View Full Version : Replacing c-700. 755 or 765

mike reed
11-07-2004, 03:42 PM
I want more resolution (for cropping and enlarging before printing) and coninued 10X zoom and can afford to move from the 700 (2.1 megapixels) to either the 755 or 765 (4 meg). I already realize that I will have to go to a new storage card (not being able to use the ones from my 700 really ticks me off). And probably I will need new batteries and chargers and AC current attachment.

I have looked at the specs on both the 755 and 765 and cannot make up my mind. If anybody has faced this situation or knows enough about these cameras to help me, please, Please, PLEASE do so. For starters, is it true that the 755 can use only up to the 256 meg card? I would like to be able to use the 512 meg.

It would be a great help if you sent any responses to mreed@mreed.com

Thanks in advance.


02-07-2005, 09:54 AM

I bought a C-755UZ about a month ago, and I also got a genuine Olympus (so that I can use panoramic mode with it) 512 MB xD card. Works Great!!! No problems with the 512 xD card. From what I understand, the main differences between the 755 and the 765 are that the 765 is a little smaller and lighter, the back layout has been changed a little, the LCD display of the 765 is larger, and the 765 uses Lithium Ion rechargeables as opposed to the 4 AA's or 2 CR-V3's of the 755.

I have 2 sets of AA NiMH's for mine, so I'm really never at a loss for battery power, and I keep the set of CR-V3's they supplied for emergency backup, so the whole battery thing just isn't an issue for me. For that matter, I think it is better to have the ability to use extremely common AA alkalines in a pinch, for when you are out on the road, like on vacation. I mean, you can get AA's anywhere, every little corner store has got them. Try getting a proprietary Li-Ion anywhere except in a specialty shop. Yah, right!

Other than that, I just don't see a whole lot of difference between them -- not that matters a whole lot to me. While the LCD on the 755 is smaller it is still useable, and the little bit of weight they shaved off the 765 didn't seem to warrant the change to the proprietary battery, IMHO.

Now, one thing that I am not able to comment on is the new "TruePic Turbo" image processor that the 765 has, which is supposed to decrease shutter lag time. That may be a significantly good thing, maybe even good enough to override the battery availbity issue, as the lag on the 755 can be a pain at times.

Hope this helps!

02-08-2005, 02:01 PM
Ok, I did a little more digging, and found a couple of other differences between the 2 models that I think are significant.

First, the 755 has an external flash hot shoe, the 765 doesn't. What I don't understand here is why the 765 is supposed to be an improvement over the 750/755, and yet they removed the hot shoe. What Gives? It seems to me that removing the capability of having more flash flexibility is a step in the wrong direction.

Second, the xD card on the 755 loads from the side, the xD card on the 765 loads from the bottom through the same access as the battery. This wouldn't be an issue, except that it means that you can't change the card while the camera is attached to a tripod. Again, I think this is a step in the wrong direction. Granted, on both models the battery access is on the bottom, so you would have to remove the camera from the tripod to change batteries, and that operation would most likely occur more frequently when using the 755 because of the different battery technologies in use. This would tend to even things on that account, but I still don't see why they moved the card from a logical location to one that is less so.

A few other minor differences I have noted are:

A> The selectable ISO's on the 755 are 50, 100, 200 and 400. On the 765 they are 64, 100, 200 and 400. This isn't such a big deal, with the exception that ISO 50 isn't supported by my external flash's automatic modes, where ISO 64 is. Not that it matters with the 765, as it doesn't support external flashes at all.

B> There is 1 program picture mode missing on the 765's program select dial -- the one which is optimized for landscapes with people in the foreground.

C> Apparently the 765 does not have the Auto Exposure Bracket Sequence mode which the 755 does have.

D> The 765 allows you to take movies at a max resolution of 640x480, where the 755 max movie resolution is 320x240.

Geoff Chandler
02-09-2005, 01:13 PM
If you want the Hot shoe - I believe you need the C-770. It's the top one of the UZ's and has a 'better' on board flash as well.

02-10-2005, 07:10 PM
I have a C770 with the mpeg4 video..not really much of a feature for me..too pixelated for my liking.
Things I don't like about the camera are:
annoying waiting for it to start up
shutter lag is too long even with the turbo pic
Focussing in low light is a pain eg at parties etc..U wait for it to eventually fix on its focus (xtra long in low light) and then its usually way off the mark and out of focus.
I have used a Ricoh camera which is super fast start up and focus so I know how quick it can be..
point and shoot and wait...
Still I like it and I have got some great shots with it..I also bought an FL-36 flash for it which works a treat.
I can also get the card out mounted on the tripod easily..but it prob depends on the tripod.
Good Luck

02-10-2005, 09:30 PM

Video: Well, IMHO it is more of a convenience thing. The 755 doesn't do MPEG4, it does QuickTime. Which to me isn't that big of an issue, as I really didn't get the camera to take movies, anyway -- I've got a camcorder for that. The convenient part of it is that, if I really needed to, I could take a short video clip if I happened to have left the camcorder at home. I haven't come across the need to do that since I got the camera, so I have taken a grand total of 0 video clips with it, other than just trying it out.

