanted features of the D-300L--a better
HQ JPEG option--while implemented, required the camera to be connected to a PC
to use. So you had to decide in advance if you wanted the super high quality (HQ2)
mode--and set it via the PC. This mode creates three times as large files (not
resolution) over HQ1 so severely limits your storage capacity. You can change
to the 640 x 480 (SQ) mode with the camera--but that is quite a bit of a step
down from HQ2.
UPDATE 11/22/97: I have now got the 8 MB SmartMedia
(SSFDC) cards so leaving the camera in HQ2 is not much of a problem (easily 18
pictures per card).
UPDATE 12/15/97: I sold my D-320L due to the
purchase of a D-600L.
Of course (back in the fall of '97) there
were other cameras from Olympus on the horizon...
Olympus D-600L (November, 1997)
(sample photos)
I felt like the king of the mountain when I
got the D-320L. It was tops. But soon a new camera was released that would
change all that (along with its brother the D-500L).
I felt betrayed. Depressed even. I humbly watched as the first wave of D-600L
users came to rec.photo.digital and
discussed their baby. I read as the first focus problems were reported.
"Good." I thought. "I'm glad I didn't wait for that
camera." But others were finding ways around the problem and making
extraordinary claims about it--raving about its "mind blowing" image
quality. I could see that while my D-320L was a fantastic camera, I hadn't
really moved forward in the last year as far as image quality was concerned.
After some deliberations between the D-500L
and the D-600L, I bought the D-600L. The D-500L was also a great camera--I just
felt I needed to get past its 1024 x 768 resolution. I was soon amazed at the
quality of the D-600L myself. I could see vibrant colors, incredible detail,
and not a trace of the jaggies. Definitely the best digicam I had ever used or
owned--there is no question about that.
But it still seemed like all digicams
came with compromises (and, for the most part, they still do). With
the D-600L it was with the auto-focus system (in low light it didn't lock very
well, and even when it did a blurry image was possible). Others have had
trouble with the auto-exposure system--I found it quite good compared to my
other digicams (and it did have spot metering which can be very useful). I and
other users, back in late '97 and early '98, began to figure out the best ways
to work around the focus issue:
|
|
You definitely needed to
get used to the auto-focus system of the camera. Some people, even some in
the media, who were not too familiar with traditional SLR cameras, judged the
D-600L prematurely (in my opinion, naturally). |
|
|
Since the camera is ISO
100 equivalent, camera shake occurs easily in low light (and low light is
where the problems occur, obviously). A steadier hand (duhhh!) has helped me
on many shots. |
|
|
Not clear how to best use
the two "Quick Focus" buttons. These buttons are supposed to allow
a quick focus at two preset ranges, but many users have not mastered the use
of them (there is help in the FAQ on this subject).
|
Misc.
D-600L Notes
11/26/97 The Case
I just received the Olympus leather
case for the D-500L/D-600L (photo
of case--shot with D-600L, photo
of case with camera--shot with D-320L). I think it was well worth the
$30.41 plus shipping (CMPExpress.com).
It fits the camera very well, without adding too much bulk. I tried general
purpose camera bags and thought that (due to the camera's shape) it required
too large a bag for the D-600L. This case has a handy side pocket for an extra
set of batteries, and another pocket in the top (could be used for SSFDC cards,
filters, lens cleaning kit, etc.). I highly recommend this case to anyone who
has or is considering the D-600L.
11/26/97 The SmartMedia PCMCIA
Adapter
I also got a Simple Technology SmartMedia to PCMCIA adapter (photo). This was 79.95 plus
shipping from State Street Direct (I
also bought my 8 MB SmartMedia from them). I have a notebook computer so did
not need to bother with a PCMCIA adapter for my PC. No drivers of any kind (or
even any instructions) were included with the adapter, but none were needed
since Windows 95 easily recognized the device and configured it on its own.
This adapter makes copying files from the card to the computer a breeze (and it
is read/write so you can rename or copy files to the card). I did not buy the
AC adapter for my D-600L because I felt it is really only needed for
transferring images from the camera to the computer--something that is now
handled by the adapter. I recommend that, if possible, you not buy the AC
adapter and instead buy either the PCMCIA adapter, or the SmartMedia floppy
disk adapter. The money spent for the AC adapter will have been wasted if you
later buy one of the SmartMedia adapters (What will the AC adapter be used for?).
