Olympus SP 510 UZ

Ken Weitzel wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
> > I'm contemplating buying one. Does anyone have this camera and/or
> > anyone with opinions about it (pro/con)?
>
> Hi Sheldon...
>
> Don't have one; but do have an sp-350. Love it, but wish I'd
> bought the sp-500 (current at the time) for a few dollars more
> instead.
>
> The only heads-up that I can offer relates to Oly's claim of
> having image stabilization. It does have it, but unless it's
> changed it's very misleading. Applies *only* to the movie mode,
> not stills.

Thanks, Ken. I will look into its image stabilization claim.
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP 510 UZ 

Thank you for your input and all the positive comments... makes it much
easier for me to decide.

Mike Perkins wrote:
> On 26 Sep 2006 18:28:00 -0700, "Sheldon" <PENMART01 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm contemplating buying one. Does anyone have this camera and/or
> >anyone with opinions about it (pro/con)?
> >
> >Thanks
>
> I purchased one three weeks ago. Previous camera was an Olympus C-765
> UZ, which I still have. My lens adapter and 1.7 Teleconverter from the
> 765 will also fit the new 510.
>
> First, this camera does have Image Stabilization in both the movie and
> still picture mode. In very low light situations, it can be pretty
> noisy, but other than that, it performs well. Here are three pictures
> taken in action mode in the Metrodome in Minneapolis, which is a low
> light situation. All there were at approximately 50 yards or a little
> more. DIS was on in the first two. I provided the specs on each
> picture. Maximum Focal Length or Zoom is 63.0 mm. All I have done is
> resize these pictures and preserved the EXIF data. No filters were
> used on them so you can see how they came out.
>
> P9240225
> http://www.kansasviking.com/images/P9240225.jpg
> Aperture: F3.7
> Shutter Speed: 1/320
> DIS: On
> Lens Focal Length: 63.0 mm
> ISO: 1064
>
>
> P9240240
> http://www.kansasviking.com/images/P9240240.JPG
> Aperture: F3.7
> Shutter Speed: 1/400
> DIS: On
> Lens Focal Length: 61.9 mm
> ISO: 977
>
> Edwards
> http://www.kansasviking.com/images/edwards.jpg
> Aperture: F3.6
> Shutter Speed: 1/200
> DIS: Off
> Lens Focal Length: 57.1 mm
> ISO: 400
>
> Outdoor lighting use of this camera is great. I like the switch to
> Nimh batteries versus the old proprietary batteries. I charged 4 of
> these batteries, played with the camera for a couple of days and then
> shot 566 pictures and downloaded them to the computer. I had full
> sound on and used the 2.5" LCD screen most of the time. Shot an
> additional 250 pictures the next week before having to change the
> batteries. Most energy efficient camera I have used to date.
>
> Camera has a good feel to it and you can get a decent grip on it so
> that you can steady it while shooting. This little camera does an
> acceptable job for me in low light situations inside the stadium. Most
> of the pictures I take are put on my website after they are sized for
> optimum viewing. At 7.1 MP you can get decent pictures beyond 8x10.
> But if you are wanting to print larger photos, that were taken in low
> light with the DIS set to on, then you may not get the quality you
> want for your prints. With adequate lighting though, it will take good
> photos with the best of them.
>
> Again, for my needs this camera was a great upgrade to my 765
> especially for the money. I'd love to have a Canon 5D with a decent
> low light lens and plenty of zoom. Problem is, even if I could afford
> it, I couldn't get it into the Metrodome and I can take the SP-510 in
> and it's easy to use in a crowd.
>
> Still playing with the camera, but I hope this helps you out in your
> decision.
> --
> Mike
> The Kansas Viking
> www.kansasviking.com
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP 510 UZ 

On 26 Sep 2006 18:28:00 -0700, "Sheldon" <PENMART01.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:

>I'm contemplating buying one. Does anyone have this camera and/or
>anyone with opinions about it (pro/con)?
>
>Thanks

I purchased one three weeks ago. Previous camera was an Olympus C-765
UZ, which I still have. My lens adapter and 1.7 Teleconverter from the
765 will also fit the new 510.

First, this camera does have Image Stabilization in both the movie and
still picture mode. In very low light situations, it can be pretty
noisy, but other than that, it performs well. Here are three pictures
taken in action mode in the Metrodome in Minneapolis, which is a low
light situation. All there were at approximately 50 yards or a little
more. DIS was on in the first two. I provided the specs on each
picture. Maximum Focal Length or Zoom is 63.0 mm. All I have done is
resize these pictures and preserved the EXIF data. No filters were
used on them so you can see how they came out.

