|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/13/2004 08:25:04 PM · #1 |
Hi,
I've gathered a few quid together and was thinking of upgrading my loyal c4000z to a c5050z (I wanted the IR remote and f1.8 lens). After a bit of thinking, I'm leaning towards treating my 4000 to a pile of goodies instead, and spending the rest on beer.
Does anyone have recommendations for teleconverters and/or wide angle converters that would go nicely with a c4000z? I currently use 52mm for my attatchments, so something that would screw right on would be perfect, but I'm prepared to use stepping rings if required. Do converter lenses need to be made specifically for the camera, or will any lens with a 52mm fit do the job?
Should I use a bigger fit (55mm+) for future compatibility with any other camera I buy?
I've been advised to steer clear of 2x teles and stick to 1.7x or less. Is there any substance to this advice, or should i simply aim for the biggest I can afford?
Thanks in advance,
David
|
|
|
|
08/13/2004 09:01:56 PM · #2 |
I'm a fellow c-4000z user, and looking at your options, I would recommend you do neither.
You could get the c-5050z, but you know what? That camera is already somewhat dated. Their are other cameras in the same price range that will serve you much better. If you would like to know of some, let me know and I can recommend a few.
In terms of the add-on lenses, they do work as they're supposed to, but for the money, and the quality of the c-4000z, it's not worth it. In a few months the features on the c-4000z won't live up to your standards and you'll find your going to need something better; and now you've just spent a couple hunred dollars on add-on lenses for your camera! Don't get me wrong, the c-4000z is an excellent camera, but it definetly has it's limitations. Many of the cameras priced the same as or a little more expensive then the c-5050z will have the focal range you need.
If you want any advice feel free to PM me.
Lee
|
|
|
|
08/13/2004 10:07:37 PM · #3 |
| i am soon to be a 4000z and would love to know how you go about getting lenses and about how much they cost.... |
|
|
|
08/13/2004 10:31:20 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by LittleGreenKat:
i am soon to be a 4000z and would love to know how you go about getting lenses and about how much they cost.... |
Considering the cost of the camera, the lenses are pretty spendy. Figure 60 to 100+ for a wide angle or telephoto. Add that to the cost of the extension tube. If you go Olympus The tube and step up ring will run you about $50. If you go off market, about $20. I went off market, and have just bought filters so far. You can find them online, or at most camera stores. Shop around though, I bought a close up filter set for 27, that I saw the same thing, brand and everything for 50 elsewhere.
Message edited by author 2004-08-14 02:35:51. |
|
|
|
08/14/2004 10:23:06 AM · #5 |
Hi Lee,
Originally posted by Spanish_Grease:
In terms of the add-on lenses, they do work as they're supposed to, but for the money, and the quality of the c-4000z, it's not worth it. In a few months the features on the c-4000z won't live up to your standards and you'll find your going to need something better; and now you've just spent a couple hunred dollars on add-on lenses for your camera!
|
Thanks for your reply.
I've had a think about this, and I'm not sure I'm actually ready to bin my c4000z just yet. I love the thing, and when put up against other much more expensive cameras, it can shoot them down in flames in terms of needing what I want it to do.
This comes from experience with prosumers in the £600 and over price range. While it might not have the MP power or features of these cams, it certainly has things which set it apart; the outstanding AF even in very dim light, excellent battery life, wide range of shutter speeds, and top notch customization of image quality through the contrast/sharpness/saturation settings. There is also none of this user-transparent in-camera noise reduction, which tends to be responsible for muddy or 'processed' looking images. Check out the Fuji s602z for a prime example of this.. it completely chews shadows into unrecognisable mush, even at ISO160.
There's also the issue that most newer cameras are absolute lemons when it comes to IR photography thanks to ever increasing IR blocks (this is one point against the 5050 from what I've seen of its IR capability).
So, my main point is that even if I could afford a significant upgrade, would it provide everything that my c4000z does, to the same standard? While I might gain focal length (not a necessity for me, simply a luxury), I might lose other things which make the c4000z so useful. I might gain an extra few MP, but will I be able to take top notch 16 second exposures? Will I still be able to do IR? Will it be able to focus on a tiny little point of light in a pitch black space? Will I still get 2cm supermacro? All of these features are essential. Extra MP and focal length are luxuries.
My attitude is then, that I may as well enjoy my Oly while I have it. With any luck, any addons I buy for it will be forward compatible.
Hope this didn't sound like a rant :-)
David
|
|
|
|
08/14/2004 10:37:13 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by LittleGreenKat:
i am soon to be a 4000z and would love to know how you go about getting lenses and about how much they cost.... |
As mentioned you'll need an extension tube, but also take into account a protective lens for the end of it (a UV filter usually), and a lens cap.
