Olympus SP-550 UZ: 18x ultra zoom

ASAAR wrote:
[]
> 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?

I'm delighted to hear that AA batteries, and camera power drain, are such
as to allow this today. My experience is based on earlier models, and
drove me away from the 4 x AA format.

I do wish that a campaign for "standard" Li-ion cells could be launched
and succeed, and I feel that the cost of the custom Li-ion cells is higher
than it should be.

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

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:15:10 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

>> 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?
>
> I'm delighted to hear that AA batteries, and camera power drain, are such
> as to allow this today. My experience is based on earlier models, and
> drove me away from the 4 x AA format.

You mean that you just found out? These very efficient cameras
have been available from Canon and Fuji for at least a couple of
years. Other manufacturers too, including Kodak, but I don't know
if they've been available as long as the ones from Canon and Fuji.
You don't recall the many accounts I've told of the results I got
when I first tested the Fuji S5100 (early 2005) and got over 600
shots from a set of alkaline batteries? This included the CIPA test
for the first 220 shots or so, which required full powered flash for
50% of the shots and use of the LCD instead of an optical
viewfinder. A good number of Canon A610/A620 owners spoke of taking
many shots over many months, and still not needing to replace the
first set of alkaline batteries they installed. Your experience
with earlier cameras using alkaline or NiMH AA batteries is valid,
some of them had truly atrocious battery life. But eventually that
changed, and these days the only edge Li-Ion batteries have is a
slight saving of weight. Even for use in cold weather, AA lithium
batteries are usable at temperatures well below the point where
Li-Ion batteries chill out.

Back to my first sentence above. Did you really just find out? I
find it quite plausible that you and almost everyone else had no
idea two years ago that there were very efficient, battery-frugal
cameras available and include myself in that group. But for the
last 18 months, surely for the last year, it would be hard for this
to have escaped the notice of any regular rpd newsgroupies.


> I do wish that a campaign for "standard" Li-ion cells could be
> launched and succeed, and I feel that the cost of the custom
> Li-ion cells is higher than it should be.

A sentiment that I share and have stated several times. My cell
phone works very well and I'd like to be able to use it for at least
another 10 years. But it's being replaced by a new model, and
despite costing far more than the a new camera+battery+charger, new
replacement batteries are unavailable from the cell phone provider.
I might be able to purchase one directly from Nokia, but their
battery prices are even higher. The original, full list price that
I paid for the phone was $59.95. The batteries last about 18
months, and the last time I checked, Nokia sold them for $50. Cell
phones are the modern equivalent of razors. The profit is in
selling blades, service plans and (if phones aren't swapped
regularly for new models) batteries. Some of the smallest cell
phones do need very slim Li-Ion batteries, but most of the ones I
see people using are quite a bit larger than mine, and could easily
hold 2 AA or 3 AAA cells. I'm sure that there would be a good sized
market for phones that could use standard NiMH batteries, but it
won't happen, because selling cell phones with built-in obsolescence
is far more important than keeping their sizes as small as possible.
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP-550 UZ: 18x ultra zoom 

>> I do wish that a campaign for "standard" Li-ion cells could be
>> launched and succeed, and I feel that the cost of the custom
>> Li-ion cells is higher than it should be.
>
You are right, just check for a "compatible" Li-ion battery on eBay. It is
very likely that you find a compatible one there. In case you decide for the
cheapest models, buy a fire extinguisher as well, they might have those Sony
cells.
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP-550 UZ: 18x ultra zoom 

"Paul D. Sullivan" wrote:
>
> > ray wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> 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?


Hello, Paul:

Yeah, I'm sure that the hordes of outsourced, point-&-shoot digicams
from "Nikon, Olympus, etc.," are so much better than Kodak's own
outsourced products. :-J

Seriously, the vast majority of today's cameras are truly made by OEM
outfits, other than the big-name photographic equipment manufacturers,
themselves. (And, let's face it, Kodak has been the biggest of those
names, traditionally.)

Hence, the real point is, there's little difference between the main
players in the current digital marketplace...and Kodak stacks up, very
competitively, against any of them.


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur.RemoveThis@concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP-550 UZ: 18x ultra zoom 

"John Turco"
> Seriously, the vast majority of today's cameras are truly made by OEM
> outfits, other than the big-name photographic equipment manufacturers,
> themselves. (And, let's face it, Kodak has been the biggest of those
> names, traditionally.)

