Kodak 290 vs. Olympus c2500

Troy said:

I am looking to make a purchase in the next month, and I have narrowed it
down to these two models. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

I am also looking into a new personal photo printer. Is there a better
one that the Epson photo 850? For the sub $500 market, I haven't found a
comparable 6-color printer.

Thanks

Troy

Click to expand...

Troy said:

I am looking to make a purchase in the next month, and I have narrowed it
down to these two models. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

I am also looking into a new personal photo printer. Is there a better
one that the Epson photo 850? For the sub $500 market, I haven't found a
comparable 6-color printer.

Thanks

Troy

Click to expand...

Robert14608 said:

There are three problems with DC 290 that I think are serious (at least
for the kind of work I'm doing - photographing presentation boards from
distance of 2-5 feet):

1. The zoom is impossible to adjust accurately - it jumps too much (it's
too fast) and accurate framing is practically impossible (I have to move
the camera and the tripod; luckily the tripod is on wheels).

2. The autofocus is inadequate and very often (when shooting at 2-5 feet)
gives out of focus images or complains that it's "out of range" even
though in theory the object is inside the focus range (I got this error
very often for distances of about 3 feet and zoom in the middle of its
range). However, for casual shooting the autofocus seems to be doing OK.

3. The manual focus is also inadequate and difficult to use (because you
have to acces a script to adjust it, which takes too much time). I also
observed that the manual focus settings have little to do with reality.
When I set the focus to 2m and the camera was precisely 2m from the
board, the images were slightly out of focus. I downloaded a script from
the net, allowing me to set focus more precisely (e.g to 1.2, 1.5 and 1.7
m), but found out that it didn't improve situation a lot - the results
were random (sometimes the board was in focus, sometimes not, depending -
I guess - on the zoom setting and also probably on the phase of the
Moon). The only setting that gave me some repeatable results was 1m - it
allowed me to take sharp pictures in 3-4 feet range. But I had to flood
the boards with 1200W of quartz lights, shining from about 3 feet (to get
adequate focus depth). The bottom line: the focusing mechanism is
mechanically imprecise and is not good enough if you want to obtain high
quality REPEATABLE results in studio conditions. But again, for casual
shooting it should be adequate.

Click to expand...

Robert14608 said:

The advantages of the camera (in terms of image quality):

1. The lens has almost no geometric distortions both in wide and in
zoomed in setting (I checked this carefully, since I was shooting
rectangular boards).

2. The colors are very good, although for the halogen lamps the "auto"
white balance was slighlty worse than manual "tungsten" setting.

3. I haven't noticed any color fringing.

4. When focused properly (which takes some trial and error), the
resolution is really good and images are pleasing and natural.

5. You can take long exposures (up to 16 secs) and the results are
astonishingly noise-free (there must be some kind of processing going on
in the camera, to remove hot pixels etc.). I shot a few pictures in
virually dark room (illuminated only by a computer monitor) and was
surprised by how good the images were (low noise + natural colors). The
camera seems to be perfect for night shots of city streets etc.

Personally, if I were to decide, I would most likely choose Kodak -
because of the USB connectability. On the other hand, however, you can
buy a memory card reader for the Olympus and have comparably fast
connection...

By the way: if you order Kodak, order also AC adapter and a camera bag -
both things are really helpful (AC adapter is about $30, bag about $20).

In any case, I think you shouldn't be disappointed if you buy DC 290.
It's a decent camera, although not perfect. I haven't used Olympus, but I
hope my information helps you make up your mind.

Sorry for awkward English, I'm not a native speaker.

Good luck!

Robert

Click to expand...

anonymous said:

Derek W. said:

There are three problems with DC 290 that I think are serious (at least
for the kind of work I'm doing - photographing presentation boards from
distance of 2-5 feet):

1. The zoom is impossible to adjust accurately - it jumps too much (it's
too fast) and accurate framing is practically impossible (I have to move
the camera and the tripod; luckily the tripod is on wheels).

