i have a kodak dc 210 plus, but need just a bit better, crisper pics...in the comparometer, it looks like the Oly400 has clearer pics than the kodak 260, even though the 260 has higher resolution...which should i go for? the 450 or the Kodak? is the Kodak worth the extra $150 over the Oly 450??? thanx, mike

-- mike clarke (mikes300@primary.net), October 13, 1999

Answers

I can only offer up my opinion. I have an Oly D-450zoom (essentially the same as the 400, with improved features). I'm quite happy with it.

Pictures are very crisp from a tripod, but I need to re-learn steadying a camera freehand. Macro shots are as good. A close-up of the top os a guitar my father wants to put on the net for auction revealed a great deal of detail in the grain, more than what I expected. The distance was 2 feet.

Color seems to be good over all, but it suffers from blue cast when shooting with the flash. Most digitals do from what I understand.

What I find dissapointing is the lack of manufactured telephoto lenses. Raynox makes a few, from 1.5x to 3x. They also make macro and wide angle lenses. There is a special clip-on type of bracket that comes in a kit (with a lense set of course), that you can also attach filters to (37mm). I have been told that the 1.8x and 2x produce spherical abberation near the edges, and the 3x will probably produce a lot of vingetting. A little higher magnification would be welcomed. Of course, there is fudging it with a high quality monocular. Go to www.bugeyedigital.com if you are interested in seeing them and some shots for yourself.

-- Dale R Dankulich (dalerd01@earthlink.net), October 13, 1999.