ZLR, bridge camera, or both

<p>Mr. S……</p>

<p>I remember seeing a very good test of the IS-1, 2, or 3 (can’t remember which one) where they even disassembled the camera, removed the internal lens system, and tested it as if it had been a lens on an SLR. The time period would probably be 1993-94. I have a lot of back issues in the basement from those years, but I don’t have firmly in my mind that it includes the IS test. I’m 3000 miles from home and will be for another month or so. However, when I return and within my limited energies, I’ll keep an eye out for it. If I should find it, I’ll let you know. </p>

<p>I believe Popular Photography also did a “full” test report, but did not disassemble the lens for empirical resolution and contrast detail. They rated performance in different areas as being “good”, “poor”, “fair” “excellent” etc. </p>

<p>As you read the old articles you might want to bear in mind that some magazines and/or their writers and/or their editors had strong personal prejudices (I’d rather push a Chevy rather than ride in a Ford.) that showed up in non-empirical data. </p>

<p>I know the articles are back there in time because they are what interested me in the IS series in the first place. If they had not done so well in the tests, I would never have been interested in them, having “moved up” to the SLR world. </p>

<p>Gentlepersons….</p>

<p>One thing that doesn’t get mentioned about the so-called “bridge” cameras in today’s digital world is the advantage of keeping the sensor clean and uncontaminated by even such small stuff such as smog, oceanfront salt air, or cigarette smoke. Although the major camera manufacturers violently disagree with me, I think the pixels per square mm ratio is getting too high. Sure, they have software that is supposed to recognize the anomalies created by overcrowding, but I find it is not perfect. </p>

<p>I could be tempted to purchase a "digital IS-3" with its relatively large diameter glass, if only it had at least an APS-sized sensor with a reasonable pixel density. I’d have good glass with a reasonable F:stop and a clean, but sizeable, sensor. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke </p>

<p>Hi Mr(?) Burke, many thanks for offering to find the old issues of magazines. I will be very grateful to you for that. </p>

 

<p>Mr. S...</p>

<p>Look here for a reprint of an IS-3 test:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/contact/">http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/contact/</a></p>

<p>Then look in the left hand column under:</p>

<p>Equipment Guides</p>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.testreports.co.uk/photography/ap/Default.asp" target="_blank">Buy test reports </a></li>

</ul>

<p>Then choose Olympus.</p>

<p>Then at the bottom of the 3rd page of Olympus tests you can tap on the IS 3000.</p>

<p>Then go near the bottom of that page and you will see an individual test and group test to select from. The individual test is from 1992.</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>P.S. I am old. My memory is failing me. With that in mind, I thought it best to unzip and check. You are right--I am male. For less obvious proof, please see: </p>

<p><a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=983141">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=983141</a></p>

<p>Mr. S....</p>

<p>Speaking of old, I worded the above P.S. without thinking it through. Ordinarily, my saying something like that would be obviously taken as my attempt to put a smile on the poster's face. I had forgotten that earlier in this thread, I reacted to what I thought was an unkind "whatever" directed to me with a P.S. that was informative, but not meant to produce a smile. Please be assured I meant my "zipper" P.S. to give you a chuckle, as you had put the question mark earlier. </p>

<p>I took another look at the reference I gave you. I notice the group test booklet would give you about ten different IS tests and one OM test. It occured to me that may be more what you're looking for and may be worth the extra money to you. I also found you could tap on the highlighted words "Buy Test Reports" and save yourself a few steps. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke </p>

<p>Mr Burke, no worries, I am well aware that your PS remark was a facetious one. I did have a good chuckle (really) before reading your next post. Do keep up with the humor. </p>

<p>The bridge cameras were not made to be dis-assembled! If damaged, buy again..Input from any service technician will confirm.</p>