2. The autofocus is inadequate and very often (when shooting at 2-5 feet)
gives out of focus images or complains that it's "out of range" even
though in theory the object is inside the focus range (I got this error
very often for distances of about 3 feet and zoom in the middle of its
range). However, for casual shooting the autofocus seems to be doing OK.

3. The manual focus is also inadequate and difficult to use (because you
have to acces a script to adjust it, which takes too much time). I also
observed that the manual focus settings have little to do with reality.
When I set the focus to 2m and the camera was precisely 2m from the
board, the images were slightly out of focus. I downloaded a script from
the net, allowing me to set focus more precisely (e.g to 1.2, 1.5 and 1.7
m), but found out that it didn't improve situation a lot - the results
were random (sometimes the board was in focus, sometimes not, depending -
I guess - on the zoom setting and also probably on the phase of the
Moon). The only setting that gave me some repeatable results was 1m - it
allowed me to take sharp pictures in 3-4 feet range. But I had to flood
the boards with 1200W of quartz lights, shining from about 3 feet (to get
adequate focus depth). The bottom line: the focusing mechanism is
mechanically imprecise and is not good enough if you want to obtain high
quality REPEATABLE results in studio conditions. But again, for casual
shooting it should be adequate.

Click to expand...

That pretty much sums up my experience as well. The focus and zoom suck!
WHat good are the pictures if you can't focus on the subject?

Derek W. said:

The advantages of the camera (in terms of image quality):

1. The lens has almost no geometric distortions both in wide and in
zoomed in setting (I checked this carefully, since I was shooting
rectangular boards).

2. The colors are very good, although for the halogen lamps the "auto"
white balance was slighlty worse than manual "tungsten" setting.

3. I haven't noticed any color fringing.

4. When focused properly (which takes some trial and error), the
resolution is really good and images are pleasing and natural.

5. You can take long exposures (up to 16 secs) and the results are
astonishingly noise-free (there must be some kind of processing going on
in the camera, to remove hot pixels etc.). I shot a few pictures in
virually dark room (illuminated only by a computer monitor) and was
surprised by how good the images were (low noise + natural colors). The
camera seems to be perfect for night shots of city streets etc.

Personally, if I were to decide, I would most likely choose Kodak -
because of the USB connectability. On the other hand, however, you can
buy a memory card reader for the Olympus and have comparably fast
connection...

By the way: if you order Kodak, order also AC adapter and a camera bag -
both things are really helpful (AC adapter is about $30, bag about $20).

In any case, I think you shouldn't be disappointed if you buy DC 290.
It's a decent camera, although not perfect. I haven't used Olympus, but I
hope my information helps you make up your mind.

Sorry for awkward English, I'm not a native speaker.

Good luck!

Robert

Click to expand...

I think you WILL be disappointed with the Kodak -- especially if you can
rent both cameras first and then compare them side-by-side. And what's
the problem with getting a CF reader, anyway? THe Sandisk USB CF reader
(which is MUCH faster than a USB connection) is only about $35. THat way
you can be offloading pictures from one card while using another to
continue taking photos.

Click to expand...

Robert said:

anonymous said:

Robert14608 said:

There are three problems with DC 290 that I think are serious (at least
for the kind of work I'm doing - photographing presentation boards from
distance of 2-5 feet):

1. The zoom is impossible to adjust accurately - it jumps too much (it's
too fast) and accurate framing is practically impossible (I have to move
the camera and the tripod; luckily the tripod is on wheels).

2. The autofocus is inadequate and very often (when shooting at 2-5 feet)
gives out of focus images or complains that it's "out of range" even
though in theory the object is inside the focus range (I got this error
very often for distances of about 3 feet and zoom in the middle of its
range). However, for casual shooting the autofocus seems to be doing OK.