In my case the SmartMedia PCMCIA adapter was not much more than Olympus' AC
adapter (and theirs is the only adapter Olympus states you can use). If you
need to buy a PCMCIA adapter for your computer, then the the cost of that needs
to be factored in the equation.
UPDATE 12/22/98: There are now several card readers available for
SmartMedia that allow you to use your SSFDCs directly, no adapter needed. These
readers generally work via parallel port connection, but USB models are
starting to appear.
2/23/98 The DCS-1 Slave Flash
I bought a DCS-1 slave flash for use with my Olympus D-600L from SR, Inc. for $89.95. It appears that
the DCS-1 started out in life as a basic auto thyristor flash. To it slave
trigger circuitry, optical sensor, and a two position switch on the rear
(labeled "Trigger on 1 Flash" and "Trigger on 2 Flashes")
have been added. These have been done quite well and in fact I would not have
even thought about them being added if not for the included manual that shows
the flash in its original form. I had some fears originally that maybe the
DCS-1 was simply a standard slave that some enterprising soul found worked with
digicams. This is not the case--it has been designed to specifically work with
digicams (as well as non-digital cameras). I will state that I've tried various
slaves with my D-600L with no success. The camera fires a pre-flash that
triggers the slave before the actual exposure. Since the camera meters off this
pre-flash for final white balance and exposure info, it resulted in darker
images, not brighter (since the slave light present during the pre-flash
metering is not there for the actual exposure).
Well the DCS-1 actually works! It fires
perfectly on the second flash of the D-600L. Of course now we have the flip
side of the equation: The camera is receiving far more light during its
exposure than it counted on (based on its pre-flash metering). So I will state
that a "perfect" digital slave should fire a pre-flash, just like the
digicam does (I have an idea on this--but now isn't the time).
Here are a couple of quick shots taken with,
and without, the DCS-1. They were taken in my backyard on a dark, damp, evening
(courtesy of El Nino). There were no outside lights on, and I used one of the
quick focus buttons (2.5M/8ft) to lock focus:
Without Slave
With Slave
There is also a FAQ available on the D-600L
at:
http://www.leesoft.com/d600l/OlympusFAQ.html
My sample D-600L photos.
(More coming. Who am I kidding?)
UPDATE 7/10/98: Sadly, I've sold my D-600L. Even though I sold it, it
remains, as of this writing (12/11/98), the champion of image quality of all
digital cameras I've owned.
UPDATE 12/10/98: As you might already know, Olympus has released an
updated model based on the D-600L, called the D-620L. It has a flash synch
connector, so it should be much easier to use the camera with external flashes.
It also has other improvements, such as the ability to use 16 MB SSFDCs (the
D-600L can only use up to 8 MB cards, but can be sent to Olympus for an upgrade
to allow 16 MB). The D-620L also has (greatly) improved shot recycle speed
(it's practically like shooting with film). Also, the D-620L has an additional
quick focus option, something that was a bit lacking on the D-600L. In most
other respects, it's identical to a D-600L (although some claim it is a little better at low-light focusing). Since I already had a D-600L, the D-620L
is not improved enough to attract me. If it had LCD preview, video out, as well
as a higher resolution LCD, I might be more tempted (although even then, I'd be
much happier if the overall resolution had been increased as well).
Top
Fuji MX-700 (May, 1998)
(sample photos)
It's now been over six months since getting
the D-600L. While I still like it a lot, I find that I don't use it as much as
I could. This is primarily due to its large size and the fact that, in addition
to the camera, I need to take the case, extra batteries, etc. with me when I
want to use it. Enter the MX-700. The MX-700 is a
completely different animal from the D-600L. It is so small you wonder how so
many features were packed into such a tiny package. It's been traveling in my
shirt pocket--and I barely know it's there.
How do I like it so far? Well there is one
important feature missing--ZOOM. I knew this going in, so I shouldn't really
complain about it (there is a digital zoom , but I don't consider that a zoom
at all). I was willing to give up a zoom for a camera that is truly
"pocketable." There are other digicams that are in this size range,
but, as of this writing, they do not approach the resolution or feature set of
the MX-700.
