After extensively reading all the reviews on the 3.3 megapixel cameras up to this date I find myself interested in both the Olympus 3030Z and the Toshiba PDR-M70 cameras. I realize that Olympus has earned an enviable reputation for itself and manufactures a very handsome and functional product. But I know very little about Toshiba other than they have earned points with me in the large screen television field( I am a satisfied owner of one) I would very much like to hear from anyone who owns either the newest camera or who has been an owner for a period of time. I am especially interested in your experience, if any, with repairs and dealing with the factory. I would like your assessment of the features of their cameras as well as the quality of the pictures produced and any other points that a potential owner might be interested in. I have seen the reviews by Steve's Digicams and Megapixel with the outcomes generally positive but not the rave reviews for the Olympus of the Nikon. I'm not really sure if the reason for this partiality is because these brands have built up a significant following and folks just like to promote their favorites or whether they really are that much better a camera.

-- Ray Herrington (rherring@flash.net), June 10, 2000

Answers

I own two Toshiba digicams, a PDR-M1 and a PDR-M5. I'm very happy with both of them. That's not to say they don't have limitations, they do, but so do all the other models made to date. I haven't owned a comparable model from Oly or Nikon, so it's tough for me to say just how well the Toshiba would stack up against a similar model from those manufacturers. I think Nikon and Oly get a slight automatic edge with reviewers and consumers from being perceived as "real" camera manufacturers that Toshiba and other manufacturers don't get. It might be somewhat deserved, but I don't think it necessarily justifies the price difference and each model should be judged on it's own merit.

Based on owning the Toshibas and what I've read in the reviews, I'd say the main differences are that Nikon and Oly tend to hit the market first with the newer models and tend to build their units into cases with a heavier, more metallic, "35mm-like" feel... Frankly, I've had no trouble with either Toshiba camera and can understand how some reviewers would feel that the lighter-weight plastic enclosures used by Toshiba might not hold up as well. But, they do hold up just fine, and the lighter weight is not a bad thing either. The plastic is pretty tough and I suspect is a very good indication of Toshiba's engineering ability in terms of being able to produce a lighter weight more cost effective product that can still stand up to normal wear and support the internal components. Although, I'm not overly fond of the rubber port cover on the M5. It would have been nice if they'd added another door like they did for the smartmedia -a VERY nit picky complaint both on my part, and that of others.

It seems to me that since Oly and Nikon models usually come out first and Toshiba tends to hang back a bit, that they get all the praise by reviewers and that by the time the Toshiba comes out it's features aren't as SHINY and NEW looking to them -at least to some degree. I think the feature set of new M70 is in the same ballpark as the Oly & Nikon models, but Toshiba does it for less money and usually provides more consumer oriented, often innovative, features, like the voice recorder mode. I think Toshiba trys to produce a more consumer oriented product rather than a more 35mm like product because they are hoping to target a broader consumer market, rather than a more elite prosumer market. I do like that they've made inroads in providing more in the way of manual features, since most people can make use of them once they master the simpler auto modes and features.

As far as service and support goes, I really can say very little as I've never had need for them with either model! :-)

The only niggling problem I've encountered is the occasional low light focusing difficulty with the PDR-M5 due to it's contrast based focusing system. I think this same problem would apply to some degree with any comparable unit capable of such low light performance that wasn't equipped with a built in supplemental focusing light. It's easily compensated for by increasing the ambient light, a high tech method like employing a flashlight can work wonders... :-)

I'd say the image quality of Toshiba cameras usually meet or surpass the quality of the competition, but check out the images in the Imaging Resource reviews and judge for yourself. The PDR-M1 images seemed to require more tweaking as they usually had a yellowish cast, but that's minor and easy to correct.

I would say that considering Toshiba's usual lower prices you'd be very happy with the features and general quality of their products. Why not just check them out face to face in a CompUSA store or some other vendor where they'll have units you can actually compare to each other and decide for yourself.