Many sizes are available, usually 49mm, 52mm and 55mm. 55mm attatchments can sometimes be cheaper as they are more popular, but they will obstruct the internal flash. Smaller sizes can sometimes cause vignetting, depending on the make.
I got a 52mm extension tube, a UV filter, and a lens cap, all out of an overpriced chain store for about £20. This should be your minimum setup.
As well as allowing you to use extra lenses and filters, an extension tube plus UV filter also serves the purpose of protecting the original c4000 lens, which is fragile and very expensive to replace.
It also allows you to have a lens cap on when you turn the camera on, completely removing that annoying 'lens crash' which happens on all Olympus rangefinders when you forget to take the lens cap off.
And apart from all that, a nice extension tube with a few filters on the end makes the 4000z look pretty damn mean ;).
David
|
|
|
|
08/14/2004 07:21:13 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by downward_spiral:
Hi Lee,
Thanks for your reply.
I've had a think about this, and I'm not sure I'm actually ready to bin my c4000z just yet. I love the thing, and when put up against other much more expensive cameras, it can shoot them down in flames in terms of needing what I want it to do.
This comes from experience with prosumers in the £600 and over price range. While it might not have the MP power or features of these cams, it certainly has things which set it apart; the outstanding AF even in very dim light, excellent battery life, wide range of shutter speeds, and top notch customization of image quality through the contrast/sharpness/saturation settings. There is also none of this user-transparent in-camera noise reduction, which tends to be responsible for muddy or 'processed' looking images. Check out the Fuji s602z for a prime example of this.. it completely chews shadows into unrecognisable mush, even at ISO160.
There's also the issue that most newer cameras are absolute lemons when it comes to IR photography thanks to ever increasing IR blocks (this is one point against the 5050 from what I've seen of its IR capability).
So, my main point is that even if I could afford a significant upgrade, would it provide everything that my c4000z does, to the same standard? While I might gain focal length (not a necessity for me, simply a luxury), I might lose other things which make the c4000z so useful. I might gain an extra few MP, but will I be able to take top notch 16 second exposures? Will I still be able to do IR? Will it be able to focus on a tiny little point of light in a pitch black space? Will I still get 2cm supermacro? All of these features are essential. Extra MP and focal length are luxuries.
My attitude is then, that I may as well enjoy my Oly while I have it. With any luck, any addons I buy for it will be forward compatible.
Hope this didn't sound like a rant :-)
David |
I doesn't sound like a rant at all! It sounds like a discussion! I think I may just be at a different stage then you in terms of the c4000z, I find the shutter speed range to be too confining, the zoom to be too small, the AF might be OK - but it still allows for no control, the customization features are useless to me as I would much rather adjust in photoshop (which will do a much better job) then in camera, and actually the c-4000z has a very short battery life when competing against some of the newer cameras that have real batteries instead of using AA's. I suppose what may be alright for you, just isn't enough for me anymore. You also mention the macro features on this camera, which are not as good as you claim. The fact that their are no zoom capabilities in the super-macro mode, and also the fact that their is a window where neither macro, nor super-macro provides sharp focus is a huge frustration.
All of the features you've mentioned that are good about the c-4000z are available in many of the newer higher level cameras, with your 'luxury' (more zoom is not a luxury, it's a necessity, as is MP's if you're planning on printing at all) abilities included. Take the Olympus C-8080 for example, almost the exact same camera as the c-4000z but with some of the bugs worked out, a better lens, more MP's and manual focus capabilities.
Not too mention some of the new Panasonic camera's, which sell for about $500 canadian, they boast 5 mp's, a focal range far superior to the c-4000z, a macro up to 2cm, and superb focus in any type of lighting.
In my mind, the c-4000z has become outdated for my needs.
Lee
P.S. - The c-4000z has IR capabilities!??! How do you use them?
P.P.S. - Also, for the price of the c-4000z and the extension tube, and the add-on lenses you could almost afford a Canon Digital Rebel :-)
Message edited by author 2004-08-14 23:23:36.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2004 09:34:37 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Spanish_Grease:
I find the shutter speed range to be too confining.
|
Each to their own I suppose! I tend to do more longer exposures, and I find that any prosumer which has held my interest has let me down in this area. The 16 second max in the c4000z is a major selling point for me. Take for example the Leica Digilux 2. I like this camera except for the fact that it can only provide exposures of up to 8 seconds. This is useless for me. On the rare occasions where I want to stop action, the 1/1000 max has allowed me to photograph birds, cars and high speed trains. I would like more, but in reality I have lost very few shots because of the limit.
