Comparison: Rebel XT with Kit Zoom versus Olympus C8080

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by RichA, Aug 3, 2005.

  1. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    Good grief, so who is the person who needs to chill out? You act like
    someone called your mother a whore.
     
    Stacey, Aug 4, 2005
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Brian Baird Guest

    No, I'm sick of your misinformation, lack of critical thinking and most
    importantly your fucking arrogance. Get real.
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 4, 2005
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    You confused. There are points of focus in all the shots, they are
    just so bad in the Canon kit lens and the transition from focus to
    in or outside of focus you have trouble seeing exactly where they are.
    It's said that a lens like the kit lens "mushes through focus" instead
    of "snapping in." That's a perfect description.
    Seems kind of a shame for you to snatch your ball and go home like
    this, so lets do this then. One shot each of a distant subject where
    the focus will essentially be at infinity. We'll let the Canon and
    Olympus autofocusing do the work. You pick the f-ratios and the focal
    length.
    Pick whatever you think the kit lens does best.
    White balance set on auto. Tripod mounted and on a sunny day so the
    shutter speeds are fast. Metering, the default of the cameras.
    RAW files, converted without modification, however you prefer for
    posting.
    Would those conditions satisfy you?
     
    RichA, Aug 4, 2005
    #23
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    I've only mentioned (as I said before) the kit lens and the Rebel's
    build quality. Question; Do you own either and if not, how have I
    told YOU what that you are doing wrong?
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Aug 4, 2005
    #24
  5. RichA

    Charles Guest

    RichA and Stacey are not going to get real. By now you all should have
    figured out they are trolling. Both of them are getting their rocks off
    reading the replies to their idiot troll bait.
     
    Charles, Aug 4, 2005
    #25
  6. RichA

    Brian Baird Guest

    Me confused?
    Uh, no. You didn't focus worth a crap and the test was poorly conceived
    and executed.

    Did you even bother looking at the DOF figures? Because DOF is a
    function of the lens, and you were comparing apples and walruses.
    I already described what you need to do to correct the test. If you
    don't understand WHY you're redoing it, then just shut up, go away and
    don't bother trying to do this sort of thing ever again.
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 4, 2005
    #26
  7. RichA

    Brian Baird Guest

    I wish this was the case. But RichA and Stacey are both major sources
    of BAD INFORMATION on this board. For those who read, but might not
    post, or those who might THINK of posting stupid stuff, I think we have
    a responsibility to call bullshit when we see it.
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 4, 2005
    #27
  8. RichA

    SMS Guest

    I think that you're giving a lot less credit to the average reader, if
    there is such a thing, than they deserve.

    I doubt that if a single person ever took the "advice," or believed a
    single post, written by Steve Gionovella (aka George Preddy, Suzie
    Quinn, Don Gentile, etc.), Rich A, or Stacey. They are all pathalogical
    liars, and they have made that fact abundantly clear to anyone that
    reads this group.

    Yes, you are correct that those two individuals are major sources of
    incorrect, and bad information, but even a newbie can figure that out.
     
    SMS, Aug 4, 2005
    #28
  9. RichA

    Larry Guest

    When I shoot, I use a Canon DSLR for the "action" shots, and any one of 3 ZLR
    type cameras (none of them Canon, I dont like the Pro-1).

    I dont think you can beat a DSLR for low light, and/or fast action shooting
    unless you dont mind missing a lot of shots.

    I have a Canon because its what happened to be the one I liked at the time I
    was buying a DSLR,, Now I have a Canon and a few Canon lenses, but that
    wouldnt stop me for a moment from buying a Nikon or Minolta, or even a
    Pentax, if they came out with a camera that I saw an advantage in without
    adding a drawback.

    Sometimes I find the "brand wars" in the group entertaining, and sometimes
    they are a bore, but they are always going on in one way or another..

    My ZLR cameras are: Sony F 828, Olympus 8080, Fuji S7000.

    If my posed shots have no high contrast/backlighting problems the Sony wins
    hands down for me, otherwise the Olympus 8080 gets the job. For shots that I
    feel it is the "apropriate" camera the Fuji (in RAW mode) gets the job (where
    the subject matter contains more landscape than people, of no people at all).