3. The manual focus is also inadequate and difficult to use (because you
have to acces a script to adjust it, which takes too much time). I also
observed that the manual focus settings have little to do with reality.
When I set the focus to 2m and the camera was precisely 2m from the
board, the images were slightly out of focus. I downloaded a script from
the net, allowing me to set focus more precisely (e.g to 1.2, 1.5 and 1.7
m), but found out that it didn't improve situation a lot - the results
were random (sometimes the board was in focus, sometimes not, depending -
I guess - on the zoom setting and also probably on the phase of the
Moon). The only setting that gave me some repeatable results was 1m - it
allowed me to take sharp pictures in 3-4 feet range. But I had to flood
the boards with 1200W of quartz lights, shining from about 3 feet (to get
adequate focus depth). The bottom line: the focusing mechanism is
mechanically imprecise and is not good enough if you want to obtain high
quality REPEATABLE results in studio conditions. But again, for casual
shooting it should be adequate.

Click to expand...

That pretty much sums up my experience as well. The focus and zoom suck!
WHat good are the pictures if you can't focus on the subject?

Robert14608 said:

The advantages of the camera (in terms of image quality):

1. The lens has almost no geometric distortions both in wide and in
zoomed in setting (I checked this carefully, since I was shooting
rectangular boards).

2. The colors are very good, although for the halogen lamps the "auto"
white balance was slighlty worse than manual "tungsten" setting.

3. I haven't noticed any color fringing.

4. When focused properly (which takes some trial and error), the
resolution is really good and images are pleasing and natural.

5. You can take long exposures (up to 16 secs) and the results are
astonishingly noise-free (there must be some kind of processing going on
in the camera, to remove hot pixels etc.). I shot a few pictures in
virually dark room (illuminated only by a computer monitor) and was
surprised by how good the images were (low noise + natural colors). The
camera seems to be perfect for night shots of city streets etc.

Personally, if I were to decide, I would most likely choose Kodak -
because of the USB connectability. On the other hand, however, you can
buy a memory card reader for the Olympus and have comparably fast
connection...

By the way: if you order Kodak, order also AC adapter and a camera bag -
both things are really helpful (AC adapter is about $30, bag about $20).

In any case, I think you shouldn't be disappointed if you buy DC 290.
It's a decent camera, although not perfect. I haven't used Olympus, but I
hope my information helps you make up your mind.

Sorry for awkward English, I'm not a native speaker.

Good luck!

Robert

Click to expand...

I think you WILL be disappointed with the Kodak -- especially if you can
rent both cameras first and then compare them side-by-side. And what's
the problem with getting a CF reader, anyway? THe Sandisk USB CF reader
(which is MUCH faster than a USB connection) is only about $35. THat way
you can be offloading pictures from one card while using another to
continue taking photos.

Click to expand...

I guess it depends on the use of the camera. I took many pictures with DC
290 during parties or while hiking and I have no complaints about them.
The problems arose only in the semi-professional usage (photographing the
boards), but then again - this is NOT a professional camera, it's just a
(overpriced, like most of the new digicams) consumer-level gadget (well,
maybe I'm to harsh here). You are right about the CF reader - I just
personally liked the fact that Kodak came with the whole "package" and it
wasn't necessary to buy the reader. But that's just my weird approach...
I guess my decisions are not perfectly logical.

Robert

Click to expand...

Leon Wittwer said:

Robert said:

anonymous said:

Leon Wittwer said:

There are three problems with DC 290 that I think are serious (at least
for the kind of work I'm doing - photographing presentation boards from
distance of 2-5 feet):

1. The zoom is impossible to adjust accurately - it jumps too much (it's
too fast) and accurate framing is practically impossible (I have to move
the camera and the tripod; luckily the tripod is on wheels).

2. The autofocus is inadequate and very often (when shooting at 2-5 feet)
gives out of focus images or complains that it's "out of range" even
though in theory the object is inside the focus range (I got this error
very often for distances of about 3 feet and zoom in the middle of its
range). However, for casual shooting the autofocus seems to be doing OK.

