Olympus SP-550 UZ: 18x ultra zoom

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:00:10 GMT, Paul D. Sullivan wrote:

>> Lets see what this "toy's" long end shots are like. Assuming
>> it will even focus.
>
> No need to be so pessimistic.

No need to be so polite. That was not a pessimistic statement.
It was an intentionally and Richly ignorant, stupid statement.
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP-550 UZ: 18x ultra zoom 

Well, ya get more bees with honey... lol

Just trying to be civil.

> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:00:10 GMT, Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
>
>>> Lets see what this "toy's" long end shots are like. Assuming
>>> it will even focus.
>>
>> No need to be so pessimistic.
>
> No need to be so polite. That was not a pessimistic
> statement. It was an intentionally and Richly ignorant, stupid
> statement.
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP-550 UZ: 18x ultra zoom 

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:28:19 GMT, Paul D. Sullivan wrote:

>> No need to be so polite.
> . . .
>
> Well, ya get more bees with honey... lol
>
> Just trying to be civil.

Good policy in general, but not if it also attracts the wrong
types. You should be daubing yourself not with honey but with
Troll-Begone. It's non-greasy and is available over-the-counter in
2 oz. and 5 oz. squeeze tubes.
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP-550 UZ: 18x ultra zoom 

Rich wrote:
>
> On Jan 26, 6:43 am, "Ken" <Reply to NG only> wrote:
>> This look like it will be a good one???
>>
>> Not yet in UK but anyone elsewhere got one or know the price range?
>>
>> Ken
>
> Lets see what this "toy's" long end shots are like. Assuming it will
> even focus.
>

Hi...

There's three samples (wide, medium, and real tight here... about a
third way down the page. Hover your mouse over the description under
the picture.

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/olympus/sp550uz-review/index.shtml


Take care.

Ken
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP-550 UZ: 18x ultra zoom 

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 10:16:26 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

> Not at all. Attention was drawn to the three images, and it was
> immediately obvious that they were flawed. They were supposed to be
> illustrating a fundamental point about the camera - its extended zoom
> range - but as displayed the images give the false impression that the
> zoom was twice as great as with competing models. The middle image isn't
> even directly from the camera, but from "Photoshop magic". Surely more
> care should have been taken with this?

You're avoiding the main point, which was that you transformed an
innocent mistake (a typo, there was no 432mm lens) into something
casting doubt on DCResource's credibility. As you noted, the nearly
2 to 1 difference in the image magnifications couldn't be attributed
to a 432mm vs 504mm lens. Is there a single other camera that your
are aware of having a lens with close enough to the Olympus's 18x
range that might have made 432mm seem reasonable? None that I'm
aware of. By your own standard, since you also made a mistake in
interpreting that page's results, what credibility can we give to
any of your other replies?

> What credibility can you give the rest of the review
> with glaring errors like that?

One of my points is that the mistake was so glaring, and the
reason so obvious, that you should have caught it. But just because
you made that mistake doesn't mean that everything else that you say
is without credibility. My other point is that you went too far,
saying that the rest of the review deserves no credibility because
of one mistake. You probably noticed that I mentioned Panasonic in
my last reply. I'll mention them again, because it's hard to avoid
thinking that if the review/first-look was of new Panasonic camera
and the same mistake was made, you'd have given DCResource a lot
more slack. Most people have at least some favorable bias towards
some brands, usually the cameras that they own, and that's both
understandable and not a bad thing. Your bias, seen over a couple
of years is far greater, almost extreme (I'm not even sure that the
qualifier "almost" is needed), and as I indicated, may have fueled
what appears to me to be an excessive, knee-jerk response. Yes, I
agree that it would have been better if more care was taken in that
"first look", but the mistake is no big thing, clearly wasn't
intentional, and if you need only a single mistake to write off the
credibility of any reviewer, no reviewer will meet your standard.
None of them are perfect. One of my most recent replies criticized
DPReview's excessive praise of the G7's "excellent" resolution. But
I still find that DPReview's reviews and opinions have a lot of
credibility, even though that "flawed" opinion of the G7 can't even
be excused by it being mistake created by a typo.
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP-550 UZ: 18x ultra zoom 

ASAAR wrote:
[]
> You're avoiding the main point, which was that you transformed an
> innocent mistake (a typo, there was no 432mm lens) into something
> casting doubt on DCResource's credibility. As you noted, the nearly
> 2 to 1 difference in the image magnifications couldn't be attributed
> to a 432mm vs 504mm lens.

