I am in the process of trying to decide between purchasing the new Oly 450z or the C2000. It seems that the 450z's new features (improved ISO and fast processing time) may make it a better value than the C2000. Is the extra .8 million pixels worth the extra $350? How would the resolution of uncompressed TIFF images on the 450Z compare to JPEG images on the C2000? Would this possibly offset the C2000s resolution advantage to print 8 X 10 pictures? Thank you!

-- Bill Kap (kap@funtech.com), September 01, 1999

Answers

Before the C2000 came out, I was strongly considering the 400Z. However, after hearing (and seeing in web postings) that it had problem with color balance (blues and purples, in particular), I decided to buy the Nikon CP900S. Then Nikon stopped selling the CP900S, so I had to wait for the next generation. The CP950 and C2000 came out almost simultaneously, and were reviewed as being virtually indistinguishable in image quality. I selected the C2000 because I wanted a fast lens and remote control, and I preferred its ergonomics. The resolution of these cameras is about 800x600. I understand that the resolution of the 400Z was about 700x500. You simply cannot increase resolution by using an uncompressed TIFF. Using TIFF only reduces the JPEG artifacts. I think that if Olympus has correct color balance in the new 450Z, you can fully expect to have the same quality in a 7x9 print that you can expect with the C2000 in an 8x10 print. Perhaps there will be a review of the 450Z's color balance before long.

-- Jim Popenoe (popenoe@humboldt1.com), September 01, 1999.