RE: Digital camera pix

["Ross Overstreet" <ross-o-at-mindspring-dot-com> (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)]

Hi Gary, Terry, all

Scott Hanson and I both recently purchased Olympus 3000 series cameras.
They are the top of the line "prosumer" digicams on the market.  Actually,
the Olympus 3300 is the best, but the only difference between it and the
C3000 is extra internal RAM that allows it to take 4.5 fps (and $200 more).

It's better than its competitors (Sony & Nikon) because it's the only one
that allows for all manual settings.  The quicktime movie feature is also
pretty amusing.

I picked up my C3000z at http://www.ssdonline-dot-com for $725 with no tax and
no shipping charges.  I feel pretty good about this since all the local
merchants are asking $800 with another $60+ of tax.  Be really careful about
camera houses in NY.  They are usually cheaper but I have read lots of bad
things on the web about them.  You can get really good prices on Smart Media
at www.mobshop-dot-com.

Here is one of the best digicam review pages
http://www.steves-digicams-dot-com/

Gary made the best digital camera arc photo that I have seen yet!  Scott and
I both love our digicams and are amazed the photo quality, but we have been
a bit dissapointed in pictures of arcs.  The CCD doesn't seem to show the
little spidery arcs and faint purple glow of the corona like film cameras.
I bet you could never get one of those "corona christmas trees" to show up
on the digicam.  Gary - what settings did you use?

BTW, all of my Teslathon pics were taken with the C3000z. No arc pics,
though.

Ross-O



-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 3:53 PM
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Digital camera pix


Original poster: Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>

Hi Gary,

	As digital cameras get better and better, they are starting to "act" more
like film cameras.  Instead of exposure to light causing a chemical
reaction on film, digital cameras discharge the capacitors of the pixels.
They have now gotten very good at it as you beautiful picture shows!  Older
digital cameras did not have a wonderful linear time exposure quality but
it appears they have figured that out now.  It appears the basic speed of
your camera is very fast and is immune to the confusion of a bright fast
light in a dim background.  It seems to grasp the fine details of dim
leaders as well as the intense arcs very well.  There may be fun fast
action events this camera could catch too.

BTW - Where did you get you camera and about how much do they cost?  Do you
like it for coiling pictures?  Would you generally recommend it?  I too am
looking for a nice digital for coiling and your picture says it all!

Cheers,

	Terry


At 01:27 PM 7/28/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi All:
>
>Today I began playing with my new toy, an Olympus C3000 3.3 megapixel
>digital camera.  This model seemed particularly well suited for arc
pictures
>because one has the option of reverting to manual focus, aperture, and
>"shutter" speed, up to 16 full seconds.  The color and resolution of the
>images just blow me away, it's too bad that the best quality images are so
>large.  But I digress...
>
>I've noticed that arc pictures show the so-called banjo effect much more
>pronounced than do film-based pictures I've taken.  Does anyone know if
this
>is simply a result of the better focus and resolution, or does the image
>sensor not truly integrate continuously over the exposure interval, instead
>taking discrete samples in time and adding them?
>
>A sample picture is on my web site at:
>http://people.ne.mediaone-dot-net/lau/tesla/super_banjo.jpg
><http://people.ne.mediaone-dot-net/lau/tesla/super_banjo.jpg>  (120KB)
>
>Regards, Gary Lau
>Waltham, MA USA
>