Did I mention I like its size? Well, even
though the MX-700 is not much bigger than a pack of cigarettes, it's not really
hard to get used to. I have large hands and have easily adapted to shooting
with one hand, or for steadier shots, two (believe it or not, it's pretty easy
to hold with two hands). You've probably heard about its aluminum alloy
body--that is pretty cool--but, in my opinion, not extremely important.
However, it is an indication of the care that went into the design and
construction of this camera. A lot of attention to detail. The SmartMedia door
is spring loaded and pops open. The SmartMedia itself is ejected like a
push-button switch. The battery cover slides out, then down--seems pretty
solid. There are rubber strips strategically placed to ensure a firm grip on
the camera. A recessed contrast wheel for the LCD display prevents if from
inadvertently being turned. There doesn't appear to be any flimsy flaps or
covers that are destined to break off.
I don't think its image quality matches the
D-600L, but it's good. And, I should note, some people actually prefer its
quality over the Olympus. The MX-700 is easier to use than the D-600L though.
You don't have to worry about finding something bright to focus on when
indoors--or have to reach for the quick-focus buttons to shoot. The MX-700 has,
so far, never refused to take a shot, and they rarely come out blurry. So for
quick, "just get the shot" type of stuff, I guess the MX-700 could
outperform the Olympus. Still, the Olympus really shines outdoors with plenty
of light. I think under those conditions the D-600L easily beats the MX-700.
But, indoors with flash, the MX-700 has the upper hand (not that its flash is
fantastic though, it's still a bit on the weak side).
I must admit that this camera is packed with
features. Some of my favorites:
Five Second Save Time
Five seconds between shots may not be ideal, but much better than the digital
cameras I've used before (with save times of at least twice that). I've learned
to live with this delay on other digital cameras, and I had no choice. Now,
with the MX-700, the save time is not much different than a film camera (at
least when using flash). This allows more freedom in shooting, and you don't
have to worry that you took the shot too soon (waiting for the camera to save
while the important shot passes by). Another plus, unlike other cameras, is
that the camera can still save in five seconds in its highest quality mode
(file size of about 600k). I know that the camera has at least 2 megabytes of
ram, so I'm thinking that it caches the image to ram to speed up save times.
Shot Preview Before Save
This is very useful. The camera can be set to show the shot on the LCD after
it's taken (similar to the D-600L). But, it doesn't simply show it, and then
save it. It shows the shot and lets you decide whether to keep it or not. If
you cancel, you can take the shot again almost immediately.
"Smart" SmartMedia
Not really a feature, but worth mentioning as an example of the "beyond
what was needed" engineering that went into this camera. First, the camera
will read either 3.3 or 5 volt SmartMedia (SSFDC). I don't have any 5 volt, but
if you were upgrading from an earlier 5 volt SSFDC camera, you might like that
you can still use your SSFDCs. Second, the camera treats SSFDCs as if they
really are floppy disks. You can insert and remove SSFDCs while the camera is
on (the camera will recognize the new SSFDC almost instantly). I was able to
fill up an SSFDC while shooting (I was even using the LCD as a viewfinder), and
pop in a new one without missing a beat. The live LCD didn't even go off,
"No Card" was superimposed over the LCD until I popped in another
SSFDC.
You can even use the camera to copy (up to
nine images) from one SSFDC to another. I was skeptical when I read about this
feature in the manual, but it certainly works. The camera must have quite a bit
of on-board ram to hold those nine images while you swap in the second SSFDC to
copy them to.
To top it off the camera displays images
taken with my D-600L (I removed the SSFDC from the Olympus and popped it into
the Fuji). These D-600L images are not even in the same directory that Fuji
uses--and they use a different naming convention (the Fuji saves in \Imfidx10
with file names like DSC00001.JPG whereas the Olympus uses \Imolym with
filenames like PIC00001.JPG). The MX-700 even displays the "IMOLYM"
directory name on the LCD (right above the file name of the image) when
displaying the Olympus images. It will also display mixed images on the SSFDC
(D-600L and its own), automatically switching directories as needed. That's
what I call going the extra mile. (BTW: The D-600L won't display the Fuji's
images even if I manually copy them to its \Imolym directory and rename them
using its naming convention). You might not have another digital camera to
utilize this feature, but it could be useful for copying sample images to the
SSFDC (for display on a television for instance). You could even protect these
images from deletion.