I'm simply making the point that something so fundamental should have been
checked more carefully. It was more than just a "typo" - it was an
incorrect image which leads to the possibility of incorrect conclusions
being drawn by the reader.

Were it just a typo, no problem. However, the reviewer himself has had to
pay extra attention to the part involving those images as evidenced by his
comments about "Photoshop magic" for the middle image.

I hope this is soon corrected, and I look forward to seeing comparative
images from this and other cameras.

>> What credibility can you give the rest of the review
>> with glaring errors like that?


I agree that was a little strong, but it was my immediate reaction to
seeing such a glaring error in what was supposed to be a core part of the
"first look".

I am sorry that you don't like my references to cameras I own, but owning
and using a camera is, I feel, a good starting point to recommend to
someone whether it may meet their needs. It is that experience which make
me prefer single Li-ion batteries over multiple AA cells, for example.

I hope you are equally critical of those who simply regurgitate press
releases with no direct hands-on experience of the kit involved.

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP-550 UZ: 18x ultra zoom 

"Paul D. Sullivan" <dudeboyz.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:AMPuh.391$Hb6.112@trndny02...
> Sounds great. I hope you are very happy with it.
>
> Is Kodak a good quality Digital Camera? I had been thinking top tier like
> Nikon, Olympus, etc. and had not considered Kodak in terms of cameras. Do
> they compare well?
>
>> I recently bought a Kodak P850 refurb from the kodak online
>> store. 12x zoom, IS, only 5.1mp, SD card, and 237k EVF - much
>> better than the 110k EVF on most competing brands. I'm quite
>> pleased with it.
>
For me the SP-550 UZ really has some similarities with Kodak, not the
P-Series but the Z- superzoom series. The lens goes from 28 - 504 mm
equivalent with a 1/2.5" Sensor. The Samsung Pro815 covers 28-420 mm with a
1/ 2/3" sensor. If you you use a Panasonic with the 0,7 WA - converter lens
you have a range 24.5 - 420, if you add the 1.7 tele conversion lens you
have 24.5 - 710 mm with IS (you can select the conversion lens in the
firmware) and a 1/1.8" sensor.

Exclusive use of xD Picture cards, the missing external hot shoe or external
flash connector, and the need for an extra adaptor tube to use filters or
conversion lenses are signs that the new camera is aimed at the same group
of users as the Kodak Z - series. It will take pictures most people are
happy with, but the tiny sensor will cause problems under low light
conditions. It does reduce the amount and weight of necessary glass and
mechanics and finally manufacturing cost, if it is priced in the mass market
range it might be successful. I doubt that many "more serious" amateurs will
opt for it.

It is far removed from the old E - series, but there is of course the DSLR
range from Olympus which is incidentally using Li-Ion batteries.
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP-550 UZ: 18x ultra zoom 

Ken Weitzel wrote:
[]
> Hi...
>
> There's three samples (wide, medium, and real tight here... about a
> third way down the page. Hover your mouse over the description under
> the picture.
>
> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/olympus/sp550uz-review/index.shtml
>
>
> Take care.
>
> Ken

If those images are to be believed, the 504mm zoom produces images of
twice the linear dimension of the 432mm zoom images.

What credibility can you give the rest of the review with glaring errors
like that?

