Anyone have or use a 4040 Olympus?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

It came out it says in 2001-2002. As I posted it seemed like a good
cam to get as prices for digi cams until recently were very high for
anything over 2-3 megs. This was 4 megs and there was a user group
that seemed to like it and good reviews.

The problem is in general the pics look drabber vs many of the new
cams. Im not completely sure but many cams seem to oversaturate the
colors , boost colors a bit so pics have that "wow" factor. Its
possible that the Oly is a bit more accurate but in general it looks
flat , bland sometimes like its almost monochrome with some subtle
coloring added.

The other problem the pictures look soft , murky especially noticeable
when theres lot of brush , tree foliage in the background in parts of
the pic.

In general , are the older 2001-2002 4 meg cameras just not up to even
current 3-4 meg cams with improvements in lenses and sensors ? Or
would you say they are pretty close still in overall pic quality.

 

[Chuck]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

A camera with at least 3.2 Meg shopuld produce a fairly decent picture.
Have you looked in the manual to see if there are settings that may improve
your results?
Even my old Kodak DC25 had such settings available.

A decent photo editor may also help.
Finally, your complaints concerning background quality may be due (at least
in part) to camera lens settings.
(Mainly F stop) However, a fast shutter speed may force an F stop that has
a shallow focus depth.

If a camera is setup to work at it's sensitivity limits you may see the very
symptoms you mentioned.
(It's also possible that the camera sensor has a problem)

"John@Smith.com" <xxxxspud@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:bo3je1pnap2g163me6h6uog3uhl0f3icss@4ax.com...
> It came out it says in 2001-2002. As I posted it seemed like a good
> cam to get as prices for digi cams until recently were very high for
> anything over 2-3 megs. This was 4 megs and there was a user group
> that seemed to like it and good reviews.
>
> The problem is in general the pics look drabber vs many of the new
> cams. Im not completely sure but many cams seem to oversaturate the
> colors , boost colors a bit so pics have that "wow" factor. Its
> possible that the Oly is a bit more accurate but in general it looks
> flat , bland sometimes like its almost monochrome with some subtle
> coloring added.
>
> The other problem the pictures look soft , murky especially noticeable
> when theres lot of brush , tree foliage in the background in parts of
> the pic.
>
> In general , are the older 2001-2002 4 meg cameras just not up to even
> current 3-4 meg cams with improvements in lenses and sensors ? Or
> would you say they are pretty close still in overall pic quality.