Originally posted by Spanish_Grease:
the AF might be OK - but it still allows for no control,
|
While the c4000 has a rather clumsy MF mode, it can be very functional once you get used to it, especially with the one-touch AF to instantly set the MF distance. You can then adjust the MF to get *exactly* the point you want.
Take, for example the s602z, where the AF completely fails in a reasonably lit room, you cannot manually focus to infinity, and it also does not tell you the focus distance at any stage. Regardless of the fact that the s602z has a focus ring, the c4000z is still more precise and useful for my needs.
Originally posted by Spanish_Grease:
the customization features are useless to me as I would much rather adjust in photoshop (which will do a much better job) then in camera,
|
Agreed wholeheartedly. However, it's nothing to do with preprocessing, it's more to do with the fact that it allows you to change the base image output for your needs, rather than have the manufacturer's preferences dictated to you.
Setting contrast -5 preserves highlight and shadow details, allowing you to post-process with more information than if your highlights were blown. In a camera without these settings, you're stuck with what the manufacturer decides is a 'good' contrast setting. Unacceptable.
Originally posted by Spanish_Grease:
and actually the c-4000z has a very short battery life when competing against some of the newer cameras that have real batteries instead of using AA's.
|
Going down that road requires you to make other sacrifices, like being able to pop into a shop for a set of Duracells in a desperate situation. It's also very expensive to replace these batteries, and if you look at it in terms of battery life versus cost, several sets of high mAh rechargable AAs will last longer for cheaper, while also being compatible with other devices when not in use.
I find that one set of 1300mAh AAs will last me 4 hours of intensive use. When these get low, I simply pop in a second set. If I were after longer continuous use, more powerful AAs are available. I certainly regard this as being excellent battery life.
Originally posted by Spanish_Grease:
You also mention the macro features on this camera, which are not as good as you claim. The fact that their are no zoom capabilities in the super-macro mode, and also the fact that their is a window where neither macro, nor super-macro provides sharp focus is a huge frustration.
|
This sounds so unlike the c4000 experience I've had that I wonder what we are doing differently. When I go bug shooting, I get very close and sharp well focused macros 95% of the time. In fact, the closer you get, the better the AF works. If you're really desperate, you can at least drop to MF with the full 2cm - infinity range available to you.
Originally posted by Spanish_Grease:
All of the features you've mentioned that are good about the c-4000z are available in many of the newer higher level cameras, with your 'luxury' (more zoom is not a luxury, it's a necessity, as is MP's if you're planning on printing at all) abilities included.
|
Most of my printing involves taking a CD of post-processed images to a lab to be printed on 9x6 or larger. The c4000 gives me crisp images at this size.
Originally posted by Spanish_Grease:
Take the Olympus C-8080 for example, almost the exact same camera as the c-4000z but with some of the bugs worked out, a better lens, more MP's and manual focus capabilities.
|
I certainly have had a good long look at the 8080, but from what I've heard (and I have tried this myself), its not quite value for money, nor does it live up to my expectations of such a high end camera. The autofocus is slow and unreliable, even with the assistance mechanisms. The noise seems to be just as bad as the c4000z, and the macro mode is seriously flawed. The 8080 has a similar manual focus mode to the 4000 (ie: using the buttons, no ring).
Originally posted by Spanish_Grease:
Not too mention some of the new Panasonic camera's, which sell for about $500 canadian, they boast 5 mp's, a focal range far superior to the c-4000z, a macro up to 2cm, and superb focus in any type of lighting.
|
Which did you have in mind? I am certainly interested in taking a look!
My original potentials, the FZ10, FZ15k and FZ20k.. all have a min shutter of 8 sec! No good for me. Plus if I were to spend that money, I would at least expect a remote.
Originally posted by Spanish_Grease:
P.S. - The c-4000z has IR capabilities!??! How do you use them?
|
Hoya R72 IR filter. The c4000z is certainly more responsive to IR light than most new cameras. Check out //www.pbase.com/nella for some IR photos, and some great photos in general, all taken with the c4000z.
Originally posted by Spanish_Grease:
P.P.S. - Also, for the price of the c-4000z and the extension tube, and the add-on lenses you could almost afford a Canon Digital Rebel :-)
|
Even if it were £300 for a rebel, I'd have to start building my equipment collection from scratch, and I'd lose the realtime LCD. If I were going SLR, I'd stick strictly to film.
Regardless, thanks for the discussion!
David
Message edited by author 2004-08-15 01:35:44. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/13/2025 06:12:57 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/13/2025 06:12:57 AM EDT.
|