David
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP-550 UZ: 18x ultra zoom 

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 08:46:27 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

>> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/olympus/sp550uz-review/index.shtml
> . . .
>
> If those images are to be believed, the 504mm zoom produces images of
> twice the linear dimension of the 432mm zoom images.
>
> What credibility can you give the rest of the review with glaring errors
> like that?

DCResource has plenty of credibility. You're quibbling over a
typo that shouldn't have gotten by you unless you were looking to
find fault with something, either the review (not a review actually,
but a 'first look') or the camera. If the SP550UZ's 18x zoom has an
equivalent focal length of 504mm, the middle label (typical max on
ultra zooms) can't be 432mm. The typical ultrazoom range is more
like 10x, maybe 12x, and if you work out the approximate, expected
focal lengths (504 x 10/18, 504 x 12/1 you get 280mm and 336mm,
which are about 1/2 the linear dimension, and what you expected.

Was this quibble at its root fueled by Olympus finally offering
more than Panasonic? And the 550UZ don't need no stinking Li-Ion
batteries. <g>
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP-550 UZ: 18x ultra zoom 

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 08:46:27 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>>> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/olympus/sp550uz-review/index.shtml
>> . . .
>>
>> If those images are to be believed, the 504mm zoom produces images of
>> twice the linear dimension of the 432mm zoom images.
>>
>> What credibility can you give the rest of the review with glaring
>> errors like that?
>
> DCResource has plenty of credibility. You're quibbling over a
> typo that shouldn't have gotten by you unless you were looking to
> find fault with something, either the review (not a review actually,
> but a 'first look') or the camera. If the SP550UZ's 18x zoom has an
> equivalent focal length of 504mm, the middle label (typical max on
> ultra zooms) can't be 432mm. The typical ultrazoom range is more
> like 10x, maybe 12x, and if you work out the approximate, expected
> focal lengths (504 x 10/18, 504 x 12/1 you get 280mm and 336mm,
> which are about 1/2 the linear dimension, and what you expected.
>
> Was this quibble at its root fueled by Olympus finally offering
> more than Panasonic? And the 550UZ don't need no stinking Li-Ion
> batteries. <g>

Not at all. Attention was drawn to the three images, and it was
immediately obvious that they were flawed. They were supposed to be
illustrating a fundamental point about the camera - its extended zoom
range - but as displayed the images give the false impression that the
zoom was twice as great as with competing models. The middle image isn't
even directly from the camera, but from "Photoshop magic". Surely more
care should have been taken with this?

I don't see that an f/4.5 lens is "more" than the f/2.8 lens of the
Panasonic FZ20, but we haven't see side-by-side images. Although the
wide-angle is nice, the use of four AA cells rather than a single package
Li-ion battery, and the use of xD memory cards are both fairly negative
factors for me.

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP-550 UZ: 18x ultra zoom 

On Jan 27, 8:00 pm, "Paul D. Sullivan" <dudeb... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> No need to be so pessimistic.
>
> > On Jan 26, 6:43 am, "Ken" <Reply to NG only> wrote:
> >> This look like it will be a good one???
>
> >> Not yet in UK but anyone elsewhere got one or know the price
> >> range?
>
> >> Ken
>
> > Lets see what this "toy's" long end shots are like. Assuming
> > it will even focus.

Oh? Look at an expensive 15x zoom, the Samsung 815. Major issues
with focusing on the long end.
Why will some crackerjack toy be better?
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP-550 UZ: 18x ultra zoom 

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 11:11:15 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

>> You're avoiding the main point, which was that you transformed an
>> innocent mistake (a typo, there was no 432mm lens) into something
>> casting doubt on DCResource's credibility. As you noted, the nearly
>> 2 to 1 difference in the image magnifications couldn't be attributed
>> to a 432mm vs 504mm lens.
>
> I'm simply making the point that something so fundamental should have been
> checked more carefully. It was more than just a "typo" - it was an
> incorrect image which leads to the possibility of incorrect conclusions
> being drawn by the reader.

