Reading mode: Light Dark

C-730 going in for repair - sample photos - poor quality - opinions please

Go to last post
When you get your camera back. For the "Auto" mode you're wanting to use..... set the camera to P mode. It works a lot like Auto, but gives better options to change and gives better end results also. You can set the camera to the setting's you like and then leave it there.... shooting away like it was set in Auto mode, with no need to be changing things all the time.

Hope it gets back in time for your trip.

Good luck
 
Sanpete said:
saint-laurent said:
It's a really fragile camera
that needs extra care.
Click to expand...
Sounds like yours was defective. What do you base this last
comment on, though? Did the problems you described result from
bumping the camera or something?
Click to expand...
No, it is purely my impression especially the noise while zooming and focusing. I also found that the lens (which is extended out when the camera is turned on) is not tightly screwed to the body, it is shakeable to the sides. Despite all these problems, I still find this camera provide the best value for money in terms of features.
 
From your samples it does appear that the 3000 shows less noise,

but because they're not of the same subject under the same lighting conditions it's hard to really know for sure.

It also looks like the 730's noise is being "amplified" by strong JPEG compression -- are you shooting in "HQ" quality? Try SHQ instead. It might be that the 730's HQ mode uses stronger compression than the 3000's.
wdwms said:
Everyone on here has been very helpful, thanks for your suggestions
and help!

As it stands now, I've tried all the ideas that people listed, and
even under ISO100 with pixel mapping, etc.. The pictures just don't
look good. I'm getting a lot of blue edges on white objects too,
and even in a room with a flash, i'm not getting sharp photos.. As
i've found out the "Auto" mode on this camera is the biggest joke...

So the camera is boxed up and headed out to Olympus.. if they can't
fix it, I'm not sure what I'll do. Possibly sell it and go with
something else. Disspointed though, the 10x zoom would come in so
handy on our upcoming trip to Australia...I'm a casual
photographer, and I'm not much for constantly fiddling with the
thing just to get a decent photo. Not to say I need "Auto" to
actually work, but when my 1.6MP Kodak is out shooting this one in
terms of quality.. something is wrong...

For comparison, here is a portion (cropped, not rescaled, so you
are seeing the true size) of a photo I took over the weekend at ISO
100.. the exif info is missing so here it is:
Exposure time: 1/30
F-stop: 2.8
ISO speed: 100
Focal length: 5.9000
Flash: 25
Orientation: Top-left
Light source: Unknown
Exposure bias: 0.0000
Metering mode: Pattern
Exposure program: Normal
Digitized date/time: 2002:11:28 14:18:11
Modified date/time: 2002:11:28 14:18:11
Image description: OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Compression: 6
Camera make: OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD
Camera model: C730UZ
X resolution: 72.0000
Y resolution: 72.0000
Resolution unit: Inches
Camera version: v556u-77
Colorspace: sRGB
File source: DSC

http://www.disneycorner.com/iso100-2.jpg

and another i had done at iso100

http://www.disneycorner.com/iso100.jpg
Click to expand...
 
I can't recall exactly where, but I seem to remember a fairly recent thread where the "play" (shakeable to the sides) in the telescoping lens cameras was discussed as a necessary/intended "feature". Anyone else remember and/or able to post a pointer to the thread?
saint-laurent said:
No, it is purely my impression especially the noise while zooming
and focusing. I also found that the lens (which is extended out
when the camera is turned on) is not tightly screwed to the body,
it is shakeable to the sides. Despite all these problems, I still
find this camera provide the best value for money in terms of
features.
Click to expand...
 
Inigo Montoya said:
From your samples it does appear that the 3000 shows less noise,
but because they're not of the same subject under the same lighting
conditions it's hard to really know for sure.

It also looks like the 730's noise is being "amplified" by strong
JPEG compression -- are you shooting in "HQ" quality? Try SHQ
instead. It might be that the 730's HQ mode uses stronger
compression than the 3000's.
Click to expand...
with my C-700:

I generally shot all my pictures in SHQ mode 1600x1200=1,920,000.
this gave me a file size of around 950 - 1050 kb

with my C-730:

I'm again shooting at SHQ mode, 2048x1536=3,145,728
this is giving me a file size of 1050 - 1150 kb.

this obviously means that with the C-730, the files are more compressed. This is a setting I have NO CONTROL over. I'm sure this has an impact on picture quality. I have 3 128 meg cards, I'd have no problem at all shooting 2000 kb picture with less compression. I'd sure like to see the difference but this must be a firmware thing? It's frustrating not to have any control over the compression.