Annoyingly long startup: Well, apparently that is a common complaint for all 3 models, it is not real speedy in the 755, either. But I can live with it, I've lived with worse.

Shutter Lag: Likewise, a common complaint. The only thing I've found that really helps is speeding up the auto-focus, which I've found to be the biggest time waster there. Meaning, use manual focus or use the half press focus lock.

Low Light Focus: Another common complaint, and it seems to me that it is at it's worst when at high optical zoom. The only way around that I have found is to manually pre-focus based on an estimate range. It is kinda ironic: the older, much less sophisticated "obsolete" digicam that I have (an Olympus D-460) does not exhibit this problem, it turns out to be much easier to use as a "point and shoot", even in low light.

Tripod: Yes, I suppose that it all depends on the model of tripod in question. I've got an older tripod that I got for use with my old 35 SLR, and the mounting surface on the head is too wide to allow the battery/memory card access door to open on a 765/770. For that matter, it is too wide to allow the door to open on my 755, but that isn't such an issue, as it only blocks the battery access, not the memory card which is accessed on the side.

Flash: Well, I'm using the flash that I already had for my old SLR, like the tripod it is doing double duty. Ok, so it doesn't sync up with the internal electronics of the camera like the genuine Olympus flash, but hey, I already had it, so the price was right! I don't find it to be that big of a deal manually setting up the camera to use it.

All in all, I've been pleased with the 755. I recognize that there are some weaknesses to it, though. Ah, but there are work-arounds for most of them, like using manual focus when the camera is having trouble with the auto-focus or if the shutter lag is getting in the way.

02-11-2005, 04:39 PM
The more I use the FL-36 flash the more I like it...you can bounce it anyway you like it and nearly always get a good exposure with the ttl.. and the bounce works ok for close ups if you get a reflective board and hold it in the right place.
I also like its slow flash for high shutter speeds outside so a large aperture and small depth of field if I want it.
At last Olympus released a versatile flash that is affordable.
I can see it nearly being permantly attached to the c770!

02-11-2005, 08:36 PM
Rupert, or anyone else for that matter:

Ok, so I'm going OT, but -- Any idea if that FL-36 would work with a 750/755 like what I have? The docs claim that the TTL will work using a FL-20 or a FL-40. From what I heard, the FL-50 will not work, and I have heard nothing about the FL-36. The FL-20 doesn't appear to do bounce, so I'm not even considering it, certainly not given the prices I've seen quoted for it.

FWIW, the old Vivitar flash unit I've got seems to work well enough in it's 2 auto modes (that use the on-flash sensor, that is), even though it can't make use of the TTL feature of the 755. It does do TTL with my old SLR, though -- not that it matters here. Anyway, it also has a swivel head and it seems to do an acceptable job of bounce flash with the 755. The only hassle is that I have to put the camera in manual mode. What it doesn't do, of course, is sync itself to the zoom of the camera. Oh, well...

Norm in Fujino
02-12-2005, 06:15 AM
Rupert, or anyone else for that matter:

Ok, so I'm going OT, but -- Any idea if that FL-36 would work with a 750/755 like what I have? The docs claim that the TTL will work using a FL-20 or a FL-40. From what I heard, the FL-50 will not work, and I have heard nothing about the FL-36. ...

I use an FL-50 on the C-755 (Japanese model) and it works fine, with the caveat of course that the focus-assist illumination doesn't work with any of the cameras in this series. The thing I like best about the FL-50 is its TTL zoom-link. When you zoom the lens, the flash head also zooms to produce proper flash coverage for the lens zoom setting. This makes it possible to take portraits across a room, although whenever possible, I use the swivel head to bounce the flash off a ceiling or wall to soften the shadows.
The FL-50 is big, yes, and sort of overwhelms the camera, but its TTL function indeed works.

02-12-2005, 07:31 PM

Ok, I'll (semi) stand corrected on the FL-50. Ah, but the camera's lack of the ability to enable the auto-focus assist is still a big negative in my book. Since there apparently aren't any flashes capable of doing this, it makes me that much more likely to just stick with what I have. Ok, I'll miss out on the zoom head, but it sounds like I'd have to miss out on that if I were to use bounce flash, which I commonly do with the flash I already have. And besides that, it looks to be quite a bit bulkier than what I've already got. So, I guess it all boils down to whether or not it is worth it to spend the extra cash for TTL metering. Same thing goes for the FL-36.

One extra though on that, though, is that while I may have no big issue with going into manual mode to use the external flash, my wife just might. She borrowed the camera a few days ago to take pictures of an awards ceremony in an auditorium, just using the on-camera flash in automatic mode. The shots were underexposed as the shots were out of range. At least she was able to photoshop it and get acceptable results. If it were me, I'd have used the external flash, but she doesn't know how to put the cameral in manual mode. Yet, that is, I'm working on that...