Kay From France, joined Mar 2002, 1884 posts, RR: 3 Posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2317 times:
A friend of mine is proposing his Olympus E-10 for 1000$. He bought 6 months ago for $1500, and I'm pretty sure he took care of it more than anyone.
I checked the specs... The only thing I don't like is the fact that it was presented in Aug 2000, 2.5 years ago.. other than that, what is the camera's problem? I prefer it to the 717 that isn't an SLR
the Olympus's lens is fixed, but I don't and won't own lenses so I don't care...
Shawn Patrick From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2589 posts, RR: 18 Reply 1, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2274 times:
A friend of mine uses the E-10 for her professional photography business... but she's just photographing toddlers.
If you want to use the camera for aviation photography, you'll want to go with the F717 (longer zoom, more pixels). Plus, the F717 can take video/audio clips. If I were you, I'd go for the F717. Just because it doesn't look like an SLR doesn't mean it doesn't perform like one and the E-10 is definetly a bulky camera.
MUC-PIX From Germany, joined Aug 2002, 178 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (10 years 11 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2251 times:
I just bought a E-10 and you can add TCON´s of course. There´s a 1.45 TCON and the TCON300, which is very expensive. The pixels are not everything, the E-10 is an excellent camera-but no lightweight snapshot, of course. I´m going to use it with the TCON-14b which is the 1.45 and see what it delivers (not started with aircraft yet, just got it).
A large number of pixels makes not a good camera, that´s for sure, this means not, the Sony F´s are no good cameras!
MUC-PIX From Germany, joined Aug 2002, 178 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (10 years 11 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2256 times:
this means not, the Sony F´s are no good cameras! <<-this is, what I said! All I wanted to say was, that ONLY a large number of pixels makes not a good camera, there are some 299,--$ snapshots with 4 million pixels but cheap lenses, that makes not a good camera only because of the pixels. Of course the Sony´s are great cameras, that was not the point I was talking about.
Kay From France, joined Mar 2002, 1884 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (10 years 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2239 times:
But then, my understanding was that SLR's are bigger, with more precise mechanisms, thus less lag, and especially more space for a much better quality lens. For example, the E-10, which is basic SLR has a lens already as fast as the 717 (F2.0-2.4), which is the top of the prosumer camera's. I had that E10 in my hand on new year's eve and it was taking the pictures in that dark room so easily, whereas the Nikon 4500 that I was trying too, had so much trouble it was unbelievable. Also, manual white balance on the Nikon was giving ridiculous results (blue pictures) if we change rooms, and auto-white balance gave orange pictures all the time. The E-10 would give awesome picture straight-away, anywhere.
Therefore I tend to believe that eventhough the Sony has an as fast lens, it can't perform as well as the E-10. I haven't tried one, but if it doesn't, then what are SLR's for??