--
C-700 and C-730 ULTRA ZOOM
FL-40 Flash, bracket and cable
Canon S900 printer
http://www.pbase.com/galleries/donald_spencer
(pbase supporter)
 
The lens is supposed to be loose, has been since the C-700. To protect the lens, you can get the tube adapter and a UV filter. That's a good investment for any camera.
Inigo Montoya said:
saint-laurent said:
No, it is purely my impression especially the noise while zooming
and focusing. I also found that the lens (which is extended out
when the camera is turned on) is not tightly screwed to the body,
it is shakeable to the sides. Despite all these problems, I still
find this camera provide the best value for money in terms of
features.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
For shots that don't require fast shot to shot times, you might want to try shooting TIFF to see if it makes any difference. The TIFF files aren't compressed at all.
Donald Spencer said:
Inigo Montoya said:
From your samples it does appear that the 3000 shows less noise,
but because they're not of the same subject under the same lighting
conditions it's hard to really know for sure.

It also looks like the 730's noise is being "amplified" by strong
JPEG compression -- are you shooting in "HQ" quality? Try SHQ
instead. It might be that the 730's HQ mode uses stronger
compression than the 3000's.
Click to expand...
with my C-700:

I generally shot all my pictures in SHQ mode 1600x1200=1,920,000.
this gave me a file size of around 950 - 1050 kb

with my C-730:

I'm again shooting at SHQ mode, 2048x1536=3,145,728
this is giving me a file size of 1050 - 1150 kb.

this obviously means that with the C-730, the files are more
compressed. This is a setting I have NO CONTROL over. I'm sure this
has an impact on picture quality. I have 3 128 meg cards, I'd have
no problem at all shooting 2000 kb picture with less compression.
I'd sure like to see the difference but this must be a firmware
thing? It's frustrating not to have any control over the
compression.

--
C-700 and C-730 ULTRA ZOOM
FL-40 Flash, bracket and cable
Canon S900 printer
http://www.pbase.com/galleries/donald_spencer
(pbase supporter)
Click to expand...
 
According to the Imaging Resources review it compress at 5:1 for SHQ and 12:1 for HQ on the 730.

My files are pretty much averaging the same size as yours. For the most part the samples from reviews have been around the same also. I did find one of the house shots from IR review that was a little over 1400kb. It had a number of trees in the image making for more detail. The more detail in a jpeg the larger the file will be. I used photoimpact to check the compression on one of the 1100kb files and it was in fact 5:1 compression. I guess you really need to have a LOT of detail to get up to the max size of 2mb for the SHQ files.

The 700 must have had a little lower compression on the SHQ files for it.
Donald Spencer said:
Inigo Montoya said:
From your samples it does appear that the 3000 shows less noise,
but because they're not of the same subject under the same lighting
conditions it's hard to really know for sure.

It also looks like the 730's noise is being "amplified" by strong
JPEG compression -- are you shooting in "HQ" quality? Try SHQ
instead. It might be that the 730's HQ mode uses stronger
compression than the 3000's.
Click to expand...
with my C-700:

I generally shot all my pictures in SHQ mode 1600x1200=1,920,000.
this gave me a file size of around 950 - 1050 kb

with my C-730:

I'm again shooting at SHQ mode, 2048x1536=3,145,728
this is giving me a file size of 1050 - 1150 kb.

this obviously means that with the C-730, the files are more
compressed. This is a setting I have NO CONTROL over. I'm sure this
has an impact on picture quality. I have 3 128 meg cards, I'd have
no problem at all shooting 2000 kb picture with less compression.
I'd sure like to see the difference but this must be a firmware
thing? It's frustrating not to have any control over the
compression.

--
C-700 and C-730 ULTRA ZOOM
FL-40 Flash, bracket and cable
Canon S900 printer
http://www.pbase.com/galleries/donald_spencer
(pbase supporter)
Click to expand...
 
Sanpete said:
For shots that don't require fast shot to shot times, you might
want to try shooting TIFF to see if it makes any difference. The
TIFF files aren't compressed at all.
Click to expand...
Here's the funny thing, i took photos with Tiff instead of JPG, and i still got the grainy photos.. so JPG compression is not the problem.. bad CCD imager? the camera is off to olympus repair, so we'll know in a week or so..

-Todd
 
At this point I'd say it's your camera/CCD. I have taken few indoors pics, but I don't think there is all that noise, you can check my gallery. I hope this story will have a good end. Keep us informed, as you can see we are all interested.