Included Rechargeable Lithium Ion Battery
Well I've kind of gotten used to the routine of using rechargeable AA batteries
in my digital cameras. And they work rather well (particularly Nickel-Metal
Hydride). So, I thought having a proprietary battery in a digital camera would
be a disadvantage (if you run out of juice you can't pick up AA alkalines,
which are available just about anywhere). I also should mention that I was
burned (figuratively of course) a number of times by my PowerShot 600's
rechargeable battery--it ran down several times in the field (no AA option).
Worse, if you forgot to turn it off, the PowerShot seemed to stay on (draining
the battery).
Anyway, I've changed my tune with the
MX-700. First, its single battery is just slightly larger than a AA (and most
cameras need 4 of those). So, if I did need an extra battery, carrying it would
not be a problem. Second, since I started using AA rechargeable batteries in my
digital cameras (about 8 months now), I've never actually needed to buy
"emergency" AA alkalines--not once. And, the MX-700's little lithium
battery lasts quite a long time. Roughly, I get about the same number of shots
as with my two sets of NiMh, and one set of NiCd, when using my D-600L. So, I
might not ever need an extra battery. Also, there is no external charger needed
with the MX-700 (although there is a two hour external charger available as an
option). No need to remove the battery to charge--the camera is the charger--it
charges when plugged into its included AC adapter (even that's tiny). A light
on the camera indicates that it is charging, and goes off when it's finished.
Pretty nice.
LCD Zoom
I wonder how I ever lived without this! This feature lets you zoom (and pan) to
see the shot better. And I don't mean just a little zoom--an area that covers
only 5% of the LCD before zooming can be incrementally zoomed and panned to
fill the LCD. I took a quick shot of a car while stopped at a light. Before
zooming the license plate was a few, barely discernible, pixels on the LCD.
After zooming, I could read it.
Once you get used to this it's incredible.
It even works when the camera is hooked up to a television, not just the LCD
(great for sitting around the TV reviewing photos). Viewing a shot of several
people, for instance, you can zoom in on a face for a closer look. With the LCD
Zoom, the camera becomes much more useful for reviewing shots. It's good for
showing shots to other people--who always seem to want to hold the camera to
see the LCD (hey it's a new toy, you'll have to wrestle it from my clenched
hand). With the MX-700, I can zoom in to give them a better view. This feature
should be a "must have" for every digital camera.
Excellent 640 x 480 Mode
OK, you might think I'm crazy for bringing this up, but hear me out. You set
the quality mode to "Fine" (the least amount of compression), and set
the image size to 640 x 480. This yields file sizes of about 180k, which is
pretty large for 640 x 480. But, the quality of these are quite good! You can
resample to 1024 x 768 with no problem. Why? Because the camera uses all 1.5
million CCD elements to generate the 640 x 480 image. Contrast this to your
average 640 x 480 digital camera which has about 350,000 CCD elements--big
difference.
UPDATE 11/98: If you've read my Nikon Coolpix 900 section (below),
you already know I don't have the MX-700 anymore (primarily due to its lack of
zoom). But, it looks like Fuji is going to be releasing a newer model, based on
the MX-700, that does contain an optical zoom. When this is released (in the
U.S.), I'll be taking a close look at it.
Nikon Coolpix 900 (May, 1998)
(sample photos)
I think the MX-700 is a fantastic
camera--well designed, good battery, good pics, etc. But, I could just not get
over the lack of zoom. I know some people maintain that it simply requires a
different style of shooting, but it got to me just the same. Reluctantly, and
with a bit of remorse, I exchanged my MX-700 for a Nikon 900. After all my ravings
about the Fuji, here I am with the Nikon.
To MX-700 owners: Please don't think of
me as a traitor or anything. I have nothing but praise for the Fuji, I just had
to have a zoom.
