 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2006New $999 E-330 is magnesium, MAGNESIUM!!!!!!!!!!!!
I thought it was too much to hope for, given it's $999 kit street price, but when I saw the images, I knew it wasn't plastic! Here's the proof. http://www.mycen.com.my/picturestory/e330_a.html MAGNESIUM!!!!!!!!!!!! oh oh oh oh oh Ooooohhhhhhhhhh...... I just came. > MAGNESIUM!!!!!!!!!!!! > > oh oh oh oh oh Ooooohhhhhhhhhh...... > > I just came. Stellar! It would look great if you lit it--you wouldn't need a flash! Toby >> MAGNESIUM!!!!!!!!!!!! >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Toby Burns much cleaner than plastic too. -Rich >>> MAGNESIUM!!!!!!!!!!!! >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Burns much cleaner than plastic too. >-Rich Not so. Magnesium smoke is quite toxic. It is made up of very small particles of extremely white magnesium oxide. You can expose small objects to magnesium smoke to coat them with a white film that covers completely the original colour of the object. This is one of the methods often used in technical and scientific photography to eliminate colour and reflections. You should do it only in a fume hood or a ventilated place, and definitely you should not inhale any of the smoke. > Not so. Magnesium smoke is quite toxic. http://www.state.nj.us/health/eoh/rtkweb/1144.pdf While sniffing the stuff probably isn't a good idea, one gets the impression there are more serious things to worry about. >> Not so. Magnesium smoke is quite toxic. > >http://www.state.nj.us/health/eoh/rtkweb/1144.pdf > >While sniffing the stuff probably isn't a good idea, one gets the >impression there are more serious things to worry about. Perhaps they should put on a sticker that says "Don't inhale the smoke when burning this camera". >I thought it was too much to hope for, given it's $999 kit street > price, but when I saw the images, I knew it wasn't plastic! > Here's the proof. > > http://www.mycen.com.my/picturestory/e330_a.html But the drawbacks are already becoming apparent - no auto-focus with 'live preview', so you're forced to peer through a substandard viewfinder in order to use AF lenses. As for manual focus in 'live preview' mode - what a joke! Are they suggesting that you hold the camera with one hand far enough away from your body to be able to see the LCD, and try to focus at the same time?!! Sharp shots guaranteed, not. Honestly, you'd think that a company like Olympus would have half a clue about camera design, wouldn't you? In article Chimp says... > But the drawbacks are already becoming apparent - no auto-focus with 'live > preview', so you're forced to peer through a substandard viewfinder in order > to use AF lenses. No AF in mode B but there is AF in mode A. Mode B shutter delay means it would perhaps only suit tripod use anyway. > In article Chimp says... >> But the drawbacks are already becoming apparent - no auto-focus with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No AF in mode B but there is AF in mode A. Mode B shutter delay means it > would perhaps only suit tripod use anyway.> I've just read about the one second delay - the specs seem to be getting worse, it all seems a bit gimmicky to me. Besides, what is all this fuss about 'live preview', anyway? - why not just buy a Zigview? > I've just read about the one second delay - the specs seem to be getting > worse, it all seems a bit gimmicky to me. > > Besides, what is all this fuss about 'live preview', anyway? - why not just > buy a Zigview? It won't work underwater for one. The E-330 has an underwater housing designed for it and that should be pretty nice to use with the LCD on the back instead of the optical viewfinder. The Zigview also does not, as near as I can tell, tilt as the E-330 LCD does. The E-330 also offers a manual focusing aid, but we'll have to see how well it works in practice. After watching people shoot with one eye squinted closed it isn't hard to see why optical viewfinders are rapidly disappearing on consumer cameras. > After watching people shoot with one eye squinted closed it isn't hard to > see why optical viewfinders are rapidly disappearing on consumer cameras. Well no actually, we have been doing it for a hundred years or more and seem to have taken a few good shots. >>After watching people shoot with one eye squinted closed it isn't hard to >>see why optical viewfinders are rapidly disappearing on consumer cameras. > > Well no actually, we have been doing it for a hundred years or more and seem > to have taken a few good shots. I bow to your wisdom, fine sir. >>I thought it was too much to hope for, given it's $999 kit street >> price, but when I saw the images, I knew it wasn't plastic! