I see the new Olympus C2500L posted on Steves Breaking News. Not too much info yet, but comparing it with the newly announced Sony DSC-F505K, it appears to be priced about $200 or so more than the Sony; has 3X versus the 5X zoom of the 505; does not swivel; lacks the Sony Zeiss lens and super sharp LCD; and of course, no MEPG, voice memo, or Lithium battery. Wonder what it does have to make is worth several hundred dollars more than the 505?

Rodger

-- Rodger Carter (rodger.carter@wpafb.af.mil), August 24, 1999

Answers

Hm. Maybe because the Olympus takes better quality pictures? :) Oly isn't loaded with some of the sony gimmickry, but man they hit where it counts on this one!!! Did you notice -- The CCD is 2/3 inch instead of half inch... and it is a TRUE TTL camera! If you gloss over that feature you're not a photographer. :) The oly flash integration on the 2500 is nothing less than groundbreaking for digicams at this price range. By the way, oly is no slouch at lenses either... Just as with other digicam models, the ones who are hypnotized by glitzy gimmick features will go for sony, the ones who care more about image quality and photography will go oly/nikon..

-- benoit (foo@bar.com), August 27, 1999.

I DISAGREE WITH THE LAST ANSWER. I DO FEEL THE OLYMPUS IS A WORTHY CAMERA, IT IS NOT THE CAMERA THE SONY F505 IS. THE SONY IS A FIRST CLASS CAMERA, TAKING FANTASTIC PICTURES.

-- JSJ (J_SCOTTJR@worldnet.att.net), August 28, 1999.

Yeah maybe I'll one if the image quality is excellent. We'll see. Sony looks nice and compact compared to the oly.

-- benoit (foo@bar.com), August 30, 1999.

OK I'm eager to eat my words on this one, I want the new sony.

-- benoit (foo@bar.com), August 31, 1999.

I believe the answer is twofold: First, the Sony DOES take excellent pictures (Zeiss lens, etc.), but the Olympus has higher resolution and is MUCH more versatile since there are options for wide angle and telephoto attachments. The Olympus has an improved CCD while the Sony is still using the .5" 2.1 megapixel standard. The real deal killer, as far as I am concerned is Sony's reluctance to allow reasonable storage. They cripple an otherwise excellent camera with tiny 4 meg "memory stick" storage, and thereby have to over compress their jpg's to compensate. The compression is so extreme that artefacts are clearly visible under medium magnification.

-- Lin Evans (data2@earthnet.net), October 02, 1999.