The Nikon is of course larger than the Fuji,
but I did find I can keep it in my shirt pocket (casual shirt, fairly large
pocket). Strangely, this was important to me. I don't mind a camera around my
neck too much, but I sometimes take a camera to places where that might seem
out of place. So fitting in a shirt pocket (even if a bit bulky), is important
to me. The size of the Nikon is, in my opinion, just inside the range of
what I'd accept in a go-everywhere type camera (with the Fuji being ideal).
Also, the Nikon is still less bulky than my D-600L--which has been getting neglected
lately.
Anyway, here are some brief thoughts of the
Nikon in relation to the Fuji:
Likes
Zoom!!!
Swivel Lens (It makes using LCD as viewfinder more useful.)
Multi-shot "Motor Drive" mode (Really works.)
Auto white balance (It seems the Fuji stumbled in some low light shots.)
Less "noise" in pix (mainly people)
Pix seem "sharper" (just me?)
Compact Flash (I'd rather have one big CF than 6 SSFDCs.)
Brighter pix (in general)
Better flash (in general)
Brighter LCD for shot composition
Bigger and brighter optical viewfinder
Infinity focus lock (This is real handy.)
Did I mention Zoom?
Dislikes
Larger than Fuji (Duhh!)
General interface speed is slower
Battery (Really no worse than my D-600L, but I loved the Fuji's battery.)
Miss the Fuji's LCD zoom and pan
Doesn't always lock focus (Camera will usually still shoot though--and
generally the shot will be in focus--unlike the D-600L.)
Other Stuff
The Nikon and the Fuji have, of course, different form factors. If size is very
important, the Fuji is it. I personally couldn't live with its lack of zoom
(hate to harp on this issue--because the Fuji did yield excellent images). It's
not just the zoom either. It's the (fairly) wide angle lens that got in the
way. I'd see something I wanted to shoot, but the camera saw much more than
that--with my area of interest reduced to a low number of pixels in the center
of the image (to be fair, the Fuji's high resolution helps with this--you have
some breathing room for cropping). And then, to get close-ups of people, you need
to be right on top of them (and if you're too close, their noses get 20% bigger
:-)). Still, the Fuji is a fun camera--a pleasure to use.
The Nikon has the split design thing going
for it. I'm starting to like it. I like using the LCD to frame shots, so the
rotating lens makes this fun, and useful. The Fuji's LCD, on the other hand, is
flat against the back of the camera (and not really viewable from much of an
angle). I find myself using the LCD as a viewfinder on the Nikon quite a bit
more than I did with the Fuji. Of course the Nikon, by default, starts up with
the LCD on. Yes, this drains the batteries faster, but I like it (and it can be
turned off if desired)
I've also noticed that the Nikon's LCD has a
higher refresh rate than the Fuji's. And, its LCD is brighter (when used as a
viewfinder, not talking about when used to playback images). The Fuji has a
convenient brightness wheel below the LCD that helps to brighten it, but it
doesn't seem to reach the level of the Nikon (and when you crank the wheel up,
it messes up the LCD brightness during image playback).
Oddly, image playback is a bit nicer with
the Fuji. Mainly, because it's a tad faster, and has that great LCD zoom/pan
(the Nikon does zoom during playback, but it's only one level, and it's only
the center area that gets zoomed--no panning). The Fuji doesn't allow image
deletion during normal image playback though, I thought that was a bit
inconvenient. It has a separate delete mode, which does show the images on the
LCD (sans LCD zoom). But, I like to be able to delete when in normal playback
mode (the Nikon allows this, as do most digital cameras I've used).
Well, I'm sure I'll have a lot more to write
about, but that'll have to wait until I get more familiar with the camera.
My sample Coolpix 900 photos.
Top
New Thoughts (December, 1998)
Well, I've
had the Nikon Coolpix 900 for over six months now, and I was hoping to be ready
to move on to something else by now. But, there isn't very much out there that
can out-do the Nikon. Still, I've been looking closely at several cameras.
The Olympus
D-400Z is currently topping my list. It is even smaller than the D-320L, has
1280 x 960 resolution, and an optical zoom. The samples I've
seen from it so far seem about as good as the Nikon. Since I already have a
Nikon 900, why would I consider it, you might ask. Size. I really loved the
Fuji MX-700's size, and would like to have another camera in that category
(although Fuji is releasing a version of the MX-700 with an optical zoom, so
that could be very nice). While the Nikon is great (it really is), it kind of
falls in between the compact sized cameras, and the larger SLR sized offerings
(like the Olympus D-600L). So my latest thinking is I might need one of each
(and for lack of something outstanding in the SLR-sized market, the Nikon just
might fill that role) Confused? Welcome to my world.