Well, according to some publications, believe or not, the sensor used in the
Nikon D80 made by Sony and used by Sony as well in its own model, don't
remember which one.

Just D.
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP-550 UZ: 18x ultra zoom 

So even Olympus outsources like crazy now?

Man, back in the day, when I got the C5050 Oly, I thought it was
heads above most of the rest of the field.

I'd hate to think they no longer care about quality.

Anyways, thanks very much. I appreciate the post

> Hello, Paul:
>
> Yeah, I'm sure that the hordes of outsourced, point-&-shoot
> digicams from "Nikon, Olympus, etc.," are so much better than
> Kodak's own outsourced products. :-J
>
> Seriously, the vast majority of today's cameras are truly made
> by OEM outfits, other than the big-name photographic equipment
> manufacturers, themselves. (And, let's face it, Kodak has been
> the biggest of those names, traditionally.)
>
> Hence, the real point is, there's little difference between
> the main players in the current digital marketplace...and
> Kodak stacks up, very competitively, against any of them.
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP-550 UZ: 18x ultra zoom 

ASAAR wrote:
[]
> Back to my first sentence above. Did you really just find out? I
> find it quite plausible that you and almost everyone else had no
> idea two years ago that there were very efficient, battery-frugal
> cameras available and include myself in that group. But for the
> last 18 months, surely for the last year, it would be hard for this
> to have escaped the notice of any regular rpd newsgroupies.

Battery life is only one aspect, though. My major complaint has always
been the four separate AA cells versus the single Li-ion battery. The
single unit is far more convenient to use both in the field and when
recharging, and it is less likely to suffer from the issues of individual
cells failing. The relatively short shelf life is the drawback.

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

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 07:57:26 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

>> Back to my first sentence above. Did you really just find out? I
>> find it quite plausible that you and almost everyone else had no
>> idea two years ago that there were very efficient, battery-frugal
>> cameras available and include myself in that group. But for the
>> last 18 months, surely for the last year, it would be hard for this
>> to have escaped the notice of any regular rpd newsgroupies.
>
> Battery life is only one aspect, though. My major complaint has always
> been the four separate AA cells versus the single Li-ion battery.

Sheesh. Off you go into new directions. I'm well aware that
you've never quite got along with AA cells. I brought that up,
didn't I? Whether you like or dislike AA cells has no bearing on
what I was wondering, which was how the extremely long battery life
of AA cells could have escaped your notice for so long. This was
the aspect I'd have expected you to comment on, even if there are a
dozen other aspects of AA vs Li-Ion batteries that you might wish to
delve into next. You might as well have said "Battery life is only
one aspect, though. One which I will now deftly sidestep."

You may not recall them, BTW, but some of your previous reasons
for not liking AA cells are no longer valid, or perhaps I should say
that they never were particularly valid, but now should be of
practically no concern. Do you remember what they were?
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP-550 UZ: 18x ultra zoom 

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:15:10 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
[]
>> I do wish that a campaign for "standard" Li-ion cells could be
>> launched and succeed, and I feel that the cost of the custom
>> Li-ion cells is higher than it should be.
>
> A sentiment that I share and have stated several times. My cell
> phone works very well and I'd like to be able to use it for at least
> another 10 years. But it's being replaced by a new model, and
> despite costing far more than the a new camera+battery+charger, new
> replacement batteries are unavailable from the cell phone provider.
> I might be able to purchase one directly from Nokia, but their
> battery prices are even higher. The original, full list price that
> I paid for the phone was $59.95. The batteries last about 18
> months, and the last time I checked, Nokia sold them for $50. Cell
> phones are the modern equivalent of razors. The profit is in
> selling blades, service plans and (if phones aren't swapped
> regularly for new models) batteries. Some of the smallest cell
> phones do need very slim Li-Ion batteries, but most of the ones I
> see people using are quite a bit larger than mine, and could easily
> hold 2 AA or 3 AAA cells. I'm sure that there would be a good sized
> market for phones that could use standard NiMH batteries, but it
> won't happen, because selling cell phones with built-in obsolescence
> is far more important than keeping their sizes as small as possible.

What surprises me is the no-one from the USA - one of the consumer rights
campaigners - has actively taken this on. I think they would be the group
most likely to achieve a result. Although, perhaps the EU might as
well.....

You may be right about the profit model, though.