3. The manual focus is also inadequate and difficult to use (because you
have to acces a script to adjust it, which takes too much time). I also
observed that the manual focus settings have little to do with reality.
When I set the focus to 2m and the camera was precisely 2m from the
board, the images were slightly out of focus. I downloaded a script from
the net, allowing me to set focus more precisely (e.g to 1.2, 1.5 and 1.7
m), but found out that it didn't improve situation a lot - the results
were random (sometimes the board was in focus, sometimes not, depending -
I guess - on the zoom setting and also probably on the phase of the
Moon). The only setting that gave me some repeatable results was 1m - it
allowed me to take sharp pictures in 3-4 feet range. But I had to flood
the boards with 1200W of quartz lights, shining from about 3 feet (to get
adequate focus depth). The bottom line: the focusing mechanism is
mechanically imprecise and is not good enough if you want to obtain high
quality REPEATABLE results in studio conditions. But again, for casual
shooting it should be adequate.

Click to expand...

That pretty much sums up my experience as well. The focus and zoom suck!
WHat good are the pictures if you can't focus on the subject?

Leon Wittwer said:

The advantages of the camera (in terms of image quality):

1. The lens has almost no geometric distortions both in wide and in
zoomed in setting (I checked this carefully, since I was shooting
rectangular boards).

2. The colors are very good, although for the halogen lamps the "auto"
white balance was slighlty worse than manual "tungsten" setting.

3. I haven't noticed any color fringing.

4. When focused properly (which takes some trial and error), the
resolution is really good and images are pleasing and natural.

5. You can take long exposures (up to 16 secs) and the results are
astonishingly noise-free (there must be some kind of processing going on
in the camera, to remove hot pixels etc.). I shot a few pictures in
virually dark room (illuminated only by a computer monitor) and was
surprised by how good the images were (low noise + natural colors). The
camera seems to be perfect for night shots of city streets etc.

Personally, if I were to decide, I would most likely choose Kodak -
because of the USB connectability. On the other hand, however, you can
buy a memory card reader for the Olympus and have comparably fast
connection...

By the way: if you order Kodak, order also AC adapter and a camera bag -
both things are really helpful (AC adapter is about $30, bag about $20).

In any case, I think you shouldn't be disappointed if you buy DC 290.
It's a decent camera, although not perfect. I haven't used Olympus, but I
hope my information helps you make up your mind.

Sorry for awkward English, I'm not a native speaker.

Good luck!

Robert

Click to expand...

I think you WILL be disappointed with the Kodak -- especially if you can
rent both cameras first and then compare them side-by-side. And what's
the problem with getting a CF reader, anyway? THe Sandisk USB CF reader
(which is MUCH faster than a USB connection) is only about $35. THat way
you can be offloading pictures from one card while using another to
continue taking photos.

Click to expand...

I guess it depends on the use of the camera. I took many pictures with DC
290 during parties or while hiking and I have no complaints about them.
The problems arose only in the semi-professional usage (photographing the
boards), but then again - this is NOT a professional camera, it's just a
(overpriced, like most of the new digicams) consumer-level gadget (well,
maybe I'm to harsh here). You are right about the CF reader - I just
personally liked the fact that Kodak came with the whole "package" and it
wasn't necessary to buy the reader. But that's just my weird approach...
I guess my decisions are not perfectly logical.

Robert

Click to expand...