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >preview', so you're forced to peer through a substandard viewfinder in order >to use AF lenses. Saying substandard is a bit premature, but splitting the light (assuming the mirror is acting like a beam splitter and not just a section of it, could dim the image in the optical viewfinder. >As for manual focus in 'live preview' mode - what a joke! Are they >suggesting that you hold the camera with one hand far enough away from your >body to be able to see the LCD, and try to focus at the same time?!! > >Sharp shots guaranteed, not. Nonsense. People do this with some macro modes on P&S cameras all the time. If you have trouble focusing a few inches from your face, get glasses. -Rich > Nonsense. People do this with some macro modes on P&S cameras all the > time. If you have trouble focusing a few inches from your face, get > glasses. > -Rich How many people with P&S do you know that use manual focus? L.T >>Nonsense. People do this with some macro modes on P&S cameras all the >>time. If you have trouble focusing a few inches from your face, get >>glasses. >>-Rich > > How many people with P&S do you know that use manual focus? I used manual focus for macro (closest distance & move the camera to focus). >> Nonsense. People do this with some macro modes on P&S cameras all the >> time. If you have trouble focusing a few inches from your face, get [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > L.T Well, I did try it once on my DCS-H1. I will not try it again...well, not unless I have an entire day to kill. >>> Nonsense. People do this with some macro modes on P&S cameras all the >>> time. If you have trouble focusing a few inches from your face, get [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Well, I did try it once on my DCS-H1. I will not try it again...well, not >unless I have an entire day to kill. I really do not understand what you are talking about. Using manual focus is pretty easy, especially if the camera has a focus ring. Things will get better when the resolution of the LCD/EVF increases. -Rich >>>> Nonsense. People do this with some macro modes on P&S cameras all the >>>> time. If you have trouble focusing a few inches from your face, get [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Things will get better when the resolution of the LCD/EVF increases. > -Rich Right Rich, lots of P&S cameras have focus rings don't they??? >>>>> Nonsense. People do this with some macro modes on P&S cameras all the >>>>> time. If you have trouble focusing a few inches from your face, get [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Right Rich, lots of P&S cameras have focus rings don't they??? Just as you ignore anything not DSLR, I don't really include those silver rectangular things you can't even put a filter one. I was just using the Panason FZ30 which does have a manual focus and zoom ring. -Rich >>>>>> Nonsense. People do this with some macro modes on P&S cameras all >>>>>> the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > zoom ring. > -Rich Good, thats one then. >>>>>>> Nonsense. People do this with some macro modes on P&S cameras all >>>>>>> the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Good, thats one then. There are more than that. Fuji's 9000 is another. The long zoom "prosumers" seem to be providing them. -Rich >>>> Nonsense. People do this with some macro modes on P&S cameras all the >>>> time. If you have trouble focusing a few inches from your face, get [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Things will get better when the resolution of the LCD/EVF increases. > -Rich It is a P&S, without focus ring. You have to push buttons to focus manually, and it is very hard to get just right. >>>>> Nonsense. People do this with some macro modes on P&S cameras all the >>>>> time. If you have trouble focusing a few inches from your face, get [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >It is a P&S, without focus ring. You have to push buttons to focus >manually, and it is very hard to get just right. Some have built-in image magnifiers that help. If you are shooting with the lens wide open and there is little DOF, then it can be a problem. -Rich >>I thought it was too much to hope for, given it's $999 kit street >> price, but when I saw the images, I knew it wasn't plastic! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > preview', so you're forced to peer through a substandard viewfinder in > order to use AF lenses. wrong.  SignatureStacey >>>I thought it was too much to hope for, given it's $999 kit street >>> price, but when I saw the images, I knew it wasn't plastic! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > wrong< Well, al the reviews so far state that it's even dimmer than its predecessor - but as you have obviously tried one yourself, perhaps we should take your word on the matter? You're a die-hard Olympus crank, so you will never see any shortcomings in their products. My own view, fwiw, is that Olympus are forced to add these unnecessary gimmicks to their cameras in an attempt to boost dwindling sales that have the Four-Thirds system as their root cause. I'm only surprised that the thing doesn't (yet) play MP3's. - and why not a built in FM radio while they're at it?... >>>>I thought it was too much to hope for, given it's $999 kit street >>>> price, but when I saw the images, I knew it wasn't plastic! [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > predecessor - but as you have obviously tried one yourself, perhaps we > should take your word on the matter? It's that you claimed you can't use "live