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 07:57:26 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>>> Back to my first sentence above. Did you really just find out? I
>>> find it quite plausible that you and almost everyone else had no
>>> idea two years ago that there were very efficient, battery-frugal
>>> cameras available and include myself in that group. But for the
>>> last 18 months, surely for the last year, it would be hard for this
>>> to have escaped the notice of any regular rpd newsgroupies.
>>
>> Battery life is only one aspect, though. My major complaint has
>> always been the four separate AA cells versus the single Li-ion
>> battery.
>
> Sheesh. Off you go into new directions. I'm well aware that
> you've never quite got along with AA cells. I brought that up,
> didn't I? Whether you like or dislike AA cells has no bearing on
> what I was wondering, which was how the extremely long battery life
> of AA cells could have escaped your notice for so long. This was
> the aspect I'd have expected you to comment on, even if there are a
> dozen other aspects of AA vs Li-Ion batteries that you might wish to
> delve into next. You might as well have said "Battery life is only
> one aspect, though. One which I will now deftly sidestep."
>
> You may not recall them, BTW, but some of your previous reasons
> for not liking AA cells are no longer valid, or perhaps I should say
> that they never were particularly valid, but now should be of
> practically no concern. Do you remember what they were?

Yes, I have been aware that the capacity of AA NiMH cells has been
increasing for some time, but I've not had any reason to check how well
the claimed 2500mAh or 2700mAh capacities actually stand up in practice.
My highest capacity AA cells are 2100mAh so, yes, there has been a useful
increase since then.

In-camera life hasn't really been an issue with the current cameras - on
battery in the camera and one space just in case have kept me going these
last two or three years. Occasionally, I need the second battery, but
carrying it isn't an issue. On some short trips away I don't even take
the charger.

I am never sure how much credence to give to battery life measurements -
at least in as far as how much they relate to real use. Probably the
comparitive tests such as those by DP Review (or whatever) should give a
useful comparison between cameras, but just because they say "300 shots"
doesn't mean that you will get 300 shots. I would need experience using a
camera in the field before I felt happy not having spare batteries with
me.

Of course, as technology advances, the factors affecting a decision will
change, so it doesn't surprise me that the outcome of the decision might
change as well.

Sorry, but I don't have a computer memory, so I can't recall precisely
what I said some time ago, and I think that's a good thing to be honest!
We should move on.

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

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:19:06 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

> Yes, I have been aware that the capacity of AA NiMH cells has been
> increasing for some time, but I've not had any reason to check how well
> the claimed 2500mAh or 2700mAh capacities actually stand up in practice.
> My highest capacity AA cells are 2100mAh so, yes, there has been a useful
> increase since then.

Wow, you're a tough nut to crack. The increase in NiMH capacity
is *not* what I was talking about, and the way you deftly parry
every attempt to get you to address what I'm talking about seems to
indicate that it's intentional on your part, as if you've had
special training in the National School for Spin. The change from
the extremely poor performance of cameras that used AA batteries
several years ago (whether alkaline or NiMH) to the excellent
performance that they get today could in no way be attributed to any
increase in battery capacity. In fact, alkaline battery capacity is
relatively unchanged. The real increases have been with the NiMH
batteries. In the last three or four years NiMH battery capacity
may have increased by roughly 40%. Over that same period, it has
been the cameras, not the batteries that have improved tremendously,
and it has amounted to increases of many hundreds of percent,
perhaps more than 1000% in the number of shots that can now be
taken. Several years ago it wasn't unusual to hear of cameras that
couldn't take more than a couple dozen shots before the batteries
would need to be recharged. Two years ago some Canon and Fuji
cameras were able to take well over 1,000 shots per charge. THAT is
what I'm surprised that you've not been aware of.

I don't recall anyone posting messages saying "wow, my NiMH
batteries now can take 400% more shots". They've all talked about
the great battery life of their new *cameras*, such as several that
described using lowly alkaline batteries in their Canon A610/A620,
took hundreds of shots over a 4 to 6 month period and had not yet
seen a "battery low" warning indication. As you seem to follow most
threads here, I find it *very* hard to believe that you haven't been
aware of this. One might suspect that it's part of a defensive
debating technique.
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP-550 UZ: 18x ultra zoom 

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:24:37 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:

>> 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.
>
> Interesting. Conventional wisdom used to be that NiMH batteries self-
> discharge quickly. You found NiMH batteries which self-discharge very
> little?

