farlymac
PF McFarland
This was one of those cameras that I bought just for it's looks, and to see if there was any interesting features to make it a compelling daily user. Right off the bat, I found out the finder zoom was not working, so I had to open it up and reset the gearing. It has a really neat lighted cross-hairs arrangement in the viewfinder, but no frame lines. From what I remember while shooting, the photos match up with the frame view, so I'll assume the finder is close to 100%. It's got a Self Timer, multiple Flash settings, and a retro style set off by a metal front plate (which is strictly cosmetic). The viewfinder also has user adjustable diopter correction.
Alas, it was somewhat beat up. Besides the usual dirt build-up, and the messed up gearing for the zoom finder, the name plate that surrounds the lens is missing. I don't know if this all adds up to the reason it does not focus properly, but I wouldn't doubt it. I shot it along side the Canon Sure Shot Classic 120 (why do they give small cameras such long names?), and the results were not encouraging. Like a drug trial that gets stopped before any more damage is done to the participants, I'll only post the first few photos here. You can compare them with the Canon shots at http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112020
and see what I mean. One thing I will mention is that it seems to overexpose most of the time. These are on CVS (Fuji) 200 (BTW, CVS has now stopped selling store branded film).
38mm by br1078phot, on Flickr
90mm by br1078phot, on Flickr
Distortion Check by br1078phot, on Flickr
Focus Near To Infinity Check by br1078phot, on Flickr
Focus At Infinity Check by br1078phot, on Flickr
Exposure Check by br1078phot, on Flickr
I might put up another post with the comparison shots side by side.
PF
Alas, it was somewhat beat up. Besides the usual dirt build-up, and the messed up gearing for the zoom finder, the name plate that surrounds the lens is missing. I don't know if this all adds up to the reason it does not focus properly, but I wouldn't doubt it. I shot it along side the Canon Sure Shot Classic 120 (why do they give small cameras such long names?), and the results were not encouraging. Like a drug trial that gets stopped before any more damage is done to the participants, I'll only post the first few photos here. You can compare them with the Canon shots at http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112020
and see what I mean. One thing I will mention is that it seems to overexpose most of the time. These are on CVS (Fuji) 200 (BTW, CVS has now stopped selling store branded film).
38mm by br1078phot, on Flickr
90mm by br1078phot, on Flickr
Distortion Check by br1078phot, on Flickr
Focus Near To Infinity Check by br1078phot, on Flickr
Focus At Infinity Check by br1078phot, on Flickr
Exposure Check by br1078phot, on Flickr
I might put up another post with the comparison shots side by side.
PF
btgc
Veteran
I have noticed this model also - it looks, hm, different from rest of P&S cameras. It also has diopter correction which is property of above average P&S's.
farlymac
PF McFarland
BTGC, that's one of the reasons I went ahead and purchased this one. It's always nice to find that feature on a camera, and with Olympus's reputation for optics, I was hoping for better results. Maybe a brand new one would have done better, but try finding one of these New Old Stock. I only paid $2 for it, so it's not like I'm out a lot for it. I think I'll hang on to it though as a style example.
PF
PF
btgc
Veteran
I lusted for it but I'm sucker for WA in P&S so finally got over, but that's only reason. Compacts more often have issues, I think, as my Konica Lexio 70 has lens flare under certain light. Cosmetically it's very good, though.
Greyscale
Veteran
There is an Accura Zoom 80 Wide (28~80mm), but it seems as rare as the Stylus Epic 80 Wide, so good luck there. I have an Accura (Super)zoom 115. Stylistically it is a nice looking camera, similar in appearance and features to the Nikon One Touch Zoom 90, but its "hand-feel" is very light and flimsy, I don't think that build quality on the Accura series is at usual Olympus standards, nowhere near as substantial as the Stylus Epic series, or the earlier Olympus compacts. And nowhere near the quality of the Canon Sure Shot "Z" series of the same era.