The Toshiba PDR-M5 was(and still is) an especially powerful unit when introduced due to the pure "horsepower" of the camera's processor(s) and it's ability to take up to 4 images per second in burst mode. It doesn't hurt that you can also take a full size image every two seconds until the card is full in single exposure mode, not just two or three in a row until a buffer fills up. The innovative two shot bulb mode also yields very low noise long term exposures.

From the reviews I've seen the PDR-M70 will give the new Oly & Nikon models a good run for their money based on features and will definitely beat their prices. I'd like one just for the increased manual controls offered compared to the M5 and the included pc cord external flash trigger socket. Not to mention the movie mode with sound and the voice recorder functions.

bGood Luck!

-- Gerald M. Payne (gmp@francomm.com), June 10, 2000.

Thank you Gerald for sharing your experiences with your Toshiba Camera. I am desireous of also printing some of the pictures that I take so I have been reading about Picture Editing Software since I posted my question. Through a link from imaging-resource I learned that a product called Picture Windows is a very powerful program for accomplishing this dispite its modest cost. However I also discovered that editing pictures that have had prior compression applied such as the 1 to 5 ratio on the Toshiba PDR-M70 can lead to unsatisfactory results producing something called "jpeg artifacts". I was told by the Publisher that it is best to use an uncompressed mode to reduce the likelyhood of this happening. If this proves to be true I would regretably have to omit the Toshiba from consideration. I feel the Toshiba is otherwise a very nice camera. If someone else reads this and has any thoughts on the subject please feel free to comment.

-- Raymond Herrington (rherring@flash.net), June 12, 2000.

Ray,

I think perhaps they meant that it's best to convert to a lossless compression format like Tif before doing a lot of editing and a bunch of reopening and saving of the same jpeg file. It's really not as critical as people seem to make out, as once a file has been saved in a jpeg format it's been compressed. Subsequently opening and resaving the image at the same compression setting should not degrade the image further as it already meets the current compression ratio... Try it in Photoshop. I took a section of a jpg file and saved and closed, reopened and resaved for 20 iterations and could see no difference between the 20 times "recompressed" file and the original at 300% magnification... -the file size also remained the same within a couple of bytes. Now, I suppose it is very possible that making substansive changes while editing and then resaving the file could cause the image to be recompressed, but how bad could it be? I think you'd have to make some outrageous changes to really see a visible difference unless you were compressing at such a high ratio that you were VERY near the point of jagginess in the original image. So I think jpeg is just fine for the average quick editing that's done to most images.

Before anyone writes in to argue about this I suggest you try what I did. I realize it's not a perfect test as I didn't edit each time, but unless you make levels type changes to the image (EVERY TIME YOU EDIT?) I can't see how you'd skew a large enough range of pixel's color values that there would be a large enough change in the compression that you'd loose enough info to produce jaggies? Bear in mind, that I'm stating that the compression level I used was level 8 under Photoshop(LE) which yields pretty high quality images.

I have an Epson 760 printer and regularly produce 4"x6's, 5"x7's, and 8"x10's from the Pdr-M5. I usually use the normal compression mode on the camera, which is stated as an 8:1 compression, but often ends up nearer 11:1 or 12:1 compression, depending on subject matter. In FINE mode the Pdr-M5 is supposed to provide about 4:1 compression, but I don't usually bother with it and easily produce 5"x7's that rival 35mm prints when viewed by nearly anyone. On Epson's photo paper, in a frame behind glass or even unframed, you'd have a VERY hard time telling they're digital images at a distance of as slights as 2" from the unaided eye. The images look great, no jaggies, and the printer dots are so small at 4 picoliters that you can't even see dots on the page.

I really think that most people who insist on capturing images in Tiff mode are gilding the lily in a big way. I'd give long odds that most have never tried capturing the same image in Tif, Fine and Normal modes and printing to see if they can really detect a significant difference. Unless the images have an EXTREME tonal range the compression won't really affect them very much. Most people never bother to investigate and compare and just accept that since a "better" mode is available, it's required for their happiness.