Robert, There apparently is control of the zoom speed via Digita
scripts. I plan on experimenting with it to get a slower but more
controllable zoom. Regarding the focus, you might try experimenting with
the single spot focus. It seems to do a better job with focusing. In
general, though, I've been pretty satisfied with the focus of the 290. I
do a lot of outdoor landscapes and the Kodak colors are very good and
true. I like the somewhat softness of the 290 shots. I prefer to
sharpen in Photoshop. In any event, the 290 gives control of camera
sharpening to the user via a script. The Kodak is also very good and
likely the best of the consumer cameras in night shots. I've done a
number of them and the color balance is very good. I downloaded a number
of night shots from a Japanese site a while back and the Kodak shots were
by far the best. On the other hand, the camera is slow. No actions
shots with the 290 unless you have very good light or a good flash.

Click to expand...

Robert said:

anonymous said:

Robert14608 said:

There are three problems with DC 290 that I think are serious (at least
for the kind of work I'm doing - photographing presentation boards from
distance of 2-5 feet):

1. The zoom is impossible to adjust accurately - it jumps too much (it's
too fast) and accurate framing is practically impossible (I have to move
the camera and the tripod; luckily the tripod is on wheels).

2. The autofocus is inadequate and very often (when shooting at 2-5 feet)
gives out of focus images or complains that it's "out of range" even
though in theory the object is inside the focus range (I got this error
very often for distances of about 3 feet and zoom in the middle of its
range). However, for casual shooting the autofocus seems to be doing OK.

3. The manual focus is also inadequate and difficult to use (because you
have to acces a script to adjust it, which takes too much time). I also
observed that the manual focus settings have little to do with reality.
When I set the focus to 2m and the camera was precisely 2m from the
board, the images were slightly out of focus. I downloaded a script from
the net, allowing me to set focus more precisely (e.g to 1.2, 1.5 and 1.7
m), but found out that it didn't improve situation a lot - the results
were random (sometimes the board was in focus, sometimes not, depending -
I guess - on the zoom setting and also probably on the phase of the
Moon). The only setting that gave me some repeatable results was 1m - it
allowed me to take sharp pictures in 3-4 feet range. But I had to flood
the boards with 1200W of quartz lights, shining from about 3 feet (to get
adequate focus depth). The bottom line: the focusing mechanism is
mechanically imprecise and is not good enough if you want to obtain high
quality REPEATABLE results in studio conditions. But again, for casual
shooting it should be adequate.

Click to expand...

That pretty much sums up my experience as well. The focus and zoom suck!
WHat good are the pictures if you can't focus on the subject?

Robert14608 said:

The advantages of the camera (in terms of image quality):

1. The lens has almost no geometric distortions both in wide and in
zoomed in setting (I checked this carefully, since I was shooting
rectangular boards).

2. The colors are very good, although for the halogen lamps the "auto"
white balance was slighlty worse than manual "tungsten" setting.

3. I haven't noticed any color fringing.

4. When focused properly (which takes some trial and error), the
resolution is really good and images are pleasing and natural.

5. You can take long exposures (up to 16 secs) and the results are
astonishingly noise-free (there must be some kind of processing going on
in the camera, to remove hot pixels etc.). I shot a few pictures in
virually dark room (illuminated only by a computer monitor) and was
surprised by how good the images were (low noise + natural colors). The
camera seems to be perfect for night shots of city streets etc.

Personally, if I were to decide, I would most likely choose Kodak -
because of the USB connectability. On the other hand, however, you can
buy a memory card reader for the Olympus and have comparably fast
connection...

By the way: if you order Kodak, order also AC adapter and a camera bag -
both things are really helpful (AC adapter is about $30, bag about $20).

In any case, I think you shouldn't be disappointed if you buy DC 290.
It's a decent camera, although not perfect. I haven't used Olympus, but I
hope my information helps you make up your mind.

Sorry for awkward English, I'm not a native speaker.

Good luck!

Robert

Click to expand...

I think you WILL be disappointed with the Kodak -- especially if you can
rent both cameras first and then compare them side-by-side. And what's
the problem with getting a CF reader, anyway? THe Sandisk USB CF reader
(which is MUCH faster than a USB connection) is only about $35. THat way
you can be offloading pictures from one card while using another to
continue taking photos.

