If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill" wrote in message gy.com... I have recently used several brand new cameras at work, some were 5 megpixel, some were 4 and several were 3. NONE of them were as accurate as the 2500 in color and in focus when using the macro settings. NONE were as easy to use when following moving objects to photograph. I own an Oly E-10, Canon S200, Olympus 2500 and a box of 35mm cameras. Name a mid range digital camera out right now with a real optical viewfinder that can compete? NONE ZIP. Name the ways this camera is way behind a midrange camera? Less pixels? SO WHAT, many journalists are still using 2.5's and the like. Don't throw some bull**** statement without backing it up with some facts. Bill: PJ's are shooting 1D and 1Ds Canon bodies or Nikon D1x bodies, all of which have more than 2.5 mp. The Uzi was a great camera a few years ago, but it's not even average by today's standards. Better midrange cameras? Canon G3/G5/A80, Oly C-740/C-750, even the Kodak 6490 to name just a few that start at the same range as the original poster's $400 price. And they're brand new, not a tired old 3 or 4 year old camera that had a bad rep for dying unexpectedly even when new. Tom P. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Tom, I agree those are good cameras, but what do they offer aside from an
increase in MP over the 2500? We're not talking an UZI, this is the 2500, not the same camera. I always wished I'd gotten an UZI for the zoom, but I hated the viewfinder. The 2500 has a true through the lens system. I can't find a one today that has that in that price group. Bill "Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message ... Bill: PJ's are shooting 1D and 1Ds Canon bodies or Nikon D1x bodies, all of which have more than 2.5 mp. The Uzi was a great camera a few years ago, but it's not even average by today's standards. Better midrange cameras? Canon G3/G5/A80, Oly C-740/C-750, even the Kodak 6490 to name just a few that start at the same range as the original poster's $400 price. And they're brand new, not a tired old 3 or 4 year old camera that had a bad rep for dying unexpectedly even when new. Tom P. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Olympus is the cause! They're dumping their old 2500s with that ring flash
on the market! I'd love to get one of those flashes, maybe I'll bid 250 for a set and then Ebay the camera? "Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message ... Amazing that bidding ended at $152.50!!! Don't you feel even more foolish now? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:52:19 -0500, "Ger" wrote:
As usual I was right. "As usual"? How would we know when you're right? Everytime you post, you're a new person. You'll be lucky to get $250. Wow, then there's a lot of lucky people on eBay getting that and more. It was a nice camera FOUR years ago but is way behind even a good midrange camera nowadays. Do us a favor and stick to one Identity so we can all plonk you. Thanks. To e-mail me, remove theobvious from my e-mail address. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill" wrote in message
gy.com... Tom, I agree those are good cameras, but what do they offer aside from an increase in MP over the 2500? We're not talking an UZI, this is the 2500, not the same camera. I always wished I'd gotten an UZI for the zoom, but I hated the viewfinder. The 2500 has a true through the lens system. I can't find a one today that has that in that price group. Bill First, my apologies for confusing the c2100 and c2500s. As for the EVF, You were wise, I had a Pro90IS and that was the only thing I really hated about it. Of course, now that I realize we're talking about a camera with only a 3x zoom, I'm even more convinced its not worth $400. While an SLR might be preferable to a rangefinder, with a 3x zoom there's not much difference since the viewfinder does zoom and the viewfinder on most slrs dont show the entire frame anyway. The resolution to print 8x10 without compromise versus 5x7s alone would be worth the newer camera, not to mention a bigger frame buffer, more ISO range, warranty, and so forth. Tom P. Tom P. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
how much it worth will be determined by what bids the seller get, which will
be a known fact in 2 days. Some people got more than $250 on this camera and some people got less than $250. $269 openning bid is a bit to the high end, but with some luck, it may get a bid. If it doesn't sell, the seller will lower the price. There is no need for bashing him, nor claiming it is worth way more than $400. Let the market plays it out, can we? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
I agree, the bashers continue to spout off about newer, better, without
indicating what it is that is newer and better about the new cameras. Tom's reasoning is well thought out and explained, the other moron is just that. Anyone have one of those ring flashes they want to sell? Olympus is pushing the dental packages like crazy on Ebay! Bill "Q. Lu" wrote in message ... how much it worth will be determined by what bids the seller get, which will be a known fact in 2 days. Some people got more than $250 on this camera and some people got less than $250. $269 openning bid is a bit to the high end, but with some luck, it may get a bid. If it doesn't sell, the seller will lower the price. There is no need for bashing him, nor claiming it is worth way more than $400. Let the market plays it out, can we? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:52:19 -0500, "Ger" wrote:
As usual I was right. You'll be lucky to get $250. As usual, you certainly were. One bid, $269, 13 hours remaining. I'm glad I listened to you. To e-mail me, remove theobvious from my e-mail address. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Did you see one of Olympus's packages with the 2500 and ring flash went for
over $700? I can't freaking believe it! "Evan Platt" wrote in message ... On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:52:19 -0500, "Ger" wrote: As usual I was right. You'll be lucky to get $250. As usual, you certainly were. One bid, $269, 13 hours remaining. I'm glad I listened to you. To e-mail me, remove theobvious from my e-mail address. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
And if a dentist or other medical professional bought it believe it. not
every one is in your words freaking cheap. "Bill" wrote in message gy.com... Did you see one of Olympus's packages with the 2500 and ring flash went for over $700? I can't freaking believe it! "Evan Platt" wrote in message ... On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:52:19 -0500, "Ger" wrote: As usual I was right. You'll be lucky to get $250. As usual, you certainly were. One bid, $269, 13 hours remaining. I'm glad I listened to you. To e-mail me, remove theobvious from my e-mail address. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Olympus C8080 or Panasonic DMC-FZ20? | Tom Nakashima | Digital Photography | 0 | December 6th 04 03:47 PM |
FS: Olympus OM4T pro system | Andy Rothman | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | October 19th 04 01:49 AM |
Little review of the Olympus RC | Mike Henley | 35mm Photo Equipment | 5 | July 2nd 04 04:42 AM |
Olympus OM-1 with flash (and an extra camera) for sale on ebay | Taz Gregory | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | June 1st 04 05:46 PM |
FS: Olympus E10 | Mark Scheingold | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | September 21st 03 03:46 AM |