I think people need to realize that if the Tiff mode provided very much in the way of a quality difference all the manufacturers would offer it as it's really just a slight matter of in-camera software. As a matter of fact, the only reason they'd have for not offering it, if it was that much better, would be if they produced "professional" models which only offered that quality at a higher price point. Interestingly enough, the situation is the exact opposite. The uncompressed Tif mode is most often offered in prosumer or consumer models produced by manufacturers who do in fact offer higher quality(read expensive!) professional digicams...

In closing, I have a friend who owns a $5K Nikon D1, that showed me an exceptional 8"x10 outdoor facial portrait print that he had printed on a Kodak dye sublimation printer. He then proceeded to rock my world by telling me that it was printed from a 330K jpeg file... (I generally use a 5-600K jpg file for 5"x7's) Need I say more?

-- Gerald M. Payne (gmp@francomm.com), June 12, 2000.

Gerald I reviewed my correspondence with the publisher of Picture Window and he had stated that JPEG artifacts can be drastically increased by certain operations such as Sharpening. He further stated that for best flexibility in post processing it is always better to work with uncompressed images, but they may at times be impractical due to their size and the storage limits of the media available. Now I'm not sure if you are saying that if you first convert to a TIFF and then do whatever editing is necessary that that would eliminate the problems that the publisher was referring to? If you are then I don't understand why reviewers have pointed out that the lack of an uncompressed image is a negative point against the camera they are reviewing if it could simply be corrected by converting to a different file type? I noticed that where the Toshiba was concerned that dcresource in its review pointed to the fact that there was a slight softening in the edges of the pictures taken with the PDR-M70 and a certain exposed aggregate receptacle came out less sharp than it might have been because of the compression. The reviewer further pointed out that some subjects are more sensitive to being compressed. Have you noticed this in your work? I'm a real stickler for sharp focus in general architectural subjects. I not sure if your M5 also employs compression but if it does how has that affected your pictures?

-- Ray Herrington (rherring@flash.net), June 14, 2000.

I have extensive experience with the PDR-M4 and the C-3030Z.

PDR-M4 plusses:

It's inexpensive, has fast shot-to-shot cycle time, and a great USB implementation.

PDR-M4 minuses:

Cheap plastic body, and in particular a plastic tripod thread. Yes, the thread is PLASTIC. I wore mine out, and ran into a second problem - extremely poor warranty service. In the first place, damage to the thread isn't covered by the warranty at all - it's apparently beyond their comprehension that a person would mount and dismount the camera every day for six months, so I have to pay for the repair. Well, the mount failed in February, and it's now June 15, and I'm told the part will be received "any time now". (Either they never made any extra threads because they were so confident of them, or there's been a run on them.) The first service center quoted $210 to replace the thread, but we've now found a source for "only" $75 - on a $400 camera.

Anyway, those are the minuses.

Olympus C-3030 pluses: solid body, good optics, lots of user control, IR remote, generally superior photo quality.

Olympus C-3030 minuses: the world's WORST USB implementation. Just don't think of using it - pretend there isn't a USB port on the camera, and find another method of transfering images. I've started transferring the data by reading the smartmedia in a card reader.

Second C-3030 minus - utter idiots staffing the technical support lines. People who are PROUD of having the world's worst USB firmware.

-- Mark Grebner (Mark@Grebner.com), June 15, 2000.

Ok, let me see if I can cover all the bases. Get a cup of something, so you can stay awake...

1. The Pdr-M5 doesn't have a Tif mode, neither does the M70.

2. The M5 produces a 4:1 and 8:1 compression in Fine & Normal modes. The compression is more like ~6:1 and ~11:1 in my experience, but varies based on image detail. Once again, I'm so happy with the normal mode(higher compression) that I RARELY(hardly ever) use the FINE mode. The M70 has 5:1 and 7.5:1 compression according to the .pdf manual I downloaded. Very reasonable when you consider the extra resolution of the sensor. With higher resolution images that are normally presented at the same size as lower res. images(like in printed digital photos) you can get away with a bit more compression.