--
C-730 owner - image gallery at:
http://www.pbase.com/antonio_2
 
Bradly,

I have studied the IR images (not just looked) and my conclusion that C730 is a noisy (compare to others with 1/1.8” CCD) camera. The C730 pixel is more than half as a standard 1/1.8” CCD pixel. That makes the signal to noise ratio more than two times smaller. But in return the small CCD allow to make a small (dimensionally) x10 zoom which we all love. The C700 has the same CCD size bur less number of pixels and a pixel is larger than for C730. That makes C700 less noisy. I have found through IR test images for low light that Fuji 602 makes very clean images bur it is very bulky and have only x6 zoom. The 602 pixel is bigger because of its shape Did you checked the 602 noise?
Leo
Bradly said:
My files are pretty much averaging the same size as yours. For the
most part the samples from reviews have been around the same also.
I did find one of the house shots from IR review that was a little
over 1400kb. It had a number of trees in the image making for more
detail. The more detail in a jpeg the larger the file will be. I
used photoimpact to check the compression on one of the 1100kb
files and it was in fact 5:1 compression. I guess you really need
to have a LOT of detail to get up to the max size of 2mb for the
SHQ files.

The 700 must have had a little lower compression on the SHQ files
for it.
Donald Spencer said:
Inigo Montoya said:
From your samples it does appear that the 3000 shows less noise,
but because they're not of the same subject under the same lighting
conditions it's hard to really know for sure.

It also looks like the 730's noise is being "amplified" by strong
JPEG compression -- are you shooting in "HQ" quality? Try SHQ
instead. It might be that the 730's HQ mode uses stronger
compression than the 3000's.
Click to expand...
with my C-700:

I generally shot all my pictures in SHQ mode 1600x1200=1,920,000.
this gave me a file size of around 950 - 1050 kb

with my C-730:

I'm again shooting at SHQ mode, 2048x1536=3,145,728
this is giving me a file size of 1050 - 1150 kb.

this obviously means that with the C-730, the files are more
compressed. This is a setting I have NO CONTROL over. I'm sure this
has an impact on picture quality. I have 3 128 meg cards, I'd have
no problem at all shooting 2000 kb picture with less compression.
I'd sure like to see the difference but this must be a firmware
thing? It's frustrating not to have any control over the
compression.

--
C-700 and C-730 ULTRA ZOOM
FL-40 Flash, bracket and cable
Canon S900 printer
http://www.pbase.com/galleries/donald_spencer
(pbase supporter)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Please keep us up to date on this.... I'm very curious to see how this all comes out.

I have three good friends who have been amazed by the pictures I've printed from the C-700, they're all ready to buy a digital camera.
wdwms said:
Sanpete said:
For shots that don't require fast shot to shot times, you might
want to try shooting TIFF to see if it makes any difference. The
TIFF files aren't compressed at all.
Click to expand...
Here's the funny thing, i took photos with Tiff instead of JPG, and
i still got the grainy photos.. so JPG compression is not the
problem.. bad CCD imager? the camera is off to olympus repair, so
we'll know in a week or so..

-Todd
Click to expand...
--
C-700 and C-730 ULTRA ZOOM
FL-40 Flash, bracket and cable
Canon S900 printer
http://www.pbase.com/galleries/donald_spencer
(pbase supporter)
 
that look really bad, even for a low quality setting. Is it that bad at SHQ? I never use HQ because it's too much compression but the c730 seams to be compressing even more than my c700. Do you have any photo at SHQ?
wdwms said:
All,
I'm a newbie to this forum but wanted to get some opinions on this
forum. In early Nov I got a C-730, hoping it to be a BIG step up
from my little Kodak DC260. So far, other than the super macro i've
been less than impressed. Here is what i've experienced so far:

• Photos from camera are often grainy and out of focus – just poor
overall quality
• Camera struggles from time to time focusing on objects
• Low light or indoors? fogettabout it!
• Pressing the monitor button does not turn on the monitor in all
modes except Auto. - Just started doing this last night
• Pressing “OK” button does not turn on monitor in all modes except
Auto. Therefore all settings must be made by looking through the
viewfinder - Just started doing this last night as well.

So I called Olympus Tech support. Kudos to them, they were more
than helpful, but to make a long story short, i emailed them 2 test
shots taken at HQ, one with flash one without. And they agreed that
I had a bum camera.. :( So its off to the repair shop.. hope i can
get it back by xmas.

For those interested, and those who wish to comment or voice an
opinion, here are the test photos I sent.





Hopefully someone will agree that these shots are not up to the
capabilities of the C-730..

A disspointed user..
Todd
Click to expand...
--
Daniella
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=26918
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
C700 FORUM: http://www.c700uz.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top