Underneath the dial is an on/off lever, and next door, is a large dial that can be used for selecting the aperture and shutter speeds under certain shooting modes, zoom into playback images, and select menu functions.
In the front are a tiny exposure compensation button and a shutter button. At the back is an electronic viewfinder and dioptre adjustment dial, 2.7in LCD screen with 230,000 pixels, display button (for selecting the EVF or LCD screen - you can’t use both for viewing scenes at the same time – AE and AF lock button, large multi-function control dial for macro, flash, drive and custom settings, plus a central OK/function button.
We found the menu system rather fiddly, with lots of scrolling involved
On the far left are four small buttons for playback, shadow adjustment technology (designed for shooting objects against a strong backlight) menu and display mode. Phew. At the bottom is a cover for the battery compartment. The SP-570 UZ only uses four AA-sized alkaline or NiMH rechargeable batteries, so forget about your high energy lithiums.
Olympus states that “battery life varies according to the product.” Well, thanks a lot for that. It also uses xD cards and what’s more, if you want to use the rather nice panoramic modes on this camera (this includes an automatic panoramic shooting function) you’re going to have to invest in an Olympus-branded xD card. Talk about keeping it in the family.
The SP-570 UZ is packed with features and functions, and here are some of them: a 1/2.33in CCD with 10 million effective pixels, it can record JPEG or RAW (Olympus Raw Format) images with a top resolution of 3648 x 2736 pixels, record movies at VGA or QVGA resolution at 30 fs (AVI files with WAV audio), shutter speed range is 1/2-1/2000sec with long exposures up to eight minutes long possible in BULB mode, ISO rating from 64 to 6400, 23 scene modes ranging from old favourites like sport, landscape and portrait, to exotic ones like auction.
Olympus Fan and here's why
My main camera is a Nikon D200 with all the expected gear. Sometimes, I just need a good point and shoot without all the weight and lens changes. This olympus camera is supurb for general purpose shooting. But the macro outdoes anything I have been able to find for truly authentic close ups. The camera is easy to use if you just don't try to make it into more than a point and shoot. I'd download examples that compete with some of the best dlsrs, but there isn't any way to do so. If you want to see them, go here: http://flickr.com/photos/29259953@N02/sets/72157606689869130/
People, calm down
This is not a professional camera, of course the image won't be great but don't turn your noses up at it. They fill a void which 'daddy cameras' do not cater for. What they boast is an all-in-one solution which is overall easy to use and has some great features (compared to proper cameras). I have a friend who owns the Rebel Xt who found it too cumbersome to keep changing lenses for different shots, this usually meant that he missed the shot - so what's the point of spending all that money for a shot you missed? So he brought himself a superzoom too, purely for the convenience and speed of setup. Yeah it was relatively crap, yet he was happy with his move - why? becasue he got his shots!
You’ll find the image quality for this camera (noise, chromatic aberration, barrelling etc) to be par the course for these cheaper pro-sumer units; those can mostly be fixed in post processing if need be anyway. Thanks to image stabilisation, the user can always drop the ISO to get decent photos – I only ever use ISO 50. Apart from the loose barrel I'm dead happy with my SP550, I can take it anywhere and can get some really natural shots of people. It does everything - not brilliantly but it does it.
Anyone who ever pays RRP is crazy.
20x zoom is bad idea anyway, no matter where you attach it to, due to size, design compromises and maximum aperture. The one you mentioned, Sigma 10x 50-500 (which translates to FoV 75-750 in 35mm format) obviously lacks wide angles. You'd be better off with Tamron 18-250 or similar, if you are ready to trade picture quality and max aperture for conveniance. I know I am not. In fact, I am very happy with my Pentax K10D with couple of Limited fixed-focal lenses.
That CA sucks donkey balls.
Those pictures showed some of the WORST 'Chromatic Abberation' artifacts I've seen in a modern camera! But then most people wouldn't care, I'm too used to the CA and noise free results (up to IS0 800) I get with my Eos 400D, I cringe when I see photos like that.
I was intrigued by this camera with its 20x zoom, but seeing the results of this in relation to your typical 'proper' dSLR, there's just no contest.
DEFINITELY take Ash's advice - "This camera is rubbish for the money. Spend the extra £60 and get the EOS 450D if you want a GREAT camera.".
Only trouble is that you'd be very hard pressed to get 20x zoom on your Eos (if you care), you'd need to shell out at least £600 extra for a Sigma 50-500mm, then more for the 2x teleconverter, oh and a bit more for a Hoya UV filter to protect it all, then you'd need to get your ass down the gym to be able to lift it all up and hold it steady at that weight!
...or shell out £500 more for a top quality tripod and ball joint head which could hold it all.
@err what: AC
So you are saying that the crap photo's that these things take is acceptable because the technology is fundamentally flawed?
And this is supposed to make me think - oh wait yes I do want to spend $500 on a this peice of junk, because it's not that the camera is bad per se, it's that the technology behind it sucks...
And of course why would I complain that the the features they use to sell it macro and 20x zoom don't work. We wouldn't expect them to work would we so it's fine to pay the extra money for this camera to get them.
I dispear for the state of the world when people accept poor quality with excuses like this....
And yes I would like to put it up against my old Fuji 5600 - sure the zoom isn't as good at 15x (but then you admit the zoom on the camera is a reason for it's image crapness). The image is just as bad on both machines, and the Fuji is *much* cheaper.