Anyway, it
bears mentioning that the Minolta 1500 is another compact model that has my
attention. It's similar in size to the D-400Z, but has some unique features of
its own (upgradable CCD for one).
On the larger-sized
front several models (sort of) interest me. The Sony D700, and the Canon PS Pro
70 both look pretty good, albeit a bit overpriced (in my opinion). The Canon
seems to offer the better quality, possibly better than the Olympus D-600L (I
still use the D-600L as a barometer to judge quality, even though, a year after
its release, I certainly thought it would have been long since surpassed). The
Sony, on the other hand, has a nice 5x zoom (whereas the Canon is not even up
to par, zoom-wise). If I could take the zoom from the Sony, combine it with the
quality of the Canon, and throw in another 50% resolution for good measure, I'd
probably have an SLR-sized camera that I'd be happy with. Anyway, it looks like
I'll have to wait until well into 1999 for that type of camera to appear (it
seems we've hit a bit of a "ceiling," resolution wise, since there
really hasn't been too much of an increase over last year). Of course, I'm only
referring to consumer/prosumer level digital cameras, I know I can get what I
want now--in pro level equipment.
UPDATE
12/29/98: Well, I made it past Christmas without buying
another digital camera! Who'd have imagined that? I did come close to buying an
Olympus D-400Z, while I was out shopping one day, but backed off. First, it was
at CompUSA (as in full list price). Second, I'm still not convinced it would be
enough of an improvement, over my Nikon 900, to justify the purchase. My
primary reason for wanting the 400Z is due to its size--you just can't throw
the Nikon in a shirt pocket and go.
There are
rumors that Olympus is going to release a two megapixel camera soon--maybe I
should just wait for it. It'll probably be based on the 600/620 design (SLR),
so I guess I'll be complaining about its size a few months later. Perhaps I
need (want?) a tiny camera like the 400Z, for everyday use, and a larger SLR
sized model, to use when image quality is top priority. Maybe that's why my
Nikon 900 is holding out so long--it's a little bit of both.
New New Thoughts (March, 1999)
Well, I've (somehow) managed to get through
my D-400Z temptation. I now feel that I might as well wait for the 2+ megapixel
cameras that are due any day now. Specifically, I'm interested in the Nikon
Coolpix 950, and the Olympus 2000Z. The Nikon is a major leap ahead in not only
resolution, but features. Yet, it is actually smaller, and tougher, than the
Coolpix 900/900s. Sounds like a winner to me. The Olympus 2000Z's design is a
bit of a departure from their previous designs, and I'll have to see if I like
it or not (not large like the 600/620, yet not as small as the 400Z). I really
thought Olympus would have used their SLR design when they entered the 2
megapixel range. The good news is that Olympus just announced their 2500L, with
2.5 megapixel resolution. This camera, due out this summer, or fall, is based
on an SLR design, although different than the 600/620 line. It looks like the
next six months will be a hot time for digital cameras.
Top
Olympus C-2000Z (May, 1999)
It's hard to believe, but I actually made it
through an entire year without getting a new digital camera. The Nikon 900
served me well during this time, and indeed there wasn't really any camera
that's come out since that really attracted me enough to switch. Until now.
With the release of the Nikon Coolpix 950,
and all the glowing pre-release reviews, I really expected my next camera to be
it (and, who knows, that might still happen). Still, after being bit by the
"early adopter" bug once too often, I decided to hold off a little.
As expected, once the Nikon hit the streets the reviews were a little more
realistic (although still very positive, for the most part). I guess the thing
that worried me, about the 950, was reports of its LCD being totally useless
outdoors (worse than usual). Not a big deal to some, but to me--living in sunny
Arizona--I was a little worried. I then started to hear several comments about
items that would need to get fixed in the next firmware update. Not that I see
this as a major issuel, but I no longer buy anything with the hopes
that something will be fixed/improved/added in the future. Again, the camera is
definitely great, as-is, but these issues did take a bit of the
"must-have" desire away from me.