preview" in AF mode. > You're a die-hard Olympus crank, so you will never see any shortcomings in > their products. High ISO sucks as does the metering on the E300. Sure they have shortcommings as does any camera. > My own view, fwiw, is that Olympus A camera I bet you've never used yet can post lots of information about? SignatureStacey In article Rich says... > I thought it was too much to hope for, given it's $999 kit street > price, but when I saw the images, I knew it wasn't plastic! > Here's the proof. > > http://www.mycen.com.my/picturestory/e330_a.html DPReview says plastic body. > DPReview says plastic body. He was only going by the outer "skin" of the body. Tom's Hardware says it has the same build like the E300. >> DPReview says plastic body. > >He was only going by the outer "skin" of the body. Tom's Hardware says it >has the >same build like the E300. So half plastic, like the E-300 which is better built than the new E-500, Rebel, D50, D70, Pentax, etc. -Rich >>> DPReview says plastic body. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > E-500, Rebel, D50, D70, Pentax, etc. > -Rich So, are you going to buy one? > I thought it was too much to hope for, given it's $999 kit street > price, but when I saw the images, I knew it wasn't plastic! > Here's the proof. > > http://www.mycen.com.my/picturestory/e330_a.html The ultimate irony will be if Rich ends up with a plastic coffin, eternity in plastic :) Scott >> I thought it was too much to hope for, given it's $999 kit street >> price, but when I saw the images, I knew it wasn't plastic! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Scott Well, it certainly wouldn't biodegrade like wood. Score one for plastic. Unless you don't like pollution. -Rich > The ultimate irony will be if Rich ends up with a plastic coffin, > eternity in plastic :) Hmmmm... Hundreds of people with reason to be pissed at Rich + paypal account for donations + Tony (two times) Gambini = Star Chamber = Peace, Joy & Goodwill to all. >I thought it was too much to hope for, given it's $999 kit street > price, but when I saw the images, I knew it wasn't plastic! > Here's the proof. > > http://www.mycen.com.my/picturestory/e330_a.html When you drop and put a big dent in the thing I'll let you borrow my D70. :-) > I thought it was too much to hope for, given it's $999 kit street > price, but when I saw the images, I knew it wasn't plastic! > Here's the proof. > > http://www.mycen.com.my/picturestory/e330_a.html That's *terrible*, I'm so sorry. Who'd have thought a reputatble company like that would have built a camera that's a *fire hazard*? :-) SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > I thought it was too much to hope for, given it's $999 kit street > price, but when I saw the images, I knew it wasn't plastic! > Here's the proof. > > http://www.mycen.com.my/picturestory/e330_a.html You do get excitable. But I suggest your ejaculations are premature as Phil Askey describes it as 'p_l_a_s_t_i_c' in DPReview.com, and Steves-Digicams.com describes it as "Die-cast aluminum chassis, aluminum top cover, polycarbonate". It's just not fair, is it Rich! Nigel Sad, if it's true. I wonder why the guy who actually got to use the thing thought it was magnesium? Has DP review even had the camera "in hand?" > Sad, if it's true. I wonder why the guy who actually got to use the > thing thought it > was magnesium? Has DP review even had the camera "in hand?" Yikes! I can't wait to see the replies you're (hopefully) gonna get to that remark. :-) Nigel > Sad, if it's true. I wonder why the guy who actually got to use the > thing thought it > was magnesium? Has DP review even had the camera "in hand?" So when you tested it WAS magnesium, right. >> Sad, if it's true. I wonder why the guy who actually got to use the >> thing thought it >> was magnesium? Has DP review even had the camera "in hand?" > >So when you tested it WAS magnesium, right. You must have missed the first post. Someone in Taiwan tested it. -Rich > You must have missed the first post. Someone in Taiwan tested it. > -Rich Malaysia. -Nigel >>> Sad, if it's true. I wonder why the guy who actually got to use the >>> thing thought it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You must have missed the first post. Someone in Taiwan tested it. > -Rich Ah yes, very trustworthy that lot. > Sad, if it's true. I wonder why the guy who actually got to use the > thing thought it > was magnesium? Has DP review even had the camera "in hand?" Can one tell if it's aluminum or magnesium by touch? >> Sad, if it's true. I wonder why the guy who actually got to use the >> thing thought it >> was magnesium? Has DP review even had the camera "in hand?" >> >Can one tell if it's aluminum or magnesium by touch? Unlikely, but the magnesium cameras seem to have different finishes than the aluminum ones. However, you can tell plastic from metal by touch, even with a paint layer on it. -Rich > I thought it was too much to hope for, given it's $999 kit street > price, but when I saw the images, I knew it wasn't plastic! Even if it's made of gold it's poxy, and still an olympus. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.