After all this you still don't get it? The image does *not*
appear to be incorrect. As we both have noted, it is approximately
the same magnification one would expect most of the other superzooms
/ ultrazooms to have, which is about the 2 to 1 difference that you
estimated. Is the ratio of 18x to 10x not close to 2 to 1? The
"typo" is in the 432mm label used for the image.


> I am sorry that you don't like my references to cameras I own,
> but owning and using a camera is, I feel, a good starting point
> to recommend to someone whether it may meet their needs. It
> is that experience which make me prefer single Li-ion batteries
> over multiple AA cells, for example.

I don't dislike most of your references to Panasonic cameras (and
for the record, I think you've referred to more than the models you
own). It's just that you go *waaaay* beyond simple fandon, but
aggressively look for ways to promote them. I recall some of the
hyperbolic statements you've made criticizing AA batteries, and
these days when cameras are so efficient that a camera using 2 or 4
AA batteries can often last for several days of shooting before
needing to be swapped for a fresh set, your horror stories of
juggling 8 to 12 of the round cells in the field, all yearning to
roll away in different directions is just not realistic. That
doesn't mean that you don't have good reasons to prefer Li-Ion
batteries. But I've noticed that you go to such great lengths to
promote your preferences that it's often hard to take you seriously.

I've taken many pictures with the same set of AA cells in my Fuji
over the last month and they aren't close to needing to be
recharged. In fact, now that I'm using Eneloop type batteries, I
don't even have to worry about them running down just by leaving
them in the camera for a couple of months, since Sanyo's Eneloops
(and RayOVac's Hybrids, and similar NiMH batteries sold under Radio
Shack's label and others) have *much* lower self discharge rates
than Li-Ion batteries. Try keeping an Li-Ion battery in a camera
for 2 years without recharging it to see what happens. There's a
good chance that before you've gotten to the halfway point the
battery will be dead and won't be able to take a charge any more,
and replacements are not nearly as inexpensive or easy to find.


> I hope you are equally critical of those who simply regurgitate press
> releases with no direct hands-on experience of the kit involved.

If you search for reviews using google, most of the hits will be
links to press release mills. I haven't criticized them because I
ignore them, and don't see any mention of them in the newsgroup
other than perhaps some occasional spam which others are quick to
shred. Despite owning and liking my Fuji, I'm probably one of the
most outspoken critics of fanboy kinga, or haven't you noticed?
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP-550 UZ: 18x ultra zoom 

ASAAR <caught DeleteThis @22.com> writes:
> these days when cameras are so efficient that a camera using 2 or 4
> AA batteries can often last for several days of shooting before
> needing to be swapped for a fresh set, your horror stories of
> juggling 8 to 12 of the round cells in the field, all yearning to
> roll away in different directions is just not realistic.

I didn't understand that one either. The Nikon F3's MD4 motor drive
uses eight AA's and they're in a holder (MS-3) that you can swap as
easily as you can swap a one-piece lithium battery. I think the F2's
motor may have used ten AA's in a similar arrangement but I never used
one. The D200's battery grip (six AA's) also uses a holder. I know
of some four-AA cameras that use loose cells but that's a manageable
number, and some other 4-cell cameras use holders too.

Here's the 4AA holder for the Nikon F100: http://www.adorama.com/NKMS12.html
Here's the 8AA holder for the F6: http://www.adorama.com/NKMS40.html

etc. You can buy as many as you want, semi-permanently load them with
rechargeable AA's, and swap them around like you would swap lithium
packs. Even with a full load of Eneloops the holders and AA's
together are cheaper than the comparable lithium packs. And when the
rechargeable AA's get worn out, you can easily replace them.

It looks like the MS-3 (the 8AA holder for the almost 30 year old MD4)
is no longer available new (B&H lists it as backordered) but they're
available on fleabay and you don't have to worry about whether the
cells hold a charge. By contrast it looks like the proprietary MN-2
nicad pack originally made for the MD4 is extinct. Thank heavens for
AA's.
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP-550 UZ: 18x ultra zoom