My next choice was the Olympus C-2000Z. This
had been my "second" choice for several reasons. For one thing, it
uses SmartMedia--a memory format that I didn't relish going back to. The second
thing was its non-swivel design (I really enjoyed the swivel design of my Nikon
900). I also thought its LCD only contained 70,000 pixels, and could not be
"zoomed" and "panned" (see my Fuji MX-700 review). Finally,
I thought the Olympus was going to be bigger than the Nikon--and more
cumbersome. It turns out I was wrong on most counts. The 2000Z's LCD contains
114,000 pixels, which is still lower than the Nikon's, but much better than the
70,000 number I read in some reviews (of course it's only 1.8" in size,
compared to the Nikon's 2"). Plus, you most certainly can zoom-in while
reviewing photos on the LCD (1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0), which IMO is a must-have
feature. As for size, the 2000Z was surprisingly small, once I had the chance
to actually hold one. To top it off, it appears the 2000Z's LCD--for whatever
reason--is more readable in sunlight than the Nikon's. For these, and a few
other, reasons (ease of use, being one), I decided to go for the Olympus. With
larger SmartMedia available now, than when I owned my last SmartMedia camera,
the memory format is less of an issue (although I would still have preferred
Compact Flash). In any case, this--in no way--is meant as an indictment of the
Nikon 950. Indeed, I'm still very interested in it as well. But, I loved the
look and feel of the C-2000Z, and I bought it!
What I like:
|
|
Construction. The camera
feels well designed, and nicely put together. Although its case is not metal,
it feels solid, and sturdy. (We'll see about that, now won't we?) |
|
|
Image Quality. What can I
say? I think I've reached the point where I now have more than I need.
(Prediction: In two years I will read the previous comment and laugh at my
naiveness.) Seriously though, I have always felt that the cameras I bought
since selling my Olympus D-600L (Nikon 950 and Fuji MX-700) were never quite
able to match the D-600L's quality, when it was at its best (when the D-600L
got everything right, which was not all of the time, its quality was superb).
The C-2000Z meets--and easily exceeds--the D-600L in quality. Its images also
have the same (richly saturated) "look" of the D-600L (and 500L).
Some people find this "look" overly saturated. Call me shallow, but
I like it! Even though I thought my Nikon 900's images were good, I always
thought they lacked the saturation--and vibrancy, if you will--of the
Olympus. |
|
|
Autofocus--it just works.
It hardly ever hunts, and it rarely misses. I was expecting the usual,
wait-for-focus-lock, behavior, and was pleasantly surprised. In fact, you
really can just go ahead and snap a photo--no need to hold the shutter
halfway while you wait for a focus lock (unless you want to). Is this
important? Does it matter? I think so, for me anyway. It makes it far easier
when handing the camera to someone else, so they can take a shot (no more 2
minute explanations of how to first hold the shutter half way, etc.). In my
opinion, the 2000Z's autofocus system puts the "snap" back in
snapshot. |
|
|
Speed. No surprises
here--all of the latest digital cameras are fast. Still, when you've been
using the Coolpix 900 for the last year, the speed is welcome--and needed.
With my 900, I sometimes didn't use the camera because I didn't feel like
"waiting" for it to switch modes, turn on, and whatnot. |
|
|
Remote control. This is
very cool, and while I don't know how much I'll actually use it after the
newness wears off, it's a great feature to have. It's very nice to use when
you have the camera hooked up to a TV, since you can relax and go through the
photos without being "tethered" to the camera. Obviously, it's
useful when taking photos too (you can even zoom in and out with it). |
|
|
Controls. At first I
thought they were a little confusing, but I'm now impressed with how well
Olympus crammed so many features, and settings, into a very easy to use
system. You can jump around and make changes fairly quick, and with minimal
menu navigation. Well done. |
|
|
ISO. The 100-400 ISO is
more useful than I anticipated. When the camera is set in Program mode (which
is the "auto" mode), it dynamically selects the best aperture and
shutter speed. This is no big deal, but if you disable the flash, the camera
will throw ISO into the mix. Basically, the camera will go for a higher ISO
before reaching for shutter speeds that make hand-held shots difficult (or
impossible if the subject is moving). This isn't going to yield great shots,
but it's a lot better than having them end up blurry. If you don't want the
ISO increased, you can shoot in A (aperture priority) or S (shutter priority)
modes and fiddle to your heart's content (yes, you can play with ISO in these
modes too--from 100 to 400). |
|
|
Exposure Compensation that
works. Yes, nearly every digital camera has exposure compensation, but often
there is little noticeable difference, in the photos, when actually using it.