3. Tif mode and it's importance: This is highly subjective, but here's my take on it.

This one cracks me up a bit. The first thing nearly any digicam on the market is doing is taking a raw ccd image that is really effectively only 1/4 of the final resolution, because of the way the CCD is color filtered, and interpolating it to get an image that has 4X's as much overall color resolution as the sensor can actually capture...(not to mention having to do all sorts of other transforms on the raw data because of the way data is shifted back up through the sensor) and then people are concerned whether that interpolated (kinder than fake?) data that's being created is being faithfully preserved by an uncompressed Tif format? Bwaa, ha, ha...

Rather than a Tif format, why not keep the size lower and just provide us with a raw ccd format file? Then we could use whatever interpolation method we preferred to produce a final image and store it in whatever format we liked. Bear in mind, that would produce about a 3.14MB file per image for a 2048x1536 image. A bit tough on the storage media pocketbook, but do-able and smaller than a Tif file which'd be 3x's larger.

In the FINE jpeg compression modes most cameras are only compressing between 4:1 and 6:1. That's, at the very worst, just a tad worse than taking away the 4X interpolated image data to start with... and compression really doesn't take away in that sense. From the research I've done, jpeg is based on breaking an image up into 8x8 pixel areas and then more efficiently encoding the information contained in those areas. It generally does this by making hue changes(IF IT HAS TO), rather than brightness changes, because the eye is more sensitive to brightness changes. The idea is to make changes you won't pick out or see. Bear in mind that in many cases the whole area might even be the same shade or nearly the same shade unless you're dealing with a highly detailed subject. At such low compression levels as 4:1 or 8:1 it takes particulary small (low pixel width or height) objects depicted in areas of high contrast for blockiness or jaggies to occur. If they occur, it's probably because an insufficient number of pixels was used to record that detail. What I'm saying is that you're trying to capture too much detail with the resolution of the sensor that you have. The solutions are simple, get a bigger ccd or you could just get a bigger CCD, or perhaps a LARGER ccd... :-)(By a bigger CCD, I really mean one with more pixels, but larger electron wells would be nice too...) The reason I take this stance is that most jaggies are smaller than an 8x8 block of pixels, which leads me to believe that an "uncompressed" tif produced from an interpolated CCD would still have those pixels with abrupt color changes because in those areas there just aren't enough pixels to smoothly capture that area of detail and show intermediate "smoothing" pixels between those high contrast boundaries... Phew.

The only thing that cracks me up more is when a reviewer chooses to comment on the lack of the Tif mode... Now, I'm not headhunting here and very happy to read the reviews by everyone that does them. I'm not picking on anybody. I'm grateful, because I think they all have something to contribute. In fairness, I think it's getting tougher and tougher to find differences between the Old Guard favorites and the newer models from other manufacturers. There is somewhat limited technical innovation and within 6 months or a year everyone is pretty much providing the same features if they're worthwhile.

What really got me was that the same reviewer who said that Toshiba needed to work on adding a Tif mode also said in the "Olympus C-3030Z vs. Nikon Coolpix 990 Shootout" just above the Test#2 Indoor Jewelry Shot, "I took the same shot in uncompressed TIFF mode on each camera. I'm not a big fan of this mode, since the highest quality JPEG looks almost identical (to me, at least)."