P9240225
http://www.kansasviking.com/images/P9240225.jpg
Aperture: F3.7
Shutter Speed: 1/320
DIS: On
Lens Focal Length: 63.0 mm
ISO: 1064


P9240240
http://www.kansasviking.com/images/P9240240.JPG
Aperture: F3.7
Shutter Speed: 1/400
DIS: On
Lens Focal Length: 61.9 mm
ISO: 977

Edwards
http://www.kansasviking.com/images/edwards.jpg
Aperture: F3.6
Shutter Speed: 1/200
DIS: Off
Lens Focal Length: 57.1 mm
ISO: 400

Outdoor lighting use of this camera is great. I like the switch to
Nimh batteries versus the old proprietary batteries. I charged 4 of
these batteries, played with the camera for a couple of days and then
shot 566 pictures and downloaded them to the computer. I had full
sound on and used the 2.5" LCD screen most of the time. Shot an
additional 250 pictures the next week before having to change the
batteries. Most energy efficient camera I have used to date.

Camera has a good feel to it and you can get a decent grip on it so
that you can steady it while shooting. This little camera does an
acceptable job for me in low light situations inside the stadium. Most
of the pictures I take are put on my website after they are sized for
optimum viewing. At 7.1 MP you can get decent pictures beyond 8x10.
But if you are wanting to print larger photos, that were taken in low
light with the DIS set to on, then you may not get the quality you
want for your prints. With adequate lighting though, it will take good
photos with the best of them.

Again, for my needs this camera was a great upgrade to my 765
especially for the money. I'd love to have a Canon 5D with a decent
low light lens and plenty of zoom. Problem is, even if I could afford
it, I couldn't get it into the Metrodome and I can take the SP-510 in
and it's easy to use in a crowd.

Still playing with the camera, but I hope this helps you out in your
decision.
--
Mike
The Kansas Viking
www.kansasviking.com
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP 510 UZ 

Mike Perkins wrote:
> On 26 Sep 2006 18:28:00 -0700, "Sheldon" <PENMART01.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm contemplating buying one. Does anyone have this camera and/or
>> anyone with opinions about it (pro/con)?
>>
>> Thanks
>
> I purchased one three weeks ago. Previous camera was an Olympus C-765
> UZ, which I still have. My lens adapter and 1.7 Teleconverter from the
> 765 will also fit the new 510.
>
> First, this camera does have Image Stabilization in both the movie and
> still picture mode. In very low light situations, it can be pretty
> noisy, but other than that, it performs well. Here are three pictures
> taken in action mode in the Metrodome in Minneapolis, which is a low
> light situation. All there were at approximately 50 yards or a little
> more. DIS was on in the first two. I provided the specs on each
> picture. Maximum Focal Length or Zoom is 63.0 mm. All I have done is
> resize these pictures and preserved the EXIF data. No filters were
> used on them so you can see how they came out.
>
> P9240225
> http://www.kansasviking.com/images/P9240225.jpg
> Aperture: F3.7
> Shutter Speed: 1/320
> DIS: On
> Lens Focal Length: 63.0 mm
> ISO: 1064
>
>
> P9240240
> http://www.kansasviking.com/images/P9240240.JPG
> Aperture: F3.7
> Shutter Speed: 1/400
> DIS: On
> Lens Focal Length: 61.9 mm
> ISO: 977
>
> Edwards
> http://www.kansasviking.com/images/edwards.jpg
> Aperture: F3.6
> Shutter Speed: 1/200
> DIS: Off
> Lens Focal Length: 57.1 mm
> ISO: 400
>
> Outdoor lighting use of this camera is great. I like the switch to
> Nimh batteries versus the old proprietary batteries. I charged 4 of
> these batteries, played with the camera for a couple of days and then
> shot 566 pictures and downloaded them to the computer. I had full
> sound on and used the 2.5" LCD screen most of the time. Shot an
> additional 250 pictures the next week before having to change the
> batteries. Most energy efficient camera I have used to date.
>
> Camera has a good feel to it and you can get a decent grip on it so
> that you can steady it while shooting. This little camera does an
> acceptable job for me in low light situations inside the stadium. Most
> of the pictures I take are put on my website after they are sized for
> optimum viewing. At 7.1 MP you can get decent pictures beyond 8x10.
> But if you are wanting to print larger photos, that were taken in low
> light with the DIS set to on, then you may not get the quality you
> want for your prints. With adequate lighting though, it will take good
> photos with the best of them.
>
> Again, for my needs this camera was a great upgrade to my 765
> especially for the money. I'd love to have a Canon 5D with a decent
> low light lens and plenty of zoom. Problem is, even if I could afford
> it, I couldn't get it into the Metrodome and I can take the SP-510 in
> and it's easy to use in a crowd.
>
> Still playing with the camera, but I hope this helps you out in your
> decision.