    Im a brand whore..... I'll buy any brand that suites (or seems to suite) my
    needs.

    One other thing I'de like to contribute to the discussion is: If you buy a
    DSLR with a "kit" lens, dont expect much, because they dont charge much for
    it.. If you dont have High expectations, the camera lens combo will probably
    live up to its price point.
     
    Larry, Aug 4, 2005
    #29
  10. RichA

    RichA Guest

    I lied about what?
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Aug 4, 2005
    #30
  11. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Why don't you just admit to being an obstinate crybaby instead?
    It seems that you are purposely avoiding reality and you look pathetic
    for it. If you are stuck with the kit lens because you can't afford
    anything else, don't blame others for your plight and don't try to
    pretend the kit lens isn't junk.
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Aug 4, 2005
    #31
  12. RichA

    Andy Guest

    I've got a 300D, kit lens and the 75-300 mkII USM. I can't afford
    anything else, oh woe is me... boo hoo... sniffle...

    Following were shot with the "junk" lens plus a dirt cheap +10 close-up
    filter.

    http://www.pxl8.co.uk/common_darter_02.jpg
    http://www.pxl8.co.uk/common_darter_03.jpg
    http://www.pxl8.co.uk/common_darter_04.jpg
    http://www.pxl8.co.uk/common_darter_05.jpg
     
    Andy, Aug 5, 2005
    #32
  13. RichA

    Brian Baird Guest

    I won't because asking you to perform a legitimate test isn't "crying."
    It's demanding you put up or shut up.
    I have, at this time, no negative or positive opinion of the kit lens
    vis a vis other kit lenses or point and shoots.

    If you're trying to convince me of your NEGATIVE opinion, you're going
    to have to perform a valid test. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

    Since you've shown yourself incapable and unwilling to do the test
    properly, you're on my fucking shit list. Until you actually learn a
    little about why your test was flawed I don't believe you have the
    requisite knowledge of photography or objective testing to be of use.
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 5, 2005
    #33
  14. RichA

    Brian Baird Guest

    Those are really good, especially considering the usage of the close-up
    filter. How do the 100% crops hold up?

    I've given up on macro shots until I can get a decent lens. I get too
    much chromatic aberration with my lens/filter combo. It probably would
    be less if I lit the subjects better, but I'm an "available light" kinda
    guy.
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 5, 2005
    #34
  15. RichA

    Toa Guest

    don't blame others for your plight and don't try to
    Everything is relative, even relatives. What you may consider to be junk
    others can (and obviously do) consider to be a perfectly acceptable lens.
    It all depends on what one expects. You expect something that isn't there,
    others expectations are met with what they have.

    I fail to see why you continue on this tack, it gets nowhere. It'ld be a
    bit like me calling your wife fat and ugly. It would serve no purpose other
    than to rile you. Also I would have no basis for my accusation as I've
    never met your right hand

    Toa
     
    Toa, Aug 5, 2005
    #35
  16. RichA

    Brian Baird Guest

    Zing!
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 5, 2005
    #36
  17. RichA

    Andy Guest

    http://www.pxl8.co.uk/df_crop.jpg

    This is "unprocessed" apart from my normal settings for importing raw
    into Photoshop.
    These were available light as well - maybe you should give the kit lens
    a go :)
     
    Andy, Aug 5, 2005
    #37
  18. RichA

    Brian Baird Guest

    Not bad. The depth of field is paper thin, but you got a decent point
    of focus.
    I think I need brighter sun! ;)
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 5, 2005
    #38
  19. RichA

    Andy Guest

    It was shot at f8, 1/250 @ ISO400. I could have closed down another
    couple of stops but I've been sticking to f8 to help improve my focus
    technique. In that context I'm pleased with the results.
    Don't we all!
     
    Andy, Aug 5, 2005
    #39
  20. RichA

    RichA Guest

    They look pretty good, but then macro shots tend
    to be a bit more forgiving than normal shots.
    That's why P&S cameras that produce mediocre regular
    shots can often produce outstanding macro shots.
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Aug 5, 2005
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.