Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Olympus E-10 For $1000? 717 Alternative  
User currently offlineKay From France, joined Mar 2002, 1884 posts, RR: 3
Posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2679 times:

Hi,

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...

anyone can help? thanx anyway.
kay

7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineShawn Patrick From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2608 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2636 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  Big thumbs up and the E-10 is definetly a bulky camera.

Shawn


User currently offlineMUC-PIX From Germany, joined Aug 2002, 178 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2613 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!


User currently offlineShawn Patrick From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2608 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2612 times:

MUC-PIX, more pixels means higher quality images when resized to viewable sizes.

the Sony F´s are no good cameras!

Hehe, I think you better rethink what you said!

Shawn


User currently offlineMUC-PIX From Germany, joined Aug 2002, 178 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2618 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.

User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2605 times:

Shawn,
You said.."more pixels means higher quality images when resized to viewable sizes." It is actually the other way around. Better image at larger sizes.

Jeff

I like the E-10 though. It is one hell of a camera.


User currently offlineKay From France, joined Mar 2002, 1884 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2601 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??

thnx for more info,
kay


User currently offlineAmir From Syria, joined Dec 1999, 1254 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2595 times:

Hi Kay,
Do you speak arabic? drop me a mail at: schaher@cheerful.com
Brgds


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Olympus ES-10 For Only $189! posted Mon Feb 4 2002 05:50:51 by 174thfwff
In Flight USA Magazine - $10 For A Photo? posted Fri May 5 2006 12:29:54 by Ptrjong
Olympus B-300 For Sale posted Tue May 13 2003 18:28:05 by EGFF
Digcam For 1000...F717 The Best? posted Sat Dec 21 2002 08:04:15 by 174thfwff
Olympus E-10 (digital) Avaition Samples posted Mon Apr 9 2001 22:28:19 by Scooter
1000 For David! posted Sat Aug 4 2007 03:52:01 by Ptrjong
Need MD-11 And DC-10 Photos For School Project posted Fri Feb 16 2007 20:18:25 by MD11Fanatic
10,000,000 For Andy Hunt posted Wed Aug 23 2006 15:29:49 by Clickhappy
10,000,000 For AirNikon posted Fri Aug 4 2006 16:08:37 by Clickhappy
Sigma 10-20mm For 439.00 At Dell! posted Thu Jun 29 2006 21:01:25 by Yanqui67