Hi...

Nice. Makes me wish even more that I'd gone the 500/510 route
instead of settling for the 350.

Something isn't quite right with the focus though.... durned thing
focused on the player, when clearly it should have focused on
the cheerleaders

Take care.

Ken
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP 510 UZ 

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 02:16:51 GMT, Ken Weitzel <kweitzel.RemoveThis@shaw.ca>
wrote:

>Something isn't quite right with the focus though.... durned thing
>focused on the player, when clearly it should have focused on
>the cheerleaders
>
>Take care.
>
>Ken

Yeah, but I fixed that.

http://www.kansasviking.com/imagescar06/P9170356.html
--
Mike
The Kansas Viking
www.kansasviking.com
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP 510 UZ 

Mike Perkins wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 02:16:51 GMT, Ken Weitzel <kweitzel.TakeThisOut@shaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >Something isn't quite right with the focus though.... durned thing
> >focused on the player, when clearly it should have focused on
> >the cheerleaders
> >
> >Take care.
> >
> >Ken
>
> Yeah, but I fixed that.
>
> http://www.kansasviking.com/imagescar06/P9170356.html
> --
> Mike
> The Kansas Viking
> www.kansasviking.com


Hello, Mike:

I recognized your name, from news:alt.sports.football.mn-vikings, where
I'm a longtime lurker. (Things didn't go too well, in Buffalo, Sunday
afternoon!)


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur.TakeThisOut@concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP 510 UZ 

On 02 Oct 2006 00:56:46 EDT, John Turco <jtur.DeleteThis@concentric.net> wrote:


>Hello, Mike:
>
>I recognized your name, from news:alt.sports.football.mn-vikings, where
>I'm a longtime lurker. (Things didn't go too well, in Buffalo, Sunday
>afternoon!)
>
>
>Cordially,
> John Turco <jtur.DeleteThis@concentric.net>

Hi John. No, they didn't. Looked like the Viking team we have come to
know over the years, rather than the new and improved one. Hopefully
we will get back on track against the Kitties.
--
Mike
The Kansas Viking
www.kansasviking.com
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP 510 UZ 

Mike Perkins wrote:
>
> On 02 Oct 2006 00:56:46 EDT, John Turco <jtur RemoveThis @concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >Hello, Mike:
> >
> >I recognized your name, from news:alt.sports.football.mn-vikings, where
> >I'm a longtime lurker. (Things didn't go too well, in Buffalo, Sunday
> >afternoon!)
> >
> >
> >Cordially,
> > John Turco <jtur RemoveThis @concentric.net>
>
> Hi John. No, they didn't. Looked like the Viking team we have come to
> know over the years, rather than the new and improved one. Hopefully
> we will get back on track against the Kitties.
> --
> Mike
> The Kansas Viking
> www.kansasviking.com


Hello, Mike:

Correct...except, the Vikes can only win ugly, low-scoring games, now,
instead of the wild shootouts of yore. This Omaha-based Minnesota fan
longs for the glory years of the 1970's, when the Vikings' combination
of potent offense/strong defense took them to 3 Super Bowl appearances
in 4 seasons (1973-'76.).

Where have you gone, Bud Grant?

Speaking of slugfests, how about that Kansas-Nebraska affair, last
Saturday night? Your Jayhawks really had my Cornhuskers on the ropes,
in the 4th period, and I was just a bit amazed when NU finally rallied
to pull out a 39-32 overtime victory.

Very reminiscent of our pre-2005 Vikes, wouldn't you say? <g>


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur RemoveThis @concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP 510 UZ 

On 04 Oct 2006 02:45:08 EDT, John Turco <jtur.RemoveThis@concentric.net> wrote:


>Speaking of slugfests, how about that Kansas-Nebraska affair, last
>Saturday night? Your Jayhawks really had my Cornhuskers on the ropes,
>in the 4th period, and I was just a bit amazed when NU finally rallied
>to pull out a 39-32 overtime victory.
>
>Very reminiscent of our pre-2005 Vikes, wouldn't you say? <g>
>
>
>Cordially,
> John Turco <jtur.RemoveThis@concentric.net>

We were on the road listening to that game and finally turned the
radio to the K-State game because Nebraska was handing it to KU. Then
the next day while watching the Vikes game at the Sports Bar here they
told me the game went to overtime.

Yes, very reminiscent of our Vikes.
--
Mike
The Kansas Viking
www.kansasviking.com
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP 510 UZ