Click to expand...

I guess it depends on the use of the camera. I took many pictures with DC
290 during parties or while hiking and I have no complaints about them.
The problems arose only in the semi-professional usage (photographing the
boards), but then again - this is NOT a professional camera, it's just a
(overpriced, like most of the new digicams) consumer-level gadget (well,
maybe I'm to harsh here). You are right about the CF reader - I just
personally liked the fact that Kodak came with the whole "package" and it
wasn't necessary to buy the reader. But that's just my weird approach...
I guess my decisions are not perfectly logical.

Robert

Click to expand...

• Derek W.

Fred H. said:

Francis C.F.P.: [ what does C.F.P. stand for?]
Someone posted some side-by-side images fom the Nikon 950 taken with
version 1.1 and version 1.2. I was impressed with the difference in
quality between the two and as I noted elsewhere I have had to change my
opinion on the image quality of the 950 a bit. My question to you is -
was there a difference that you noticed between ver 1.2 and 1.3 of was
the difference mainly between 1.1 and 1.2?

Fred H.

Click to expand...

Francis C.F.P. said:

Fred H. said:

Francis C.F.P.: [ what does C.F.P. stand for?]
Someone posted some side-by-side images fom the Nikon 950 taken with
version 1.1 and version 1.2. I was impressed with the difference in
quality between the two and as I noted elsewhere I have had to change my
opinion on the image quality of the 950 a bit. My question to you is -
was there a difference that you noticed between ver 1.2 and 1.3 of was
the difference mainly between 1.1 and 1.2?

Fred H.

Click to expand...

C.F.P. is the abreviation of my name. Francis is my Christian name.
After upgrading to V1.2, I still not much satisfied with the WB, colour
is still not rich enough (of course, the original object is rich in
colour), I ought to use Contrast mode a lot to boost it, overall colour
is still leaning towards cool side, though less. After upgrading to V1.3, I'm
eagerlywant to know the WB performance since I'm in the cross-road of
switching to other brands if I'm still not satisfied with the 950 colour. After
test shooting, I found that the colour has improved, no more cool, skin
tone is good, overall colour balance is very good, may not be the best.
There is sometimes a very little pink cast in white areas, the deep red &
deep blue seemed a little bit over, but they can be corrected easily in
PS without affecting the smoothless of gradation. Even without
correction, most people would not notice that if not mentioned.

In general, I'm satisfied with the overall colour of 950 with V1.3,
though may not be the best (remember I'm colour sensitive). I'll retrieve
some picture files shot with V1.2 before & try to shoot again with V1.3,
compare them & see whether V1.3 has improved WB or not.

With V1.3, I think I'll keep my 950, instead of switching, I'll use the
money to purchase more add-on accessories to make my 950 a truely
powerful DC.

Glad to see Nikon hear us, though they don't admit the WB issue, they
really care. Wait for V1.4 which could make the 950 perfect, just my hope.

Firmware upgrading would be the trend of prosumer DC, it is not easy to
make a sophiscated DC perfect before it enters the competive market, so
upgrading firmware is the only way to correct bugs in firmware & improve
performance.

Welcome folks who can test the difference in WB between V1.2 & 1.3 &
input your valuable comments to share with us.

Click to expand...

Fred H. said:

Francis:

I'm very glad that you are much more satisfied with the image quality
from your 950 - the pain I had to go through was worth the satisfaction
you express. I am just wondering if I will get at least some credit for
possibly provoking Nikon to do something about the 'cool'ness. I have
always loved the terrific marketing ploy by Nikon to turn a negative
(blueness) into a positive (coolpix 950).
I also am interested if their latest fix has taken care of the problem
which I have noted with regard to the occasional blue patch.
I am very interested in seeing the difference in the quality you are
getting now - can you put some in a gallery (and indentify them as 1.3
pics)?

Fred H.

Click to expand...