Now let's just say that this statement and the statement made concerning Toshiba needing a Tif mode were both made by the same individual, and he probably felt both were valid at the time they were made. Call this difference of opinion by the same individual, sensor noise... I think what was meant was that Toshiba could benefit from having a Tif mode since some (I'd say overly picky) individuals feel that since Nikon or Oly has one they must be better cameras... I really think this is just an example of the reviewer and consumers trying to find some way of differentiating one model from another. Which is a very human activity, we do it all day long with nearly every bit of information we process. I also find it humorous that the same reviewer commented on the softness of the images, while another purposely stated how sharp and colorful the images he took were. :-)

As far as what I said concerning editing programs, what I meant was that most people feel it's best to open a jpeg file and resave it as a tif so that any changes that are made to the file cannot force a recompression of the data. I've very recently found out that since the data in a jpeg is compressed in blocks, cropping the image anywhere but on an 8 pixel boundary and then saving it again as a jpeg would force the compression algorithm to form new 8x8 pixel areas and possibly recompress hues that might have already been affected the first time the file was compressed. Over a number of iterations this could have a considerable "averaging" effect on the data leading to muted color and possibly some brightness changes. At least that's my take on it from what I uncovered.

As far as sharpening causing jpeg artifacts to become more pronounced that makes some sense in that sharpening tends to exaggerate differences between colors or brightness levels depending on how it's done. Of course, if the compression isn't high enough to cause noticeable jaggies in the first place, then it's not a problem... I think another thing that exaggerates this is the tendency on the part of those looking for trouble to blow the image up several times in order to search for these imperfections... I'll bet that most images that only display visible jaggies at say 24 to 36 pixels per inch onscreen(2 to 3X mag.) won't appear pixelated when printed at 300 pixels per inch and viewed from a reasonable distance. Anyone care to take that action? ;-) Additionally, with a 2048x1536 resolution image displayed on a typical 17" 1280x1024 hi res. monitor, you're already looking at an image that's been "blown up" to 2X's the size, if it's displayed at 100%. If your monitor were capable of displaying the full image at full resolution most imperfections would be quite tiny and very difficult indeed to see, unless you had a HUGE monitor.

That's my take on it.

-- Gerald M. Payne (gmp@francomm.com), June 15, 2000.

Mark, after reading your comments regarding the Olympus USB implementation I think I now know why my wife's brother-in-law didn't have his 3030Z connected to his USB port but instead to the parallel port! I asked him about this when he was demonstrating his camera and he merely stated he couldn't locate the cable. What a shame that this is the state of things for Olympus regarding their software because the camera looks and feels great. It takes impressive pictures as well. Since you are an Oly fan do you know anything about the 2500L? I never paid much attention to this until last night and I was mightly impressed with the sample photographs at this site. It is missing some of the features of the 3030Z and it apparently costs less than I would have guessed. I also noticed that Olympus has announce a new camera which was brought to my attention by Gerald who is also taking part in this discussion. I'm glad that people like you take the time to post comments about their experiences with their cameras. These thing are very expensive and sometimes we don't always get all the scoop from the reviewers. I sincerely hope that the manufacturers reps read the comments at these reviewing sites. They need to do a much better PR job then they are currently doing. Personally I will be very careful before plunking down a thousand bucks for a product that is still not quite ready for the market.

-- Ray Herrington (rherring@flash.net), June 16, 2000.

Gerald after your last very technical response I was trying to get a brushup so that I could better understand the points that you were making. So I will be a little while before I can get up to speed. I hope you do get a unit from Toshiba and can post a few pictures. I want to see how sharp they look. I only had a few minutes to download two pictures from this sites review and they did appear a little soft focussed to my eyes. I'm using an 19" Hitachi Super Scan with a Matrox Millenium video card which makes for a very sharp monitor presentation. I read and have responded to Mark already concerning the USB implementation. Disappointing! I am wondering about the Oly 2500L. The test pictures posted at this site looked impressive so I will read the reviews in depth as time permits. For now I am going to break out the film camera and try Kodak's CD photo service. I want to experiment with a trial copy of Picture Window to see how it shakes out. I can't quite help but think that the prosumer style Digital Cameras all seem to be a little short of a complete design as of this date. I suppose that the Professional models are closer to the mark although very expensive.

-- Ray Herrington (rherring@flash.net), June 16, 2000.

