not quite there yet
Written: Jul 23 '00
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: good feature set
Cons: useabiliity issues
|
|
|
| jrj's Full Review: Epson PhotoPC 3000Z Digital Camera |
I bought the Epson 3000z after comparing its' features to other 3.3 megapixel cameras. Compared to the Olympus 3030, I preferred the 3000z's use of compact flash. Compared to the Sony DSC-S70, I preferred the 3000z's use of compact flash (smartmedia I might consider, but I can't think of a good excuse for memory sticks) and ergonomics. I wanted a 3x zoom, so the Canon S-20 was out. The Nikon Coolpix 990 also closely fit my specs, but I found with an earlier Nikon 900 that battery life was a big issue and that the twist-body doesn't suit me, so I thought I'd try another brand.
My experience so far with the 3000z has been mixed. The camera can take very good pictures. The lens is fast and sharp. A tiff mode is available. Battery life is very good. On the other hand, the shutter button does not give good tactile feedback, which makes pre-focusing an adventure. I haven't quite gotten to the bottom of the problem, but in some modes focusing is error-prone, leading to a number of blurry, throw-away pictures. Also, the highest-quality setting for jpegs results in files of only about 1 meg or less. Apparent quality is fine, but I would prefer to be able to save a larger, less lossy jpeg. Tiffs are available, but a real problem because they tie up the camera for about 20 seconds while saving.
At the time I bought the camera, I also purchased a Canon EOS-3, one of Canon's best prosumer 35mm bodies, which I find to be an interesting contrast. The price is not that far apart. I took both on a trip recently. The EOS-3 has many more options available to set parameters around a photograph, and much more sophisticated metering and focusing systems. It has a teriffic viewfinder. When you press the shutter it really conveys the sense that you have just taken a good picture. In contrast, the 3000z is smaller and more convenient, but it seems like a toy by comparison - or more accurately like a cheap point-and-shoot camera.
On my return I had the film developed, and it was pretty clear that I was more successful taking the pictures I wanted to take with the EOS-3. But the development and print process introduces variables, and my preferred output device normally is a computer screen, so after development I use a film scanner to scan the best pictures. This takes time and introduces more variables. What the 3000z has going for it is immediate accessibility in digital form and generally accurate color balance which requires little correction.
My overall verdict on the 3000z is that it is a frustrating product, and frustratingly close to being good. Simple usability problems prevent the camera from being satisfactory, but it can produce good results with a little luck. I'm still a strong believer in digital photography. We're just not there yet with the 3000z.
Recommended:
Yes
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
jrj
|
|
Reviews written: 4
Trusted by: 6 members
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.