Olympus 570UZ

[JessEel]

HEY BEAUTIFULS with knowledge of PHOTOGRAPHY

Opinion on this little guy?
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08...olysp570uz.asp



I want something thats Under $500 - with good Zoom and capable of good photos at night, and good sports photos. Do you think im onto a winner?

 

[The Colonel]

http://www.camera-warehouse.com.au/p/canon-powershot-s5is

 

[BF]

I understand you have a budget, but i reckon you should save your money, get a DSLR (a canon 350d for example, can be had for about $5-600 on ebay). Start of with the kit lens (70-300mm), and when you have a bit more money upgrade to one of the better zoom lenses. Thats what i did.

when you talk about "night shots", u cant get good night photos without the use of a tripod.

 

[JessEel]

RE: Night Shots - i just mean a decent amount of light intake and a flash.

I took the below photo on my current camera, from about 20m away, inside a fairly well lit room.

ridiculous - means that parties, and dinners are just about impossible. I just want something that can capture the other side of the room!

 

[roopy]

 

[roopy]

http://www.dslrtips.com/workshops/How_to_take_photos_at_night/manual_long_exposure.shtml

 

[TooheysNew]

 

[roopy]

On your camera with 20 times zoom - i see that is equivalent to 520mm zoom on an SLR camera.
I use a lens on my SLR with a maximum zoom of 400mm which will get me a good picture from one end of a football field to the other - but even though my lens is image stabilised and cost me 3500 dollars i still have to have a very steady hand to not blurr photos with that sort of zoom.
Your camera says it is double image stabilised - whatever that means - and i'd say you have more zoom that i would have thought could be used without a tri-pod. Basically a little shake on your end would be a 6 foot movement at the end of 520mm zoom.

 

[JessEel]

yea fair enough - im not so much in it for the zoom. more the type of camera for the price range, plus the model below it came highly reccomended to me.


And re: editing photos.. thats all well and good, and i appreciate what you did, but considering the camera used to take that photo was worth $700 at time of purchase, its bullsh*t that i should hav to edit each and every photo i take.

 

[BF]

And re: editing photos.. thats all well and good, and i appreciate what you did, but considering the camera used to take that photo was worth $700 at time of purchase, its bullsh*t that i should hav to edit each and every photo i take.

Mate my photo gear is worth about 4-5 times that amount. Im not a pro, but enjoy it as a hobby and every single photo that i take gets edited to some degree.

Its part and parcel of taking photo's

 

[JessEel]

yea but your photos are probably quite good at first, and even better when you edit them.

like the case above, for the photo to be any good at all, i would have to edit every one of them!

 

[BF]

what was your ISO setting when you took the photo?

20 meters is a fair distance, id be taking a photo like that on at least 100mm + focal length and id be putting my ISO up to 800+.

Not being a smart arse, but i wouldnt have bothered editing the photo, i would have deleted it. moved closer and recomposed.

 

[Schillaci]

how about a tripod to allow for a longer exposure?

A flash is pretty useless for anything over 10 metres away. The other thing with a flash is it will highlight the subject but the background will be very dark.

 

[Steven Gerrard]

Canon Powershot S5is

That's what I have and it's an excellent zoom digital camera.