I'm afraid I don't have any experience with the Oly 2500L. All the reviews are very positive on its image quality, but my needs run in the direction of high resolution and fast shot-to-shot cycle time, so it's not of much interest to me.

I do have one new insight to share about the C-3030Z, one that will be of no interest to 99% of the readers. After working with mine for two months, I'm beginning to feel that it really isn't intended for heavy use. I've shot around 40,000 frames, and it's starting to fall apart. For one thing, the shutter mechanism is failing, so I'll send it in for service on Monday (under warranty, I hope). But beyond that, the requirement to plug and unplug the cable constantly, or swap smartmedia every 10 minutes, makes it a poor contender in a marathon.

I suppose two months in my hands is a lifetime for most digital cameras, but I have another 200,000 images to shoot this year, and I'm afraid I'm finding my interest shifting back toward the Toshiba line. They aren't neccessarily much hardier, but at least they're cheap enough to consider disposable.

-- Mark Grebner (Mark@Grebner.com), June 17, 2000.

You must be a commercial photographer or the most enthusiastic amateur that I've ever heard about! Yes you take far more pictures in one month than I ever expect to take in a lifetime; you could be a one man durability testing laboratory!! I wonder if you would be better off, durability wise, to use a commercial grade film camera and copy to CD's or would that be too time consuming and or expensive? Have I asked you for your evaluation of the picture quality of both the Oly and Toshiba brands? My eyes seem to give the Olys the edge for sharpness and a little more color saturation. Toshiba seems like good value since its fast, has a good feature set and as you have said their USB implementation is sadly much better that Oly. I think that the pictures are a little softer focussed due to compression factors as pointed out by some reviewers. Some reviewers have speculated that the lenses are made by Canon and if so they have a reputation for quality and would not contribute to softness. I am left eye dominant and do not care for the nose smudges I leave on some of the LCD's as I am test composing a shot. This is one area that I felt that the physical layouts of the Toshiba, Nikon, and certain Sony models were more to my taste. Of course, in the final choice, I will opt for picture quality over features on those cameras that make the cut.

-- Ray Herrington (rherring@flash.net), June 17, 2000.

Ray -

I work with hand-written public documents, which are only available at rural courthouses. The crucial number in my life is the cost in cents per frame of shooting legible documents. The cost includes about $200 per day for labor, fringes, motel, meals. Plus the cost of the camera and media. At this point, using digital cameras, I have the cost (when things are going well) below 10 cents per frame, and I'm trying to get to 5 cents.

Can't see how I could do better using film - just the cost of film and developing would kill my budget. I now have three cameras out for repairs - still have two functioning.

My camera-shopping checklist:

- Quality? Not important to me. - Resolution? Critical - I have to be able to read all the handwriting. - Color balance? VERY irrelevant. - Shot-to-shot buffer? Critical. - Download speed? Very, very important. - Distortion? How could I see it? The documents aren't even FLAT! Of course the images are warped! - Flash? They won't let me use one! - Red eye? What's that? - Battery usage? AC power everywhere I go. - Pleasing flesh tones? Well, I DO have twenty thousand pictures of my employees' fingers - maybe I should offer an employee benefit for manicures.

I'm afraid my list doesn't overlap anybody else's at all. It's roughly like a dialog between Renoir and a housepainter.

-- Mark Grebner (Mark@Grebner.com), June 19, 2000.

Had a Toshiba PDR M5 (or whatever the numbers are, 2.1 megpixel), kept 2 weeks, lousy pix for focus most of the time, returned it, got Oly 2000, looks great, works great, smaller (not necessarily an advantage), unfortunately no USB download, only serial (read S L OOO W), got card reader, superfast. Believe lens quality (Toshiba) may be reason for lack of sharpness, but also poor focus (these were not in low light all the time). Have seen similar problems with Kodaks and Sonys (at least the floppy disks models, yuk).

-- Wayne Smith (waynsmith@hotmail.com), July 12, 2000.