Yes. They're all described by the manufacturers as being NiMH
batteries that can be charged in any standard NiMH charger. They
all seem to have the same drawback in that their capacities are
about 25% lower than the highest capacity NiMH cells currently
available, 2,000 to 2,100 mAh. They were mentioned a number of
times in this newsgroup almost a year ago, and all we knew for some
time was that Sanyo made them, called them Eneloop batteries, and
that they were being sold (I think) in Japan. Within the last
several months they've been selling in a number of stores here.
Circuit City, Ritz, Walmart, Radio Shack and probably others.
Besides the Eneloops, RayOVac calls them Hybrid batteries and Radio
Shack has no special name for them. What they all have in common,
besides the lower capacity, is that unlike normal NiMH or NiCD
batteries, they don't have to be charged before using them. They
all are described as being pre-charged, and some of them indicate on
the packaging that they'll retain about 85% of their initial
capacity if they sit on the store shelf for two years. That's an
*extremely* low self-discharge rate. In effect it means that I can
use them in a camera, then put the camera in a drawer for a couple
of months and when I get back to using it, the batteries won't have
to be immediately recharged as would traditional NiMH or NiCD
batteries. Traditional NiMH batteries continue to be sold in the
greatest numbers, and for some (such as very heavy use) they're the
preferred type. But for virtually all of *my* uses, even with their
lower capacity, this new type of NiMH seems much more practical and
desirable. Right now they're harder to find and cost about 40% to
50% more than regular NiMH batteries (Radio Shack's are 100% higher,
and I don't know Walmart's prices), but they should eventually drop.
 >> Stay informed about: Olympus SP-550 UZ: 18x ultra zoom 

ASAAR wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:19:06 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> Yes, I have been aware that the capacity of AA NiMH cells has been
>> increasing for some time, but I've not had any reason to check how
>> well the claimed 2500mAh or 2700mAh capacities actually stand up in
>> practice. My highest capacity AA cells are 2100mAh so, yes, there
>> has been a useful increase since then.
>
> Wow, you're a tough nut to crack. The increase in NiMH capacity
> is *not* what I was talking about, and the way you deftly parry
> every attempt to get you to address what I'm talking about seems to
> indicate that it's intentional on your part, as if you've had
> special training in the National School for Spin. The change from
> the extremely poor performance of cameras that used AA batteries
> several years ago (whether alkaline or NiMH) to the excellent
> performance that they get today could in no way be attributed to any
> increase in battery capacity. In fact, alkaline battery capacity is
> relatively unchanged.

I haven't even considered alkalines.

> The real increases have been with the NiMH
> batteries. In the last three or four years NiMH battery capacity
> may have increased by roughly 40%. Over that same period, it has
> been the cameras, not the batteries that have improved tremendously,
> and it has amounted to increases of many hundreds of percent,
> perhaps more than 1000% in the number of shots that can now be
> taken. Several years ago it wasn't unusual to hear of cameras that
> couldn't take more than a couple dozen shots before the batteries
> would need to be recharged. Two years ago some Canon and Fuji
> cameras were able to take well over 1,000 shots per charge. THAT is
> what I'm surprised that you've not been aware of.

Please don't assume that I am unaware of the changes, simply that for me
by taking one spare battery with me, battery life on my own cameras has
ceased to be an issue.

> I don't recall anyone posting messages saying "wow, my NiMH
> batteries now can take 400% more shots". They've all talked about
> the great battery life of their new *cameras*, such as several that
> described using lowly alkaline batteries in their Canon A610/A620,
> took hundreds of shots over a 4 to 6 month period and had not yet
> seen a "battery low" warning indication. As you seem to follow most
> threads here, I find it *very* hard to believe that you haven't been
> aware of this. One might suspect that it's part of a defensive
> debating technique.

I was not aware I was defensively (or otherwise) debating anything.

My preference remains for a single battery against multiple cells. Yes,
if you have to change batteries less often it's less of an issue, but my
preference remains. Both AA-powered and Li-ion powered cameras will
benefit from lower power consumption.

In a way, battery life is now like the megapixel count. For me, 5MP is
enough for most of my photography, so whether the next camera has 7.2MP
rather than 6.1MP doesn't really matter any more, unless it produces
poorer qulaity pictures.

I do like the improvements which are promised by the Olympus SP-550 UZ, as
lack of wide angle is a drawback to the Panasonic FZ5 I use a lot of the
time. Of course, the Olympus doesn't do as wide as my Nikon 8400 (24mm),
and that remains my camera of choice for wide shots.

I would like to see a significant improvement in EVFs, though, up towards
SLR quality.

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