With the 2000Z, there's a dramatic difference--even using the flash (in fact,
changing the exposure compensation can cause the camera to dynamically enable
and disable the flash, depending on whether you went up or down). I can see
that getting to know this control is going to be very useful (and it's very
easy to change the compensation on the fly). |
|
|
Flash. OK, I'm not really
sure if this is a big issue, or not, but I thought I'd mention it. According
to the manual, the 2000Z's flash range is a whopping 18.4 ft! This is at
wide-angle, whereas fully zoomed it is a respectable 12.5 ft. More important
than that is the fact that I haven't been getting nearly as many blown
highlights (overexposed areas) in my 2000Z's flash photos as I did with my
Nikon 900 (on close-ups, mainly). I found that behavior annoying with the
Nikon as there is little you can do to "fix" those kind of
problems. Also, red-eye is much less of a problem with the C-2000Z than with
my Nikon. Yes, red-eye plagues almost all compact cameras, it's just that the
Nikon seemed to be more troublesome than most. In fact, at times the red-eye
was so severe that it "blossomed" slightly beyond the perimeter of
the eye itself! Plus, there were many times where not a trace of the original
eye color was left, so fixing the red-eye was not easy. The 2000Z, on the
other hand, seems better with its red-eye reduction mode off, than the Nikon
with its on. With red-eye reduction mode on, there is an even greater
difference. This is most likely due to the fact that the Nikon's flash is
literally right next to the lens (which is necessary due to its swivel
design). |
|
|
Decent battery life. At
first glance the battery life of the 2000Z seemed about the same--maybe
slightly better--than my Coolpix 900. I think I may have underestimated the
2000Z's battery life: I brought the camera along to an Unlimited Hydroplane race (fast, expensive,
boats). After getting settled in, I went to take a shot or two, only to find
out I forgot to change the batteries (NiMh that I had been using for 2-3
days) and was already getting the low battery flash--with no spares. I was
still able to shoot over 30 pictures over the next couple of hours (often
leaving the camera on waiting for the right shot). I took all the shots I
really wanted and still had a little juice left over. My Nikon 900 would have
been completely dead soon after the battery warning--one or two
shots thereafter, at the maximum (possibly squeezing out a few more after the
camera sat for awhile). |
What I don't like:
|
|
Lens cap. Since it's not
attached to anything, it's real easy to lose. Then, there's the fact that the
lens cap pops off on its own if you happen to turn the camera on. I would
have at least liked the cap to be tethered in some way. Maybe I'm missing
something here? |
|
|
LCD. Yes it's clear,
bright, has a zoom for photo review, blah blah blah. But, what's with the
1.8" thing? A 2" LCD should be the minimum, in my opinion. |
|
|
After-shot review. OK,
you're supposed to get a big three seconds to review the shot on the LCD
after it's been taken. Thanks, but no thanks. First, Olympus must be
measuring in nanoseconds, since it doesn't even seem as long as three seconds
to me. And, there's no way to extend this time--nor delete the image before
it's saved. Since SmartMedia is already more limited, in capacity, compared
to Compact Flash, the ability to immediately delete an unwanted shot would be
nice. Plus, you really have no time to quickly show someone their just-taken
photo for their approval, as the photo is off the screen by the time you turn
the camera around for them to see. The flip side is that it is very quick to
go into Review mode to show/delete the photo (and just as quick, or even
faster, to return to a capture mode). |
|
|
????. I'm leaving this spot blank because I know I'll find something else to complain about, eventually. |
I'm sure I'll have more to add regarding the C-2000Z in the near
future.
Email
me at mlynch@ctaz.com.
Visitors
since 8/28/05:
Visitors
since 9/22/97:
185,212
(My Libretto 100MHZ overclock guide.)